- In press release put it very gently, saying that the film is only inspired by the events of the life of John Nash.
Yes, absolutely, because we never set a goal to shoot a biographical film (biopic). But this extraordinary story, which never would tell if it was fiction. This one of those stories that is very strange, but in the end, triumphant. This story needs to have a real basis, otherwise it will seem far-fetched and completely unbelievable. Therefore, the film deals with major events, key turning points of the life of John Nash and, in my opinion, is able to capture the General spirit of his life and his relationship with Alicia.
From interview with Director Ron Howard for About.com.
As for me this interview — check the Mat all those who I hated this film due to the mismatch between it and the real story of John Nash. Not worth the feature film looking for documentary accuracy, because it is often not intended to tell in detail how everything was really, has its own, purely artistic, purpose, plus encourages us to learn about how everything was really. For fans of precision is perhaps more suited to a documentary from PBS, which, they say, quite carefully and details the life of this famous mathematician and Nobel prize winner.
Moreover, part of the art assumptions and differences is quite adequate explanation. For example, the use of visual images for the play "specific thinking" John Nash in all aspects contributes to a more cinematic, but also gives the opportunity to enter in the film is action-detective-spyware component, which, of course, is its decoration.
A simplified representation of the mathematical theories and thought Nash — required condition that movie was interesting (and understandable) not only to mathematicians, and visualisierung is a spectacular reflection of the thinking process improves the perception and gives a glimpse into the head of the hero, in the end, increasing the degree of empathy.
The ceremony of the pens in Princeton University (completely fictional) and it to the Nobel prize — it on "victorious" and"triumphalist", about which the Director said in an interview. After many years of the hopelessness, the hero must experience a catharsis, and the audience must do it with him.
On the other hand, I seem to have a rather unfortunate deviation from reality, such as the cinematic line of faithful and selfless wife. To really Alicia left John on for 7 years. Then they again began to live together, but it's more like a cohabitation of good friends: John has rented a room in a ex-wife's apartment with 1970 1994. So it seems that she was just a helping hand, for whom it was to watch, but she wasn't ready to be in marriage (and I understand it). And only 2001 year, obviously after much thought, they got married again, being elderly. And yet they were the son also not quite Interesting as well... history, why not tell me how was really? But no need to again to push due to teeth "family values"!
The film itself is quite clearly divided into three parts: the exposition, a spy Thriller and a drama (with isolation). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the action sometimes re-enters the drama, introducing confusion in the minds of viewers who are not acquainted with background in advance and this ensured the element of surprise and constant doubt about what is also generally happens. To this viewer, the picture is not seem to be prolonged, even in 40 minutes, because it will always expect some kind of scenario of the next catch.
But even the viewer is initially familiar with the story shown on the screen, can spend time with benefit. For example, to enjoy a wonderful acting Duo of Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany. Here, however, the impression can spoil the beginning of the film, where 37-year-old Crowe plays a 19-year-old on that time, Nash. In fact, not having a specified film guidelines regarding the age and life experience of the protagonist, the viewer to not understand how this character to be perceived: as a young fellow-student or as an adult uncle with unknown the backstory that has come to "second degree".
You can plunge into thinking about genius as the deviation is so different from the rules of a certain degree of mental inadequacy seems almost mandatory. Indeed, if people on this level have the gift to see the non-obvious Association that can be it the critical point and prevent the separation of it associative rows from reality?
You can immerse yourself in the psychological search for the causes and come to the conclusion that of course, it is much easier, for example, to come up with a compassionate friend, a fan, than to build a similar relationship with a real person. It is much easier to imagine himself the secret Savior of the nation, what do they become. Who will give you what you I like not you himself, whatever form is manifested?
The authors like provide a clear message about that the true reality is always better than false happiness. Moreover, to be happy in the real world, sometimes you have to abandon any illusions, coupled with unrealized dreams, hopes and expectations. The message is correct, but there are moments in the film when there is a rhetorical question: not more humane if sometimes to leave the person in his world of illusions, where only may it to know complete happiness?
The film is not provide a clear answer to the question of how Nash solve my problem. Perhaps, just one that doesn't know... But made of elegant intellectual speculation about that it is necessary to understand the fiction, to separate it and try to ignore, simultaneously discarding unnecessary guilt, in principle, it looks somehow realistic, optimistic, and (according to Ron Howard) is really a triumph.
8 from 10