WITH HONORS: FROM THE LENS OF MARXISM Jiolito Luzano Benitez

T

his paper is an attempt to view the film, With Honors, in the light of Marxist film theory. Marxist film criticism, which is broad and has many branches, is basically based on Karl Marx’s (1818-1883) Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie(Capital: Critique of Political Economy, 1867).Fundamentally, Marxist criticism views a literary work as a contingency of human labor in which the creator underscores the role of class and reflects the ideology that challenges the status quo social order (http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com).

Synopsis of With Honors

Produced in 1994, the film, With Honors,written by William Mastrosimone and directed by Alek Keshishian, is a touching tale of Monty (Brendan Fraser), a Harvard student, whohad to make an arduous choice between living with honorand graduating with honors.

One night, a power outage destroyed Monty’s thesis file on the computer. Fortunately, he had saved one hard copy.Extremely anxious about having only one copy, he hurried to produce several copies. Accidentally, the lone copy fell down a ledge and went through the slats to the boiler room where it reached the hand of Simon Wilder (Joe Pesci), a homeless man living there. Simon promised to return Monty’s thesis, one page at a time, in exchange of certain favors.

The incident would change the lives of the two forever. Monty took care of Simon’s needs and failing health while Simon became a father figure to Monty and provided a balance to his excessively academic outlooks. The relationship that evolved became a testament to the paramount importance of friendship and honor in life. Monty opted to lead an honorable life over graduating with honors. The choice fits well with Harvard’s motto: Veritas!

Marxist Criticismand With Honors

Marxist criticism tends to favor cinemas of popular front and themes that deal with class conflict, class distinction, and subordinates aesthetic elements to the final political and social meaning of literature(Forsyth 1997; www.iep.utm.edu). This type of criticism focuses on the ideological content -values and assumptions- of the work in terms of power, class, race, and culture. Marxist critics avow that literature is essentially political because a film, for instance, either supports or challenges economic inequality and oppression. The critic’s goal is not limited to clarifying these issues but also to rectifying social injustices(www.profdutterer.com).Moreover, Marxist criticism place premium on the content of the film, particularly the themes, rather than on its formal qualities.

The movie, With Honors, is a representation of the subtle polarization of the proletariat represented by Simon Wilder, the boiler room occupant, and bourgeois represented by Monty and Harvard.  Monty lives and speaks in academic elitism while Simon, who lives in squalid poverty, speaks about the profound truths and realities of life. The elite are tied with capitalism which is associated with ideologies that buttress the infrastructures of economic inequalities and injustice.The poor are clients of dehumanization and manipulation.

              Monty’s losing his thesis symbolizes the untenability of capitalism in the narratives of humanism and social justice. Simon’s accidental hold of the lost thesis coincides with Marxism eloquence and ideological profundity for social ideals and transformation. The free, dialogical encounter between Monty and Simon brings about this change, this transformation that servesthe universal ends of humanity. Friendship and honor are far more desirable than graduating with honors. To graduate with honors does not necessarily make one honorable!

To borrow Hegel’s formula, Monty’s thesis and his losing it corresponds to the Hegelian thesis of capitalism; Simon’s finding Monty’s thesis augurs the period of socialist relevance; and, Simon’s and Monty’s vital entanglement ushers the era of communism.

The film’s challenge is: to graduate with honors at the expense of humanity (critique of capitalism) or to affirm true friendship and honor at the expense of academic honors.

The film’s themes of honor and friendship vis-à-vis rigid overly academicworld-view are ordinate elements while its aesthetic dimensions become subordinate concerns. Hence, the predominance of content in the film suits well with Marxist criticism.

Works Cited

“With Honors Synopsis.” http://www.fandango.com September 30, 2011

“With Honors” http://www.ahafilm.info/movies/moviereviews.phtml?fid=6785October  2, 2011

Socialistregister.com/index.php October 2, 2011.

Marxism, Film and Theory: From the Baaricades to Postmodernism.

“Marxist Literary Theory”www.iep.utm.edu. October 2, 2011.

“Marxist Theory” http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com October 2, 2011

NIGHTS IN RODANTHE: WITHIN THE BREADTH OF FEMINISTIC PARADIGM by: Violeta B. Felisilda

The movie is a vicarious experience. It is a substitute for so-called "real" life. And yet, this illusion can move one's soul. It can place one on the beaches of Normandy with shells exploding and bullets whizzing through the air. It can place one on another planet facing alien forms of intelligent life. The movie is a fantasy, a distilled form of imagination. We know where we are physically in reality. But if a movie is good, our mind is somewhere else. And if a movie is excellent, our spirit has also been released. On some occasions a movie can be incredible. In such an instance our soul can he transformed (Bauu). But, before these things are experienced by the spectators, the movie underwent the rudiments of film making and in the process, got into the realm of film theories.

One of the movies which basked in the basics of film production and film theories is Nights in Rodanthe, a loose adaptation of the novel with the same title written by Nicholas Sparks. This paper endeavors to lay out a theoretical analysis of the film, Nights in Rodanthe in the feminist perspectives of egalitarian liberal feminism and the feministic views of Laura Mulvey and Budd Boetticher.

Haskell and Rosen uphold “that feminism is a social movement which has had an enormous impact on film theory and criticism. Cinema is taken by feminists to be a cultural practice representing myths about women and femininity, as well as about men and masculinity. Issues of representation and spectatorship are central to feminist film theory and criticism” (qtd. in Cook 491). The feminist film theory (“Feminist Film Theory”) is theoretical film criticism derived from feminist politics and feminist theory. Feminists have many approaches to cinema analysis, regarding the film elements analysed and their theoretical underpinnings.

Egalitarian liberal feminism conceives of freedom as personal autonomy — living a life of one's own choosing — and political autonomy — being co-author of the conditions under which one lives. Egalitarian liberal feminists hold that the exercise of personal autonomy depends on certain enabling conditions that are insufficiently present in women's lives, or that social arrangements often fail to respect women's personal autonomy and other elements of women's flourishing. They hold also that women's needs and interests are insufficiently reflected in the basic conditions under which they live, and that those conditions lack legitimacy because women are inadequately represented in the processes of democratic self-determination (“Liberal Feminism”).

Laura Mulvey is best known for her essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", written in 1973 and published in 1975 in the influential British film theory journal Screen. Prior to Mulvey, film theorists such as Jean-Louis Baudry and Christian Metz had attempted to use psychoanalytic ideas in their theoretical accounts of the cinema, but Mulvey's contribution was to inaugurate the intersection of film theory, psychoanalysis, and feminism (“Laura Mulvey”). In considering the way that films are put together, many feminist film critics have pointed to the "male gaze" that predominates in classical Hollywood filmmaking. Budd Boetticher summarizes the view thus: "What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance." Laura Mulvey's germinal essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” expands on this conception of the passive role of women in cinema to argue that film provides visual pleasure through scopophilia, and identification with the on-screen male actor. She asserts: “In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness,”  and as a result contends that in film a woman is the "bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning." Mulvey identifies three "looks" or perspectives that occur in film which serve to sexually objectify women. The first is the perspective of the male character on screen and how he perceives the female character. The second is the perspective of the spectator as they see the female character on screen. The third "look" joins the first two looks together: it is the male audience member's perspective of the male character in the film. This third perspective allows the male audience to take the female character as his own personal sex object because he can relate himself, through looking, to the male character in the film (“Feminist Film Theory”).

Nights in Rodanthe is a story about honesty, compassion, patience, hope, sincerity, generosity, and love, woven in the episodes of loving someone and decision-making involving Adrienne Willis and Paul Flanner. It is produced by Denise Di Novi and directed by George C. Wolf.  Originally written as a novel by Nicholas Sparks, it is written for screenplay by Ann Peacock and John Romano (Nights in Rodanthe). Adrienne Willis (Diane Lane) was left by her husband Jack (Christopher Melon), for another woman. Then, when Jack fetched their children, Amanda (Mae Whitman) and Danny (Charlie Tahan) to spend the weekend with him, he told Adrienne that he wanted to move back home. Confused, Adrienne headed to a bread-and-breakfast inn near the beach in Rodanthe to tend it for the owner, Jean (Viola Davis) who was her best friend. Since it was off-season, there was only one guest, a recently divorced surgeon, Dr. Paul Flanner (Richard Gere). He was a very successful surgeon who just sold his home and practice. He was traveling to sort out personal problems, one of which involved his son, Mark (James Franco) who was a doctor in Ecuador.  He dropped by Rodanthe upon the request of Robert Torrelson (Scott Glen). Robert’s wife Jill (Linda Moloy) died after Paul performed a meningioma operation on her. At the inn, Adrienne and Paul got to know each other and in the middle of a major storm had fallen in love with each other. Then, each of them had to continue with their own lives; Paul had to see his estranged son in Ecuador and Adrienne had to go back to her children. The months went by with just letters sustaining the relationship, fortifying the love they had for each other.  They planned to celebrate Christmas together.  The day came for Paul to arrive. Adrienne had everything ready but there was no Paul. He died in Ecuador in a major mudslide.

Manifestations of the egalitarian liberal feminism are embedded in some of the elements of the movie’s plot.  Likewise, Mulvey and Boetticher’s feministic perspectives are demonstrated in some scenes. In the exposition, Jack did not seem to consider Adrienne’s bruised feminine ego when he casually informed her that he wanted to go back home.  Later, in the rising action while Adrienne was at the inn, he talked on the phone as if what he did to Adrienne was just a simple pinch on the skin. Adrienne stood her ground on not going back on the road with her husband.  Her teenage daughter, Amanda, hurled painful words at her and didn’t understand her decision until the denouement. She told her children that she can’t be a wife to their Dad anymore, went further to convince Amanda to trust her decision.  Adrienne’s characterization features the egalitarian liberal feminism’s concept of freedom as personal autonomy-living a life of her own choosing as Adrienne is the co-author of the events that involve her husband and her children.  This concept is again reflected in a form of an advice when Adrienne and Amanda had a talk in the falling action of the movie. Adrienne said:

I know you've only ever known your father and me. And I love Jack, because he is your father. But there's another kind of love, Amanda. One that gives you the courage to be better than you are, not less than you are. One that makes you feel that anything is possible. I want you to know that you could have that. I want you to hold out for it.  (Nights in Rodanthe)

One of the enabling conditions of the egalitarian liberal feminism is personal autonomy under which is “fairness in personal relationships” (“Liberal Feminism”). This was portrayed in the plot’s conflict when Adrienne made love with Paul while they were holing up during the storm.  This was further portrayed in the falling action when Adrienne chose to be exchanging letters with Paul and when she agreed to celebrate Christmas with him. Moreover, Cornell (“Liberal Feminism”) supports an egalitarian liberal feminist theory — focused on the right to intimate and sexual self-determination — that is explicitly grounded in Kant’s moral theory. Kant (“Immanuel Kant”) upholds that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather is only the good will itself. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This law obliges one to treat humanity – understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others – as an end in itself rather than (merely) as means to other ends the individual might hold.

Being left for another woman, Adrienne suffered the blows. What Jack did was devastating not only to her role as a wife and mother, but also as a woman.  She dealt with Jack’s betrayal by being busy, by doing things which refrained her from thinking about herself, and in the process, she forgot who she really was. Paul awakened in her, feelings and desires she chose to put at bay.  Spending time with him made her realize not only her mistakes of the past but also of how she would deal with her future which was still up for grabs. It dawned on her that she had to regain the self that she had lost by living a life expected of her by others. Adrienne knew that she had all the rights to be in a relationship again, that she was free to give herself a second chance at love.  She realized that it was her responsibility to truly live again and she believed that she still had good chances in the future. She told Paul that:

             When Jack left me, it wasn't just our marriage ending. It was the loss of all the hopes that I'd had for the future. I tried to move on, but the world didn't seem that interested in me anymore. Then you came along, and helped me believe in myself again. (Nights in Rodanthe)

Cornell (28) elaborates on Adrienne’s feelings when she agrees on the two grounds of liberalism that 1) we are all equal worth as persons and 2) that we are all uniquely responsible for our own lives.  Cornell observes that the second principle is particularly important to feminists who often obscure the responsibility in their lives. She further says that it is not surprising because if women are not regarded as free, how can they be responsible?

        Personal autonomy is one of the aspects that the egalitarian liberal feminism upholds.  Among its enabling conditions is having access to options. Pearce, Smith and Cudd mention feminization of poverty, stereotyping, sex discrimination, and cultural homogeneity as reasons why women’s access to options is frequently and unfairly restricted (“Liberal Feminism”). After the storm, Adrienne knew that her son had an asthma attack and had been rushed to the hospital. It was the first attack that she was not with him.  She pointed out her frustration regarding access to options when Paul advised not to blame herself for not being with her son.  Adrienne answered:

Well, I do blame myself. There was one thing that I thought I got right...it's being a good mother. I can't just do whatever I want to, whenever I want to, you know? Maybe that works for you, but it doesn't work for me. I'm sorry, I just- I can't.  (Nights in Rodanthe)

Mulvey’s “three” perspectives are aesthetically portrayed in Nights in Rodanthe. The first perspective centers upon Paul as a male actor on screen and how he perceives Adrienne. When Paul came to Rodanthe upon the request of Robert, he did not expect to meet Adrienne, to admire her, and to fall in love with her. He told her:

I know you're hurting because you weren't there with your son last night. But I want you to know that I envy what you have. Your kids are very fortunate they have someone who loves them as much as you do, someone who tries so hard. And any man is a fool who doesn't know how incredibly lucky he is to have you. (Nights in Rodanthe)

Furthermore, in his letters (Nights in Rodanthe) Paul wrote:

…saying goodbye to you was the hardest thing I've ever had to do and I know I'll never do it again.   I'm gonna look at our time apart as a chance to get to know you even better than I do.

…I never would’ve believed one weekend would change my life.

Paul’s character development portraying his love for Adrienne in his letters points out to what Mulvey calls the woman as the “bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning.” In the case of the feminist film critics, it indicates what Boetticher summarizes that what “counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance.” These concepts are featured in the unsent letter of Paul that Adrienne read after his death. Paul wrote:  

In a few days we'll be together again. I can't wait to meet Danny and Amanda, walk on our beach and spend another night in the Blue Room with you in my arms. But most of all, I can't wait for our life to begin together. Thank you for showing me that it wasn't too late. All I can do to repay you is promise to love you forever. And I do. (Nights in Rodanthe)

Moreover, the scenes featuring the flat characters come around to project what Boetticher claims as what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. In the exposition and rising action, Jack pleaded his love to Adrienne, asked for her forgiveness and wanted to come back home. Likewise, when Paul and Robert had a talk in the climax, the latter told of his love and appreciation for his wife for 43 years. These episodes also get into the line with what Mulvey posits of the woman as the bearer of meaning. Mulvey’s claim is further demonstrated when Adrienne met Mark after Paul’s death and he said, “Because of you he was a changed man. You gave me back my father.  You saved him” (Nights in Rodanthe).

Mulvey’s view of the woman’s appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact to connote to-be-looked-at-ness is sustained in a film review on Nights in Rodanthe featured in The Telegraph (Film Reviews) which commented on Diane Lane: 

That's not to say Lane herself does anything wrong. Here, as always, she is a remarkably sympathetic presence, of appeal to women and to men alike, radiating a beauty that seems approachable rather than aloof, natural rather than expensively manufactured.

She has a face that expresses sorrow, curiosity, delight. When she's thinking hard, you can see the lines on her forehead, something impossible for many younger, Botoxed actresses.

                      Diane Lane: a fortysomething sex symbol

Moreover, the attraction that Adrienne and Paul had upon each other coupled by their acts of lovemaking during the nights spent in Rodanthe are indications of Adrianne’s to-be-looked-at-ness. Paul mentioned in one of his letters that nothing can compare to the peaks and valleys that he traced along the map of Adrienne’s body.

The episodes of Nights in Rodanthe reflect life experiences.  Some men or women could relate with Paul or Adrienne.  In the case of women, they will gain insights on how Adrienne came to embrace the things that happened in her life with a brave and optimistic heart. Taking into consideration, Melvey’s third perspective, the male audience will be given a chance to take Adrienne as their own personal sex object because they can relate themselves with Paul’s character. They can also relate with the roles performed by Jack and Robert; emphasizing on how Jack viewed Adrienne as portrayed in the exposition and how Robert thought of his wife in one of the scenes in the climax.   Mulvey’s perspectives on spectatorship are supported by Metz (qtd. in McCabe 25) who asserts that cinema involves us the imaginary. Nowhere is the artificial state of regression so effectively initiated than in a darkened auditorium where the inactive spectator-subject becomes captivated by moving images. He argues that the cinema screen operates as another type of mirror taking us back to the imaginary (a founding moment in which the origins of subjectivity are formed in the subject).  The immobility of the film viewing experience lifts psychic controls and lifts the spectator into an infantile state where fantasy remains unchecked. Invoking the mirror analogy allows him to identify the cinema screen as another site where the subject takes pleasure in the completeness of a projected image.  What happens on screen implicates the spectator in a unique play of imaginary presence (perceptual experiences - fantasies, dreams, illusions) and real absence (what is represented but not really there) similar to the illusionary (pleasurable) unity experienced by the child in the mirror phase.

This paper does not emphasize on the movie aspects to make feminism appear like a balm to a woman’s wounded ego or an award to put women on a pedestal as this emphasizes on how the men in the movie reacted to the female presence.  Since feminism is the focal point of this theoretical analysis, it shuns discussions from the vantage point of the female gaze. In fact, it is worthy to note that if Paul loved Adrienne, it was fairly reciprocated.  If Robert loved his wife, it was returned by his wife’s desire to be pretty for him and she even died in the process. In like manner, Adrienne still loved Jack as the father of her children.

Movies broaden our exposure to life and provide alternate interpretations of life’s meaning and significance. Values and images are formed in response to life’s experiences, with movies providing the data of countless new stories (Johnston). Nights in Rodanthe might lack enough representations of feminist perspectives and might have goofs and bloopers, but, in one way or another, within the sphere of feminism, it can broaden one’s insights in making decisions, in doing things to make one peaceful and happy, and in giving oneself another chance of enjoying the kaleidoscope of loving someone and being loved.

WORKS CITED:

Books

Cook, Pam. The Cinema Book. London: British Film Institute, 2007.

Cornell, Drucilla. At the Heart of Freedom:  Feminism, Sex and Equality.USA: Princeton University, Press, 1998.

McCabe, Janet. Feminist Film Studies: Writing the Woman Into Cinema. USA: Wallflower Press, 2004.

Electronic Sources

Baehr, Amy R., "Liberal Feminism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. 15 October 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/feminism-liberal/>

“Feminist Film Theory.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. 18 October 2011.

          15 October 2011.  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_film_theory>.

“Immanuel Kant.” New World Encyclopedia. 12 August 2011.

         16 October 2011. < http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/

         Immanuel_Kant>.

Johnston, Robert K. Reel Spirituality. Theology and Film in Dialogue.USA:  Baker Academic, 2006. Google Books. http;//books.google.com.ph/books?id=

        WB21MHe-NfQC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=. 16 October 2011.

“Laura Mulvey.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. 10 October 2011.

       15 October 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mulvey>.

Nights in Rodanthe. Dir. George C. Wolf. Perf.  Richard Gere, Diane Lane. Village Roadshow Pictures, 2008. DVD.

“Review:  Nights in Rodanthe.” The Telegraph. 10 October  2008.

16 October  2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/3561916/

Review-Nights-in-Rodanthe.html>.

The Bauu Institute. June 2011.American Indian Information. 16 October 2011. <http://www.bauuinstitute.com/Publishing/MoviesMeaningLife.html>.

Psychoanalytic Film Theory on ‘A Beautiful Mind’ by: Elsie L. Dajao

A one hundred peso question is raised…What exactly is psychoanalytic film theory?

Psychoanalytic film theory is an approach that focuses on unmasking the ways in which the phenomenon of cinema in general, and the elements of specific films in particular, are both shaped by the unconscious. Whose unconscious? This is where things get a little tricky. The unconscious studied by psychoanalytic film theory has been attributed to four different agencies: the filmmaker, the characters of a film, the film's audience, and the discourse of a given film.  Psychoanalysis applied in literature, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, religion and mythology incited the interest of a public that had no inclination towards the clinical realm. Despite its relatively late development, it has become one of the most widely practiced theoretical approaches to cinema studies today. This is largely owing to the fact that psychoanalysis and film technology were born in the same era, and essentially grew up together. Thus, as cinema quickly came to focus on ways of rendering subjective experiences--the innermost psychological depths of the characters it portrayed--it naturally drew upon the newest conception of subjectivity offered in the field of psychology, namely the psychoanalytic conception of it. A great many films from the first half of the 20th Century accordingly drew upon such psychoanalytic concepts.

Today, one of the known examples of such movie which makes use of this psychoanalytic theory is the movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” an unbelievable journey into one man's reality directed by Ron Howard. Nominated for eight Academy Awards, and winner of four Oscars including Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind is one of the premier dramas of the decade. The brainchild of popular director Ron Howard (Opie from The Andy Griffith Show), A Beautiful Mind debuted to widespread critical acclaim due to the depth of its screenplay, the brilliant performances of Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly, and the in-depth portrayal of a victim of mental illness. Based on the true story of John Nash, a schizophrenic mathematical genius who overcame his illness and went on to win the prestigious Nobel Prize for his "Game Theory," A Beautiful Mind is one of the best films of the decade. The following lines extracted from the movie ’A Beautiful Mind’ speak that the concepts of psychoanalysis have been applied to his film ( Lipovetsky, 2009).

“Imagine if you suddenly learned that the people, the places, the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?” -Dr. Rosen,

A Beautiful Mind is a truly beautiful movie, and it should not be missed by anyone of proper age to appreciate its beauty. Here, the film viewer is seen as the subject of a ”gaze” that is largely “constructed” by the film itself where what is on screen becomes the object of that subject’s desire. This psychoanalytical movie is about a schizophrenic mathematician named “John Nash”, who spends all of his days trying to find a revolutionary discovery/formula that will change life. The irony, is that life doesn’t work out if we try to solve it like an equation. It is only when we let go and let life happen to us, that we will find our true happiness. The Beautiful Mind is an exaggerated tale of this law, and how terrible life can get if you try to solve its nonexistent formula.

John Nash (Russell Crowe), is an awkward man, not good in social situations, but an amazingly talented mathematician. A young mathematical genius, he enjoys the early success of a budding career in academia. Able to complete mathematical formulas that baffle many of the greatest minds of his time, a young Nash stands on the brink of profound discovery with a limitless future and seemingly inevitable fame at his doorstep. Meeting a beautiful girl at an evening party, Alicia (Jennifer Connelly) would later become Nash's wife. The two seem destined for a life of bliss. But Nash's problems were not confined to the mathematical arena. He is so good, in fact, that he spends most of his time trying to find a revolutionary discovery in mathematics. I like to think of it as a “Life formula”, or a discovery that will never happen. The twist of the movie, which happens about halfway through, is that Nash is suffering from a severe form of schizophrenia, and half of the situations/places that exist in his life, are only part of his “beautiful” mind. Suffering from schizophrenia, Nash develops an acute sense of paranoia, decoding encrypted non-existent Soviet spy messages from comic books and newspaper advertisements. The reality in which he lives does not exist, and it threatens to tear apart his marriage, his career, and the very life which he holds dear. Can Nash overcome his debilitating disease and pursue the course of excellence to which he once seemed destined?

The cast and crew of A Beautiful Mind allow us to see a whole new world through the eyes of suffering genius. A Beautiful Mind is an unbelievable journey into one man's reality. Russell Crowe's brilliant portrayal of the schizophrenic Nash and Jennifer Connelly's standout performance as the woman who loved him form an onscreen synergy that continually drives the screenplay of A Beautiful Mind. Exhibiting quality direction from Ron Howard, the film stands as an eternal testament to the beauty of the human mind and the durability of the human spirit to overcome obstacles and shine at its brightest. One imaginary character that he creates is his roommate, Charles. Nash gets along very well with Charles, which makes the audience suspicious from the start, seeing that John Nash doesn’t really get along well with anyone else. The other character that Nash creates is named Parcher, who is working to solve a conspiracy case of an atomic bomb threat towards the U.S. When the conspiracy situation goes wrong in Nash’s head, that is when he is in need of mental help. He is taken into a psychiatric hospital, and receives intense treatment. Upon returning home, the visions are suppressed, but so is every aspect of John Nash’s beautiful mind. He no longer can think right, feel right, or act right. He stops taking the medication, and loses another battle with his schizophrenia. Instead of going back to the hospital, he tries to battle the hallucinations on his own. This is the turning point of the movie, where Nash learns how to really live his life.

Nash learns that life is more than making a discovery, or solving an equation. There is love and emotion involved; A wife, taking care of your baby, and the everyday joys of life. Instead of focusing his time on himself, John decides to go back to teaching classes, and shares his amazing knowledge with his students. All this, while ignoring the characters that took over his mind. This is where an amazing inspirational quote is mentioned by John Nash, which I will mention here:

Josh Lipovetsky extracted these lines:

  Are the hallucinations… gone?” “No, but I’ve gotten used to ignoring them, and as a result, they’ve kind of given up on me. I think that’s sorta what it’s like with dreams and nightmares. We’ve gotta keep feeding them for them to stay alive” -John Nash, A Beautiful Mind

The quote above is one of the most credible and inspirational quotes I have ever heard. Dreams will gradually disappear, if we do not focus on them, and take constant action towards them. Nightmares will continue, as long as we feed them our attention. John Nash wins a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the movie, for his contributions to society. A Beautiful Mind is a movie about the importance of enjoying every day of life, and not getting caught up in ridiculous theories or fantasies for a future that may never be. If we don’t focus on the present moment, it may be the biggest regret in our life. Embrace life each day, don’t embrace a fantasy world.

A fascinating film which successfully blurs the lines between John Nash's imagination and the world of reality, A Beautiful Mind vividly illustrates one man's struggle against great odds. As Nash's paranoia and hallucinations collude to blot out the genius of a beautiful mind, the power of the human spirit rallies to great heights - achieving a Nobel Prize and even the immortalization of one's own life in film. Nash should be lauded for his triumph against a paralyzing disease, and Ron Howard should be praised for delivering a cinematic masterpiece that shows us the true beauty of one man's plight. For these reasons and more, A Beautiful Mind is definite must-see film - perhaps one of the fifty best films of all time.

Finally, A Beautiful Mind is a touching, emotionally charged film detailing the life of a brilliant academic who suffers from schizophrenia. This affliction slowly takes over his mind and we watch as his life crumbles apart around him. He abandons his students, alienates his colleagues and replaces his research with a fruitless and all-consuming obsession. Eventually he is taken into hospital where he is forced, with the help of electric-shock therapy and regular medication, to accept his condition and attempt to repair the shattered fragments of his life.

He succeeds. Of course he succeeds, this is Hollywood and Hollywood likes a happy ending. In this case the happy ending is that, as an old man and after years of struggle, the poor academic is awarded the Nobel Prize. One interesting point though; it's a true story and our hero is none other than John Forbes Nash Jr.

As a young man, John Nash was a mathematical genius. In 1947 he went to Princeton on a Carnegie Scholarship, and after three years had produced a 27-page dissertation for his doctorate in which he greatly expanded the field of Game Theory, transporting it from a position of relative obscurity into one of almost universal relevance.

In the 1920s the father of Game Theory, Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann, had shown that mathematical models could be used to explain the behaviour of players in simple games. His work was limited in scope however, and although interesting, it appeared to be of little practical use.

Nash's dissertation expanded on von Neumann's work, showing how Game Theory could explain complex as well as simple competitive behaviour. It wasn't a comprehensive solution to all game situations, but it did lay the foundations for the huge body of work on Game Theory which has been produced since (Lipovetsky,2005).

Film Review by Gresila Alburo

Synopsis:
The story revolves around an 8-year-old boy who sees a different world. He finds it difficult to match his world of colors kites and animals to that of the others in his age group who are more into studies and homework and always getting into fights and faring badly in school. He has gone from bad to worse, but no one seems to know the reason of his dilemma.
The truth is he is dyslexic. In short, he has a learning disorder marked by impairment of the ability to recognize and comprehend written words.
AUDIENCE:
The particular audience that suited to watch this film are the teachers and parents. They played a very important role in teaching and learning process and also in disciplining the kids and the students. The teachers are the one who act as the second parent in school. They have the responsibility to discipline the pupils or the student. In this film, the teachers did. When Ishaan Awasthi, the main character didn't able to answer the question of the teacher, and so he was punished. As a teacher, we should see to it that we have tried all angels like not just looking into the one side of the problem. We also try to examine ourselves if we really did our best also to help the students learn more from their lessons. Teaching job is complex and many sided. We don't only teach but we also act and do the other responsibility like being a guidance counselor, a mother or father, a friend, a confidante, a playmate and many more. Second group of people are the parents. Learning takes place at home. As parents, we have the responsibility to discipline and teach our children.
AGENTS:
This movie is produced by AAMR Khan Production. An Indian movie that talks about problem of the three concerned persons: teacher, students and parents.
VALUES:
The value of unity, belongingness, self-actualization,cooperation,sympathy and love and affection are all the human values that are being given an emphasis. Unity, love and affection should present and observed in the family. We are happy if we feel that we are loved and cared for. If there is love, there is peace and harmony in our family and even the whole world. Indeed this film is a very good film to watch.

LIKE STARS ON EARTH: A Movie Review

                                                   By: RMPINILI

Name of the Film:                   Like Stars on Earth (Every Child is Special)

                                                Taare Zaamen Par (Hindi Original Title)

Producer and Director:           Aamir Khan

Prominent Actors:                   Aamir Khan (as Ram Shankar Nikumbh)

                                                Darsheel Safary (as Ishaan Awasthi)

Film Genre:                             Drama

Setting:                                    St. Xavier School (Mumbai)

                                                New Era High School

                                                Tulips School for Young Children with Developmental

                                               Disabilities

                                                2007

            The movie which is the directorial debut of Mr. Aamir Khan, an astute Indian actor and producer, has made a mark for Indian films in the international market. The film through Walt Disney has reached the international market and eventually reached the hearts of the millions of people, young and old, who had the privilege of watching the film and were moved by the simplicity of its theme and its magnificent purpose.  It is a journey into India’s landscape portraying Indian culture yet not limited to India for the universality of ideas has gone beyond mere geographical boundaries. 

            The film revolves around the touching journey of an eight-year old boy, Ishaan, who is stricken with dyslexia.  This illness is the root cause why he is performing so poorly in academics and in other things. The boy Ishaan could not be understood by his parents and teachers alike.  Due to lack of training on this special case, they treat him just like any ordinary boy of his age.  They have not entered into the world of the boy for they are not aware about his illness and its complications.   Thus, the boy is labelled with all sorts of names like idiot, moron, lazy, crazy, stupid, and dumb among others.  In short, he is being bullied in this film emotionally as well as physically.  His artistic inclination is overshadowed by his inability to cope with the academic pressures and demands.  The welcome twist is seen through the intercession of an artistic, patient, well-trained, vibrant art teacher who goes beyond what a teacher is supposed to do.  He could understand Ishaan, because he sees himself in him.  Just like Ishaan, he too was once dyslexic.

            Aamir Khan who collaborated in the making of the film The Three Idiots, is a lead actor in this current film under review.  Just like the style of The Three Idiots this film is a mixture of drama and comedy, with drama as the very dominant film genre.  Adding on, the two films are similar in terms of musicality.  Singing and dancing seem to be the trademark of Khan. Both films are lengthy.  In this film, there are more prolonged close-up shots to capture the emotions of Ishaan.  The length is valid since both films attempt to present detailed social issues and realities confronting parents, teachers, students, and members of the society in general.

            The Auteur Theory (http://britannica.com) holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more to be considered the “author” of the movie than is the writer of the screenplay.  In other words, such fundamental visual elements as camera placement, blocking, lighting, and scene length, rather than plot line, convey the message of the film.  Supporters of the Auteur Theory further contend that the most cinematically successful films will bear the unmistakable personal stamp of the director.  While this is truly applicable to what Khan did in the filming of this movie, he did not limit himself to the visual elements alone.  He went beyond them to include the meaning to be conveyed to the target audience.    According to Andrew Sarris (http://wikipedia.org) a director must accomplish technical competence in his technique, personal style in terms of how the movie looks and feels, and its interior meaning.  Francois Truffaut adds that a director promotes a consistent theme that makes his influence unmistakable in the work.  Nonetheless, there were film critics who openly criticized these earlier definitions of auteur theory which tended to emphasize single authorship.   In the book Film Theory and Philosophy edited by Richard Allen and Murray Smith (pages 164-167), the importance of various collaborators in film-making is emphasized.  These collaborators are called artists and they all leave a signature unto the film through actorly performance, directorial trademarks, characteristic concerns of the scriptwriters, and others.  As a critic, I would like to work on the director’s presence in the film, and at the same time open to the idea that any artistic work such as a film will always be a product of collaboration.

            The film authentically reveals the presence of the director’s personal and creative vision.  This is Aamir Khan’s directorial debut, and he was aided in the actual filming process by Amole Gupte, the original director and screenplay writer.  The presence of the director (Aamir Khan) is greatly felt in the film and rightfully he is considered the author of the film in partnership with Gupte who was at his side for assistance.  Several ideas from other critiques (www.wolfpackproductions.com/www.amazon.com/en.wikipedia.org) strengthen this statement.

1.     Amole Gupte and Deepa Bhatia developed the story and invited Khan to work with them both as a producer and actor.  Gupte gave way to Khan to assume his role as the director when Khan noticed a problem in filming the beautifully written script.

2.    There was no other child that Khan wanted to play the role of Ishaan, only Darsheel Safary. He saw the vast potential of the child.  In this aspect, Khan was right in asserting his decision to retain the child as the major actor.

3.    He personally attended to the needs of his child actors.  He wanted them to look and act naturally.

4.    He hired lifeguards when he came to learn that the pond where the children were to play was 15 feet deep.

5.    Khan scrapped the Claymation project when he saw it was not turning the way he wanted it to be.

6.    When the designs of Ishaan’s notebooks did not meet his expectations, he scribbled the notes himself using his left hand so as to show dyslexic writing.

7.     He personally attended to the re-arrangement of the music and to recording them.  He worked on making them fit every given scene.  Even if told that they were very lengthy, he justified his insistence on retaining the length based on their value to the film.

8.    Khan applied illusory camera tricks, but eventually had to remove some of the scenes which contributed to the slowing of the pace as observed during the screen tests conducted.

The adapted ideas from other movie critiques strengthen the fact that in this film, Khan’s presence is greatly felt in every angle either as a movie director or an actor.  Nonetheless, the film is greatly a product of collaboration.

 The 2-hour and 45 minutes running time is too much for a movie that literally follows a very simple plot.  Scenes showing Ishaan sent outside of the classroom, his exploration of the city, the solitary scenes in the boarding school, are a bit long to the extent that these scenes have become overly sentimental and painful.  One will be led to shedding tears.  Yet, I agree with the director that these scenes are necessary to portray Ishaan’s character.   Ishaan’s portrayal of a lot of controlled emotions in several scenes is truly amazing and has justified the scenes’ length.  Similarly, the scene of Khan’s   entrance as the temporary art teacher is also quite long.  The dancing scene is too long.  However, it serves its purpose well enough in the film. It gives the viewers the opportunity to compare and contrast the lively moment with that of Ishaan’s blank reaction to it. Khan’s performance as a director is amazing; as an actor spellbinding.

      The film is not choppy – only there are dull scenes and even unnecessary ones that if cut can contribute to the tautness of the plot.  For example, Khan’s encounter with a little boy vendor and the very long trip that he takes from the boarding school to the house of Ishaan show some scenes that could be remedied.  Even the video clips inserted side by side with the ending rolling credits are no longer necessary.  So much is shown in the film that can make one imagine more about the scenes and sights in India.  The clips only make the heart heavier.  The ending with Ishaan tossed up high on air taken in still shot is enough to drive home the message of hope.

             The schools are well-chosen.  St. Xavier School is a metropolitan school with standards expected to be followed by all its students.  These standards include academic excellence, neatness, discipline, and the like. The other school The New Era High School is a boarding school really typical of how we conceive a boarding school to be with a long line-up of beds, common bathrooms, and a mess hall.  The pond area is specially chosen because it is where Ishaan usually communes with nature.  The vastness of the horizon accentuates that desire to be understood by the big world.  In addition, its stillness reveals the longing of a quiet heart.   The amphitheatre is spacious and in the painting scene it shows the landscape appropriate for such an activity.

             The background music is appropriate.  It allows one to enter into the world of Ishaan with a mysterious feeling.  It stirs up one’s emotion to a certain level which is beyond comprehension.  Songs included in the major scenes were well-written as well as beautifully sang and recorded.  Noteworthy is the background song for Ishaan’s mom that speaks of the longing of a child to be with his mother, who is his shield and protector.  With this background music, Ishaan is shown with one big tear rolling down from his left cheek.  This is one giant scene that has captured my heart.  The tear so small speaks so much of how a child painfully controlled his bursting emotion.  With the lines of the song: “I feel pain no more, I’m numb, All feeling has left me empty, You know everything Mama,” Ishaan’s expression aptly relates to the lines of the song.  The same song is played when the family of Ishaan leaves him and he is seen just standing still near the entrance gate to the boarding school.  In this scene Ishaan is showing just a blank stare on his face, indicative of his numbed feeling.  These are very painful scenes intensified by the suitable background music. Khan is successful in evoking all these emotions through the music which he carefully reviewed.

             Despite its long sequences of scenes and dialogues which have made the movie stretched its running time, in itself the film deserves to receive all the awards it could have.  It may not have reached the Oscar’s, an award-giving body still the film is worth the time one may spend on it.  I have watched the film more than once, still I felt the same painful emotions and I was able to enter into the world of the mother, the teacher, and that of Ishaan’s.  The emotions painted on their faces even in silence are enough to soften one’s heart.  In this film, one can easily empathize with the actors.  The film has reached a proportion that has further elevated the credibility of Aamir Khan as an actor, director, and producer, and rightfully the auteur. The performance of Ishaan leaves a lasting imprint in the heart of the audience. 

WORKS CITED          

Book

Allen, Richard and Murray Smith, Eds. Film Theory and Philosophy.  Great Britain:

          Oxford University Press, 1997.

           Electronic Sources

                 Auteur Theory. Retrieved @ http://britannica.com

                 Auteur Theory.  Retrieved @ http://wikipedia.org

     Film Critiques.   Retrieved @ www.wolfpackproductions.com

       Retrieved @ www.amazon.com

       Retrieved @ en.wikipedia.org