I just watched "A Beautiful Mind" and then googled John Nash.

[Critters2]

His life has been even more interesting and/or tragic than is shown in the film.

[Hanse]

1. He was a much bigger dick than the movie would have you believe.

At least given his biography.

[Critters2]

2. So it would seem. Really a terrible father,

and complained about having to share the Nobel.



Also lost a job after having been arrested by lewd behavior in a public park.

It's also interesting that he attributes his illness to pressures in his life, and claims that he basically overcame his illness by just deciding to ignore his delusions. I actually know of a 12-step-ish program that claims it can cure people of serious mental illness by teaching them to ignore delusions (NOW, inc). I've always been skeptical.

I guess you can't squeeze everything into 1.5 hours.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Yeah ...

His story, distilled the right way (that would be the way Ron Howard did it) is inspirational, especially to those with similar mental illnesses.

Unfortunately, it only works in the movie.

I could give him a break for the churlish behavior. Part of the source of that behavior was his mental illness. Although, his anti-Semitic behavior seems rather too well constructed and consistent for that to be the case with all things.

Beyond that, what irritates me about him and always will is the very thing you mention. More than simply claiming overcame his illness by the force of his own will -- which I think would be better expressed as by the force of his own arrogance -- he legitimizes these people who like to claim there's nothing really wrong with people who have mental health problems and that things like depression, schizophrenia, etc. are just excuses. Mental health patients, by this line of reasoning, aren't really patients. They don't need medical care. They don't need drugs. They just need a swift kick in the ass.

I guess I'm biased. Back when I was in the worst pit of my depression, I ran into one of these whack jobs at work who made my life a living hell, making it all worse in the end. He cited A Beautiful Mind and, of all things, Forrest Gump as "proof" that I didn't really need medical care and was just slouching off.

[1]

4. movies can be that way, watch "the hurricane" and then go read about rubin "hurricane" carter...

very different stories...

[Deja Q]

5. Bio-pics tend to neaten things up; I'm surprised and appalled that Opie won an award for that flick.

(Reason: It's not much a "bio" as it is just another "pic")

[TZ]

6. They don't give the Oscar out for accuracy but for how well done a movie is

and personally I think that movie DESERVED the academy award. Distorted or not, John Nash's contributions to math and science cannot be understated. I have great respect for his game theory that I learned about in college..Hell, I've patterned my life around his strategy of "tit for tat" behavior. It's a successful behavioral strategy if you ask me.

[Droopy]

7. Please explain the strategy of "tit for tat" behavior

I've never read anything by Nash.

[TZ]

8. Tit for tat is almost exactly as it sounds...

Basically if someone treats you nice..you are nice to them. If someone treats you badly you treat them the same way.
In animal behavior it works like this..if an individual animal is competitve with you for something you compete in the same manner with that individual. If a individual behaves in a cooperative manner than you cooperate with that individual. The math that Nash worked out showed that individuals that behave in tit for tat are more successful than either altruistic or selfish behavior.
I've found that this pattern is the best survival strategy professionally...

[Droopy]

10. Interesting

It seems reactional. It wouldn't work while driving a truck. I'd get a lot of tickets. :)

It makes me think about the way I do things. I don't have any enemies at work. I got into it with one guy over politics one time. He was calling me up and telling me how Obama was going to kill us all. I let him have it one day, though, basically treating him like he had treated me. He doesn't call me anymore to talk about politics. :) We get along much better now. I guess that's one time where tit for tat worked for me.

I'm much more of an altruistic person, though. I'm empathic and there isn't going to be any changing that. It's just the way I'm wired. But I guess that's more of a big picture kind of thing for me- something beyond interpersonal contact.

[hunter]

17. The problem with the strategy is that it is self-fulfilling.

People play by these rules of the game because they know these are the rules of the game.

Big wins (and unfortunately big losses) are achieved outside these rules.

Deer can have a very elaborate tit-for-tat social structure, but the mountain lion watches and waits and often uses it against them.

This happens in human society too. Human predators such as serial killers, child molesting priests, and guys who rape their daughters in basement dungeons, all live in the dark places created by the social rules everyone supposedly lives by.

So do members of certain social groups, for example the corporate oligarchy we suffer under. In our shrinking market the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Game theory is a description of a certain color of play, it is no reflection of the underlying physical reality. People get hurt when the rules they play by do not reflect reality.

I tend to think most modern economic theories are stinking rats nests of arbitrary irrelevancy. In the big picture the disruptions we have caused within the biosphere are exactly equivalent to all the other disruptions of earth's history. Humans are nothing special, and in a million years we're just another interesting layer in the geological record, like banded iron formations or beds of coal.

As humans we can supposedly determine the rules we live by, and make them reflect the reality of our situation. We can supposedly decide to protect the natural environments we find most pleasing, and treat all our fellow humans as equals.

But we don't, and we have a very great ability to rationalize why we don't but those rationalizations are always fresh paint on ugly.

Someday it would be nice if we could simply throw out the ugly.

[Critters2]

18. Girard's mimetic theory, however, holds that relationships

don't stay "tit for tat". The competition builds with each "tat", so that people are ultimately competing for higher and higher "prizes" until someone has to lose. This sense that the competition will not further the community, but shut someone out is according to Girard's observations, the basis for human violence.

[alarimer]

15. He based the "Nash Equlibrium" on game theory.

It's a social dilemma in which both parties have selected a strategy and neither side can change their strategy without ending up in a worse position. The Prisoner's dilemma is one of these situations. Nuclear proliferation is another. Neither side can independently reduce their nuclear arsenal as long as the other side continues to build them. These situation requires people to cooperate in order to get out of these traps.

I am probably oversimplifying this a bit. I have just started reading "Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life" by Len Fisher. He probably does oversimplify this but it helps me understand how people interact. People basically act in self-interest. The secret to resolving social traps is for parties to agree to coordinate their actions and then stick to it. This is why global warming is a seemingly intractable issue. No one person thinks they are contributing much to the problem, but in fact, in their self-interest and refusal to change their ways (because they feel why should they when no one else would) may be dooming us all. It also works on a country-by-country basis. Why should the Chinese reduce their emissions when the US is continuing to pollute?

[Orrex]

9. It's an excellent film from start to finish. That's why he won.

Extraordinary performances, exceptional directing, near-perfect editing, and a very tight script.

One way to identify the high quality of the film is to note that the story still works perfectly once the delusion (the "gimmick") is revealed. The tale is every bit as compelling and interesting even after we learn that Nash is schiziphrenic; in fact, it works even better and stands up to subsequent viewings.

Contrast that with an unremarkable film like The Sixth Sense, which loses almost all of its (dubious) power after the gimmick is revealed.


YMMV, of course, but I find it to be a very good film deserving of its awards.

[Droopy]

12. I liked the film, too

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but from what I remember the delusions and hallucinations are initially portrayed in a way that makes the viewer think that they are reality. That is exactly the way people with psychotic illnesses see their delusions and hallucinations. They don't know that what they are experiencing isn't real. They usually don't even have a clue until that first dose of anti-psychotic hits their brain.

Signed,

Droopy (a guy with a psychotic illness)

[Critters2]

19. That was a really powerful point of the film.

The viewer believed Nash was the spy he believed himself to be. So, it was jarring to the viewer to learn that all of that was delusional. Pretty effective film making.

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. No, it isn't. It's a celebration of mediocre directing. All safe and sound,

nothing risky, nothing interesting.

Not bad, not great.

By sticking to the middle road, Ron Howard ensures he'll never have a train wreck, but also ensures that he'll never have anything inspiring or above average.

Ron "Shoot it right down the middle" Howard.

Nice guy. Boring, uninspired director.

His movies are very Opie-ish.

[Orrex]

25. How about telling us what you find 'interesting' in this context?

Can't really have the discussion until I know where you're coming from.

[swag]

11. That's fucking cornball Ronnie Howard for ya.

Not sure whether I hate his films more than I hate Clint Eastwood's directorial effluents.

[mitchum]

13. I friend of mine says that Howard's "style" is the epitome of the slick...

anonymous sentimental yet soulless Hollywood approach. He is right.

I agree with you about most of Eastwood's work. He churns out what I call "handsome productions" ;thoughtful work for people who don't think very hard. Or, as another friend says, "An Otto Preminger for our times"

[tigereye]

14. I think Eastwood is somewhat less inclined to schlock...

but I've only seen a few of his directorial efforts...



I thought Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil was great, Mystic River was very powerful, Play Misty for Me is wonderfully creepy, and I like the jazz films he did or produced.

[Orrex]

21. Bird was very good

Unforgiven is a magnificent film, singlehandedly serving as the capstone of an entire genre of film.

I found Million Dollar Baby to be very powerful but ultimately a bit sappy.

[tigereye]

24. I just don't care about boxing... so I'm not impressed by most of those films

I don't think he's that bad of a director, from what I have seen.

[ghostsofgiants]

16. The fact he beat out Lynch for best director that year was what solidified my belief that...

The Oscars are a farce.

[Orrex]

20. I could have told you that Mulholland Drive wouldn't win it even while I was sitting in the theater

If they weren't going to pick Blue Velvet, then they certainly wouldn't pick a film even less accessible to the masses.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Howard totally fucking butchered that movie. It could have been brilliant.

Fuckin' Ron, come on, dude.