A Beautiful What ?

This week’s Golden Globe awards increased the chances that Ron Howard’s film about John Forbes Nash Jr., A Beautiful Mind, will be this year’s big winner at the Oscars. (Film Forum covered critical responses to the film a few weeks ago.)

While both the Golden Globes and the Oscars tend to reward crowd-pleasers over fine art, I feel compelled to voice a few reservations about this year’s favored title. Sure, it tells an inspiring story. But is it, as it claims, based on a “true story”?

Nash, a Nobel prize-winning genius whose theories have altered Wall Street and changed how we understand mathematics, has won international fame in spite of a severe struggle with schizophrenia that tested his relationships. Beautiful Mind captures the madness of schizophrenia vividly, painting Nash’s life as a long, arduous, but ultimately triumphant battle against his mental affliction. The movie credits much of his recovery to the power of true love. We see Nash, awkward and reluctant in romance, finally gaining confidence as a lover and husband in the arms of Alicia, a persistent, attractive young student (Globe-winning Jennifer Connelly). Their marriage weathers the tempests of Nash’s maddening spells, giving the film its predictably soaring conclusion. Audiences are deeply moved, and many tissues are deployed

True-story movies almost always alter the facts for the sake of condensing events to a coherent storyline. But A Beautiful Mind is so far from the truth that it seems a crime they didn’t change the names. It may tell an inspiring, predictable story not unlike a TV movie of the week, but it certainly isn’t Nash’s story.

In the film, we see Nash as reluctant and awkward. Alicia is the one who finally gets through to him. But the film leaves out the widely-reported homosexual activity of Nash’s college days. It avoids any mention of the fact that he got a woman pregnant, then abandoned her and the child he fathered. His eventual marriage is represented in the film as resilient and triumphant. Nash’s real wife divorced him.

Wait, there’s more. The hallucinations that Nash suffers in the film are pure Hollywood. We see Nash convinced that he’s working with CIA operatives in an effort to save the U.S. from a nuclear threat. We are impressed at how Nash’s affliction brings out his patriotism. The real Nash was more a skeptic than a patriot. And his real struggles with schizophrenia had him believing far more outrageous things: aliens had contacted him and told him he was to go to Europe and declare himself “the Prince of Peace.” Wow. The John Nash of the film humbly accepts his Nobel Prize and gives an inspiring speech about how love has saved him from these exciting visions. But the real John Nash spoke about how he didn’t think freedom from his madness was really such a good thing. He actually voiced regrets about getting better.

John Nash’s life would certainly make an interesting movie. Maybe someone will make that movie someday. It might not be such a crowd-pleaser. Nash would appear a far more complicated, reckless, and difficult person. He might not have appeared the patriotic, sanitized hero that makes audiences cheer and film industry workers vote for Ron Howard’s movie.

But the thing that frustrated this moviegoer the most: Why aren’t we shown anything about his “beautiful mind”? Can you imagine if the movie Ali had focused on Mohammed Ali’s political controversies without showing any boxing? Or if Amadeus had shown us Mozart’s poverty without playing any of his music? A Beautiful Mind is so concerned with showing us emotional breakdowns and teary-eyed epiphanies that it fails to explain what was so special about Nash’s brain. We hear that his theories revolutionized the way people invest. How? What in the world did he discover or do? Ron Howard is content to show Nash staring at millions of digits looking for patterns, and that’s it. Big deal. When Nash wins his prize, we don’t know why he’s won it.

Russell Crowe will almost undoubtedly win his second Oscar in a row for Beautiful Mind. And he is indeed amazing. But it seems the Oscars are becoming a contest of impersonating the mentally challenged. More and more of our best actors are taking on roles of mentally handicapped characters, as if trying to be the most convincing or extreme. (See the review of I Am Sam below.) Daniel Day Lewis won as a paraplegic in My Left Foot. Dustin Hoffman won for struggling with autism in Rain Man. Tom Hanks—simpleton Forrest Gump. Geoffrey Rush—Shine. (You could also describe Anthony Hopkins’ Silence of the Lambs performance as a mentally challenged villain, I suppose.) Playing a physically and mentally challenged character now seems like a surefire way for a good actor to gain prestige and recognition. It gets our attention when familiar actors act in an unusual way. But that doesn’t necessarily honor real people who struggle with similar challenges. And it doesn’t necessarily bring to life a character. You’ll probably be impressed by Crowe’s abilities in this movie, the film’s truly amazing feat, but you won’t know John Nash. To play a handicapped person, you must adopt more than mannerisms. You must demonstrate the decisions they make, the talents they possess, and the weaknesses that ensnare them.

* * *

Director Ridley Scott has proven he can create thought-provoking genre classics (Alien, Blade Runner), mediocre star vehicles (G.I. Jane, White Squall) and perverse commercial products (Hannibal). Black Hawk Down is his latest splashy release, an intense war drama about the 1993 United States raid on Somalia. We watch an Élite American squad of soldiers (including Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, and Sam Shepard) plunge into civilian territories to abduct two warlords. The mission goes awry. Some critics believe the movie does too.

Religious press critics find it more exhausting than exhilarating. “War is hell. If you don’t believe that, try sitting through this movie,” says Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter). “It’s a good actioner, with fine performances, but it’s just too much. It’s not just intense; it assaults the eyes and ears from beginning to end.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ critic says, “The relentless, raw combat scenes … are strikingly realistic, evoking a deep revulsion for war, but it comes at the expense of character development with the soldiers barely distinguishable from one another.”

Ed Crumley (Preview) compliments the film’s realistic portrayals of brave U.S. soldiers, which can “make a viewer proud,” but then says the film loses its acceptability because it portrays graphic violence and foul language. (How could the film have given audiences an idea of what this war was really like in a way that Crumley would have found acceptable?)

The writer of the synopsis at Hollywood Jesus praises an “outstanding ensemble cast” but cautions that “The violence of the film is brutal and nearly constant. Scott unflinchingly captures the chaos and mayhem of battle with tremendous visual finesse.”

Tom Neven (Focus on the Family) remarks, “While the portrayal of heroism and selflessness is a wonderful example for teens and adults alike, Black Hawk Down goes to some lengths to make the grisly battle real onscreen. Families will have to think long and hard before choosing to study this chapter in American history at the local Cineplex.”

“There are so many characters that there’s no time for us to get to know or care deeply about all of them,” says Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight on the Movies). “But I believe the film succeeds at what it sets out to do, and may be destined for a number of awards. I recommend this film to anyone mature enough to handle the content and imagery.”

Ted Baehr (Movieguide) believes the film is too long and argues, “A man-versus-man movie is only as good as its villain. Clearly, no one in Hollywood wanted to point fingers at President Clinton or at the Muslim extremists, so neither potential villain is developed in the movie to the degree necessary to give the story the jeopardy it needs.”

If Ridley Scott had followed a simple good-guy/bad-guy formula, he might have had a crowdpleaser. But if art is to reflect the complicated truth of such conflicts, artists must resist the allure of paraphrase. This kind of war is complex. While its general conflict might seem clear-cut, the specific methods and maneuvers of the day-to-day conflict involve complex decisions in which the “right thing to do” is hard to determine. Soldiers are sent in with specific assignments, and most never come into direct conflict with the head bad guy. I’ve seen too many films take complicated historical battles and turn them into the equivalent of a street fight between a heroic president and a wicked warlord. Such political cartoons stir our patriotism, but they don’t teach us anything about what real soldiers experience on the field.

Some critics in both the religious and mainstream press complain that Black Hawk fails to explain complicated political dilemmas that made this particular conflict so difficult.

Peter T. Chattaway wrote at the OnFilm discussion list: “The film ended up being a non-stop series of bullets, bombs, and missiles … and the very few, fleeting attempts to build character tended to be trite and conventional. We don’t get any real sense of the political context in which this fiasco took place. The only detail I knew about this incident … was that an American soldier’s body had been dragged through the street … but that most famous of details is left out of the film! That’s a little like showing the bombing of Pearl Harbor without the sinking of the Arizona, isn’t it?”

Rick Groen (Toronto Globe and Mail) writes, “If this is artistry, it comes perilously close to the spirit and intent of propaganda—a paean to the triumph of soldierly will. Brave American lads killing dusky foreigners in the name of a cause charged with nobility yet drained of context. Theirs is not to reason why—nor is ours, apparently.”

Jamie Russell (BBC News) explains the film is “too close to the current world situation to suit a no-brains action story. [It’s] a patriotic airbrushing of what was actually America’s worst day of combat since Vietnam. It gets top marks for the action; zero marks for the message.”

But a few find realistic blood and guts enough to merit a recommendation. Mike Clark (USA Today) finds realism enough to merit a recommendation: “No war movie I have ever seen so vividly shows battle from differing perspectives.”

And Michael Elliott (Christian Critic) argues, “After all the propaganda and political positioning is swept away, the bottom line is that these … soldiers put themselves in harm’s way to support, protect, and defend the lives of the men fighting with them. Let others debate the politics of the time. This film instead recognizes and portrays the incredible camaraderie that exists among combat troops. These men were willing to sacrifice their lives, not for some idealistic cause or humanitarian effort … but simply for each other.” Elliott cautions those interested in the film: “There is a considerable amount of carnage up there on the screen and it continues throughout the length of the film.”

The ever-popular Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) calls it one of the year’s best films: “Films like this are more useful than gung-ho capers like Behind Enemy Lines. They help audiences understand and sympathize with the actual experiences of combat troops, instead of trivializing them into entertainments.”

But that’s not enough for Stanley Kauffman (The New Republic): “Many … war films have had some point other than the visceral excitements of slaughter. What’s particularly depressing about Black Hawk Down … is that it doesn’t even sense the need for a point. Just slosh a lot of realistic carnage on the screen, it seems to say, and people will come. Roll on, Roman games.”

* * *

This season’s second drama about a mentally handicapped man stars Sean Penn in the challenging lead role. I Am Sam was directed by Jessie Nelson and co-stars Michelle Pfeiffer as an aggressive attorney who helps her struggling client try to keep custody of his seven-year-old daughter in spite of his ailment.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ critic writes, “Nelson’s feel-good tearjerker refreshingly maintains the importance of love in a parent-child relationship, but a few Hollywood-esque contrivances strike false notes in an otherwise fine film.”

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) concludes, “The final message of this powerful, poignant movie is that love brings people together, including, sometimes, apparent enemies. This is a fabulous premise for what is one of the most entertaining pictures of the year 2001.” He adds, “Sean Penn does a tremendous job as Sam.”

“I Am Sam would be an average film if it were not for the performances of Sean Penn and Michelle Pfeiffer,” says Marie Asner (The Phantom Tollbooth). She adds that the movie “explores parenting issues and whether two parents are better than one parent who truly, deeply cares for the child. Should the system take upon itself taking a child away from a parent? What is considered child endangerment? What I.Q. should a parent have? And just what constitutes love? Deep issues for a film and adequately handled by I Am Sam.”

But mainstream critics are divided over the film. Some find it inspiring; others find it ruthlessly manipulative, favoring sentimentalism over truth.

Charles Taylor (Salon.com) writes, “There’s nothing wrong with ‘issue’ movies as long as they have some spark, some drive, and at least a passing sense of the complexities involved in the subjects they’re raising. But I Am Sam never confronts the question it raises: Is Sam capable of raising a child? The answer, by any reasonable standard, is pretty clearly no. Sam … doesn’t have the mental or emotional capacity to deal with the most rudimentary aspects of life. How could he possibly speak to his daughter’s teachers, or, as a character suggests, to her about the onset of adolescence? There’s no question about his loving his daughter. But what sane person would think him capable of caring for her? But I Am Sam is the type of movie where anyone who resorts to logic … is the enemy.”

Further, Taylor differs from most critics and calls Sean Penn’s work “a wreck of a performance.” In criticisms similar to those he leveled at Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind, he writes, “Penn delves into mannerisms and vocal distortions with an appalling eagerness. He makes the classic mistake of playing the handicap instead of the person. I don’t know the last time I’ve seen so disgraceful a display from a talented actor.”

* * *

Tom Hanks’ son Colin is muscling his way into the spotlight as a regular on the popular sci-fi show Roswell and as the star of the new box-office hit Orange County. And the film has another interesting Hollywood-family connection. It’s directed by Jake Kasdan, son of famous director Lawrence Kasdan (The Big Chill, Grand Canyon). Hanks plays a surfer dude who tries to turn his life around and get serious about school. But when his high school counselor flubs his application to Stanford University, he has to scramble to keep his hopes of enrollment alive.

Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) “Do teens really need another coming-of-age comedy that plumbs for laughs with vomit, necking lesbians, and urine being mistaken for an alcoholic beverage?”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ critic says, “Even a tiptop comedic cast … cannot perk up director Jake Kasdan’s uninspired film, which takes a very lenient view of promiscuity and underage drinking and provides only the occasional chuckle.”

Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight on the Movies) says it’s “scripted with cover-to-cover offensive material. Jake Kasdan in his directorial debut, managed to squeeze plenty of foul language, sex, drug and alcohol abuse, and strong homosexual themes into one very disappointing beginning to 2002.” (It isn’t actually Jake Kasdan’s directorial debut. He directed the sharp-witted, genre-bending Zero Effect.)

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) “There are some serious undertones in the new youth comedy Orange County that provide a positive emotional uplift to the story in the movie.” But he concludes with a scowl: “In the past … Hollywood avoided making crude jokes about sex and substance abuse in its movies.”

Roger Ebert argues that this is not just a case of Hollywood’s favorite son getting a free ride to success: “Jake Kasdan … has a nice skewed sense of comic timing. If your father is a famous actor, you may be able to get hired as an intern or an assistant still photographer, or get an acting job in a TV series. If you’re making a feature on your own, it’s because somebody with money thought you were right for the job. In this case, somebody was right.”

* * *

Cuba Gooding, Jr. won an Oscar for Jerry Maguire, where his over-the-top enthusiasm won the applause of audiences. Since then, his enthusiasm has led him through a string of less-than-admirable films. Now he’s playing a Miami dentist who comes to Alaska to claim his inheritance, only to find out that his inheritance is a bunch of temperamental Snow Dogs who aren’t happy to have a city-slicker owner. While the distinguished James Coburn has a supporting role, critics don’t find anything distinguished about the film.

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) sighs, “Director Brian Levant simply is not able to lift this project above the mundane and at moments even manages to sink it a few levels lower. What is surprising … is the lack of definition among the members of the seven-dog team. With the exception of Nana (sweet and lovable) and Demon (mean-spirited and angry), the other dogs have no distinguishing attributes to separate them from the others.”

“If Snow Dogs is supposed to be heart-warming and funny, it’s barking up the wrong tree,” writes Bob Waliszewski (Focus on the Family). “Objectionable material is infrequent and relatively minor. But an avalanche of sub-par lines and scenes, and supporting characters devoid of likability leave viewers out in the cold.”

Lisa Rice (Movieguide) reports that the film is “cute, funny, and acceptable for all except very young children. My first-grade son, however, laughed out loud during much of the movie, and was never bored.” She was also pleased to see yet another film emphasizing the importance of a good father figure.

“This is a fun, feel-good comedy for anyone who’s a sucker for a cute dog story,” says Holly McClure (The Orange County Register). But she cautions parents that children may be uncomfortable when they learn Ted was abandoned by his mother. “The overall impression left on a child could be that sometimes kids are an ‘inconvenience’ and it’s better for them to be given away if the parents don’t love each other.”

Likewise, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ critic writes, “Although a few positive points are made about adoption and family love, the fleeting explanation that the main character was conceived from a one-night stand would prompt questions from children.” He adds, “The slapstick comedy is only mildly amusing.”

Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight on the Movies) finds the movie “tender and uplifting. I support this as a good family film. There is no language, no sex, and no violence … a very satisfying matinee”

Similarly, John Evans (Preview) finds the film “reasonably acceptable,” although he cautions parents that the film includes “one moderate and one mild crude word.”

But Phil Boatwright demands more than an avoidance of cussing and nudity. “I love dog movies, but … I insist that they contain either the slightest bit of humor, outside the boundary of slapstick, or a sincerity to its life lessons. Unfortunately, I found that Snow Dogs had neither.”

Mainstream critics offered a chorus of groans. Jamie Bernard (New York Daily News) sums it up: “A movie that opens with a boy vomiting, shown from the point of view of the luckless wastebasket, has nowhere to go but up. And yet, Snow Dogs pulls off the amazing feat of going downhill the rest of the way.”

Next week:The Count of Monte Cristo gets another big screen adaptation.