Comments on: Evidence of Fun

By: Makes It All Worth It | Cosmic Variance

Makes It All Worth It | Cosmic Variance — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:05:35 +0000

[...] Next to this group was another group with someone familiar, Pavitra Krisnaswamy (left, below), who was in my electromagnetism class last year. She’s also a Physics major, and you’ll also remember her as one of the students who came on one of the movie-going field trips (to see Proof). She’s been working (with Christin Chong, right, and others) on aspects of Biophysics, in the Pulsed Power Lab of my colleague Martin Gundersen. The project was entitled “An Interdisciplinary Study of the Long Term Effects of Nanosecond Electropulse Therapy for Cancer Treatment”: [...]

By: More Evidence of Fun | Cosmic Variance

More Evidence of Fun | Cosmic Variance — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:47:50 +0000

[...] Where was I? Oh, yes, so went to see the movie. It was clearly going to be a better “performance” of the film if one went along to a place that had a good audience (the Arclight, of course) and maybe with some like-minded friends, so I took some students along on a sort of “field trip”, like I did for Proof last semester (see post here). Admittedly, the connection to mathematics and physics is a bit harder to argue for in this case, but what the hey…. So there was Arnab and Rama from Team cvj, (that’s a sort of in-joke…see Wes Anderson’s wonderful “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”) , and Amy Cassidy from the Condensed Matter Theory group, and she brought along her friend Sam, who is not a student, but a web page architect. (Yes, she did use the word “architect”…. not a mere “designer”, I gather.) Anyway, Sam is probably way hipper than any of us, but she didn’t seem to mind being seen with us for an evening, bless her. [...]

By: Heroic Thinkers and Gardeners | Cosmic Variance

Heroic Thinkers and Gardeners | Cosmic Variance — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 06:41:43 +0000

[...] Went to see it at my favourite movie theatre, the Arclight, which I’ve told you about before (here and here), and it was in the fantastic Cinerama Dome. Another great thing about the Arclight is that theyhave interesting film-related displays in the lobby contributed by the film-makers. Guess what they have on display now? Two of the model sets from the film! [...]

By: Clifford

Clifford — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:18:55 +0000

Richard, so glad you enjoyed it too!

-cvj

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:22:42 +0000

I just saw the movie Proof last night, and I must say that I recommend it. Clifford’s analysis is right on. I might add that all of the written math (briefly viewed) in the movie at least appears realistic, and they even show pages from a real math journal. This isn’t a movie strictly about math or the pursuit of math. The main thrust is about people dealing with tragic events and turns of events, but does this within the a context of academia and passion for math. In the end, it shows mathematicians as real people struggling with life as everyone else does, and this is good. Ultimately, for any movie to be successful, it must have elements of conflict, struggle, pursuit, etc., as these are what make a good story. Although the context of mental illness is important, and touches many real lives including those in academia, it has now been done twice (though in very different ways), and I would hope that we could move on to other stories.

The toxic sister was a complete surprise, and was one of the best performances in the movie. I believe this was who Clifford referred to as the outsider. There is a clue in the story that it may actually be the sister who eventually inherits her father’s problems.

I can guarantee (without really giving anything away, I hope) that even if you correctly guess how the mystery will be resolved, you will still be emotionally moved.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:03:48 +0000

Jim – thanks…nice, for once, to have evidence that I’m not BS-ing. -cvj

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:12:34 +0000

I am one of the mathematicians who was filmed for the movie (word form the US is that both my nose and a hand made it in the final cut), and the woman who was turned away is a good friend of mine. My memory of our conversation (right after the fact) about this is that the assistant director in charge of these things called her on the phone and did indeed tell her that 1. she was very beautful and 2. she looked too much like G.P. to be in the movie. Of course these guys always seemed to be telling people what they wanted to hear, and so who knows why they really turned her down. But having been confused watching movies where there are (say) two white guys in suits with short brown hair, I am at least a little sympathetic. Also, other very attractive women were not turned away. Not sure what political conclusions to draw from all this. I have to say, I find it a little strange they bothered to call her at all. Maybe this is the first time in history that “don’t call us, we’ll call you” actually turned out to be the truth.

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:09:47 +0000

Any male mathematicians from U of C eliminated for being “too glamorous” and potentially distracting from leading men Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal?…just wondering…Apparently Gweneth Paltrow performed in this Tony and Pulitzer-winning play on the London stage, reprising the same role in the film.

One can hear “Proof” director John Madden’s (also directed “Shakespeare In Love”) interview this past week on National Public Radio archives (Sept. 22, Fresh Air).

Look forward to seeing this film – thanks for the review.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:22:52 +0000

Maybe it was not to do with their view of Mathematicians, perhaps they thought they were trying to prevent distractions from the leading lady, Gwyneth Paltrow. These are film-makers after all, and “Hollywood” ones too, so there are certain conventions that must be adhered to. I imagine that one of them is that you don’t distract from the stars in the main frame.

-cvj

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:08:25 +0000

Richard, you think that’s bad? Here is a true story: Proof was filmed in part on location here at the University of Chicago and its Hyde Park environs. In a couple of scenes they used “real mathematicians” from the UofC to add verisimilitude. The filmmakers asked for volunteers for this duty from the math department, which they readily received. But at least one of the volunteers was turned away on account of the fact that she was too glamorous — it didn’t matter that she was a real mathematician, she didn’t look like one.