About me

I'm a geek working as a distance learning specialist for a large corporation.

My Pandora "radio station" profile
This is my favorite way to listen to music now.

My Yahoo "radio station"
(Unfortunately, only works in IE.)

Shopping

Looking to purchase something online? Support Caddickisms by going through one of these links:

Caddickisms Store

Amazon.com

Calendar

May 2007
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Topics

Posts by month

Around the site

Today I left my house. No, really, it's true. There wasn't a computer monitor anywhere near me for hours. Well, okay, except for when we stopped at Best Buy, but other thanGeek field maneuvers (without the proper tech)

SCI FI Wire | The News Service of the SCI FI Channel Tim Kring, creator and executive producer of NBC's superhero drama Heroes, told SCI FI Wire that the the seriesHeroes web comic

I wanted to follow up on a couple of posts I made (long ago) about web conferencing. Figured it was about time I got back to it. I had the occasionFree web conferencing - ups and downs

Well, here's my first post of 2007. I'm going to start off with a gripe. To paraphrase Peter, Paul, and Mary: "Where has all the QA gone?" Quality Assurance is an essentialQA - Quality Assurance or Questionable Assurance?

Yesterday afternoon I was, as usual, working from my office upstairs. Pam and the girls were on a walk around the neighborhood, so it was just me in the house.Kids these days (or Get off my lawn!)

Okay, yeah, the day's almost over, but you know how it is... things got away from me. The dog ate my homework. And then he did this: So there you haveBetter late than never (maybe): Tuesday TubeWatch

Last week I started doing something I hardly ever do - I started reading a non-fiction book. Even more amazingly, it's an auto-biography. That's a genre I almost never delveC.S. Lewis on living by hope

Three is one better than two, right? Well, it may sound glamorous, but they're giving me a headache. See, it just doesn't add up. And things need to add up. I'm tryingHanging out with triplets can be a headache

Three years ago today, at 11:48pm, I wrote these amazingly insightful words: Check it out… Friday, December 9th, 2005 Looks like I am officially blogging. I am too cool for words. (Ironic, isn’tThree years of yammering on...

The fall TV season is upon us. Are there any shows out there worthy of watching this year? Any guilty pleasures you've just gotta have? Anything that just drains theFlashing Forward to Fall TV

So here we have week 4 of Stargate Universe and week 3 of Sanctuary. As I mentioned last week, on SGU they're heading for a close encounter with a star. It'sSyFy shows reviews: SGU and Sanctuary

Pixar has an amazing track record with its movies. The quality of animation is superb and their attention to story is a cut (or two) above most studios. Their worstReview: Brave

Out of the ashes of our future destruction, a new hero has been born. Gabriel Bright. Beacon of hope. Defender of justice. Burdened, as are we all, with the knowledgeThe Birth of Gabriel Bright - DC Universe

This week I had two days completely to myself. My wife took the girls with her to her sister's house early on Monday, and got back very late on TuesdayIt's official. I'm boring.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH | Bryce Zabel: Koppel on Iran I don't plan to get into politics too much on this blog, but I do agree with Zabel that this isTed Koppel on Iran & US involvement in Middle East

Review: Proof

For a story about a groundbreaking mathematical proof, Proof had virtually zero math in it.

If you ask me, that’s a good thing.

Let me put my review in the form of a mathematical equation, though. (Because I can. Yes, I know it’s a cheap thrill and there’s no real point to it, but it makes me happy, and that’s what’s important. Go ahead; sit there and mock, you cowards who won’t even comment.)

([tag]Gwyneth Paltrow[/tag]) + ([tag]Anthony Hopkins[/tag]) + (Award Winning Stage Play script) – ([tag]Jake Gyllenhaal[/tag]) = (a very good movie)

Okay, that was a cheap shot at Jake. I actually think he did a really good job in the movie despite, as my wife pointed out, not looking enough like a geek to be a mathematician.

The mood of the film was very important in selling it to me. The director did an excellent job, through pacing, different camera shots, and of course the actors, of creating a situation where you weren’t really sure whether Catherine was loosing her mind. You could go either way… it could just be the pressure of her father’s death after giving up her life to care for him, plus the arrival of her well-meaning, but overbearing sister that’s making her act a little flat, or she really could be succumbing to schizophrenia. She wonders if she’s going over the edge from the very beginning of the movie, and you take the journey with her. To me, that was the real focus of the movie: is she going nuts? Can Hal stabalize her?

While I liked it quite a bit, though, it didn’t make me sit back and go “wow” at the end. It was a good film, engrossing, but didn’t leave me either excited or pondering life. I wouldn’t have minded seeing a little more of a triumph at the end, but that would have been the “Hollywood ending”, and I’m glad they didn’t do that, since it kept it more real. The question that remained open about her future was more satisfying, if not as exciting.

This is a hard one for me to rate, honestly. I really liked it, but it didn’t touch me as deeply as I’d hoped. Maybe it will for you.

For now…. three and half stars.

[tags]mathematics, stage to screen[/tags]

Tags: ,

6 comments to Review: Proof

  • Beckela

    Yes, that WAS a cheap shot at Jake. True, he does not look like the stereotypical geek, but there are many geeks out there who don’t fit that mold. I know a few myself. Do you honestly think there would have been that intense attraction between Catherine and Hal if Hal looked like, say, Robert Carradine? I think not. Gwyneth is no slouch herself, by the way! Jake may be gorgeous, but he wouldn’t be a quarter as interesting if he weren’t such a good actor.

    Reply to this comment

  • Hi Beckela,

    Yeah, what can I say? I took the pot shot ’cause I could.

    To be a little more descriptive about the “not looking geeky” criticism, though, you bring up a good point. Gwyneth is no slouch, as you put it, but in the movie she really did look paler than normal, bookish, and a bit lost to the outside world. Her stance was a little more slouched, for example. Granted, not all that was due to her “geek” status, but even beyond the physical, she gave the impression, at a minimum, that her character really understood the nuances of the mathematics, whereas Hal was played more like he had an large interest in the topic, but not much understanding. Certainly not enough to be a professional mathematician. Jake chose to play up the romantic lead angle of the character more than the other aspects of the character. While that’s certainly a valid angle, given the story, I think it was too unbalanced in that direction. YMMV.

    Reply to this comment

  • Beckela

    Good points, Jeff. But, Hal says himself that he will never do anything “great” in mathematics — he comes across to me as a born teacher, which is exactly what he is doing. Without folks like Hal, we’d never have folks like Robert or Catherine. And Hal knows himself, and his limitations, quite well, e.g., that he needs help figuring out the proof. Catherine, on the other hand, has apparently inherited much of her father’s genius — a rarity indeed — which certainly makes her more of a geek. Her father’s illness; her caring for him for so many years, putting her own life on hold; and her own depression (been there, done that) contribute much to her paleness and geekiness as well, IMO.

    I love films/actors/stories that inspire these kinds of discussions. Don’t you?

    Reply to this comment

  • Jeff's wife

    Don’t get me wrong … I thought Jake, as Hal, was easy on the eyes, and I’m sure there are plenty of good looking “geeks” out there. However, my observation was really that he was in very good shape physically. So much so that it seemed likely that it required more effort and intention than his character seemed to exhibit during the course of the story.

    I don’t know if that makes any sense, or any difference! But I just didn’t want to be misrepresented.

    Reply to this comment

  • I love films/actors/stories that inspire these kinds of discussions. Don’t you?

    Absolutely. :)

    I don’t disagree with anything you said, but as I said, I think the balance is just a little off.

    (And congratulations! You got my wife to actually post something! You don’t know how hard that is to do!)

    Reply to this comment

  • Beckela

    Jeff’s Wife:

    Ah, yes. I understand. I long ago stopped noticing actors’ much-muscled bodies that seem inappropriate for the character they are playing. It happens all the time and can be annoying. I wonder if perhaps Jake was preparing for Jarhead while shooting Proof. That body was VERY appropriate for Swofford! I read somewhere that David Fincher asked Jake to lose some of the muscle for Zodiac — quite wise, IMO.

    Jeff:

    I can see what you mean about “balance.” I think I may just see that difference simply as “contrast.”

    Glad I could be of service with your wife! LOL

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge