Hollywood Delusions

There is a mathematician named John Nash who got his PhD at Princeton and was a professor at MIT. He was diagnosed with schizoprenia in the 1950's and was incapacitated for many years. He was allowed by the Princeton administration to hang around the campus during the 1970's and '80's during which time he gradually recovered his sanity. He was awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize for Economics after the Nobel committee took the unusual step of sending a representative to Princeton to see if he was in good enough condition to accept the prize.

All of the above is true. Everything - and I mean everything - else in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" is fiction. Actually, fiction is not really the correct word. Lies would be more like it. Lies made up by the screen writer in the furtherance of a political agenda.

Case in point: In the movie, Adam Smith's theory of the "invisible hand" (the basic principle behind capitalism) is discussed. "Every man working for his own selfish interest will be led by an invisible hand to promote the public good." In one scene, Nash's friends recite that statement in unison as if by rote.

However, Nash, the independent thinker, has a better idea. He declares "Adam Smith was wrong!" To his astonished colleagues he says that Smith's theory was "incomplete." In case the audience did not catch that, he repeats "Adam Smith needs revision!" Nash then demonstrates, through the example of the blonde and the four brunettes, that COOPERATIVE, rather than individual enterprise promotes the greater good.

Of course, Hollywood liberals HATE Adam Smith and the theory of the "invisible hand," which is the cornerstone of evil capitalism, and so it is natural that they would play up Nash's statements which disprove the theories of Smith and presumably promote socialism. The problem is that none of this ever happened. Nash never said Adam Smith was wrong. There was no incident with a blonde and four brunettes, nor did it in any way represent Nash's work. John Nash never made the statements attributed to him in the movie, nor would he ever have. His theory, "Nash Equilibrium," for which he won the Nobel Prize was classified as "non-cooperative game theory." NON-COOPERATIVE, not cooperative. Hollywood not only got it wrong, they got it 180 degrees wrong!

When Nash presents his thesis to his professor, played by Judd Hirsch, the professor says, "You realize that this goes against 150 years of economic theory, don't you?" (presumably 150 years refers to Adam Smith's time). But, of course, no professor ever said that, 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.

When he moves on to MIT after grad school, Nash begins (at least in his mind) doing secret decoding work for the Army. He is called to the Pentagon in 1953. (We are told it is 1953 by a graphic at the bottom of the screen that says "1953.") In case the audience missed the graphic, Senator Joe McCarthy's voice is on the car radio. It is the height of McCarthy era paranoia, get it?

In the next scene it is 1956. A man named Parcher, played by Ed Harris, appears. Nash remembers him from the 1953 scene. Parcher urges Nash to resume his decoding work. Nash does the decoding as ordered and takes his results to a secret drop-off. At the drop-off, he is spotted and pursued by "communist agents." A chase scene ensues in which the "communist agents" fire bullets at him.

By now, it is clear to even the slowest members of the audience what is happening to Nash: McCarthy era hysteria, national security, the Red Scare, anti-communist paranoia. These are getting to Nash and driving him over the edge. However, there is a problem with that. All of it is a lie. The graphic that says 1953? A lie. The graphic that says 1956? A lie. The real John Nash never showed any signs of mental illness until 1958 (long after the McCarthy era was over). He never believed he was doing secret decoding work for the US Government and never believed he was being pursued by communist agents. One wonders who had worse delusions, Nash or the guy who wrote the script for this movie.

The truth is that Nash's dementia (which is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, not by McCarthyism) manifested itself exactly opposite from the way it is portrayed in the movie. Hollywood got it 180 degrees wrong again! What are the odds? In reality, Nash's mental illness caused him to adopt extreme left-wing views, leave the United States, renounce his American citizenship and seek political asylum in East Germany.

Surprised? I am sure that most people who saw "A Beautiful Mind" would be surprised to learn the true story of John Nash and his politics, but does anyone really expect Hollywood to portray left-wing political views as a manifestation of mental illness? Of course not. Right-wing views are crazy, not left-wing. Everyone knows that.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.