Proof

Seeing this movie makes one realize how truly dumb and unchallenging most Hollywood movies, aimed at young teenage boys, are. The script was brilliant, and all four actors do a fine job of bringing the story to life. I too saw Mary Louise Parker in the stage version, and though I slightly preferred her to Gwynneth, the latter nonetheless was fine as the gifted and disturbed Catherine. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was very good in his role, but too good-looking and hunky to play a geeky mathematician. Compared to the play, his relationship with Catherine developed a little too quickly in the movie, considering what a loner Catherine had been up to this time. Hope Davis was great as the more "normal," but controlling sister Claire, her second best performance ever, after the under-appreciated one she gave in "American Splendor" (be sure to rent THAT movie if you haven't seen it), and she manages to be more sympathetic than the actress who played her in the stage version. Hopkins as the brilliant, mentally ill mathematician-father was fine, though not particularly special in the role.

I only have two quibbles. One, there was not enough mathematics in the movie OR the play. Everyone has studied advanced math, so why not challenge the audience a little more and let us in on what the proof is actually about. It is kind of like watching a movie about a musician and not letting the audience hear any of the music! Two, it is not believable that in a crucial scene towards the end of the movie, that neither Catherine and especially the more materialistic Claire would not care what ultimately happens to the proof, especially when being told of its possible value.

Aside from these flaws, if you are looking for intelligent fare and a break from mindless action films and the mostly unfunny comedies of the past summer, you owe it to yourself to see this film. The theater I saw it in was almost empty, so I fear it is not doing too well. Remember that every ticket you buy is a vote for more of that kind of film being made. Let's hear it for more stimulating and mature films like this one!

GWYNETH, GWYNETH, GWYNETH! Not having been overly impressed with any of her previous performances, in Proof, Gwyneth Paltrow brings a highly emotional, nuanced, and so finely-tuned performance, I must say this movie this movie a stand-out.

She inhabits her character so fully, I was pulled in and so completely entranced the entire time. In fact, certain words or phrases are reused and have an uncanny allusion to when they were previously said. The effect as that you experience and follow the moments, and the thoughts of the characters, even though they are so deeply imbedded within. I credit Gwyneth and the director with making this work so well. I've never experienced such an organic link between phrases separated in time in a movie before. Wow!

This is a movie about how a daughter, her sister, and a grad student deal with the passing of a great mathematician. While there may be similarities with 'A Beautiful Mind' and even 'Good Will Hunting', knowing there are any such links didn't help me with this movie and I think actually does a dis-service. This movie stands on its own. Ignore any such comparisons.

Acting-wise, there were strong performances all around with Anthony Hopkins giving a top-notch performance. Jake Gyllenhaal's was strong, but perhaps not to the level of his rather awesome performance in Brokeback Mountain.

Good things aside, the one thing that irked me about this film, was that given the strong link to mathematics, how unbelievable some of the dialogue was regarding the 'math. While Gwyneth's and Hopkins' characters pulled off a sense of mathematical intelligence, Jake's character hardly said anything mathematically competent and even came across as flustered in expressing himself mathematically leaving me feeling cheated. In my view, this is chiefly the fault of the screenplay but to a lesser extent in the actor's portrayal. Ignore this rather small point, and this movie passes with flying colours. Q.E.D.

A few things about this are striking. Oh, that's in addition to the committed acting and generally good idea.

This is story about mathematics, actually about mathematicians which is much, much better. "Beautiful Mind" was repellent in a few ways; one was in the cartoonish way mathematical imagination was shown. Another was the way history was bent away from a truly interesting story to be palatable for film audiences. Math at that level requires the juice of life that he took in large gulps from both sexes. And he was such a glutton for mindbending adventure that he bent his own mind. I do not believe he suffered from some genetic disease, nor did he.

This movie repairs some of that. Its clear I think that the Nash phenomenon is at work here: minds powerful enough to break themselves, possibly leaving some mathematical residue, possibly not. The focus on primes may be accidental, but it is apt. As time goes on, they become increasing rarer and infinitely more fascinating, all apparently random but with some hint of unseen order. They don't interest me so much...

In fact, selecting films to build into your life (perspectives and stories to live) is a lot like choosing the types of problems to work on and how. The proof of being in a way is that the selection is made deliberately, based on your weaknesses, not your strengths. Only weak mathematicians and souls work on problems they understand. No life comes from the undaunting. No magic ever comes alone or from peace.

Hopkins isn't obnoxious here. Its clear that he is acting and that the lines are those of a stage character. But he doesn't grandstand; he's gently broken and there are some sweet moments (only two, but central) where he seems to completely have second-guessed where his daughter is going and lucidly makes key suggestions. Hopkins understood those moments and gives then some significance.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

"Proof" hones in on the emotional relationships in the play. With Rebecca Miller jointly credited with David Auburn on adapting his play, this is less coy about who did what to whom when in reality or delusion than it is about connections between people.

The flashbacks cut effectively back and forth and smooth out where each character is coming from.

"Catherine," the daughter of a brilliant mathematician who is somewhat modeled on John Nash's struggles with madness which were portrayed in "A Beautiful Mind," is still the focal point of attention. But with the other characters fleshed out more Gwyneth Paltrow has more to naturalistically react to than the stage actresses (I saw it on Broadway with a mercurial Anne Heche). Paltrow brings unexpected fragility to the role and makes her sarcastic accusations to her sister come out of personal pain and not just spitefulness. You really see that she is emotionally ravaged from putting her life and mind on hold for a father with a very strong personality.

Anthony Hopkins is unusually paternal as the father and you understand her attractions and fear of him, as well as why the sister had to flee how insecure she felt there, as Hope Davis manages to breathe some life into a strident character. We see very clearly the demands of being a caregiver to a legend. Unlike in "Iris" at the end of careers, we do ache at the sacrifices the young caregiver has made and how this claustrophobic existence has led to her own crippling doubts about her work, her life and her sanity.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the hunkiest, most adorable, rock 'n' rollin' math graduate student since Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" and could help increase math enrollments around the country. But as irresistible as he is, and their relationship is literally more believably fleshed out as young people than in the play, we also can share Paltrow's suspicion of him. But we see more of his activities, as the film opens up the play, so we too clearly know before she that he has regained in our credibility as he seeks his proof. I don't mind that the film adds to the romantic aspects and drawn out coda as I thought the play tempted unfulfillingly in that direction and it is a means to help her regain the multiple meanings of proof -- as evidence, as trust, as confidence.

Director John Madden keeps the camera moving actively during long dialog interchanges, reflecting "Catherine"s agitated state of mind. The house and academic setting well establish the atmosphere, particularly when there's more people around, though some of the outdoor shots seemed like filler.

The score is occasionally intrusive, but the concluding voice-over is even more annoying and unnecessary.

I love a movie in which every moment of it feels authentic, and "Proof" is that kind of movie. Critics have had a fairly mediocre response to the film, so I was somewhat surprised that I liked it so much. But it's easily one of the best movies I've seen this year.

I didn't see the David Auburn play on which the movie is based, and maybe many of the film's detractors have: screen adaptations of favorite plays often seem to dilute them to the detriment of the story. But if this movie is worse than its stage counterpart, it must have made one damn fine play.

The acting in this film is its major attribute, and director John Madden is wise enough to realize the talent of his ensemble and stand out of their way. He plays a bit with chronology and lets the pieces of his story click into place much like a math puzzle; I don't know whether or not this is original to the film or borrowed from the play, but either way it works well. But mostly, he lets the actors strut their stuff, and the four principals make the most of meaty roles.

Most of the acclaim has been falling, and rightly so, to Gwyneth Paltrow, who gives a full-bodied, textured and powerful performance as Catherine, who has inherited her genius at math from her father and is deathly afraid that she may have inherited his madness as well. I don't know that Paltrow has yet had a role as substantial as this one, and she flexes her acting chops in a way I have not seen her do outside of her underrated performance in "Sylvia." Hope Davis matches her scene for scene as the astringent older sister; it's refreshing to see Davis break away from the mousy, mealy persona she so frequently adopts and play this crisp, overwhelming character. The male actors have less to do overall, but the roles are perfectly cast. Jake Gyllenhaal is ripe for stardom, and this may be the year that brings it. Anthony Hopkins has been dismissed as hammy here, but I think he does an effective job of portraying mental illness, and creates heartbreaking moments that could have been ruined had they been played differently.

"Proof" feels entirely honest about the dynamics of dysfunctional families; you just know David Auburn is writing from personal experience. Like Robert Redford's "Ordinary People," if you have any exposure to similar family dynamics, you know the team that put the film together got everything just right. "Proof" also creates a parallel between mathematics and the messiness of life that makes one re-evaluate the rigidity of what always appears to be an exact science. As one must accept a level of ambiguity in life, one must also be willing to make leaps of faith in mathematics, because nothing can be 100% proved.

I highly recommend this film. It's satisfying on both an intellectual and emotional level. And any movie that can make math exciting to me gets an automatic thumbs up.

Grade: A