#1
Posted: 9/15/05 at 6:35pm
What is the huge thing at the end of act one? PM me if you don't wanna ruin it for others. Thanks.
Proof - Spoiler Requested
#2
Posted: 9/15/05 at 6:40pm
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Hal finds a notebook with a revolutionary mathematical proof in it, that he takes to be the work of Catherine's father. He asks if Catherine knew about it and if she had found it. She responds, "I didn't find it. I wrote it."
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Hal finds a notebook with a revolutionary mathematical proof in it, that he takes to be the work of Catherine's father. He asks if Catherine knew about it and if she had found it. She responds, "I didn't find it. I wrote it."
"Gif me the cobra jool!"
#4
Posted: 9/15/05 at 6:45pm
god, i love this play. so well written. i would have killed to see the OBC. what theater did it play?
#6
Posted: 9/15/05 at 6:51pm
I know I know I know....can't judge it before you see it, but is anyone else BITTERLY disappointed Gywneth Paltrow was cast instead of Mary Louise Parker, or even Mary Stuart Masterson?
BLAH BLAH BLAH
#7
Posted: 9/15/05 at 7:09pm
I really wanted Parker, who was magnificent, but Paltrow got rave reviews for her performance in the role in London, so I have an open mind.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#8
Posted: 9/15/05 at 7:16pm
Parker is too old to play the role on film. She is also not a big enough "name".
#9
Posted: 9/15/05 at 7:59pm
I was disappointed in that casting choice too. I loved the OBC so much that I had to go back and see the show a couple more times. (Not easy on my budget) Still, while I've never been a fan of Paltrow's she has been impressive in the few scenes I've seen. And I have to admit that I can't resist Anthony Hopkins in anything. So - this is definitely a future DVD for me.
www.thebreastcancersite.com
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
#10
Posted: 9/15/05 at 9:11pm
Mary-Louise Parker will always be Catherine to me, but I can understand why she wasn't asked to do the film. Catherine is 25 in the play (27 in the movie). Parker was 35 when she originated the role on stage and is 40 now. Paltrow is in her early 30s (34, I believe). On stage, you can get away with playing younger, but not so much on film. Anyway, Proof is my personal favorite play (I saw it way too many times on Broadway) and I plan to see the film on Friday evening.
#11
Posted: 9/15/05 at 10:14pm
I too am open to seeing Paltrow, but in trailers, she did look a tad too old to be playing someone in her 20's and in film, I'd think it would be more obvious. Parker probably would have as well, but it would have been more difficult to find a younger actress who could pull off Catherine as well.
I'm really excited to seeing Sir Anthony Hopkins ! I'm sure he'll be outstanding.
I'm really excited to seeing Sir Anthony Hopkins ! I'm sure he'll be outstanding.
#12
Posted: 9/16/05 at 6:09am
Manohla Dargis (NY Times) wasn't too kind to the film in her review:
"It's funny how movies about smart people often play so dumb. Take the terribly serious film adaptation of David Auburn's much-admired, prize-laden Broadway play, "Proof." This contemporary drama concerns the daughter of a famous dead mathematician struggling to come to terms with both her father's legacy and her own troubled mind. Fearful that she has inherited his madness, Catherine may instead have inherited his genius, and it's this tension - is she ring-a-ding nuts or just brilliant - that is meant to fuel the story's professed suspense, making it something of a psychological whodunit.
As adapted to the screen by Mr. Auburn and Rebecca Miller, and directed by John Madden, the film "Proof" suggests yet another possibility for why Catherine behaves as she does: mainly, that this chick is a total pill. It takes some time for this to sink in, though there are intimations of trouble almost from the start. We first see Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) channel-surfing in a sitting room, bathed in the blue light of the droning television and keeping company with the likes of Ron Popeil. This solitary spell is suddenly broken, first by a flashback and a glimpse of a sunnier past, and then by the rumpled form of Anthony Hopkins as Catherine's father, Robert. More a complex than a viable character, Robert happens to be dead, if not quite dead enough for his difficult daughter.
Despite the inconvenience of his death, the father talks to the daughter, or rather she talks to him, the two as well matched and cozy as a pair of old bedroom slippers. She swigs some phony champagne (from the Midwest); he, meanwhile, inquires about the nonexistent plans for her birthday. (Perhaps because Mr. Madden all but gropes his 32-year-old actress's face with his camera, the character is somewhat older than she is in the play.) Though played by the winsome Ms. Paltrow, Catherine, it turns out, is friendless - absent confidant, lover or much of any human companionship. Having nursed her father in the last years of his life, she has retreated from the land of the living and curled up inside herself. It is a self as dark and deep as an underground cave, and as uninviting.
How Catherine escapes that cave - and we, presumably, along with her - involves some pop psychology (the drama of the gifted child, ad infinitum), a shot of romance and the usual closure that will bundle her daddy issues into a manageable package. Toggling awkwardly between the past (Catherine smiling) and the present (Catherine frowning), the filmmakers try to build a case for how the character lost her way, and why. Catherine, it emerges, might have written a brilliant proof that may eclipse the work of her father. Whether she has the goods or is just siphoning his legend becomes the story's way into her character, as does her relationship with her disbelieving older sister, Claire (Hope Davis, in a thankless role), and her budding interest in one of her father's students, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal)."
Solving for X: Is She Crazy or a Math Mastermind?
"It's funny how movies about smart people often play so dumb. Take the terribly serious film adaptation of David Auburn's much-admired, prize-laden Broadway play, "Proof." This contemporary drama concerns the daughter of a famous dead mathematician struggling to come to terms with both her father's legacy and her own troubled mind. Fearful that she has inherited his madness, Catherine may instead have inherited his genius, and it's this tension - is she ring-a-ding nuts or just brilliant - that is meant to fuel the story's professed suspense, making it something of a psychological whodunit.
As adapted to the screen by Mr. Auburn and Rebecca Miller, and directed by John Madden, the film "Proof" suggests yet another possibility for why Catherine behaves as she does: mainly, that this chick is a total pill. It takes some time for this to sink in, though there are intimations of trouble almost from the start. We first see Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) channel-surfing in a sitting room, bathed in the blue light of the droning television and keeping company with the likes of Ron Popeil. This solitary spell is suddenly broken, first by a flashback and a glimpse of a sunnier past, and then by the rumpled form of Anthony Hopkins as Catherine's father, Robert. More a complex than a viable character, Robert happens to be dead, if not quite dead enough for his difficult daughter.
Despite the inconvenience of his death, the father talks to the daughter, or rather she talks to him, the two as well matched and cozy as a pair of old bedroom slippers. She swigs some phony champagne (from the Midwest); he, meanwhile, inquires about the nonexistent plans for her birthday. (Perhaps because Mr. Madden all but gropes his 32-year-old actress's face with his camera, the character is somewhat older than she is in the play.) Though played by the winsome Ms. Paltrow, Catherine, it turns out, is friendless - absent confidant, lover or much of any human companionship. Having nursed her father in the last years of his life, she has retreated from the land of the living and curled up inside herself. It is a self as dark and deep as an underground cave, and as uninviting.
How Catherine escapes that cave - and we, presumably, along with her - involves some pop psychology (the drama of the gifted child, ad infinitum), a shot of romance and the usual closure that will bundle her daddy issues into a manageable package. Toggling awkwardly between the past (Catherine smiling) and the present (Catherine frowning), the filmmakers try to build a case for how the character lost her way, and why. Catherine, it emerges, might have written a brilliant proof that may eclipse the work of her father. Whether she has the goods or is just siphoning his legend becomes the story's way into her character, as does her relationship with her disbelieving older sister, Claire (Hope Davis, in a thankless role), and her budding interest in one of her father's students, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal)."
Solving for X: Is She Crazy or a Math Mastermind?
Updated On: 9/16/05 at 06:09 AM
#13
Posted: 9/16/05 at 11:12am
I'll still see it. I saw Paltrow in the role in London and she was incredible.
Nothing precious, plain to see, don't make a fuss over me. Not loud, not soft, but somewhere inbetween. Say sorry, just let it be the word you mean.
#14
Posted: 9/16/05 at 4:18pm
I'm going tonight. EW gave it a B-.
Updated On: 9/16/05 at 04:18 PM
#15
Posted: 9/16/05 at 9:45pm
Just back from the 6:00 PM show. I loved it. Gwyneth Paltrow is giving her best performance to date, and deserves an Oscar nomination. Hope Davis was brilliant as Claire. Jake Gyllenhaal was great as Hal. I didn't particularly care for Anthony Hopkins, but he wasn't terrible. Just not great. Anyway, this is definitely a must-see.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95