**A review for those who have already watched the movie**
There are a lot of great stories to be told; I often wonder why so many have not been. A swordsman who wins over 100 duels in his life, his first beginning at the age of 13, and by his twenties maintains the handicap of using a wooden blade. Yet the tale of Miyomoto Musashi is one that I have not seen put to film. The world is full of people who tell us what we can not know, yet whether or not they are as wise as they may believe themselves, I have yet to see anyone argue another's ignorance as convincingly or as wittily as Socrates (and with a crucial difference, by first asking what they know, and actually listening to how they think they know it) -- or for as noble a purpose. So when I found that a movie had been made about one of my heroes, I was very eager to see what it amounted to.
I assume that either Matthew Broderick or his mother (or both) who wrote the screen play, must also have been a fan of Feynman. I wouldn't suppose to know everything about Feynman, but I have made an effort to learn everything that I could. I have read his books, looked through his Wikipedia and looked at just about everything I could track down that had anything to do with him.
For me, as a physics student, the appeal of Feynman is mistranslated in the movie. He of course, was no ordinary genius, but how he accomplished what he did was as important (to the "niche" audience) as what he did, and the how seemed to be missing. Feynman developed his capacity for mental math during the Manhattan project via competition with Hans Bethe, and the development is key. The abacus scene was terrible for several reasons, some of them outlined in other reviews, chiefly for misrepresenting Feynman's personality. However the scene also sold out the accessibility of intelligence as something unique to certain individuals, that this was something 'natural' to Feynman. Feynman's IQ was measured at 125, which is supposed to be 15 points below the average PhD. Now, I'm not going to argue about the validity of IQ testing, one of the major personality traits the film wasn't able to touch on was of Feynman's insistence that people were incapable of measuring the aptitude of others' with tests. This "low" score however, was what is truly inspiring about Richard Feynman, that he never claimed to be more than a normal man. All his ability came from work driven by passion and love. Feynman wasn't a Japanese 4 year old who could speak 5 languages and solve Rubick's cubes blindfolded in 7 seconds. He was a lover of life and of learning, and it was his passion that motivated him to work hard, and his love that drove him to never give up and believe he could accomplish anything anyone else could. The real lesson of Feynman is that anyone can reach for greatness, and with drive and effort and luck attain it too. The Feynman story is one that allows us all to believe in ourselves, not one that should make us feel intimidated or insignificant. When Feynman can beat the abacus man at 18 with no background story of how his abilities came to be, it is far less inspiring.
The performances were satisfying, but the story development seemed rushed, especially in the beginning. There was plenty of room for drama in the competition for Arlene with Feynman's old "friend" Howard without the need to throw in so many anecdotes that disrupt his life's true time line.
I think that if you go through the books Feynman wrote only once, you miss how truly stressed Arlene's diminishing health made him. He was in many ways a subtle man, and private. When Feynman writes, I feel like he blindsides his readers from ever detecting how much he was hiding from them, with the sheer vulnerability he subjects himself to with his honesty. You can't see what hes not saying because he has already surprised you with the courage to say so much more than most people will admit to. To know how he was really feeling I think requires reading between the lines. When Feynman sees the dress, it is a total breakdown, it is overwhelming. In everything Feynman ever wrote, that was the only time he ever confessed "it was too much." I can hardly think of the scene depicted in his books without coming to tears, even now. The story of he and Arlene really is, as another reviewer put it, one of the greatest real love stories I have ever heard of.
I don't know much about movies, and I understand there are limitations. You can't fit everything into 90 minutes and "the book is always better." I would be curious to hear Mr. Broderick explain why he went the way he did with certain aspects of the film. I certainly couldn't comment on whether writing, acting, and directing simultaneously would have been too much. If the film gets anyone to go and look up Richard Feynman, I think it will have served its purpose.
There are a lot of great stories to be told; I often wonder why so many have not been. A swordsman who wins over 100 duels in his life, his first beginning at the age of 13, and by his twenties maintains the handicap of using a wooden blade. Yet the tale of Miyomoto Musashi is one that I have not seen put to film. The world is full of people who tell us what we can not know, yet whether or not they are as wise as they may believe themselves, I have yet to see anyone argue another's ignorance as convincingly or as wittily as Socrates (and with a crucial difference, by first asking what they know, and actually listening to how they think they know it) -- or for as noble a purpose. So when I found that a movie had been made about one of my heroes, I was very eager to see what it amounted to.
I assume that either Matthew Broderick or his mother (or both) who wrote the screen play, must also have been a fan of Feynman. I wouldn't suppose to know everything about Feynman, but I have made an effort to learn everything that I could. I have read his books, looked through his Wikipedia and looked at just about everything I could track down that had anything to do with him.
For me, as a physics student, the appeal of Feynman is mistranslated in the movie. He of course, was no ordinary genius, but how he accomplished what he did was as important (to the "niche" audience) as what he did, and the how seemed to be missing. Feynman developed his capacity for mental math during the Manhattan project via competition with Hans Bethe, and the development is key. The abacus scene was terrible for several reasons, some of them outlined in other reviews, chiefly for misrepresenting Feynman's personality. However the scene also sold out the accessibility of intelligence as something unique to certain individuals, that this was something 'natural' to Feynman. Feynman's IQ was measured at 125, which is supposed to be 15 points below the average PhD. Now, I'm not going to argue about the validity of IQ testing, one of the major personality traits the film wasn't able to touch on was of Feynman's insistence that people were incapable of measuring the aptitude of others' with tests. This "low" score however, was what is truly inspiring about Richard Feynman, that he never claimed to be more than a normal man. All his ability came from work driven by passion and love. Feynman wasn't a Japanese 4 year old who could speak 5 languages and solve Rubick's cubes blindfolded in 7 seconds. He was a lover of life and of learning, and it was his passion that motivated him to work hard, and his love that drove him to never give up and believe he could accomplish anything anyone else could. The real lesson of Feynman is that anyone can reach for greatness, and with drive and effort and luck attain it too. The Feynman story is one that allows us all to believe in ourselves, not one that should make us feel intimidated or insignificant. When Feynman can beat the abacus man at 18 with no background story of how his abilities came to be, it is far less inspiring.
The performances were satisfying, but the story development seemed rushed, especially in the beginning. There was plenty of room for drama in the competition for Arlene with Feynman's old "friend" Howard without the need to throw in so many anecdotes that disrupt his life's true time line.
I think that if you go through the books Feynman wrote only once, you miss how truly stressed Arlene's diminishing health made him. He was in many ways a subtle man, and private. When Feynman writes, I feel like he blindsides his readers from ever detecting how much he was hiding from them, with the sheer vulnerability he subjects himself to with his honesty. You can't see what hes not saying because he has already surprised you with the courage to say so much more than most people will admit to. To know how he was really feeling I think requires reading between the lines. When Feynman sees the dress, it is a total breakdown, it is overwhelming. In everything Feynman ever wrote, that was the only time he ever confessed "it was too much." I can hardly think of the scene depicted in his books without coming to tears, even now. The story of he and Arlene really is, as another reviewer put it, one of the greatest real love stories I have ever heard of.
I don't know much about movies, and I understand there are limitations. You can't fit everything into 90 minutes and "the book is always better." I would be curious to hear Mr. Broderick explain why he went the way he did with certain aspects of the film. I certainly couldn't comment on whether writing, acting, and directing simultaneously would have been too much. If the film gets anyone to go and look up Richard Feynman, I think it will have served its purpose.