Warm and Fuzzy, But Just the Facts Ma'am?

Rating: 9/10 (12 March 2002)

I have read many of the other reviews, both positive and negative. Despite being '000s of kilometres away in Australia, we receive many first-hand news reports on the Hollywood entertainment industry and, alarmingly, reports on alleged 'dirty tactics,' supposedly designed to ruin particular movies' chances of winning Oscars.
I guess the studios will do what they do, simply because their revenues and budgets are dependent upon a movie's success and recognition from the Academy, in particular, and industry in general. It just seems disappointing that people will stoop to slurring a movie in the hopes that its success in any capacity will be diminished.
We have heard that Russell Crowe's character, Nash, was homosexual, anti-semitic and unfaithful to his wife. I do not know whether these things are true, but I remember that after the release of Schindler's List, there was criticism that Schindler's infidelities and poor treatment of his wife were overlooked by director Spielberg.
No doubt, the same people that are complaining about the leaving-out of facts would also complain about the movie being over-long, if extra time was taken to include the facts.
The director uses the film to tell the story that they want to tell. They are given that perogative by the studios, ovbiously with the consideration of commercial viability being an important factor. To label a film as bad, simply because some facts are left out, is supremely ignorant.
If factual deficiencies make a movie bad, then why are films such as the Godfather so highly-regarded? There is no factual basis behind the Godfather whatsoever. Additionally, its subject matter is repugnant, but the story is told in such a way as to make it palatable to a large audience. How is this different from A Beautiful Mind?
I can not speak for Ron Howard's intentions, but I found ABM included sufficient positives and negatives from Nash's life to provide a balanced view. The man was no saint, but he was battling a disease that I personally had no conception of, until I saw this movie.
There was a guy at school with me who had schitzophrenia. He suffered greatly, in addition to his disease, due to our ignorance of what he was going through. He was teased and ridiculed, much like Nash was, yet he has gone on to become a successful lawyer, after 6 years of study. This film has added to my understanding of others, much more than a mindless alien invasion movie or love story. Only the most cynical would overlook the value that this film has to understanding mental illness.

The point is that directors have limited time in which to convey their messages. Let's face it, if biographical films were completely true-to-life, they would all be 5 + hours long and very boring. The director must use his/her discretion to balance a feasible story with a consideration of the audience's need to be 'entertained'. The director could include many more facts from the character's life, but if they are not pertinent to the story that the director wishes to tell, then what is the point?
Ron "with cheese" Howard, judging by the comments on this board, is renowned for making 'schmaltzy' movies. Well guess what people? If you don't like his movies, stop going to see them. Why see something from a particular director if you know that you don't like his work? It doesn't make sense.
Personally, on the odd occasion, I enjoy leaving a movie theatre feeling like I have learned something and, dare I say, feeling uplifted and happy. You can try it too! See this movie.