Proof

I was looking forward to this show, where the basic unknowable answer concerning our existence would be questioned in an entertaining yet intelligent way. It can be done. It has been done. I believe, nay, require character development and back-story. Most persons experience loss and the sadness - even emotional devastation - it can bring. However, after a mourning period, especially when returning to work, a certain civility is expected from the mourner. We have been given enough information to have, at least, sympathy / empathy for the Beals character. But who wants to watch the primary be unabashedly rude every time she opens her mouth. Women can be bosses without such dismissive condescending harshness. It certainly promotes the negative stereotype of a surgeon, though!!

Can't believe JB is still so beautiful and has become such a fine actress ... she is superb in this part. I'm agnostic, so I'm open-minded to this "afterlife" stuff. I find the story quite interesting, maybe because I've experienced the "looking down at yourself" and the "light at the end of the tunnel" personally when very young. But I didn't appreciate the "ghost" business in one episode and hope they avoid such nonsense henceforth.

I find all the characters well-played and quite realistic, which seems to evince a lot of grimaces from other reviewers. And several reviewers seem offended by JB's character's strong personality, but she seems to me very believable as a seriously intelligent and experienced surgeon who has lost a young son AND her marriage and who has a daughter in her "terrible teens." I think perhaps these reviewers might be more pleased watching "Married with Children." Beals is spot on as a no-nonsense woman who was all but forced to succumb to the odd offer from the billionaire because the enormous gift would be put to such good use and to turn down such an offer would simply defy logic, and this woman is logical to the core.

I look forward to the next episode ... just no more ghosts, please!

I don't know what happens when we die. I am intrigued by it, given my own experiences and after having seen the series Beyond and Back..., where real people told their stories, which were breathtaking. It really wasn't about NDEs because all the people in it had been pronounced dead and flatlined. It was an amazing show.

Proof takes a slightly different stance. A wealthy man, Ivan Turing (Matthew Modine), who has terminal cancer, wants to know what happens when we die, and asks a brilliant doctor, Carolyn Tyler (Jennifer Beals), to investigate the phenomenon. Tyler herself had an NDE when her son died, but has pushed it away and doesn't talk about it. Tyler asks a young doctor, Zed (Edi Gathegi) to join her, and she works with him and with members of Turing's staff.

Carolyn remains skeptical and attempts to handle things in a scientific manner, which is good, and because of that, the show doesn't go into la-la land. I wouldn't mind it, but I'm sure some would.

I have always liked the beautiful, intelligent Jennifer Beals, but she was misguided initially. Her character was unlikeable and annoying. An actress playing this kind of role can choose parts of a script where she can show some vulnerability or warmth -- and it was up to the director to guide her in that, which he obviously didn't do.

It sort of reminded me of Vivien Leigh begging that a line remain in the Gone with the Wind script where Scarlet says she wanted to be kind like her mother etc. -- because she felt without that line, Scarlet was an impossibly awful character. The character of Dr Tyler was in the same boat but with no paddle.

I noticed a change in her personality around the fourth episode and realized the director was different. The change was enough to make her a nicer character.

The story veers out of the hospital covering Carolyn's home life - she has a teenage daughter and is separated from her husband. Also, Zed has his own problems -- he's expected back in his home country, and a marriage has been arranged for him. It isn't what he wants.

The subject of NDEs is a fascinating one but in order for it to play to the masses, it has to be presented in a clinical way, and the episodes have been solid. I hope it continues with Beals' adjustment in character.

Light of the end of tunnel might sound awfully familiar, especially for a premise to build an entire show on. Thankfully, rich aesthetic design and strong personalities ensure that Proof is more than another paranormal debacle. It definitely looks nice, as the sequences showcase many bright colorful locations, some of which are strikingly futuristic. Characters and methods have ambiance of medical show, although it keeps the focus with the right personal touch.

Dr. Tyler (Jennifer Beals) is a strong headed surgeon who has had a near-death experience. She is asked by eccentric millionaire Ivan Turing (Matthew Modine) to investigate what is beyond death. This set-up is made for human drama, especially on the doctor's part as her family is far from perfect, while delivering different cases or medical issues. The main concern is it might fall into typical medical drama, even with the peculiar theme.

It even has Edi Gathegi who has had experience playing in House and the stubborn leading character is highly skeptical. The structure might feel understandably stereotypical, though the show is sufficiently presentable. It doesn't display hospital environment with narrow style, in fact most of the scenes have amazing view, almost optimistic in nature. The eccentric mansion and most indoor shots are lightly refreshing, several continuous shots in this setting look fitting on futuristic show and they give whimsically modern atmosphere.

Leading roles are presentable with Jennifer Beals, she doesn't appear friendly at first, probably a good decision to not fall into cheesy drama. She's combative and it makes the show more digestible without stepping into spiritual territory. Edi Gathegi as the young intern and Matthew Modine as the bizarre millionaire are both good cast for their characters. The diversity of thoughts and behaviors works well for the delicate plot.

Proof has a classic concept which may be problematic, but it should find light on the end as long as it offers humble human drama in lavish vistas.

I agree with blanche-2's review for the most part. I am a physician/surgeon licensed in California for more than 20 years so I have a slightly different 'take' on this show than some reviewers. First of all, if I were sitting at the table when the direction of the show was discussed, I would have a different opinion on several things. However, I would eventually vote in favor of everything the series has done from a 'general public' viewpoint. Where I would differ, and I would readily accept, the direction of the show, are some things that I know from training and working in many medical centers in several different states. First of all, in California, a physician who pushed anyone would be in deep do do and it simply would not happen. I am sure that somewhere there is a physician who has lost their 'cool' in an operating room, but I have no idea where that happened, certainly not in my experience of 10's of thousands of operations. Beals needs to calm down a little bit. Female physicians do not need to prove they are as 'good' as male doctors. Those days ended some time ago, although I know there are still some 'old school' doctors who hold certain positions in certain hospitals that can make it more difficult for female physicians. Good riddance for those old jerks. My personal physician is a female, not because I think she is any better than any other physician, but because I like having a 'female perspective' on health issues. Not better, maybe, but different and I can assure you the more, different opinions you have at the table, the better the outcome will be. Now a major concern of mine that I would be resistant to change: the issue of the scientist's sister overruling how the data that was collected at the time of his death was handled. I always respect the wishes of the family, of course, however, when the patient has given his/(her?) SPECIFIC/KNOWN wishes (while 100% competent) for whatever is to happen after death, I believe that should be honored to the TOTAL exclusion of any family member's opinions/demands. This scientist obviously gave years of his(her?) life to a belief in a certain field of study. His (her?) data absolutely should not be deleted by anyone (a court or person) and should be used EXACTLY the way that scientist would have wanted.

I should add that I do not believe in a 'life after death' (at least not life as we know it). I think we are all made up of atoms and those atoms will not be destroyed (they may be converted to energy and back to atoms) and memories are all made of chemicals in the brain. I would like to see this explored. Maybe those chemicals can be analyzed and the composition can be turned to data and even converted back to chemicals (by a 3D printer?) and put into an android? There are several TV shows that are exploring this now (Extant?) and, who knows, they could drive future research?