Usually when a film is based on a book, the book is better. Occasionally though the movie clearly surpasses its source material; The Wizard of Oz and The Godfather are prime examples. But I can’t think of a single example of a movie based on a play that is clearly better than the original. Theatrical drama does not translate well into cinematic drama.
Proof makes a lousy movie out of what I suspect was a pretty lousy play to begin with. The story deals with the brilliant-but-unstable daughter of a recently-deceased brilliant-but-unstable math professor. The daughter has to deal with her father’s legacy, her father’s worshipful student, and her annoying sister. We have to deal with endless, repetitive speeches from all these people.
The whole film feels elaborately contrived and artificial, from the plot twists, to the dialogue, to the opaque character motivations. Nobody behaves in a realistically human manner. And although the film revolves around a mathematical proof, we never have any idea what it is or why it’s so important. The characters here are so boring that you really do find yourself wishing they’d talk more about math.
The actors are all talented and doing everything they can with such material. Jake Gyllenhaal seems more impressive every time you see him on screen; he totally inhabits every character he plays. Anthony Hopkins couldn’t give a bad performance if he tried. Gwyneth Paltrow is even able to project the emotional urgency of her character through the fog of plot contrivance and stilted dialogue, but we never for one second buy her as a mathematical genius.
The movie feels very stagy and claustrophobic. Director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) never finds a way of getting beyond the theatrical roots of the material. It’s very hard for a movie to create the urgent intimacy that comes naturally to live theater. Proof demonstrates that conclusively.
Proof (2005)
Grade: C-
0 Responses to “Proof”
Leave a Reply