Adding up the evidence
I saw Proof, with Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jake Gyllenhaal, this week. I'd seen it previously as a live stage production (written by David Auburn) at a regional theatre, and I was interested to see what treatment film director John Madden gave the material. In a word, I thought it was great.
The film stayed very true to the stage play, telling the tale of a young woman named Catherine (Paltrow), who dropped out of college to care for Robert, her mentally ill father (Hopkins) who also happens to be a famous mathematician. After Robert passes away, Catherine (already a little socially awkward), is lost, rambling around his old house by herself. Graduate student Hal requests her permission to sift through the copious notebooks that Robert produced during his decline, hoping to find the next mathematical breakthrough in their pages. Catherine assents, and the two begin a tentative relationship. When Catherine points Hal to a locked drawer in her father's study, he is thrilled to discover a very important, groundbreaking proof that he immediately attributes to her father. When Catherine divulges that she herself wrote it, both Hal and her estranged sister Claire (Hope Davis), who has flown from New York to Chicago to attend the funeral, doubt her assertion. Catherine already fears that, with her father's talent for math, she has also inherited his tendency towards madness. She reacts strongly to the betrayal, and Hal must try to prove that he does have faith in her.
What's interesting about the script is that the audience doesn't know until the end just which of the characters to believe. Did Catherine write the proof, or did she steal it from her ailing father? Did her father still have possession of his faculties in his decline, or was he incapable of writing the proof? Is Hal sticking around because he really likes Catherine, or does he want her to let her guard down just enough to allow him to make off with the mathematical prize he's looking for? This tension makes the film (and the play) work. The material's no slouch. Auburn won both a Pulitzer and a Tony for the play this film is based on.
All the performances in this film were very strong. Paltrow particularly shined, rendering Catherine as shy, awkward, and afraid of her own potential talent/madness. I thought her treatment of the character was very original; I haven't seen her perform in a role like this before. She played this same role to stellar reviews on Broadway, and her reprisal of Catherine in the film is delicate and layered. I really enjoyed her.
I recommend this film for a rainy afternoon of reflection.
The film stayed very true to the stage play, telling the tale of a young woman named Catherine (Paltrow), who dropped out of college to care for Robert, her mentally ill father (Hopkins) who also happens to be a famous mathematician. After Robert passes away, Catherine (already a little socially awkward), is lost, rambling around his old house by herself. Graduate student Hal requests her permission to sift through the copious notebooks that Robert produced during his decline, hoping to find the next mathematical breakthrough in their pages. Catherine assents, and the two begin a tentative relationship. When Catherine points Hal to a locked drawer in her father's study, he is thrilled to discover a very important, groundbreaking proof that he immediately attributes to her father. When Catherine divulges that she herself wrote it, both Hal and her estranged sister Claire (Hope Davis), who has flown from New York to Chicago to attend the funeral, doubt her assertion. Catherine already fears that, with her father's talent for math, she has also inherited his tendency towards madness. She reacts strongly to the betrayal, and Hal must try to prove that he does have faith in her.
What's interesting about the script is that the audience doesn't know until the end just which of the characters to believe. Did Catherine write the proof, or did she steal it from her ailing father? Did her father still have possession of his faculties in his decline, or was he incapable of writing the proof? Is Hal sticking around because he really likes Catherine, or does he want her to let her guard down just enough to allow him to make off with the mathematical prize he's looking for? This tension makes the film (and the play) work. The material's no slouch. Auburn won both a Pulitzer and a Tony for the play this film is based on.
All the performances in this film were very strong. Paltrow particularly shined, rendering Catherine as shy, awkward, and afraid of her own potential talent/madness. I thought her treatment of the character was very original; I haven't seen her perform in a role like this before. She played this same role to stellar reviews on Broadway, and her reprisal of Catherine in the film is delicate and layered. I really enjoyed her.
I recommend this film for a rainy afternoon of reflection.
Comments