Starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ed Harris
Review:
Based on the life story of Princeton cum Nobel prize (economics) winner mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr.
After writing a dissertation that revolutionizes economics, John Nash is placed at the prestigious MIT Wheeler's lab after graduate school. Owing his ability as a brilliant code-breaker, John is soon entered into a secret mission for the Department of Defense, under the supervision of William Parcher.
Just as the film moves into a climax of a possible Russian spy tracking down on John's work, the plot takes a smooth complete turn around, making us wonder if it is actually a quiet allusion to the limited academic freedom which symbolizes McCarthyism.
But McCarthyism and academic freedom are not really new themes. I believe A Beautiful Mind lies in more powerful themes.
It is a story of love, family support, friendship and reconciliation.
True, these, too, are cliche themes, but I guess the ultimate art in film making lies in how cliches are being redefined and refined.
And Ron Howard does this in A Beautiful Mind mainly through the powerful character portrayals.
In Jennifer Conelly's character, Alicia, whom, beside playing the loyal wife who perseveres despite her husband illness, shows angst, dissatisfaction, guilt and fatigue. These are valid emotions for a caretaker, that we should all empathize, but these, too, are emotions that are so often lost to poetic licenses when portrayed in fictional movies, which often portray caretakers as "saints" who are not only immune to negative emotions, but also not allowed of these emotions.
In the character of the psychiatrist Dr Rosen, we see a doctor who understands patient autonomy. He offers Alicia and John the option of not returning to the psychiatric hospital when John's hallucination relapses.
In Martin Hansen's character, we see the special friendship that ultimately plays one of the essential roles in helping John to reliving a normal life. It is also interesting to note that Hansen is one of John's "tormenters" during his Princeton days.
Of course, most importantly, the character of John Nash does not preach on the needs or requirements of a schizophrenic patient. He articulates them.
It was not only about how a schizophrenic patient has to cope with his treatment regiment, but also on his rehabilitation and the ability to lead a normal life again. These are complex matters related to issues that are more than just compliance.
It should also lead the audience to wonder why does John want to stop his medication and indulge in his hallucination again? What is it that makes John enjoy his hallucination of William Parcher and the code-breaking mission so much?
Personally, I see it as John's desire to be listened and his ideas to be appreciated. A simple issue, but it is often so easy for us, the "normal" people, to dismiss mentally-illed patients.
The film, while is loosely based on Sylvia Nasar's best-selling biography of the same title, has largely been criticized for its divergence from many of the original events. But why be so cruel to dictate how much a director and his team can and should do, simply because a book has previously been written on it? The film is, after all, inspired by the life events of the true John Nash, as it has been so carefully put forward by Howard.
Howard's film has quite nearly bring out the issues in schizophrenia and Nasar herself also believes that the film has been made "in the spirit of John's story". To me, this, in itself, is already an accomplishment.
