Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollywood Delusions
Vanity

Posted on 09/09/2002 4:47:23 PM PDT by Inyokern

The truth about John Nash of "A Beautiful Mind"

This is reality:

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: beautiful; hollywood; left; mind; nash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: Inyokern
remember, when nash said the little girl never got older, that meant she wasn't real... remember that... that was cool...
21 posted on 09/09/2002 8:03:12 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Instead of being a pillar of strength to Nash as portrayed in the film, didn't his wife actually leave him for a period?
22 posted on 09/09/2002 8:09:33 PM PDT by dougherty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
remember, when nash said the little girl never got older, that meant she wasn't real... remember that... that was cool...

Actually, Nash never saw imaginary people, although he did hear voices. However, I do not fault Hollywood for adding the imaginary people. Movies are a visual medium after all.

23 posted on 09/09/2002 8:10:26 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dougherty
Instead of being a pillar of strength to Nash as portrayed in the film, didn't his wife actually leave him for a period?

They were divorced but she still took care of him.

24 posted on 09/09/2002 8:14:03 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 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.

And in Amadeus Milos Forman should have changed the musician's name to, say, Wolfram A. Moschert.

<>--<)B^)

25 posted on 09/09/2002 9:56:02 PM PDT by Erasmus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson