Talk:A Beautiful Mind (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article A Beautiful Mind (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Love

Is it too far-fetched to interpret the “newer medications” that Nash mentions as the love that his wife provided throughout his difficult times?
--Blanu 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what they should have had him say! I imagine the love and support of his wife and others are what have helped him. But the newer medications for schizophrenia, the atypical antipsychotics (as opposed to the typicals which are now out of patent), are BIG business and being heavily pushed by the pharmaceutical industry (despite research ambiguity over their efficacy). And the screenwriter's mother is a psychiatrist apparently. EverSince 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This film is set in Princeton, NJ, not in Massachusetts. It should be re-catagorized. 140.247.248.167 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In the book he doesn't get better because of love or medication. He's just one of a minority that went into remission in old age. The book does not really claim he is a homosexual per se or at least that would be overstating the book's claim. It kind of implies it at times, but overall I'd say the book indicates he was bisexual. It has documented information on his being arrested for exposing himself to a male policeman who was essentially trying to entrap homosexuals. (I'm not sure what the Nash camp has to say on this except that maybe the cop misinterpreted an innocent event) That said it's pretty clear his relationships to women were genuine.--T. Anthony 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Russell Crowe did not win the Best Actor Oscar for this movie in 2001 - Denzel Washington won in that year. 203.214.108.192 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section POV

I believe that the particular section marked for being NPOV is trying a bit to hard to prove a point - perhaps a rewrite is in order.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 03:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory

Hi everyone. I added a little something about the mistake under a heading titled "Game Theory Blooper". cheers, Alkansite --142.104.41.171 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something should be mentioned about how the film, of all things, got game theory wrong. There was a part I believe where he was talking about competing for girls in a bar with his friends and he said the best solution would be for nobody to go for the 'best' girl. In game theory, the incentive to "cheat" and therefore go for the best girl would have been the equilibrium (where everybody would have ended up with that type of incentive). My professor mentioned this in my graduate economics class Canking 20:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If your professor wrote that in his widely published textbook, we can cite him on that. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, someone could just raid the references currently in Wikipedia's article of "Nash equilibrium", to show what a Nash equilibrium is in fact roughly what he describes, although the movie's description is imprecise due to simplification. Currently the statement is without citation, and this: http://www.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/june02/bayer.html is one of the citations about their mathematical consultant, and claims that "the mathematics in the film has come through peer review with flying colors." Barring a citation to actually show that they mangled Nash's most important idea in the film treatment, I think the evidence says they didn't. In fact, I think I'll just remove the bit about the scene with the blond being the opposite of a Nash equilibrium until such a demonstration surfaces.

First, the scene doesn't end the way the article said. That was hypothetical. Second, this isn't a blooper. There's no reason his inspiration for the theory needs to be an accurate example of the theory, because he hadn't made the theory yet. This was his inspiration for going to work and coming up with the complete theory. Third, it wouldn't be a blooper even if it was a logical fallacy as the article was claiming before my edit.DoItAgain (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Forgive me, I don't know the wikipedian stance on spoilers, but perhaps we should attempt to keep them out of the first paragraph? For many viewers, discovering that the protagonist has schizophrenia is the major plot twist in the movie. I feel that this information should be kept for the "plot" section, at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.114.81 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 July 2007

The above statement is a complete misrepresentation of the film. It's avowedly based on a best selling biography of a real man who suffers from schizophrenia. Moreover anyone who had gone to, say, the Guardian website to find out what it was about would have seen the summary:
The true story of John Forbes Nash Jr, a mathematical genius who overcame schizophrenia to win the Nobel Prize.
Moreover in the review by Peter Bradshaw, first published in The Guardian on the day of the film's British release, we read:
Invited into the Pentagon to crack Russian codes, Nash is recruited by shadowy Agent Parcher, played by Ed Harris, who tells him about evidence of terrifying conspiracies which only he can decipher. Poor Dr Nash winds up at the laughing academy in a jacket that does up at the back, with electrodes attached to his temples. Parcher was all in his mind, and much else besides - but how much is real?
Moving to Philip French's review on the same website, which was published in the Guardian's weekly sister paper, The Observer on Sunday 24 February, 2002, we read:
With insidious skill, the movie plays on our willing suspension of disbelief, our readiness in the shadowy cavern of the cinema to believe in the presence of aliens and elaborate conspiracies. In fact, A Beautiful Mind is pulling us into the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic.
What is for some period a disturbing thriller turns into a waking nightmare for us and Nash when the illusory or delusory nature of his life is exposed.
And it isn't just some fancy British newspaper reviewers either. Here (from a link in our own article, is a quote from the Oregon Herald, again from February, 2002:
Very rarely will a film allow us to observe mental illness from the inside. And "A Beautiful Mind" accomplishes this very well. Throughout the first half of the film, we are introduced to characters and situations that seem real, yet we learn later as Nash learns himself that they are creations of his imagination. This dramatic twist in the film changes our perception of everything we've seen and challenges us to decipher between what is real and what is artificial.
Moreover whilst it might be appropriate for a movie reviewer to connive with the reader to maintain some mystery about the film at the time of its release, we do not have that excuse as an encyclopedia writing about it more than five years later and long after it picked up four Oscars and made John Nash a household name for schizophrenia.
As an encyclopedia we should not seek to reproduce the experience of a viewer of the movie, it is not intended as a substitute for watching the film. It is expected, however, that an encyclopedia will write about the most important aspects of a film, and certainly Akiva Goldsman's unique conceit of letting the viewer experience Nash's uncertainty about what is real and what is not is one of the most important aspects of this film, and one for which she won her Oscar.
Finally, this is a biography. There are fictional elements and omissions (which are reasoanably well covered in the article) but it's basically the story of John Nash, as presented by biographer Sylvia Nasar and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman. To complain about "spoilers" is missing the point. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what I can add to Tony's excellent points here, beyond noting that covering biographical facts about Nobel prize winning mathematicians with spoiler tags seems silly at best. Phil Sandifer 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, to begin with your statement on representation of the film as a biography of a man who suffered from schizophrenia. That it is based on a biography and thus the events of the film or merely events of a true life. Thus, the events presented in the article are true and thus are not spoilers. This may be true if we were writing an article on John Nash, or the biography. However this an article on the film and the presence of these events 'when speaking of the film and the film alone (which what we are doing here) are spoilers. Simply remove the biography source from the equation, and the events are now spoilers. Why remove the biography source from the equation? Because each article on Wikipedia should stand alone, the article on the book should be written as an article about the book, the article on Nash should be written about a person, and the article on the film should be written as an article about a film.
Your providing reviewers who have revealed the plot twist is not grounds to reveal it ourselves. We can easily look to the old "If the reviewers jumped off a bridge..." phrase.
As an encyclopedia we should not seek to reproduce the experience of a viewer of the movie, it is not intended as a substitute for watching the film.
While I agree that the article should not be (and is not) intended as a substitute for watching the film. But, why have spoiler warnings at all then? The point of a spoiler warning is to warn the reader against potential spoilers in a section that it is not clear that they would presented in. It is not as if the Plot section is detailing a play by play of every single scene (which would be a case of substituting for watching the film). Instead we are merely preventing very potential irritation from a reader who wants to read about film making, but does not necessarily want to know a plot twist that happens half-way through the film (if not past). The Filmaker 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'd disagree with you assertion that John Nash is a "household name" even if the film won four Academy Awards. Please remember that "best-selling book" does not mean "all-selling book". "Best-selling" does not automatically mean Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code type numbers. The same goes for the Academy Awards. While very relevant within the industry. A film winning an Academy Award, even for Best Picture, does not automatically make it a seen-by-all film. A seen-by-many, yes, maybe even by-most. But not by all and the minorities should not be disregarded especially considering it is not as if we are talking about the ending to The Empire Strikes Back, a plot twist that is so rooted in pop culture that it is completely pointless to give a spoiler warning. This plot-twist is not nearly as well known as Empire's twist nor any other major plot twist in history. However, it is still a plot twist.
Finally, John Nash is not simply known as a man who overcame schizophrenia. John Nash was famous originally for his work in mathematics. The John Nash article itself lists John Forbes Nash as "American mathematician, Nobel laureate, subject of the book and film titled A Beautiful Mind" While the book and film are mentioned. No mention is made of the schizophrenia. Becuase Nash is a "mathematician who overcame schizophrenia" not the other way around. The Filmaker 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:LS demands that the lead serve as an adequate summary of the article as a whole. In this case, that means that the lead must make mention of John Nash and his story. To leave out Nash's schizophrenia is to needlessly make the lead a less informative lead - the film is best described as "a depiction of Nobel Prize winning mathematician John Nash's struggle with schizophrenia," or some similar language. Phil Sandifer 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the policy does not state anything for articles on media works that include spoilers (which it should). Thus the policy can only be used in a subjective sense. You are saying that the film is actually, as it turns out, to be about Nash's struggle with schizophrenia. However, ask yourself if the article on a film that ended with "it was all a dream", should include that information in the lead. That's how turns out, doesn't it? The Usual Suspects ending (spoiler warning look out) shows that the main character is actually a serial killer covering his tracks. Should that be displayed in the lead synopsis? That's how it turns out. Finally, the lead inside film articles is intended to carry a synopsis. Which is traditionally believed to not carry major spoilers. The Filmaker 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to suggest that our policy of giving a well-written overview of the subject in the lead should be trumped by concern for spoilers? Because if so, I am not sure this is the right project for you. Phil Sandifer 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am suggesting that there is no policy to begin with. As in the policy itself does not state specifically how spoilers in media works should be handled. Thus it is subjective. The bit on the film detailing John Forbes Nash's life is perfectly satisfactory at explaining the concept of the film. By the same logic, we should state that "The Empire Strikes Back" synopsis should be akin to "Luke Skywalker flees the Empire has his father desires to turn him to the dark side." Because the synopsis would "less informative" otherwise. The Filmaker 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Spoilers and spoiler warnings should not be used in articles on non-fictional subjects says it all. While there are fictional elements in this film, as there are in all biographical movies, the subject matter depicted was real. --Tony Sidaway 13:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You are acting as though having only fictional elements completely abstains it from the policy. The fact is that this is an article on a media work, and this how media works are handled. You have completely disregarded my previous comment on this subject. The Filmaker 14:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In the context of the person Nash, the events are not spoilers as no event in someone's life is a "spoiler". In the context of the book, I don't believe it is written in the style of non-fiction novel and thus it is simply stating the facts, thus events are not spoilers. In the context of the film however, we are talking about a fictional work that was inspired by the book and the life. A good article on any film treats it's spoilers with respect and gives spoiler warnings in advance of the information. The fact of what the film is based or inspired by is irrelevant. The Filmaker 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the film is based on a man's life is not a spoiler, in any case. Which facts exactly do you think are spoiler here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, did you read the section? Your answers are very clear if you do this. The Filmaker 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also observe that the notion that Wikipedia has any business routinely notifying of so-called "spoilers" in articles no longer enjoys consensus and is no longer considered part of any guideline or policy. The use of spoiler tags has long been seen as an exception to our general no disclaimers in articles guideline, and lately this exception has found acceptance less and less often. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to discuss whether spoiler tags should be allowed or not, you should take this discussion to the corresponding talk page. Not putting your own personal belief into action without consensus (granted, even there isn't one either way). The Filmaker 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. This is the correct page to discuss the matter. There is no consensus for the tag. If you somehow believe that Wikipedia policy suggests that a tag should be placed here, you are mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that somebody compared this to The Usual Suspects, above, and managed to keep a straight face while doing so. Bravo, I applaud your performance... but we are describing the most general, overarching element of this film's plot, not spoiling any sort of surprise ending, and I remain boggled why anyone would be surprised to find plot descriptions when reading Wikipedia. If one doesn't want to know about a subject, an encyclopedia is really just about the last place one should be looking, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
One may want to know about an element of the subject, but not a subject in it's entirety. Do you always seek out certain articles to find out everything about it? Or do you go there for specific reasons and intentions? By the majority, I seek out certain articles for certain reasons. As for The Usual Suspects, the most general overarching element of that film's plot is what is revealed of the surprise ending. Probably even more so than this film. The revelation of the possibility of schizophrenia is made half-way through the film, and the final confirmation (as in the audience is completely sure that Nash has the disease) isn't even made until three-quarters through the film.
If you somehow believe that Wikipedia policy suggests that a tag should be placed here, you are mistaken.
I more believe that you are mistaken in that this is not a non-fiction article. This is a fictional film based on a true story. It is not a documentary, and it does not use actual footage. Very little of the film in fact is actually completely true, only pieced together Nash's actual life. If anything the film has elements of non-fiction, not the other way around. The film even goes by "Inspired by" rather than "Based on". But even without that evidence, you're basically saying that a film based on real life is celluloid real life? By the same logic, a film based on a book is a simply a visual book. If you want apply policies and reasonings of other subjects, than we have to apply the other reasonings vice versa. If we're going to say that this is non-fiction, we're saying it's real life. If we're saying it's real life, than it's not a film. Therefore it shouldn't be formatted like the other film articles. The same goes for the book. If a film is based on a book. Does that make it literature? The Filmaker 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This argument would make a lot more sense if the film weren't universally described as featuring Nash's struggle with schizophrenia... – Luna Santin (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for that? The Filmaker 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
See above, it's already been established. Unless you'd care to provide any significant counter-examples? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess Luna is referring to my quotation from the summary on the Guardian's website and my quotation from the Oregon Herald. I really have not noticed, nor have I heard of, any reliable sources discussing the movie that do not state clearly that the subject is the mathematician John Nash and identify him as a schizophrenic. And here, if there be any doubt, is Roger Ebert's opening paragraph:
The Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash Jr. still teaches at Princeton, and walks to campus every day. That these commonplace statements nearly brought tears to my eyes suggests the power of "A Beautiful Mind," the story of a man who is one of the greatest mathematicians, and a victim of schizophrenia. Nash's discoveries in game theory have an impact on our lives every day. He also believed for a time that Russians were sending him coded messages on the front page of the New York Times.
No the film was never represented as fiction. Yes it has always been a film about a real, living human being who is known to suffer from schizophrenia. Yes, the biographer and the screenwriter both wrote about this subject uncompromisingly, albeit without the kind of omniscience that would protect them from criticism for their human failings. Rotten Tomatoes presents as a "critical consensus the following statement:
The well-acted A Beautiful Mind is both a moving love story and a revealing look at mental illness.
This really does seem to be a very common view (at least, the mental illness thing--the love story angle is less well established). There could perhaps be outposts of people in the Outer Hebrides who never heard of John Nash or think "A Beautiful Mind" is that one with Kirsten Dunst and Jim Carrey. Those people will probably not be too surprised to learn that their disengagement from popular culture has minor side-effects, such as not understanding what someone means when they say "D'Oh!" And you know what? That's cool. Knowing or not knowing the facts about X, Y or Z never made anybody a better person. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I will comply, but not because of your belief on the "non-fiction article". I believe that the fact that the subject of the subject is non-fiction, does not make the subject specifically non-fiction. But I digress, with further research it does appear that Luna Santin is correct in that the film is most often known as the movie about schizophrenia. It shouldn't be, but I don't control that. The Filmaker 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination successful

Congratulations, this article meets all of the GA criteria. My only suggestion is that, if you wish to improve the article further, then the lead could be expanded and a few more references added. I wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is possibly one of the best written movie articles I have seen. Does anybody know if that device they placed in his arm was actually real? It said something along the lines that they knew its carbon dating, and I wandered if the governemtn did ever use such things. --Chickenfeed9 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)