Hollywood Delusions

Vanity

[ValerieUSA]

As I watched the movie I was never struck by the feeling that a true story was unfolding. Despite the promotion of it as a biography about a real man, nothing seemed to escape the fiction realm for me.

Do you know Nash?

[Inyokern]

Do you know Nash?

No, but I read the book. I get the impression not many people have actually read it, including the guy who wrote the script for the movie. It is difficult reading.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Good vanity, thanks for posting it.

I do remember, while watching the movie, being highly suspicious of the entire scene involving the "blonde and brunettes" problem, and how they were attempting to represent Nash's theory as "overturning Adam Smith" and all that. I was suspicious, but not certain. Anyway, it's good to know that my suspicions were correct.

The funny part is, I found the explanation in that scene to be so incomprehensible that I was more giggling than angry at the propaganda attempt. Nash's solution of that particular "blonde and brunettes" problem did indeed make sense in the context of the scene I suppose, but why on earth that line of reasoning as presented in that scene would have caused any real-life mathematician to exclaim "Adam Smith was wrong!" is beyond me. (As if trying-to-pick-up-a-chick-at-a-bar serves as a good analogy for human life..)

They were just laying on the propaganda a little thick, if you ask me.

[Welsh Rabbit]

This movie sounds almost as disgusting as Erin Brochovich(sp?); the story of a bunch parasitic trial lawyers using junk science and a bunch greedy, ignorant slack-jawed yokels for their own personal gain while greatly contributing to California's energy crisis.

[Concentrate]

We just don't give them money. We'll watch a Hollywood movie for free on TV 4 years after, but we don't pay terrorist-sympathizing, anti-Americans for what they do. Been that way for years now.

[Concentrate]

I do remember, while watching the movie, being highly suspicious of the entire scene involving the "blonde and brunettes" problem, and how they were attempting to represent Nash's theory as "overturning Adam Smith" and all that. I was suspicious, but not certain. Anyway, it's good to know that my suspicions were correct.

But you didn't give them money, I hope? If so, you voted for them.

[Welsh Rabbit]

I do remember, while watching the movie, being highly suspicious of the entire scene involving the "blonde and brunettes" problem, and how they were attempting to represent Nash's theory as "overturning Adam Smith" and all that.

While you were pondering this, everyone else in the theatre were wondering, "Who's Adam Smith?". It's sad the name Karl Marx is known to even the dimmist bulb out there, whereas Adam Smith is virtual ignored by all educators outside the Economics department.

[Dr. Frank fan]

While you were pondering this, everyone else in the theatre were wondering, "Who's Adam Smith?".

You know, you're probably right. Which may be a blessing in disguise. If no one in the audience knew who Adam Smith was then the propaganda obviously must have failed to achieve the intended effect :)

[tsomer]

...nor did Nash's theory go against Adam Smith. If Nash's theory went against anything, it was against the pro-socialistic sensibilities of many of his contemporaries at Princeton.

You've restored my respect for Nash. Thanks.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Nash then demonstrates, through the example of the blonde and the four brunettes, that COOPERATIVE, rather than individual enterprise promotes the greater good.

Yes, it's called Game Theory and it is what he won his Nobel Peace Prize for. It's not necessarily at odds with capitalism.

[Inyokern]

While you were pondering this, everyone else in the theatre were wondering, "Who's Adam Smith?".

Good point. And when the Judd Hirsch character tells Nash he is going against 150 years of economic theory, most of the audience probably had no idea what he was talking about.

[Inyokern]

Yes, it's called Game Theory and it is what he won his Nobel Peace Prize for. It's not necessarily at odds with capitalism.

The example of the blonde and the four brunettes is cooperative game theory. That is NOT what Nash won the Nobel Prize for.

[Inyokern]

They were just laying on the propaganda a little thick, if you ask me.

Actually, I thought they laid on the propaganda even thicker with regard to the onset of Nash's illness. I mean, when they say it is 1953 and McCarthy's voice is on the radio, one can reasonably assume something significant happened in 1953, right?

[beckett]

Good post. One comforting thought is that the movie-going public almost certainly didn't pick up on the specious economic theory that was presented. The movie was a hit because of the dramatic rendering of Nash's schizophrenia and the love story angle. I would wager that not one viewer in ten thousand noticed Ron Howard's distortions of the dreary science.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Actually, I thought they laid on the propaganda even thicker with regard to the onset of Nash's illness. I mean, when they say it is 1953 and McCarthy's voice is on the radio,

Frankly, you're probably right about this too, and the more I think about it the more blatant the propaganda starts to seem to me.

I didn't even pick up on the "anti-McCarthyism" aspect of the film that much while watching it. I mean, I did, but I guess I go into most films expecting a certain amount of that kind of thing, so I wasn't really surprised and didn't have my antenna up for it. But the fact that they changed all the dates of his illness to coincide with a certain political era sounds very suspicious indeed.

I used to have a mildly positive impression of this film, but I think it's safe to say you've helped me revise it downward a notch or ten :)

[Inyokern]

I used to have a mildly positive impression of this film, but I think it's safe to say you've helped me revise it downward a notch or ten :)

Actually, I thought it was a good movie. The device of allowing the audience to see things through the mentally ill person's eyes, I thought worked well.

The only problem is that it is not the story of John Nash. Perhaps they should have changed the character's name.

[supercat]

The only problem is that it is not the story of John Nash. Perhaps they should have changed the character's name.

Indeed, they almost certainly should have. That would be the normal Hollywood convention; for example, in The Patriot, Mel Gibson's character was based upon Francis Marion(sp?) but given another name. Likewise for the character (Tavington) based upon Tarleton. Those familiar with the history will recognize the people being alluded to, but the change of name acts as a substantial disclaimer that the screenwriters' goal was drama rather than historical accuracy.

[supercat]

But you didn't give them money, I hope? If so, you voted for them.

How much money does Hollywierd take in from a $1.50 movie ticket?

[Inyokern]

the change of name acts as a substantial disclaimer that the screenwriters' goal was drama rather than historical accuracy.

Maybe they could have called him Robert B Reich.