A Beautiful Mind
To add your views to this page (subject to editing), please
email us. You will be identified only by your initials, but if you prefer
anonymity, please let us know in your email.
The film A Beautiful Mind has been the subject of very mixed reviews.
At one extreme, the broadsheets were scathing. One reviewer called it a
'lie-ography' and Ron Howard 'a shocking film maker'.
By contrast, the tabloids were generally delighted by it, calling it amongst
other things 'an absorbing tale'.
One of the real problems in coming to a judgment of the film is the subject
matter. If it is close to us, as it must be, then it's difficult to disentangle
our interest and involvement in the subject of the film from its qualities or
otherwise as a piece of film-making.
Views on the film
(1) I was seriously disappointed by the film. The first half dragged interminably,
Crowe's performance was static and uninspiring. It was only rescued from
complete disaster by a compelling performance from Ed Harris. On the positive
side, the way in which Nash's audio and visual hallucinations are presented
in the film is cleverly done. Mustn't tell, though, otherwise that will spoil
the only real surprise in the film. (RL)
(2) At last I began to understand what had happened to my brother-in law. He
has been ill for two years now, and I couldn't understand why the voices which
plagued him could be so compelling. Now I do comprehend. Thank you for
a beautful film. (KJ)
(3) As for the critic you reported as saying this was a 'lie-ography', nonsense.
It was a film, depicting the descent into mental illness, the battle with the
demons and an ultimate victory (well, ninety per cent). It is not an academic
biography. So don't criticize the film for not doing something it wasn't
trying to do. (JGR)
(4) The film demonstrates that through extreme adversity, positive outcomes can be brought out of anything.
(5) The film should create a greater understanding of Schizophrenia and help to get away from the usual thoughts of it meaning 'split personality'.
(6) I'd say this film was both good and bad. The way it built up Nash's 'delusions' was very clever and captured very well how difficult it can sometimes be to tell whether someone is really ill or just a bit unusual. It was also interesting that it drew a connection between his own talents/role in life/beliefs and how that was manifested in his own crises.
However, I am not sure that those not in the know would not be left with the impression that insulin therapy is still a major part of the treatment of schizophrenia and the apparent solutions to his illness seemed far too simplistic. Almost implied that recovery was just about having a good woman to love you and that you just say no to the delusions. If only it really were that simple.
And why oh why does Hollywood always have to deal with these issues by having the main character be some kind of genius - like the lawyer with AIDS in Philadelphia or Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. Wouldn't it be more interesting to show someone who lives in a more ordinary environment and yet displays a real genius through just being able to cope with life? That would inspire me more.
The sad thing is that Hollywood probably now feels it's done schizophrenia, when it hasn't. Yes, it's an improvement on what has gone before - but the truly amazing film about someone with the illness has still to be done.
(7) I work in mental health, and so went to watch the film (weeks after its release) with all the baggage of the "mental health sector's" published view
of it, and the artistic critiques of it. I left the cinema feeling well
entertained and stimulated, and not troubled in the least by what this might
do to the public perception of schizophrenia, or other severe mental
illnesses.
I did enjoy the film, but my reaction to it was reinforced by the reactions
of my two companions on the night, neither of whom had the slightest
interest, professionally or personally, in mental illness.
They both spoke
animatedly and perceptively about the experience of personal reality, and if
that is the wider effect that it has on the cinema going public, then I
think this film is a jolly good thing. Like Joe's experience in Eastenders,
which was also well portrayed, it gives an insight into human reality not
being a factual phenomenon but a subjective one.
I hope the film helps
people realise that when we look at something, tangible or otherwise, we are
rarely likely to see the same thing. But I do share the concern of the
previous correspondent that Hollywood has now "done" schizophrenia.
As for Russell Crowe deserving an Oscar - I saw him being interviewed on the
telly, and felt that he came across as an obnoxious, self-centred creep. But
I suppose that is a pre-requisite for all Oscar nominees, isn't it?
(PC)
Watch here for other views to be expressed.
