Proof

[JustaFied]

Just read that David Auburn's Pulitzer Prize winning play "Proof" is being made into a movie. John Madden ("Shakespeare in Love") is directing, and Gwenyth Paltrow will play the lead.

Has anyone else here seen this play? I had the luck to see it on Broadway a couple of years ago with Mary-Louise Parker in the lead role, and it blew me away. Wonderful writing and acting.

I'm curious to see how it will hold up on the silver screen, and also how popular it will be as a mainstream movie, if that's the goal of the filmmakers. It's got Gwenyth in it, and Anthony Hopkins is cast as her father, so it would seem there's some thought to the box office draw. Still, unless major revisions are made, its emphasis (like most plays) is on dialogue and character over things like set design, editing, and music. It's not flashy in that sense. That's probably something that will keep it from being popular with mainstream audiences, but could it also be argued that it's a legitimate limitation on the film itself? With so much available to a filmmaker (i.e. use of background scenery, music, editing, special effects, lighting, etc.), is the filming of a play just plain boring?

[pmw]

It's funny, I couldn't remember what this was. Now, however, I remember that I saw it on Broadway. I wanted to see it with Mary Louis Parker but ended up getting Ann Heche instead. She was actually pretty amazing and the play was great. I wonder how they'll do this as a movie. As I remember there was really only one set wasn't there?

Thanks for the interesting news.
Peter

[JustaFied]

Yes, the entire play takes place on one set, and it's divided into two acts. Pretty simple setup but pretty heady subject matter. Not sure how well it will work as a movie, but it's got the star power. Paltrow played the role on the London stage, so she's familiar with the character.

[Chris Knipp]

arsaib4 wrote (Last Film I've Seen thread December 2, 2005):
PROOF (2005)

Proof, one of the numerous delayed releases from the Weinsteins-owned Miramax, is a compact, gripping and highly-effective drama from Director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love [1998]). Based on a stage play by David Auburn (who co-wrote the film’s script with Rebecca Miller, director of films like Personal Velocity [2002] and The Ballad of Jack and Rose [2005]), Proof stars Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine, an emotionally fragile woman whose mindset early on in the film is in just as much disarray as her domicile. The reason for her condition is that her father Robert (Anthony Hopkins), once a university professor and a mathematics mastermind, recently passed away after persistently suffering from a mental illness. Catherine, who had to drop out of school in order to take care of him, is unsure about her own mental health, even though she disagrees with her estranged older sister (Hope Davis, miscast as an insolent New Yorker), who now wants to take her for psychiatric help. But she gradually develops a relationship with Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), Robert’s committed former student attempting to uncover any traces of genius in his mentor’s old notebooks (which he eventually does). While almost claustrophobic in nature, Proof is comprised with a surprise or two to jolt the proceedings, that are usually maintained at a steady pace throughout. The script beautifully incorporates Catherine’s relationship with her father via flashbacks, discerning the toll it gradually took on the young woman. And Paltrow’s performance, arguably the best of her career, not only enables us to relate to her anguish, but it also overcomes a few awkwardly directed moments to guide the film to its logical, understated conclusion.

Grade: B+

__________________________

*PROOF is currently in theaters. Its DVD release date is Feb 14thMy response (originally posted on Last Film I've Seen thread):

I thought I had posted a review of Proof on this site, but I can't find it. It was posted September 20 and can be found here; (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=467) on Filmwurld the thread started earlier for Proof is here (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=776&highlight=proof) -- but nobody who actually saw the movie made a contribution there. My problems with Proof can be summed up as follows:

--artificiality of the action attributable to too-direct transfer from play to movie; dryness of the action for the same reason -- a possible danger noted (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=776&highlight=proof) by JustaFied in his opening of the Proof thread
With so much available to a filmmaker (i.e. use of background scenery, music, editing, special effects, lighting, etc.), is the filming of a play just plain boring?--lack of interest in the Robert (Anthony Hopkins) character compared to, for instance, the math genius in Beautiful Mind (a movie I find pernicious, but whose effectiveness I fully acknowledge)

--slowness of the flashbacks

--important casting weaknesses: as time goes on, Jake looks nuttier than Gwyneth, who's suppose to be possibly crazy; Hopkins convincing as an example of dementia but not as a genius (I did think there was good chemistry between Gweneth and Jake, though, and Hope Davis is fine in her thanksless role of the bourgeois proper sister)

--failure to drum up a sense of urgency over the "mystery" of who did the proof, and consequent lack of emotional punch

I concluded that the filmed Proof is "mildly entertaining, respectable, but uninspired." It rather astonishes me that you would rate it higher than Grizzly Man -- but there's no acounting for taste!

P.s. Proof isn't as currently available in theaters as it was; it's down from a peak of 517 screens in October to only 60 as of November 20.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
artificiality of the action attributable to too-direct transfer from play to movie; dryness of the action for the same reason

There were instances when Madden's camera seemed fixated on one character (at times the wrong one), but I didn't find the "action" artificial or dry.

lack of interest in the Robert (Anthony Hopkins) character compared to, for instance, the math genius in Beautiful Mind (a movie I find pernicious, but whose effectiveness I fully acknowledge)

Proof is not based on Robert's character; it's based around Catherine's.

--slowness of the flashbacks

I'm not quite sure what that means. The fact that the film took time to explore the relationship between Catherine and Robert was a plus.

--important casting weaknesses: as time goes on, Jake looks nuttier than Gwyneth, who's suppose to be possibly crazy;

One of us was possibly daydreaming, and I don't think it was me.

Hopkins convincing as an example of dementia but not as a genius (I did think there was good chemistry between Gweneth and Jake, though, and Hope Davis is fine in her thanksless role of the bourgeois proper sister)

Hopkins did the best he could with limited screentime. Davis is too cerebral an actress to ably play that sort of a character. One of the countless sitcom stars probably would've done it better.

--failure to drum up a sense of urgency over the "mystery" of who did the proof, and consequent lack of emotional punch

Unlike a play, a film cannot support too many exclamation points. I thought that the mystery element was implemented quite well.

I concluded that the filmed Proof is "mildly entertaining, respectable, but uninspired." It rather astonishes me that you would rate it higher than Grizzly Man -- but there's no acounting for taste!

There certinaly isn't. Perhaps the reason why you rate The Weather Man higher than A History of Violence!


*Proof may not be good enough to contend for many awards, but it certainly deserved to be treated better. The film wasn't promoted very well, and some believe that cuts were made to attain a PG-13 rating. Hopefully more people will get a chance to watch it on DVD.

[Chris Knipp]

I wasn't daydreaming about the casting.

You are mistaken in thinking I rate The Weather Man higher than A History of Violence. I rate A History of Violence higher, I think. It's hard to say. I was forced to counteract the excessive hype around A History... Whereas The Weather Man was slightly underrated. Cronenberg's movie obvisously deserved credit for getting people talking. They're all pretty mediocre but History of Violence obviously is better filmmaking than the other two.