Portions of this page Copyright 1981 - 2008 Muze Inc. 
All rights reserved.
All rights reserved.A Beautiful Mind (2006, DVD)
 |
Buy this item
Related items
A BEAUTIFUL MIND -- If Oliver Stone Had Directed It, They Would Call Him Crazy!Review created: 01/03/02
by: macresarf1 -- a member of Epinions
Pros:
Performances by Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, supporting cast. Deakin's photography, Wynn Thomas's clever production design.
Performances by Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, supporting cast. Deakin's photography, Wynn Thomas's clever production design.
Cons:
Simplified to such a degree that in some sense, it is anticlimactic and dishonest.
Simplified to such a degree that in some sense, it is anticlimactic and dishonest.
Ever think you've got something figured out? And then find that people say you were wrong? Makes you feel confused, huh? Maybe . . . makes you feel a bit nuts. Well, no -- angry perhaps. Either you are wrong, or they are! But which? Your therapist might say, "You need a win-win solution!" Such was the problem of one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century: John Forbes Nash, Jr. There were two of him, just as there are two films entitled A BEAUTIFUL MIND, one that Akiva Goldsman wrote and Ron Howard directed . . . and one they didn't.
"Who was John Forbes Nash, Jr?" you ask.
Born 1928, the son of an electrical engineer and a school teacher, John Nash grew up around Blue Field, West Virginia, in the 1930's. Young Nash was a stocky, shy boy, for whom his younger sister Martha reluctantly had to act as a social operative. Loved by his parents, living in a quiet rural setting, he nevertheless suffered from anxiety, did not fit in at school. But when he was 12, John read one of those little books common then, popularizations of figures in literature and science: E. T. Bell's Men of Mathematics. Nash independently proved one of the theorems of Pierre de Fermat, a 17th Century French mathematician, whom he read about in the book. The satisfaction which that accomplishment gave Nash was to propel him for a lifetime, re-inventing mathematical theories, and then creating his own.
The imaginative Nash applied his interest to Chemistry when he entered Bluefield College at the age of 13, but perhaps because his experiments in explosives led to the death of a schoolmate, he withdrew more and more into the World of Pure Mathematics. Pushed by his parents, obsessed with creating something original, he made feints and visits to a number of prestigious Eastern universities, until 1947 found him on scholarship to Princeton. There, his fellows thought him odd, but they were impressed by his mathematical prodigy, and his physical strength, (should they get out of line with him).
Here, Director Ron Howard (THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS, 2000) begins A BEAUTIFUL MIND, based on Sylvia Nasar's prize-winning biography. John Nash (Russell Crowe) is in the back of a math seminar at Princeton where Professor Helinger (Judd Hirsh) is exhorting his hand-picked first year students to be aware of the rising challenge of Soviet Russia, and the role theoretical mathematics will have in thwarting it, just as his Princeton colleague Albert Einstein's theories in Physics were instrumental in ending World War II.
Nash in his tweed jacket, awkward, avuncular, preoccupied, discusses haltingly the subject with his alcoholic English major room mate, Charles Herman (Paul Bettany), but he seems more worried about devising a theorem which will establish his own superiority. It is almost as if he were talking to himself. A peculiar mixture of vulnerability and arrogance draws the attention of other young theoretical whiz kids, such as the smiling, handsome Hansen (Josh Lucas), and the cautious Sol (Adam Goldberg). When not making fun of him, they challenge him to competitive intellectual games like Go and Kriegspiel.
He often beats them and then goes back to counting and triangulating pigeons on the lawn.
Anyone who has spent time on a college campus has run into characters like Nash. They tend to be people who never go to class, appear drunk, disturbed or stoned much of the time, and talk of some vague work of genius they are perfecting. One day, they suddenly disappear, never to be heard from again, unless perhaps run across selling Chevrolets, teaching high school in California, or sadly, noted in a small article as a suicide.
Nash was an exception.
Akiva Goldsman, notorious in some quarters for screenplays of BATMAN AND ROBIN (Schumacher, 1997) and LOST IN SPACE (Hopkins, 1998), has written an ambitious, ingenious screenplay, which simplifies the events of John Nash's life. As directed by Ron Howard, A BEAUTIFUL MIND presents an uplifting picture of a troubled young man, who finds a sustaining marriage with one of his students, Alicia Larde (Jennifer Connelly). He is caught up in the Cold War panic (as represented by a shadowy intelligence agent, played by Ed Harris); reconciles mental difficulties with the help of a Dr. Rosen (Christopher Plummer); overcomes rejection by colleagues and students; capitalizes on a youthful 27 page mathematical Phd. thesis -- now known as Equilibrium Theory -- which leads, forty years later, to his winning the Nobel Prize.
Useful as this depiction is, the film Goldsman and Howard did not create, a great film, perhaps, would have first referenced the depressing effect guilt over the death of his school mate must have had on his personality. More important, A BEAUTIFUL MIND would have raised questions about the implications of John Nash's theories, as they have been applied to our existence, and in our day, you might think the film would have dealt with some of the following details found in Ms. Nasar's biography and elsewhere:
John Nash was a much more difficult and complicated person than we are shown. In his 20's, while a lecturing scholar at M.I.T., and acting as a consultant to The Rand Corporation, a Cold War think-tank, he took up with a nurse, Eleanor Stier. They had a child, but he refused to marry her, causing a rift with his parents, which some said contributed to the death of his father. In 1957, while he was still involved with Miss Stier (who had lost her job and gone on welfare to support their son), Nash married one of his students, Alicia Larde. The same year, full of anxiety at 29 that his work was not sufficiently recognized, he lost his position and security clearance with Rand, when he was arrested in a police sting for indecent exposure and soliciting in public men's rooms.
[As I write this, Crowe has been reported as saying that the gaze his character fixes on a young male student in a hallway late in A BEAUTIFUL MIND is meant to hint at Nash's bisexuality.]
After the birth of a son by Alicia, Nash was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and he underwent voluntary or enforced institutional treatment throughout the rest of his prime. His sister Martha and his mother (who died shortly after) were forced to seek psychiatric help themselves. Alicia, by then an engineer, separated from Nash, eventually divorced him, but when he appeared destitute, made a place for him in her home, where he lived off and on until he won his Nobel Prize.
Known as "The Phantom of Fine Hall," John Nash, as the film shows, wandered the Princeton campus for years, until in the 1980's, he gradually achieved some restoration of his ability to work. But the film ignores that he fled to Europe for a time, sought political asylum, among other places, in France and East Germany. Nor does it touch on what those who knew him in the period report: that he was a snob; that he was a racist; that he believed he was Christ; and that he was given to violent outbursts.
Nor is there an inkling that Nash's son, whom we see near the end of A BEAUTIFUL MIND as a graduating Princeton Senior greeting his father, also showed symptoms of mental disturbance in real life, wandering the campus, wearing a paper crown.
Most of these omissions do not necessarily vitiate Howard's A BEAUTIFUL MIND. And some, like the last one, are quite understandable. No doubt, the film's attitude toward mental illness in a constricted personality such as Nash is admirable. While his dialect sometimes lacks the twang I remember in West Virginian friends of mine, Russell Crowe, possibly the Brando of this generation, embodies Nash's proud, shyly yearning, harrowed character. We believe in his intellectual genius, the physical strength and anger he holds in abeyance, in his capability to analyze his condition and, in time, function despite of it.
Ron Howard is not a deep director, but he works well with actors. Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Bettany, Harris, Plummer, Hirsh and the rest of the supporting cast present a convincing group of characters, fictionalized or not.
Certainly, the talents of DP Roger Deakins are utilized, a man who has already midwifed such stunning films as SID AND NANCY (Cox, 1986), WHITE MISCHIEF (Radford, 1987), THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Darabont,1994); and for the Cohens: BARTON FINK (1991), FARGO (1996), O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000), and THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE (2001). Deakins and Howard's usual editors, Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill, devote taste and imagination to the production design of Wynn Thomas (Lee, DO THE RIGHT THING, 1989).
You will enjoy and empathize with the film Howard and Goldsman give you.
The problem of A BEAUTIFUL MIND lies in its script, which after a long, careful build up toward tragedy suddenly loses its nerve, and in its last fifteen minutes just goes: Alakazam! It's okay. He won the Nobel Prize in 1994!
You will admire Nash's fortitude, but his triumph may leave you unsatisfied. In the film, it was too easy.
Let me ask you a larger question. Before you began to see the Oscar ballyhoo for A BEAUTIFUL MIND, had you ever heard of John Forbes Nash, Jr? Had you heard of John von Neumann or Oscar Morgenstern, his precursors? Do you know what Equilibrium Theory is? Can you explain the Isometric Embeddability of Abstract Riemannian Manifolds in Euclidean Spaces, which a fellow Epinionator mentions in his review?
Probably not, unless you are involved in advanced science, math or games theory projects.
The chances are you are not familiar with Equilibria and other hypotheses posited by John Nash, which are now "embedded" in almost all our domestic and international policies. Nash's works, such as "Non-Cooperative Games," "Nash Equilibria," and a formal theory of bargaining, influenced all kinds of potent "games theory." A BEAUTIFUL MIND does not really explain those theories precisely, nor exactly how they have been applied to our lives. But their effect has been profound.
As the end titles, and a few references in the film, suggest, Equilibrium Theory has been used to analyze military strategy, the plans of political candidates, the functions of government, the causes of war, agenda manipulation of legislatures, atomic weapons negotiations, labor-management conflicts, corporate take-over strategies, stock market tactics, management of the environment, projections for Globalization and The New World Order, etc, etc.
Nash's theories help entities to predict how we think and act.
Phrases begin to come back to you. When you hear some consultant, economic expert or political operative on TV say, "This is not a zero-sum game," he/she is consciously or unconsciously influenced by Nash and his colleagues. "We must be proactive." -- Nash's influence. "We need a win-win situation!" -- Nash's influence. "We are into Situational Ethics, folks." -- Nash's influence. Etc. Etc.
John Nash, still alive at this writing, should be receiving royalties for TV's "Survivor."
Questions flood the mind: How did the Cartels against whom we waged World War II become the dominant economic models (as conglomerates and multi-nationals) of the 1990's? Why did we come to adopt the police and experimental methods of the Nazis, the espionage archetype of the Soviets, and the disastrous vengeance exemplar of the Israelis? What were the curious strategies of the Warren Commission in the Assassination of JFK? How did we finesse our Constitution after WWII so that our Congress would never have to make a formal Declaration of War again? Why were we in Vietnam? Why did we go about winning Hearts and Minds as we did? Why did we have to destroy the village in order to save it? How did American Organized Labor practically win-win itself into extinction? In what ways were the dismantling and globalization of American Industry in the 1980's not a zero-sum game for ordinary people? How is it that the Western World overwhelmingly wishes to preserve the environment, but everywhere, as we have known it, we are exploiting it out of existence?
I may sound as disturbed as John Forbes Nash, but in a way, that is my point.
Why did successive American Administrations make fathomless incursions into places like Grenada, Panama, The Gulf, Somalia, even, if slightly less so, into Kosovo and Afghanistan? How did they explain those actions to the American people? By what mechanisms and manipulations did the American Public accept those explanations? By what process did America become divided into "red and blue" states? What were the strategies which led to the outcome of the 2000 election? By what procedures (to touch on a coming big story) was Enron created in the 1980's, grown into the 7th rank corporation in the Fortune 500, and then forced to undergo a 60 billion dollar bankruptcy, all as a result of the Theory and Application of Deregulation? Where in International Law developed since World War II is the rationalization for powerful nations' ability with impunity to ignore the national borders of weaker nations in order to bomb and assassinate "terrorists"? Through what manipulations does the American Middleclass, which is smaller by percentage of population and worse off than it was in 1980, continue to support corporate entities, political factions and directions, which will lead to its further diminution, probably in the name of "win-win"?
Not all the answers to these questions may involve Nash and other practitioners of "games theory." In fact, make up your own, better questions, if you take a different view, but if only a couple my questions involve Nash's theories, we should examine more deeply their "embedded" applications and influence in our lives.
Equilibrium Theory . . . .
In his personal life, Nash had no equilibrium. He believed that he was directed on missions by the C.I.A. to track Soviet cells, which were smuggling Atom bombs across the Canadian border into the U.S. (Much as we fear Osama bin Laden's minions are smuggling such weapons -- atomic, chemical, biological or otherwise -- into our Nation now.) Eventually, he went to several mental institutions, and then, he won the Nobel Prize!
A BEAUTIFUL MIND is a simplistic and foreshortened drama about a highly complex man, but it holds our attention. And, as I have said, the film Ron Howard did not make would have been even more interesting. It might have explained where we have been, and where we are going.
---------------
March 21, 2002 -- I have just read in an Oscar article in Time Magazine that Ron Howard and his writer were forced by John Forbes Nash to have a "must not include clause" in the rights agreement he made with them. Therefore, Nash was able to sanitize his life, at the same time dooming the film's potential. My sympathy for Howard has increased considerably.
------------------------------
For a complete list of Macresarf1's Epinions, indexed by category -- many with URL's -- copy, paste to your search browser and go to the following:
http://www.epinions.com/conten
"Who was John Forbes Nash, Jr?" you ask.
Born 1928, the son of an electrical engineer and a school teacher, John Nash grew up around Blue Field, West Virginia, in the 1930's. Young Nash was a stocky, shy boy, for whom his younger sister Martha reluctantly had to act as a social operative. Loved by his parents, living in a quiet rural setting, he nevertheless suffered from anxiety, did not fit in at school. But when he was 12, John read one of those little books common then, popularizations of figures in literature and science: E. T. Bell's Men of Mathematics. Nash independently proved one of the theorems of Pierre de Fermat, a 17th Century French mathematician, whom he read about in the book. The satisfaction which that accomplishment gave Nash was to propel him for a lifetime, re-inventing mathematical theories, and then creating his own.
The imaginative Nash applied his interest to Chemistry when he entered Bluefield College at the age of 13, but perhaps because his experiments in explosives led to the death of a schoolmate, he withdrew more and more into the World of Pure Mathematics. Pushed by his parents, obsessed with creating something original, he made feints and visits to a number of prestigious Eastern universities, until 1947 found him on scholarship to Princeton. There, his fellows thought him odd, but they were impressed by his mathematical prodigy, and his physical strength, (should they get out of line with him).
Here, Director Ron Howard (THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS, 2000) begins A BEAUTIFUL MIND, based on Sylvia Nasar's prize-winning biography. John Nash (Russell Crowe) is in the back of a math seminar at Princeton where Professor Helinger (Judd Hirsh) is exhorting his hand-picked first year students to be aware of the rising challenge of Soviet Russia, and the role theoretical mathematics will have in thwarting it, just as his Princeton colleague Albert Einstein's theories in Physics were instrumental in ending World War II.
Nash in his tweed jacket, awkward, avuncular, preoccupied, discusses haltingly the subject with his alcoholic English major room mate, Charles Herman (Paul Bettany), but he seems more worried about devising a theorem which will establish his own superiority. It is almost as if he were talking to himself. A peculiar mixture of vulnerability and arrogance draws the attention of other young theoretical whiz kids, such as the smiling, handsome Hansen (Josh Lucas), and the cautious Sol (Adam Goldberg). When not making fun of him, they challenge him to competitive intellectual games like Go and Kriegspiel.
He often beats them and then goes back to counting and triangulating pigeons on the lawn.
Anyone who has spent time on a college campus has run into characters like Nash. They tend to be people who never go to class, appear drunk, disturbed or stoned much of the time, and talk of some vague work of genius they are perfecting. One day, they suddenly disappear, never to be heard from again, unless perhaps run across selling Chevrolets, teaching high school in California, or sadly, noted in a small article as a suicide.
Nash was an exception.
Akiva Goldsman, notorious in some quarters for screenplays of BATMAN AND ROBIN (Schumacher, 1997) and LOST IN SPACE (Hopkins, 1998), has written an ambitious, ingenious screenplay, which simplifies the events of John Nash's life. As directed by Ron Howard, A BEAUTIFUL MIND presents an uplifting picture of a troubled young man, who finds a sustaining marriage with one of his students, Alicia Larde (Jennifer Connelly). He is caught up in the Cold War panic (as represented by a shadowy intelligence agent, played by Ed Harris); reconciles mental difficulties with the help of a Dr. Rosen (Christopher Plummer); overcomes rejection by colleagues and students; capitalizes on a youthful 27 page mathematical Phd. thesis -- now known as Equilibrium Theory -- which leads, forty years later, to his winning the Nobel Prize.
Useful as this depiction is, the film Goldsman and Howard did not create, a great film, perhaps, would have first referenced the depressing effect guilt over the death of his school mate must have had on his personality. More important, A BEAUTIFUL MIND would have raised questions about the implications of John Nash's theories, as they have been applied to our existence, and in our day, you might think the film would have dealt with some of the following details found in Ms. Nasar's biography and elsewhere:
John Nash was a much more difficult and complicated person than we are shown. In his 20's, while a lecturing scholar at M.I.T., and acting as a consultant to The Rand Corporation, a Cold War think-tank, he took up with a nurse, Eleanor Stier. They had a child, but he refused to marry her, causing a rift with his parents, which some said contributed to the death of his father. In 1957, while he was still involved with Miss Stier (who had lost her job and gone on welfare to support their son), Nash married one of his students, Alicia Larde. The same year, full of anxiety at 29 that his work was not sufficiently recognized, he lost his position and security clearance with Rand, when he was arrested in a police sting for indecent exposure and soliciting in public men's rooms.
[As I write this, Crowe has been reported as saying that the gaze his character fixes on a young male student in a hallway late in A BEAUTIFUL MIND is meant to hint at Nash's bisexuality.]
After the birth of a son by Alicia, Nash was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and he underwent voluntary or enforced institutional treatment throughout the rest of his prime. His sister Martha and his mother (who died shortly after) were forced to seek psychiatric help themselves. Alicia, by then an engineer, separated from Nash, eventually divorced him, but when he appeared destitute, made a place for him in her home, where he lived off and on until he won his Nobel Prize.
Known as "The Phantom of Fine Hall," John Nash, as the film shows, wandered the Princeton campus for years, until in the 1980's, he gradually achieved some restoration of his ability to work. But the film ignores that he fled to Europe for a time, sought political asylum, among other places, in France and East Germany. Nor does it touch on what those who knew him in the period report: that he was a snob; that he was a racist; that he believed he was Christ; and that he was given to violent outbursts.
Nor is there an inkling that Nash's son, whom we see near the end of A BEAUTIFUL MIND as a graduating Princeton Senior greeting his father, also showed symptoms of mental disturbance in real life, wandering the campus, wearing a paper crown.
Most of these omissions do not necessarily vitiate Howard's A BEAUTIFUL MIND. And some, like the last one, are quite understandable. No doubt, the film's attitude toward mental illness in a constricted personality such as Nash is admirable. While his dialect sometimes lacks the twang I remember in West Virginian friends of mine, Russell Crowe, possibly the Brando of this generation, embodies Nash's proud, shyly yearning, harrowed character. We believe in his intellectual genius, the physical strength and anger he holds in abeyance, in his capability to analyze his condition and, in time, function despite of it.
Ron Howard is not a deep director, but he works well with actors. Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Bettany, Harris, Plummer, Hirsh and the rest of the supporting cast present a convincing group of characters, fictionalized or not.
Certainly, the talents of DP Roger Deakins are utilized, a man who has already midwifed such stunning films as SID AND NANCY (Cox, 1986), WHITE MISCHIEF (Radford, 1987), THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Darabont,1994); and for the Cohens: BARTON FINK (1991), FARGO (1996), O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000), and THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE (2001). Deakins and Howard's usual editors, Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill, devote taste and imagination to the production design of Wynn Thomas (Lee, DO THE RIGHT THING, 1989).
You will enjoy and empathize with the film Howard and Goldsman give you.
The problem of A BEAUTIFUL MIND lies in its script, which after a long, careful build up toward tragedy suddenly loses its nerve, and in its last fifteen minutes just goes: Alakazam! It's okay. He won the Nobel Prize in 1994!
You will admire Nash's fortitude, but his triumph may leave you unsatisfied. In the film, it was too easy.
Let me ask you a larger question. Before you began to see the Oscar ballyhoo for A BEAUTIFUL MIND, had you ever heard of John Forbes Nash, Jr? Had you heard of John von Neumann or Oscar Morgenstern, his precursors? Do you know what Equilibrium Theory is? Can you explain the Isometric Embeddability of Abstract Riemannian Manifolds in Euclidean Spaces, which a fellow Epinionator mentions in his review?
Probably not, unless you are involved in advanced science, math or games theory projects.
The chances are you are not familiar with Equilibria and other hypotheses posited by John Nash, which are now "embedded" in almost all our domestic and international policies. Nash's works, such as "Non-Cooperative Games," "Nash Equilibria," and a formal theory of bargaining, influenced all kinds of potent "games theory." A BEAUTIFUL MIND does not really explain those theories precisely, nor exactly how they have been applied to our lives. But their effect has been profound.
As the end titles, and a few references in the film, suggest, Equilibrium Theory has been used to analyze military strategy, the plans of political candidates, the functions of government, the causes of war, agenda manipulation of legislatures, atomic weapons negotiations, labor-management conflicts, corporate take-over strategies, stock market tactics, management of the environment, projections for Globalization and The New World Order, etc, etc.
Nash's theories help entities to predict how we think and act.
Phrases begin to come back to you. When you hear some consultant, economic expert or political operative on TV say, "This is not a zero-sum game," he/she is consciously or unconsciously influenced by Nash and his colleagues. "We must be proactive." -- Nash's influence. "We need a win-win situation!" -- Nash's influence. "We are into Situational Ethics, folks." -- Nash's influence. Etc. Etc.
John Nash, still alive at this writing, should be receiving royalties for TV's "Survivor."
Questions flood the mind: How did the Cartels against whom we waged World War II become the dominant economic models (as conglomerates and multi-nationals) of the 1990's? Why did we come to adopt the police and experimental methods of the Nazis, the espionage archetype of the Soviets, and the disastrous vengeance exemplar of the Israelis? What were the curious strategies of the Warren Commission in the Assassination of JFK? How did we finesse our Constitution after WWII so that our Congress would never have to make a formal Declaration of War again? Why were we in Vietnam? Why did we go about winning Hearts and Minds as we did? Why did we have to destroy the village in order to save it? How did American Organized Labor practically win-win itself into extinction? In what ways were the dismantling and globalization of American Industry in the 1980's not a zero-sum game for ordinary people? How is it that the Western World overwhelmingly wishes to preserve the environment, but everywhere, as we have known it, we are exploiting it out of existence?
I may sound as disturbed as John Forbes Nash, but in a way, that is my point.
Why did successive American Administrations make fathomless incursions into places like Grenada, Panama, The Gulf, Somalia, even, if slightly less so, into Kosovo and Afghanistan? How did they explain those actions to the American people? By what mechanisms and manipulations did the American Public accept those explanations? By what process did America become divided into "red and blue" states? What were the strategies which led to the outcome of the 2000 election? By what procedures (to touch on a coming big story) was Enron created in the 1980's, grown into the 7th rank corporation in the Fortune 500, and then forced to undergo a 60 billion dollar bankruptcy, all as a result of the Theory and Application of Deregulation? Where in International Law developed since World War II is the rationalization for powerful nations' ability with impunity to ignore the national borders of weaker nations in order to bomb and assassinate "terrorists"? Through what manipulations does the American Middleclass, which is smaller by percentage of population and worse off than it was in 1980, continue to support corporate entities, political factions and directions, which will lead to its further diminution, probably in the name of "win-win"?
Not all the answers to these questions may involve Nash and other practitioners of "games theory." In fact, make up your own, better questions, if you take a different view, but if only a couple my questions involve Nash's theories, we should examine more deeply their "embedded" applications and influence in our lives.
Equilibrium Theory . . . .
In his personal life, Nash had no equilibrium. He believed that he was directed on missions by the C.I.A. to track Soviet cells, which were smuggling Atom bombs across the Canadian border into the U.S. (Much as we fear Osama bin Laden's minions are smuggling such weapons -- atomic, chemical, biological or otherwise -- into our Nation now.) Eventually, he went to several mental institutions, and then, he won the Nobel Prize!
A BEAUTIFUL MIND is a simplistic and foreshortened drama about a highly complex man, but it holds our attention. And, as I have said, the film Ron Howard did not make would have been even more interesting. It might have explained where we have been, and where we are going.
---------------
March 21, 2002 -- I have just read in an Oscar article in Time Magazine that Ron Howard and his writer were forced by John Forbes Nash to have a "must not include clause" in the rights agreement he made with them. Therefore, Nash was able to sanitize his life, at the same time dooming the film's potential. My sympathy for Howard has increased considerably.
------------------------------
For a complete list of Macresarf1's Epinions, indexed by category -- many with URL's -- copy, paste to your search browser and go to the following:
http://www.epinions.com/conten
Review ID: 10000000006844884
Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our Epinions.com ratings are not included in the item's average rating. Links in this review may have been removed.
About eBay | Announcements | Security Center | eBay Toolbar | Policies | Government Relations | Site Map | Help | |
Copyright © 1995-2008 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
| |
