Proof

Seeing this movie makes one realize how truly dumb and unchallenging most Hollywood movies, aimed at young teenage boys, are. The script was brilliant, and all four actors do a fine job of bringing the story to life. I too saw Mary Louise Parker in the stage version, and though I slightly preferred her to Gwynneth, the latter nonetheless was fine as the gifted and disturbed Catherine. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was very good in his role, but too good-looking and hunky to play a geeky mathematician. Compared to the play, his relationship with Catherine developed a little too quickly in the movie, considering what a loner Catherine had been up to this time. Hope Davis was great as the more "normal," but controlling sister Claire, her second best performance ever, after the under-appreciated one she gave in "American Splendor" (be sure to rent THAT movie if you haven't seen it), and she manages to be more sympathetic than the actress who played her in the stage version. Hopkins as the brilliant, mentally ill mathematician-father was fine, though not particularly special in the role.

I only have two quibbles. One, there was not enough mathematics in the movie OR the play. Everyone has studied advanced math, so why not challenge the audience a little more and let us in on what the proof is actually about. It is kind of like watching a movie about a musician and not letting the audience hear any of the music! Two, it is not believable that in a crucial scene towards the end of the movie, that neither Catherine and especially the more materialistic Claire would not care what ultimately happens to the proof, especially when being told of its possible value.

Aside from these flaws, if you are looking for intelligent fare and a break from mindless action films and the mostly unfunny comedies of the past summer, you owe it to yourself to see this film. The theater I saw it in was almost empty, so I fear it is not doing too well. Remember that every ticket you buy is a vote for more of that kind of film being made. Let's hear it for more stimulating and mature films like this one!

"Proof", the excellent play by David Auburn, was one of the best things in the New York stage in recent memory. Part of the attraction was the intelligent subject matter, math science, and how it connected the four characters one got to meet. The casting was an ideal one, Mary Louise Parker, Larry Briggman, Johanna Day and Ben Shenkman, playing Cahterine, Robert, Claire and Hal, respectively.

Mr. Auburn and Rebecca Miller, a movie director, herself, took the task of adapting "Proof" for the screen. The result, directed by John Madden, opens the play in cinematic terms, no small undertaking in presenting the movie to a wider audience who might not be interested in science, and much less in the advanced math that plays an important role in the proceedings.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading here.

Catherine, the 27 year old, at the center of the film, is a woman who has stayed behind to take care of her aging father, a man much esteemed in academic circles, who is suffering from, perhaps, a neurological illness that is killing him slowly. Catherine has, in a way, sacrificed her life in order to see that Robert spends his last days at home instead of at an institution.

The death of the father brings Claire home. This woman, who lives in New York, wants to get rid of everything connected with her father. She even has made plans for Catherine to move from Chicago to be near each other in New York, where things are much better. To complicate things, Harold, the nerdy math student, finds a hidden notebook that might contain a discovery that will revolutionize math. The only problem is the proof might not have been the dead man's own creation.

"Proof" works as a film because of Mr. Madden's direction. We are kept involved in what is going on because we have been won by Catherine, the wounded woman trying to live her life without having to tend to a sick man. Catherine love for math, in a way, makes her realize her place is in the same institution where her father made mathematical discoveries as she will be following his steps.

Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent Catherine, a role she had played on the London stage. Ms. Paltrow is a welcome presence in the movie because of the intelligence she projects when working with a good director like John Madden. In fact, it has been a while since we saw this actress in a film.

Hope Davis, another excellent actress, plays Claire, the materialistic sister who has arrived and who wants to transform the frumpy Catherine and mold her to her own taste. Ms. Davis has accustomed us to expect a valuable contribution to any film in which she plays. As Claire, she clearly understand who this character she is portraying really is.

Anthony Hopkins has only a few good moments on the screen. Jake Gyllenhaal's character Harold is not as effective as Ben Shenkman's was on the stage. In fact, Mr. Gyllenhaal, with his dark good looks, seems to be someone who would not be interested in math at all.

"Proof" is an immensely rewarding film thanks to what John Madden's vision.

This film is about death, love, and mental incapacity. There are bound to be endless clichés, comparisons, and parallels drawn with Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind", so I won't go there.

In the end, this film is all about Gwyneth Paltrow.

She is on screen at least 80% of this film. Her character dances between mourning, anger, remorse, confusion, fear, vulnerability, sadness, and just a little bit of love. There are very dramatic changes in emotion from moment to moment, and Paltrow pulls it off brilliantly.

Sir Anthony Hopkins role, while relatively small, is crucial to the film. His performance was good, but not great. But it didn't really matter, as Proof is all about Paltrow. Hope Davis and Jake Gyllenhaal also gave solid performances, but their as with Hopkin's role were really nothing more than support Paltrow.

The biggest disappointment for me was the almost total lack of any 'real' mathematics. For a film that revolves around brilliant mathematical proofs, there's an almost painful scarcity of and real math in the film. There are shots of seemingly random equations scrawled across paper or a blackboard, and the odd conversation making reference to some known mathematical law or theorem, but I would have liked more.

IF you want a happy film, go see something else. If you want a mindless film, go see something else. If you want a typical love story, go see something else. If you want an intelligent well written and presented story of substance involving a a character experiencing a roller-coaster of emotions, Proof may be for you.

by the dialogue, you can tell this story began as a very good play. the issue with making a movie from a very good play is that you have to add something impossible to do on stage. i think paltrow does an excellent job. i'm not a big gwyn fan, but the way she portrayed her deep sadness throughout the movie, in closeups you wouldn't see from the balcony section of a theater - the fragility of her grasp on reality, the trauma of watching her father deteriorate before her eyes... this is something beyond "a beautiful mind," which centered more on the hallucinations and surreality of a victim of mental disease. "proof," instead, focuses on the father-daughter relationship and how, even after caring for his deteriorated mind for years, a daughter doesn't think twice about seeking her father's approval - as if he could be coherent for the moment she needed him to be. i thought that was the most poignant part of the movie. there's not a lot to the story of the movie, but the depth in the performances - paltrow, hopkins and hope davis - is worth the ticket. its nice to actually see a very good movie once in a while.

Greetings again from the darkness. Rarely do we get to see a film based on a Pulitzer Prize and Tony award winning story (by David Auburn). It does tend to jump the expectations a bit! There are facets of this story that we have seen on screen before in such fine films as "A Beautiful Mind", "Shine" and "Good Will Hunting". The topics of brilliance and insanity often overlap, in fact, the line is often so blurry as to prevent accurate diagnosis. Gwyneth Paltrow is spectacular in her gut-wrenching, emotional roller coaster of a role. I feel very cheated having read recently that she is contemplating giving up acting to enjoy her life and family. This would be a shame as she is only scratching the surface of her talents and artistry. Teaming again with director John Madden ("Shakespeare in Love"), Paltrow delivers an Oscar worthy performance that is emotionally deep and profound. Thank goodness she was selected over the bitter Mary Louise Parker.

The assembled supporting cast is impressive in name; however, Sir Anthony Hopkins is solid, but not great in the relatively small, but crucial role as Paltrow's once genius, then insane, now dead father. His influence on her life is beyond question and how she deals is the heart of the story. Jake Gyllenhaal, although a fine actor, is totally miscast as Hopkins' former student who tries to secure the legacy. Hope Davis is perfect as the irritating sister of Paltrow who has "been working 14 hour days" for 5 years while Paltrow cared for dear old nutty dad.

What prevents the film from being great is that it never decides what it is about. It is a film about a math genius (or two) but it shows almost no math. Is it a film about genius? Is it about insanity? Is it about caring for an elderly parent? Is it a film of self-discovery? All of these are touched on, but none are hit head-on. It is a fine film, definitely worth seeing, but it will probably leave you feeling a bit empty.