We resent movies when they turn out to be bogus depictions of what really happened
by Nick van der Leek
A Beautiful Mind is a beautiful movie. It’s intelligent, the actors and acting is top notch, and it’s a heartwarming story that both inspires and enlightens. It’s based on a true story, written by Akiva Goldsmith.
I went out and bought the book, and was astonished to find that the book was several degrees better than the film. I’d give the film a very high rating, 9 out of 10, and the book is even better; a phenomenally good read. Part of the reason is because it is the true story of the exceptionally talented genius, John Nash, and also because it is such an incredible story. Goldsmith renders a complex story – something like a deep and intricate algorithm – with wit, intelligence and a skillfulness that is breathtaking.
In the book are also photographs of the real John Nash, and after a while I found myself resenting Ron Howard’s interpretation. Not because his movie is bad, but because it appears to be so false. For example, Nash never saw three apparitions following him around (as depicted in the film). Howard has simplified reality into a sort’ve candy box style. Yes, it’s easy to understand and simple enough to consume, but it’s not really factually correct. The only aspect that is correct is the broad theme of a woman who supports her husband despite his insanity, and his ability, through his own brilliance, to ‘solve the problem’ of his schizoid disconnect with reality.
After reading the book I found a website, and even emailed John Nash, since he was (at the time) still haunting the grounds at Princeton University. I don’t recall receiving a reply. I imagine thousands of people did exactly what I did, and probably overwhelmed his inbox. But I have seen people on film and TV, emailed them, and received replies. Now that’s reality.
The movie mentions nothing of Nash’s problems with his own son (who also suffered from a mental disorder), or his homosexuality, or his athletism (he was built like an Olympian). As far as I can recall (from reading the book), his wife left him for a period, and they were then later reunited – which makes that amazing gesture (his wife decides to not commit him to a sanitarium but to care for him herself instead) in the movie seem quaint and fanciful, and pretty damn unlikely. If the sentence above bothers you, because it is a bit vague and unsure of itself, then the movie ought to bother you too. I’d like to make specific references to the book but I have lent it out so many times that I don’t have it with me anymore, and whoever does have it has probably decided not to return it.
Another excellent movie based on a real person is Shine, about the talented Australian pianist David Helfgott. Someone has my copy of the movie at present so if I have the spelling of his name incorrect, please forgive me. Once again, if you find it hard to forgive me for not being accurate, you ought to be very upset at how Helfgott has been rendered. First of all, Helfgott is bald. He doesn’t look at all like the charming and funny actor that represents him. Secondly, his wife, who seems sweet and genuine in the movie, in reality, is despised by Helfgott’ family as a gold digger who basically uses him – he is apparently a zombie unable to make sense of the world – to perform at concerts and she pockets all the proceeds. When I was in South Korea he performed there. I wanted to attend a concert, until someone said to me, “He is very overrated. Technically he’s actually not very good, he’s just a celebrity because of the movie.” Apparently he makes plenty of errors in a performance. I’m sorry I missed him play though. I’m no aficionado, but I would have liked to have seen and heard the real person for myself. The other thing was the photo of Helfgott that I saw on the internet depicted a rather sorry looking fellow. He had none of the triumph or charisma of his movie double.
At least the movie Shine does capture the essence of being pushed to breaking point, of raw talent becoming ruined and shipwrecked, but finally resurrected once again in time (which also happens in A Beautiful Mind).
Isak Dineson’s book, Out of Africa, is about the life of the Danish aristocrat Karen Blixen in Kenya (around Ngong). Much of what happens in the movie corresponds to the book, and I think Meryl Streep does an awesome job of representing Karen Blixen. But Robert Redford looks nothing like Denis Finch Hutton. Finch Hutton is very tall and very very bald.
The worst example of fiction being far worse than the real thing, is Luc Besson’s movie, The Messenger, based on ‘Joan of Arc’. He casts ex-model (actually I saw her in a Loreal ad on television last night, so she’s still modeling) Milla Jovovich in the role of Jeanne and makes her into a crazy, on again off again, heroic then mad then bloodthirsty hero. Before this film emerged, in fact, well before, I studied real court documents that included actual words Jeanne was said to have spoken. There’s an incredible amount of data and dialogue – lots of Jeanne’s own words about herself, her beliefs, and her motivations – from her year long trial in 1429/1430 (in fact they are the world’s oldest complete trial documents), including doodles that suggest what Jeanne looked like.
Interestingly, in all the information that we have on Jeanne (and there is a fantastic amount with far more specifics than we have for Jesus) nowhere is any mention made of Jeanne’s appearance. Nothing about her hair or eye color, or her beauty. It is amazing to me that such a powerful woman in history, a girl really, who led armies into battle, and basically brought the country of France into existence through her courage, passion and inspiration, was admired for qualities that had nothing to do with her appearance. What a difference to the world of today!
The film, when compared to the literature we have on Jeanne, is awful, especially the numerous appearances of Dustin Hoffman as the ‘devil’.
Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ is similarly delusional, with its gratuitous violence and fanciful depictions of the devil. Did the devil really wander around the way Gibson has represented it? It may seem so, it may be convenient to say so, and it may help make a more powerful movie, but that aspect jarred a lot with my sensitivities. I mean, have you (has anyone) seen the devil? The depiction of South Africans in Lethal Weapon 2, and Gibson’s allusions to the white South Africans as Nazi/Aryan/Master Race/Germanesque offshoots is similarly disturbing. Both movies, Passion of the Christ, and Lethal Weapon, demonstrate how a bit of knowledge, or even a lot, isn’t quite reality. Movie depictions about religion, including Christianity, are some of the most fanciful projects imaginable because there is no consensus about what was or wasn’t mythical.
There are many others movies, and most are fascinating real life stories. But Julia Roberts doesn’t really resemble Erin Brokovitch at all (except for showing off her boobs) and Keira Knightley only has short hair and an English accent in common with recently deceased Domino Harvey.
Movies about reality do at least bring the tips of the iceberg of human experience into our quadrants of the universe. It’s up to us to find the truth behind the pictures, and explore and uncover the meaning their lives may hold for us. The good news is, there’s often a lot of meaning to be found.
No comments:
Post a Comment