A Beautiful Mind (Howard, 2001)

Last updated on: May 24, 2015 at 11:00 am by Kenneth R. Morefield

A Beautiful Mind (Howard, 2001) 2015-05-24T11:00:32-05:00 Kenneth R. Morefield

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Beautiful Mind

(Warning: There are plot spoilers in this review.)

In the run up to the Academy Awards, it is customary to see all nature of lists on the blogosphere. I have noticed it has become increasingly popular to opine on historic sleights, surprising results, and (perceived) undeserving winners. In several such lists, I have also noticed Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind showing up with increasing frequency. My perception is that the ten year interval since this film came out has not been kind to its critical reputation.

Even more recently, I just finished reading Nicole Laporte’s The Men Who Would Be King, a dishy, gossipy, recapitulation (it feels a little too heavy in anonymous sources to be dubbed a “history”) of the creation of Dreamworks. One of the few threads that forms the foundation of Laporte’s book is the thesis that the victory of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan ushered in a renewed era of politicking in and around the Academy Awards–that the press at Dreamworks took a play book developed by Weinstein and ran with it, increasingly treating the seasonal awards as campaigns to be fought and won through marketing. Whether that characterization is fair or accurate, I do not really know. I lack the first hand experience of the Hollywood community and its workings to have much confidence that this practice was more pronounced in the 2000s than it was before. It strikes me as a creditable claim, though, if only because so many of the films that won from that decade–Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Crash, Titanic–seem, in retrospect to be more processed and positioned than inspired or ambitious. That is not to say any of them are bad films. I find myself defending the unabashed pathos of Titanic more than most of my peers. These films, though, do strike me as more popular than successful, and one indication of that fact is that I’ve never had a desire to revisit A Beautiful Mind until it came up for this series.

What I Said Then

(Originally published at Viewpoint, a precursor to this blog.)

[….] A Beautiful Mind is directed by Ron Howard, a talented commercial director who lacks the subtlety of a true artist. Howard is drawn to interesting material, but he has a tendency to reduce his films to the lowest common denominator. Only Apollo 13 avoids the crude emotional bombardment that is Howard’s signature. One got the feeling with that film that Howard’s respect for a true story reigned in his commercial crassness a tad, and so it was logical to hope that A Beautiful Mind, also based on a true story, might have the same effect. Unfortunately, it is more the tone of Ransom or Parenthood or Backdraft. There is a lyric glow that imbues some of Howard’s heroes that wears old very quickly. It is as though he worships his protagonists and never quite gets to see them as human. Not that John Nash, the protagonist of A Beautiful Mind, is portrayed without faults or warts. But what starts out as a personality sketch becomes a battle against a disease, and in the face of such an abstract villain, the audience cannot but help root for Nash in spite of his difficulties.

Occasionally the film will toy with a conflict, but it shies away from most of them. In the middle of the film, Nash struggles with the fact that his medication, while keeping him from being delusional, prevents him (at least in his own mind) from producing his best work. In real-life, Nash was apparently helped by advances in medication. The film presents him as simply deciding to overcome this limitation by strength of his own will. Similarly, in the middle of the film, dramatic perspective shifts suddenly to Nash’s wife (Jennifer Connelly in a gratifyingly controlled performance) and we are given a glimpse (but a glimpse only) of the tremendous costs to others that Nash’s achievements are built upon. Yet here again the film chooses to applaud rather than explore, giving her a standing ovation but not a three dimensional characterization. She stands by her man.

[….] I give A Beautiful Mind high marks based on its technical proficiency and the sheer brute force of its subject matter. If it had the courage or sophistication to strike more than one note it could have been great. That it did not does not make it, I suppose, a bad film, but it does keep it from being a great one.

What I Say Now

I gave the film a B+, which in retrospect strikes me as slightly generous. In terms of my review, the harshness of the criticism of all things Ron Howard also strikes me as overstated a tad, an example of something I’ve recently lamented elsewhere–the tendency of new voices to try to garner attention by overstating criticism of something or someone currently popular. (You can bet whatever film wins tonight’s award, there will be many, many more criticisms of it from advocates for the films that didn’t win than there will be celebrations of the films they thought should have won.)

Actually, although my estimation of the film did not grow, I was struck in re-viewing it how my perception of its weaknesses was very different. The film I kept thinking of while watching it this time was The Sixth Sense (1999), and I do not think it a stretch to draw a straight line from the power provided by that film’s surprise twist and the way Howard’s film keeps deferring its definitive reveal that the protagonist is suffering from schizophrenic delusions.

Film’s with big plot twists tend to have an exaggerated immediate impact that gets diluted over time. Many of them don’t bear up well to repeat viewings. A Beautiful Mind isn’t about its reveal, but the reveal is deferred so long for dramatic value that it makes it hard for the film to be about anything else. The central section that shifts to Connely’s character is most interesting. Nash’s storyline is treated too much like an abstract technical problem to be solved (how do we film mental illness?) and not enough as a human story with real emotions. We get plenty of speeches telling us what characters’ motivations are–Why does she stay with him? How does he come to recognize his own delusions?–but these are generally a poor substitute for having an experiential sense of the people involved that allows us to see these motivations for ourselves.

The Verdict

Do I think this was the best film of 2001? No. Neither though can I muster too much outrage at its victory. If the film were venerated today more than I think it is, my objections might be louder and more persistent. Absent inflated claims that I don’t really hear coming from any quarter, I am content to let it stand as a well done commercially polished biopic with some top notch acting and an earnestness that while not winning me over does not really grate.

And the older, more mellow me, is happy for Ron Howard that he has the respect of and some recognition from his peers.

Previous Post

February 19, 2011

Emergenetics and The Social Network -- 1More Podcast Episode 11

Next Post

March 4, 2011 The Adjustment Bureau (Nolfi, 2011)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 10 Years Later 1999 Top 5 2007 Top 10 2008 Favorite Discoveries 2008 Top 10 2009 Favorite Discoveries 2009 Top 10 2010 Favorite Discoveries 2010 Top 10 2011 Top 10 2012 Top Ten 2013 Top Ten 2014 Top Ten Best Picture Winners Christian Spotlight on Entertainment Christianity Today Coming Soon Disclosure Disclosure--AS Disclosure--Book Disclosure--DVDS Disclosure--SEOL Disclosure--Travel Dissenting Opinion Elsewhere Emergenetics Essays Featured Film Fest DC--2014 Film Festivals Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2011 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2013 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2014 Headline Interviews Laura on the Oscar Winners Podcasts Quick Impressions Reviews RiverRun Film Festival 2014 Television The Criterion Collection The Thin Place To Stream or Not to Stream? Top 10s and Other Lists Toronto International Film Festival 2009 Toronto International Film Festival 2010 Toronto International Film Festival 2011 Toronto International Film Festival 2012 Toronto International Film Festival 2013 Toronto International Film Festival 2014 Uncategorized Video Virginia Film Festival 2011 Virginia Film Festival 2013 Women's Film Festival 2012

Select a Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up what?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Anger Hatred Strife Trouble