Posted by OddipusRex on January 8, 2003, at 17:32:59
In reply to Re: 'A Beautiful Mind' anyone? (SPOILER!) » wendy b., posted by M .Lee on January 8, 2003, at 13:22:30
I also read the book and thought the movie was not at all an accurate portrayal. For example the real John Nash never had visual hallucinations which were in the movie. I too noticed his insistence in the book that his son (who is also schizophrenic) could cure himself if he wanted too. It's worth noting that in the book his wife divorced him although she did let him live at her house for some of the years of his illness. I also thought it was interesting in the book that so many of his colleagues had ill family members of their own or became ill themselves at a later date. It makes one wonder about the connection between the "mathematical personality " and schizophrenia. It also occurred to me that his recovery in later years might have been because he refused medication for so long (in the book) that as he aged out of the florid symptoms (delusions, hallucinations) he was not troubled with the aftereffects of the years on medication. It is well known that many schizophrenics lose the positive symptoms in late life but the negative ones(possibly from the old APs) tend to linger. I liked the book though. It was fascinating. As far as movies, I think Angel Baby whick was an Australian movie from the 90's was probably more realistic but very very sad.
> [The movie has been out for a while now, but if you haven't seen it yet, you might not want to read on...]
>
> > I know some people talked about this movie last year when it came out... I recently saw it on video, and found it a good movie as far as filmmaking goes, and acting too, but I don't know very much about the way schizophrenia affects perception, so I don't know if it's really true to life or not. The John Nash character kept seeing two or three figures who were very real to him, but no one else could see them. He seemed to get drawn into an altered state of consciousness when he saw them, and had visions of grandiosity, such as making mathematic formulae for the FBI.
> >
>
> I read the book about a year ago, and then saw the film a while later. I think that the movie depicted his delusions in an interesting way, that drew me into the character and his world (as it is shown in the film.) It is described _very_ differently in the biography. I don't think that it would even be possible to show the description from the book on screen. IMHO, as an average moviegoer, the "artistic license" that they took drove the plot of the movie forward in a novel way.
>
> But, that doesn't answer your question about "true to life" My feeling is that it's too much to expect from a movie, and perhaps even too much to expect from an accurate biography. In an interview with the biographer, Nash himself had difficulty explaining what he experienced. Many of the descriptions are based on what other people observed and heard Nash talk about during his illness.
>
>
> There was one historical inaccuracy that bugged me, though. The movie left the impression that Nash's work for the Pentagon was a delusion. Nash _was_ hired to do research at RAND from 1950-54 (under a Pentagon contract) and was granted 'secret' security clearence by the gov't. He applied the mathematics of game theory to the problem of strategy in nuclear conflict. He did not have the 'top-secret' clearence needed for access to nuclear weapons documents, though, so his work was mostly theoretical. (Unlike other researchers at RAND who formulated the strategies that were actually used.)
>
> That ommision made it easier to film the delusion scenes, but it also ignored the fact that in real life Nash worked on some pretty scarey stuff during the height of the cold war. His symptoms of paranoia surfaced at about the time of McCarthy. The question about if this "triggered" the onset of his condition is something that the book does not attempt to answer. But knowing these facts does put his life experiences in a broader persective. I seem to recall that some reviews of the film may have mentioned this idea.
>
>
> > I liked the way they portrayed him later in his life, as someone who could still give instruction and be useful to students. So it gives a public who might not be aware of the effects of disabilities a view that mental disability doesn't mean unable to work or do a job. More people need to know this...
> >
>
> I missed that positive aspect of the portrayal at the time I saw the movie. I guess I was too bothered by the idea that he "willed" himself to get better after going off his meds.
>
> That theme can't be blamed on historical inaccuracy, though. The real John Nash was quoted as saying that applying willpower to overcome his illness was like dieting. His own doctors wouldn't comment on that, although they could not explain his remission.
>
> I left the movie feeling rather low. If I don't get better, is it because I lack the willpower? Or, does that only work if you have a Nobel Prize winning intellect?? Ohh, and don't get me started on the "love conquers all" theme... I'll be typing for days! :)
>
> Having said all this, I now have to go take a shower, because I feel like I reek of Political Correctness! ;)
> After all, it's "only" a movie. Maybe these topics just hit a bit too close to home, for my comfort.
poster:OddipusRex
thread:34562
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030104/msgs/34851.html