Proof
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.99 You Save: $11.00 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.48 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Proof
Movie Review: Affecting performance by Paltrow
Summary: 5 Stars
John Madden, who directed Shakespeare in Love (1998), and David Auburn, who wrote the script (adapted from his play), have put together a moving story about mathematical genius admixed with mental instability much in the manner of the life of John Nash who was the subject of A Beautiful Mind (2001).
Nash was a paranoid schizophrenic who was tormented by voices in his head warning him of dangers and conspiracies that didn't exist. Like Nash, Robert (Anthony Hopkins) is a brilliant mathematician who, having done spectacular work in his early twenties, goes crazy. Unlike Nash he is never able to regain control of "the machinery," as he calls his mind, and is never able to do any worthwhile work again.
Or is he? As he is taken care of by his mathematically astute daughter, Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow in a most affecting and beguiling performance) he fills scores of notebooks with intense writings. At one point he seems in remission and at another point Catherine rushes home to find him in out in the backyard in the middle of a snowy night fired with enthusiasm about his latest work. At another point, he and Catherine work together on a project. And herein lies the crux of the matter. As we discover, this project turns out to be a proof of a difficult mathematical theorem or conjecture that will be internationally celebrated if it is correct.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays Hal, one of Robert's students who is going through his mentor's papers in the hope of discovering something wonderful. Catherine tells him that among the 103 notebooks that her father filled during his days of mental instability there is not a single one that has anything of value in it. But when Hal wins her heart she produces a notebook that was locked away in a drawer. It turns out that this notebook contains that most amazing proof mentioned above. And it is here that Catherine says--in line that is so very well set up that her expression fairly takes your breath away--"I wrote it."
Well, did she or didn't she? Because the work seems to be in her father's handwriting and seems to be well beyond her abilities, her sister Claire, played in that clever but somewhat annoying style that Hope Davis has so perfected (About Schmidt; American Splendor), claims that Catherine is deluded and couldn't have written it. To Catherine's grievous disappointment Hal reluctantly agrees, and this seeming lack of faith in her sends Catherine toward the precipice of insanity. This is the key question of the plot. Who wrote the proof? Its resolution will be the denouement of the story.
Clearly Claire believes that Catherine is so like her father that she is about to go crazy herself. So she tells Catherine she wants to sell the house now that their father is dead and bring Catherine to New York where she lives so that she can take care of her.
Will Catherine go or will she trust her heart and begin a life with Hal?
This movie does not play well with some audiences I think because the wonderment that some of the characters feel--the absolute awe that transfigures them when they behold a great mathematical proof, is not entirely appreciated by the average person. Madden makes sure that Catherine, Hal and one of the mathematicians form on their faces an expression something akin to a religious enthrallment when they understand the thrilling logic of the proof. I suspect that for many viewers something was lost in the translation. Consequently, although many others, including myself, believe this to be one of the outstanding movies of 2005 it only rates a 7.0 at IMDb and was not nominated for any Academy Awards. Paltrow won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in Shakespeare in Love, also directed by Madden (he seems to bring out the best in her), and that award was richly deserved. But here in Proof I believe she was every bit as good (in a different way) although she was only nominated for a Golden Globe award and did not win.
Another thing about this movie is that it is strangely affecting emotionally. You might find yourself misting up a bit as you watch. I know I did.
See this for Gwyneth Paltrow, a gifted actress giving one of her best performances, and for John Madden, a director who makes beautiful movies with style and finesse.
Movie Review: Caregiving for the mentally ill
Summary: 5 Stars
Friday two people mentioned seeing DVD Proof, Saturday my Tai Chi instructor recommended it. Sunday I watched the director's voice over version (Special Features: Director's Commentary) where director Madden explains his motivation for staging and dialogue while the movie plays (use English subtitles for hearing impaired while listening to director's voice over to simultaneously follow the movie).
The story unfolds asserting that idiosyncrasies bordering on or including mental illness may be the price one pays for superb intellectual gifts. Implying the energy used to promote strength in one domain absorbs talents needed for social integration; instead of balance one exhibits solipsistic creative eccentricity, obsessive-compulsiveness, mental illness.
Proof contains a message similar to that in the movies A Beautiful Mind (Widescreen Awards Edition) and The Mirror Has Two Faces: intellectual or artistic self absorption may crowd empathy and social graces.
The truth is that it is possible to choose both excellence and empathy, Harry Potter author JK Rowling for example in her 2008 commencement video Fringe Benefits of Failure and Importance of Imagination.
The movie focus is on prime numbers: numbers only divisible by themselve or one. A mathematical emphasis on uniqueness and individuality at the expense of sociability; the loneliness of brilliance and the salve of believing in oneself regardless of opinions of others.
Proof reiterates an observation that Nobel Prize work in the hard sciences is created in the twenties. Not so the social sciences, literature, philosophy, where wisdom accumulates with age and Nobel Prizes are awarded for the products of the later decades of life.
In science one needs to be uncompromised, unintimidated by others' beliefs, prejudices preconceptions, or their treatment of you. The scientist must think independently to contribute unique knowledge about the universe.
Once into the thirties the distractions of marriage, children, friendship, social-professional commitment (dreaded departmental meetings), mortgages, loans, bills, debts and the need to work to fit in and to survive may preclude risk taking.
The time and energy drain of obligations may suppress a drive to travel to the edges of human consciousness to extract new aesthetic insights, intellectual concepts, ways of looking at our natural and created environment.
Proof is a literate compassionate presentation of the inside of mental illness (Anthony Hopkins), the role of family and friends in the evolution of the disease or it's stablization and containment, and most importantly the impact of mental illness on the caregiver (Gwyneth Paltrow character) associated often with the sacrifice of a caregiver's life and potential contributions to become the guardian of the ill. The Caregiver Helpbook, Powerful Tools for Caregivers outlines the challenges.
A memoir The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness by Elyn Saks allows one to enter the tormented experience of psychosis, while advocating for supported education and employment for recovery defined by a meaningful contribution to our shared human condition, and offers hope and solace by following her journey.
Movie Review: Enjoyable Mystery, Family Drama & Romance...Among Mathematicians.
Summary: 5 Stars
"Proof" is based on the play by David Auburn, who contributed screenwriting skills as well. The film was directed by John Madden, who previously directed Gwyneth Paltrow in a successful run of the play in London. So both Madden and Paltrow come to the film with a lot of experience. They are joined by a superb film cast, most notably Hope Davis, in bringing this intriguing story of family and identity that revolves around an important mathematical proof to the screen. Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the daughter of a brilliant mathematician (Anthony Hopkins) who struggled with mental illness. Catherine is very much like her father, so much that it scares her, and was very close to him. She gave up 5 years of her life to take care of him when he was overcome by psychosis. Now her father is dead, and Catherine's fastidious, controlling sister Claire (Hope Davis), has arrived to put everything in order and take control of Catherine's life, which she fears is heading off the deep end. A former student of their father's, Harold (Jake Gyllenhaal), is determined to look at every piece of gibberish the great man wrote in his last years in case any important math found its way through his madness. Catherine relents and leads Harold to the prize: a fantastic proof. But who wrote it?
I have only occasionally seen any indication that Gwyneth Paltrow is anything more than a mediocre actress, but those little glimmers of talent were signs of better things to come. Paltrow is very good in this role. Catherine is an intelligent, fragile woman whose outbursts may or may not indicate instability, but who has consciously chosen to deny her nature, even to herself. From the outside, she is an unnerving enigma. From the inside, she suffered tremendously for her father's madness. Director John Madden presents this story as dual narratives: The subjective past, which we see through Catherine's memories, is alternated with the objective present. This is very effective. Clues to the film's 2 mysteries, Catherine's character and the proof's authorship, are found in the past, which unfolds simultaneously with the present narrative that focuses on Catherine's changing relationships with Claire and Harold. I applaud Madden's decision to use a steadicam to impart a sense of realism and immediacy. It works nicely, and it's a whole lot better than a shaky handheld. "Proof" is a thoroughly enjoyable film whose characters always have something interesting going on in their minds. Its talkiness betrays its theatrical roots, but Madden has done such a good job of placing the action in natural settings that I was rarely aware of the film's theatricality.
The DVD (Buena Vista/Miramax 2006): Bonus features are a making-of documentary, 2 deleted and 1 extended scene with optional director's commentary (7 min), and an audio commentary. "From Stage to Screen: The Making of Proof" (10 min) includes interviews with director John Madden, producers, and cast who discuss the characters and adapting the play to film. There is a good audio commentary in which John Madden contributes a lot of analysis of the narrative structure and characters, taking us through Catherine's thoughts and emotions, as well as discussing themes, visual style, dialogue, and directorial decisions. Captions are available for the film in English. Subtitles and dubbing are available in French.
Movie Review: Worth owning a personal copy, one you'll want to watch again and again!
Summary: 5 Stars
This isn't the type of film where you are mildly entertained and then forget about the movie within a day or two of seeing it. Instead, the directors have tackled the formidable challenge of adapting a successful Broadway show to screen and, in the process, it sometimes works in much better ways than the stage play, broadening the possibilities and losing some of the claustrophia of the limited stage sets.
It is hard to say exactly what 'genre" this play fits as it equal parts thriller, mystery and exploration of the human spirit.
On the surface, the film focuses on a formerly briliant mathematical genius (played by Anthony Hopkins) who went from flashes of brilliance in his early 20s to utter insanity as he got older (with brief remissions). His daughter seems to show promise as well but she fears that the same mental instablility which plagues her father will someday strike her as well. She is a sad, often bitter, person.
Gyneth Paltrow is so exceptional in the role of the daughter, Catherine, a woman who is complex, difficult and anxious, that it is hard to imagine anyone else doing justice to the role. After her father's death, she is left to pick up the pieces with the help of a math student who is researching Catherine's father, in both his glory and illness.
In addition to hundreds of illegible journals left behind by her father, one stands out, possibly leading to a breakthrough moment in mathmatical history. It is, in short a great proof...but who wrote it? Did the genius father in one of his rare moments of remission? Or did his talented (but unacclaimed) daughter do so?
Needless to say, this raises issues of trust as well as how you prove something which is very hard to prove. Catherine has been a recluse for years, caring for her ailing father. She disappeared from academia and her reputation was never established. Contrast that with the history of her father and it his hard to decide who was most likely to be in a state of mind to come up with an elegant, groundbreaking proof.
As doubt rears its head, Catherine seems to be suspected by everyone around her, from her boyfriend to her sister. She nearly cracks completely under the pain and pressure and the film doesn't lead to a neat, pat resolution.
The word "Proof" revolves on so many levels in this lovely movie, hinting that some things are ultimately unproveable and must be taken on a certain degree of faith. Catherine nearly loses her strength, her spirit and her confidence in the process but she is stronger than she thinks, although her sister does her best to sabotage her confidence and whatever shreds of self-esteem she has left.
This is a deep, rich movie that makes one think about how we commit to people and ideas, how we prove that our accomplishments are our own (when all evidence seems to point to the contrary) and but how it is always a the leap of faith to trust others. In that regard, these is no ultimate proof.
Movie Review: An actor's showcase populated by fantastic actors - a pleasure
Summary: 5 Stars
John Madden and Gwyneth Paltrow first collaborated on "Shakespeare in Love," one of the most intelligent, lush romantic comedies of all time. They reunite to make a completely different kind of magic in "Proof," a film adaptation of a wildly popular play in which Paltrow also played the lead.
"Proof" is steeped in the culture of mathematic academia, where words like "proof" are used with hallowed reverence, and the leading figures are considered to be gods by the "mere" professors and grad students. Paltrow plays Katherine, younger daughter to a mathematical genius (Anthony Hopkins), who "revolutionized the field twice before he turned 26." But Dad recently died after a long mental illness, and Katherine put her own academic life on hold to care for her dottering old man as they rattle around their big Chicago house together. Katherine insists that Dad has some lucid times where he was working again, working on something great . . . could it be found in the hundreds of notebooks Dad left behind in his study?
Grad student Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal) is plowing through the books as fast as he can. (One has to suspend a little disbelief here, believing that any university has lookers like Paltrow and Gyllenhall in the same math department.) Hal and Katherine also have a bit of a thing going, but both of them move with the caution bred from working too close for too long a time. I've never really been a fan of Gyllenhaal before "Proof," but he gives a sincere, restrained performance that is just perfect.
And then there's Claire (Hope Davis), Katherine's older sister, who has flown in from New York to help out. Claire has clearly abandoned mathematics as a career and has moved on to more practical, lucrative pursuits (although her job is never explained). Claire has the disadvantage of being a merely "talented" person born into a family of geniuses, and it's pretty clear that she's got plenty of her own issues. Davis, giving yet another fine performance, conveys much of Claire's repressed frustration with brittle mannerisms and inflections, but neverteless she conveys a lot.
But Paltrow is the true shining light here. Far from the radiant beauty she plays in virtually every film, Paltrow here is haggard, worn thin by her years of caring for Dad and also the worry that she might be "like him" in both good ways and bad. It's pretty clear that every character Plus, she's carrying a secret. Either she has gone beyond her father's genius and discovered a new proof that had eluded the old guy, or she has stolen his work and tried to pass it off as her own. Paltrow, one of the sunniest of actresses, here comes of as believable as a soul in torment.
This is a "little film," clocking in at 90 minutes and with a tightly focused plot and cast. That doesn't mean that it isn't excellent. Along with "Wonder Boys" and "The Squid and the Whale," "Proof" stands firmly in the short line of recent fantastic movies about academics and academia. Check it out.