College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Movie Review: When complicated equations are the least of your problems

Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her theater role in the film adaptation of the acclaimed Proof

By Katie Hayes

Print this article

Published: Monday, September 26, 2005

Updated: Saturday, November 14, 2009

proof1.jpg

yahoo! movies

Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal might be mathematicians, but that doesn´t mean they´re immune to the appeal of good chemistry.

4 Stars Proof Dir. by Andrew Niccol Lions Gate Films

As a play by David Auburn, Proof won both the Tony for Best Play and the Pulitzer Prize in 2001. Any successes it achieves as a movie will likely pale in comparison, but its stellar cast ensures a smooth transition from stage to screen.

Gwyneth Paltrow, reprising the role she played onstage in London's West End, is Catherine, the 27-year-old daughter of a famed and recently deceased mathematician named Robert (Anthony Hopkins).

Robert accomplished groundbreaking work in mathematics before losing his mind. Catherine took care of him through his madness while doing some of her own work in mathematics. In the days following Robert's death, Catherine shows her father's student, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), a handwritten proof in one of her father's notebooks that may be not only important but revolutionary. Was it written by Robert during a period where everyone supposed he was insane?

Or was it written by Catherine, who may have inherited more from her father than just his brilliance?

Although it is certainly aided by John Madden's fluid direction, what ultimately makes Proof work is its solid performances.

Paltrow, in particular, is excellent. Although she captures her character's mental instability, she plays Catherine as a sad woman above all, ensuring our empathy. Gyllenhaal, too, is tremendously appealing as Hal, an ambitious but compassionate young man who describes himself as a "math geek."

He and Paltrow have marvelous onscreen chemistry, making their inevitable romance believable. Hope Davis also adds some nice moments as Catherine's meddling, unsmiling sister Claire, who is visiting to help with the funeral and settling their father's affairs. The several arguments between the sisters constitute some of the film's most realistic scenes.

Another recent film that touches upon the link between mental illness and mathematical genius is A Beautiful Mind. But while that film dealt mainly with exploring its main character's inner demons, Proof is more interested in the relationships between the characters.

There are the strained ties between the two very different sisters, Hal and Catherine's sweet but unsurprising romance, and, most interestingly, the father and daughter who may share illness along with genius.

The flashback scenes with Catherine and her father feel very true. One flashback scene in particular, toward the film's end, is (without giving away a major plot point) heartbreaking without being the least bit manipulative.

Auburn and Rebecca Miller, who co-wrote the screenplay, had to make adjustments to aid the adaptation to the screen. Additional dialogue was added, and scenes were moved to varying locations.

If Proof has a weakness, it's that it was so obviously written for the stage. With much more dialogue than the average Hollywood movie, it moves at a slower pace than what audiences may be used to.

But it's that very dialogue, coupled with the intelligent subject matter, that makes Proof a unique treat among this year's films. It's not a movie for people who need to see action, but its fine performances and heartfelt story make it a worthwhile trip to the cinema.

Comments

Be the first to comment on this article!







log out