Proof is a subtle little gem of a film that gets under your skin, forcing multiple viewings. I love movies that have a minimal amount of characters who interact in complex ways, and this film delivers that beautifully. NOT a comedy, as it states on the video box, although it does have very witty and clever moments to spare.
50 Reviews
Yes, Russell Crowe Is In This Movie
daveisit3 December 2000
Having noticed a film crew shooting in the gardens at the end of my street, I eventually realized the film was "Proof". I thought I better check it out, and was pleasantly surprised with the result.
I knew little about either Hugo Weaving or Russell Crowe at the time and thought they were both very good in it, especially Weaving. Like most Australian movies it was filmed on a low budget, and on this occasion produced very good results.
If you enjoyed this for reasons other than the "Crowe Factor", you should try some other Aussie films.
Eg. Malcolm (It's An Unreal Movie)
I knew little about either Hugo Weaving or Russell Crowe at the time and thought they were both very good in it, especially Weaving. Like most Australian movies it was filmed on a low budget, and on this occasion produced very good results.
If you enjoyed this for reasons other than the "Crowe Factor", you should try some other Aussie films.
Eg. Malcolm (It's An Unreal Movie)
Intriguing Storytelling Backed by Superb Performances
kimi_layercake16 August 2010
"Proof" stars two great Australian actors, "Hugo Weaving" and "Russell Crowe" who relatively unknown during this movie, went on achieve great heights in Hollywood."Proof' is about a blind man(Hugo Weaving) who strikes up an unusual friendship with a waiter(Russell Crowe),something scorned by Hugo's maid(Genevieve Picot).
Even with a running time of ~90 minutes, "Proof" can be very slow from time to time, but that's the way the Director wants the audience to feel for the protagonist. The way he feels things around him, the way he walks, the way he talks, his expressions, his unconvincing nature; Hugo Weaving gives the near-perfect performance of a blind man. Russell Crowe exhibits great flair playing a man torn between his friendship with Hugo Weaving and his love life with Genevieve Picot.
The best thing about this movie is its unique script and the way the story unfolds due to small lies and betrayal. The way every character is torn between two aspects of their life is beautifully captured by the Director. The ending is very good and the flash backs of Hugo's childhood are placed appropriately placed throughout the movie, helping to delve deeper into Hugo's character.
Overall, watch this movie, as it offers a unique movie experience. To see two great actors initial movie work is sure to delight a lot of people.
My Verdict: 8/10
Even with a running time of ~90 minutes, "Proof" can be very slow from time to time, but that's the way the Director wants the audience to feel for the protagonist. The way he feels things around him, the way he walks, the way he talks, his expressions, his unconvincing nature; Hugo Weaving gives the near-perfect performance of a blind man. Russell Crowe exhibits great flair playing a man torn between his friendship with Hugo Weaving and his love life with Genevieve Picot.
The best thing about this movie is its unique script and the way the story unfolds due to small lies and betrayal. The way every character is torn between two aspects of their life is beautifully captured by the Director. The ending is very good and the flash backs of Hugo's childhood are placed appropriately placed throughout the movie, helping to delve deeper into Hugo's character.
Overall, watch this movie, as it offers a unique movie experience. To see two great actors initial movie work is sure to delight a lot of people.
My Verdict: 8/10
A little gem
Kay-5417 April 2000
If you are a Russell Crowe fan like me you owe it to yourself to go rent this early example of his work, which deservedly won many Australian film awards in 1991. The plot centers around 3 people - Martin (Hugo Weaving), blind since birth and distrustful of the world, his manipulative housekeeper Celia (Genevieve Picot), and Martin's young friend Andy (Crowe), whom he meets early in the movie. Martin feels that everyone lies to him, even his mother, because he is blind and "because they can." He takes pictures of his world in order to have "proof" that what people are telling him is true. Andy is the person he recruits to describe his photographs to him. The acting is first rate and the movie is in turn sad, funny, dark, and heart warming. In the end, Martin learns that although no one is perfect, sometimes you just have to trust in love. Highly recommended!
Celia & the Bonders
jcappy2 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The success of Proof is in its superior acting and to a lesser degree its characterizations. But its shape and outcome are weakened by too psychological an approach at the expense of power realities.
Martin, the blind protagonist, has the most social power of the three. He's white, male, and minimally middle class. He's got a hip job as a music reviewer for which he is paid well enough to hire a housekeeper. Although he's much alone, he does have his buddy, Andy, whose everyman status mediates Martin's entry or inclusion in the masculine world ("strangulation, mutilation" Andy emotes as he leads the chorus of sadistic beeps at the drive-in), and which in toto equates to male bonding. He also has Celia, the housekeeper, who serves Martin as both wife, mother, housekeeper, secretary, conversationalist, and love/sex interest (interest only, of course) without even minimal commitment on his part. To boot Martin is the central character, whose life Celia and Andy must revolve around. His problem, engrained distrust, especially of women, is the pivotal focus in the world of this film, which is his world.
In contrast, Celia has at best minimal social power. Her sex object status only underscores this fact. For as provocative, fashionable (she looks like the stylish editor of some New York art journal) and sophisticated as she may be, she is ultimately treated no better than Ugly, the cat. She too is alone, motherless and fatherless, but her lack of friends is more real than imagined, and her gender affiliation, if it exists at all, is not empowering. Nor does her job, despite her mastery of it, engage her publicly. She may be an audacious woman who knows her own thoughts and feelings, but these just seem to be forms of self-betrayal. For Martin, her boss, is both condescending and perverse. To him she's a bag, a woman with "no heart," "a vile" despicable woman, which in turn makes Celia compare herself to "a bitch in heat." (She knows men's minds) Seduction and her vengeful game playing are her only forms of leverage--and identity. Satin blouses and snapping photos of her master on the john are poor replacements for the love and world she wants (though, she settles for just being needed). And she is more deeply sex-bound in having to toss her body over to Andy--her only rival for Martin's love-- who she also serves as an older woman sex fantasy.
So, how is it that Martin benefits from the film's psychological framework. For one, it makes him conveniently unaware of Celia's problems. Self-criticism is beyond him because he's self-preoccupied. It is no coincidence that he's a photographer, the spy, in control, of his immediate world and those in it. The way he may or can affect those around him are at best secondary--there are no recognizable oppressors in his world, only victims, of which he is one, and Celia is not. The fact that the solution for his distrust and phobias is finally grasping that his mother was no lier, does not benefit Celia, the second woman in his life. No, it is simple, honest Andy, also enmeshed in the psychological view, who is both the catalyst and beneficiary of Martin's faith. Celia is removed from the ending and sacked from her job because she exists in a framework that denies her gender, her oppression, and her political reality. In other words, male bonding, despite moments of transcendence from it, in the end, prevails in "Proof". Martin and Andy are the odd guys in, Celia the odd woman out--that's what psychology does to politics.
.
Martin, the blind protagonist, has the most social power of the three. He's white, male, and minimally middle class. He's got a hip job as a music reviewer for which he is paid well enough to hire a housekeeper. Although he's much alone, he does have his buddy, Andy, whose everyman status mediates Martin's entry or inclusion in the masculine world ("strangulation, mutilation" Andy emotes as he leads the chorus of sadistic beeps at the drive-in), and which in toto equates to male bonding. He also has Celia, the housekeeper, who serves Martin as both wife, mother, housekeeper, secretary, conversationalist, and love/sex interest (interest only, of course) without even minimal commitment on his part. To boot Martin is the central character, whose life Celia and Andy must revolve around. His problem, engrained distrust, especially of women, is the pivotal focus in the world of this film, which is his world.
In contrast, Celia has at best minimal social power. Her sex object status only underscores this fact. For as provocative, fashionable (she looks like the stylish editor of some New York art journal) and sophisticated as she may be, she is ultimately treated no better than Ugly, the cat. She too is alone, motherless and fatherless, but her lack of friends is more real than imagined, and her gender affiliation, if it exists at all, is not empowering. Nor does her job, despite her mastery of it, engage her publicly. She may be an audacious woman who knows her own thoughts and feelings, but these just seem to be forms of self-betrayal. For Martin, her boss, is both condescending and perverse. To him she's a bag, a woman with "no heart," "a vile" despicable woman, which in turn makes Celia compare herself to "a bitch in heat." (She knows men's minds) Seduction and her vengeful game playing are her only forms of leverage--and identity. Satin blouses and snapping photos of her master on the john are poor replacements for the love and world she wants (though, she settles for just being needed). And she is more deeply sex-bound in having to toss her body over to Andy--her only rival for Martin's love-- who she also serves as an older woman sex fantasy.
So, how is it that Martin benefits from the film's psychological framework. For one, it makes him conveniently unaware of Celia's problems. Self-criticism is beyond him because he's self-preoccupied. It is no coincidence that he's a photographer, the spy, in control, of his immediate world and those in it. The way he may or can affect those around him are at best secondary--there are no recognizable oppressors in his world, only victims, of which he is one, and Celia is not. The fact that the solution for his distrust and phobias is finally grasping that his mother was no lier, does not benefit Celia, the second woman in his life. No, it is simple, honest Andy, also enmeshed in the psychological view, who is both the catalyst and beneficiary of Martin's faith. Celia is removed from the ending and sacked from her job because she exists in a framework that denies her gender, her oppression, and her political reality. In other words, male bonding, despite moments of transcendence from it, in the end, prevails in "Proof". Martin and Andy are the odd guys in, Celia the odd woman out--that's what psychology does to politics.
.
Seductive, compelling, thought-provoking...
tintinnabulationess12 October 2002
This deliciously enticing bit of cinema from Down Under revolves around the activities of three people: A mistrustful blind man, a desperate, love-hungry woman, a misguided young man, and what happens when these three paths intersect.
Martin is a misanthropic blind man, whose unshakable mistrust of humanity compels him to compulsively take photographs of everything around him. So deeply-rooted is his paranoia that he believes his own mother rejected him because of his handicap, and so deceived him in her descriptions of the world. Martin took a picture--his first--of a garden his mother customarily described to him, as evidence that she had lied.
Martin's paranoia that anyone might be lying to him has shaped the rest of his life, growing up to become uncompromising and fiercely independent. He behaves callously in his only human interaction--with his rancorous housekeeper, Celia. Celia is obsessively, possessively in love with Martin. But their relationship is a prickly one, marked with cruelty and malice on both parts. Martin, aware of Celia's desire for him, uses the knowledge as a weapon--tormenting her by keeping her on, but rebuffing her attempts. In return, Celia spitefully rearranges the furniture so Martin will run into it and exploits his dependency on her to boost her own ego.
Years later, Martin is still a photographer, but now he wants someone he can trust to describe his first photo to him, thus giving him the 'proof' of a long-dead mother's love.
This someone happens to be Andy, a dishwasher at a local restaurant. But when Andy threatens to become too great an influence in Martin's life, Celia, feeling her territory has been violated, sets out to discredit Andy--using her sexuality to control both men.
"Proof" could all so easily have slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the film skips nimbly along the line, managing to evade all potential traps. Most of the credit is due to the adroit, agile script and the outstanding performances from the cast.
Jocelyn Moorhouse, the film's director and writer, has the innate gift of comprehending, capturing, and conveying the human condition so aptly, so that the audience is deftly drawn into these characters' lives. The film doesn't rely on a contrived plot to induce interest; these ordinary characters are intrinsically fascinating simply because of who they are.
The acting is superb, making for a fabulous ensemble piece. Hugo Weaving renders a thoughtful performance as Martin, convincingly portraying a man who has closed himself off so effectively against the possibility that he might get hurt, that he has cut off the possibility of feeling. Genevieve Picot is likewise excellent, marvelously calculating, yet vulnerable as Celia. And Russel Crowe radiates an already unmistakable and irresistible charisma on-screen in this early role as Andy. His easy-going, honest, bloke-next-door charm is utterly appealing--a far cry from later roles in "L.A. Confidential" and "Gladiator", showing his incredible acting range.
This diabolically clever, enormously witty, and refreshingly original film can be hilariously funny at some times, genuinely heart-rending at others, and an all-round brilliant bit of cinema. Well-worth a look.
Martin is a misanthropic blind man, whose unshakable mistrust of humanity compels him to compulsively take photographs of everything around him. So deeply-rooted is his paranoia that he believes his own mother rejected him because of his handicap, and so deceived him in her descriptions of the world. Martin took a picture--his first--of a garden his mother customarily described to him, as evidence that she had lied.
Martin's paranoia that anyone might be lying to him has shaped the rest of his life, growing up to become uncompromising and fiercely independent. He behaves callously in his only human interaction--with his rancorous housekeeper, Celia. Celia is obsessively, possessively in love with Martin. But their relationship is a prickly one, marked with cruelty and malice on both parts. Martin, aware of Celia's desire for him, uses the knowledge as a weapon--tormenting her by keeping her on, but rebuffing her attempts. In return, Celia spitefully rearranges the furniture so Martin will run into it and exploits his dependency on her to boost her own ego.
Years later, Martin is still a photographer, but now he wants someone he can trust to describe his first photo to him, thus giving him the 'proof' of a long-dead mother's love.
This someone happens to be Andy, a dishwasher at a local restaurant. But when Andy threatens to become too great an influence in Martin's life, Celia, feeling her territory has been violated, sets out to discredit Andy--using her sexuality to control both men.
"Proof" could all so easily have slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the film skips nimbly along the line, managing to evade all potential traps. Most of the credit is due to the adroit, agile script and the outstanding performances from the cast.
Jocelyn Moorhouse, the film's director and writer, has the innate gift of comprehending, capturing, and conveying the human condition so aptly, so that the audience is deftly drawn into these characters' lives. The film doesn't rely on a contrived plot to induce interest; these ordinary characters are intrinsically fascinating simply because of who they are.
The acting is superb, making for a fabulous ensemble piece. Hugo Weaving renders a thoughtful performance as Martin, convincingly portraying a man who has closed himself off so effectively against the possibility that he might get hurt, that he has cut off the possibility of feeling. Genevieve Picot is likewise excellent, marvelously calculating, yet vulnerable as Celia. And Russel Crowe radiates an already unmistakable and irresistible charisma on-screen in this early role as Andy. His easy-going, honest, bloke-next-door charm is utterly appealing--a far cry from later roles in "L.A. Confidential" and "Gladiator", showing his incredible acting range.
This diabolically clever, enormously witty, and refreshingly original film can be hilariously funny at some times, genuinely heart-rending at others, and an all-round brilliant bit of cinema. Well-worth a look.
Creative story with good acting.
nicolechan91630 January 2016
The story of a blind photographer is certainly an interesting one. The film doesn't show us how Martin makes a living, but he does seem to live quite a comfortable life. The reason he photographs is so he can have proof that what he thinks is out there corresponds to what people describe to him from his photos. This is what Andy mainly does at the beginning. Martin gives him photographs, and Andy describes them to him which Martin can then label. However, the flaw about this is how can Martin possible remember each photograph he takes? Either he would forget at least the majority of the pictures he takes at any day, so when he goes to develop them he wouldn't really know where they are from. Or, after he has labelled them and revisits them, how would he remember what the words mean in relation to the photograph? There is no time or place assigned to the feel or words of the label, which is especially hard to achieve without visual aids (unless he has 'photographic memory').
Weaving does a pretty good job at his character, and you can definitely get the sense of his character's dry wit. The tension between him and Celia is one I find very awkward, especially as Celia is always coming on to him. In this way, Picot does a great job with her character, depicting someone whose whole world is centred on this one person. I also enjoy the way she would randomly disrupt furniture pieces so that Martin would bump into them later. It's just so unnecessary and done out of spite that makes it laugh out loud worthy. Crowe as well does great, and his relationship with Weaving is well elaborated and depicted. There are essentially the three characters of this film, and they all interweave in each other's life in drastic ways, producing sound character development.
However, the film moves at quite a slow pace, and there are countless scenes in which the characters just stare at each other in silence- or in Martin's case, sit in silence. This somewhat adds intensity to the film (dark humour), and at the same time makes it uncomfortable and awkward to watch.
The story is well told, and the editing, cinematography and directing all nicely come together. The set designs - especially of Celia's apartment, tells a lot of the character. I wish there would have been more to Martin's place that could have depicted more of who his character was. His dog is cute, and its disappearance on daily walks for a few minutes is the main mystery Martin wishes to solve.
Overall, the film definitely tells an interesting story, but is a little weird. I wouldn't watch it again, or outright recommend it for others to watch.
Weaving does a pretty good job at his character, and you can definitely get the sense of his character's dry wit. The tension between him and Celia is one I find very awkward, especially as Celia is always coming on to him. In this way, Picot does a great job with her character, depicting someone whose whole world is centred on this one person. I also enjoy the way she would randomly disrupt furniture pieces so that Martin would bump into them later. It's just so unnecessary and done out of spite that makes it laugh out loud worthy. Crowe as well does great, and his relationship with Weaving is well elaborated and depicted. There are essentially the three characters of this film, and they all interweave in each other's life in drastic ways, producing sound character development.
However, the film moves at quite a slow pace, and there are countless scenes in which the characters just stare at each other in silence- or in Martin's case, sit in silence. This somewhat adds intensity to the film (dark humour), and at the same time makes it uncomfortable and awkward to watch.
The story is well told, and the editing, cinematography and directing all nicely come together. The set designs - especially of Celia's apartment, tells a lot of the character. I wish there would have been more to Martin's place that could have depicted more of who his character was. His dog is cute, and its disappearance on daily walks for a few minutes is the main mystery Martin wishes to solve.
Overall, the film definitely tells an interesting story, but is a little weird. I wouldn't watch it again, or outright recommend it for others to watch.
A Great Movie from Down Under, with better acting by Crowe than in Gladiator
padawandoug6 May 2003
This is, simply put, a great movie. I won't go into the plot too much, as many other commenters do a good job of that. But suffice to say, the trio of Russell Crowe, Hugo Weaving and Genevieve Picot do more acting in this movie than is contained in all of the blockbusters the first two have made since. (I haven't seen Picot in anything else, so can't comment on her subsequent choices.)
It is definitely a small movie. But that's not a bad thing. Most people's lives are small, and this movie is a good example of how even small events -- especially small events -- can have a huge impact on a person's life.
The essential thing about the movie is not that it's about a blind guy. It's about a guy who is incapable (at the beginning, anyway) of trust. Which is why he must have "proof" of everything around him in the form of photographs (which he, paradoxically, cannot see himself, but must have described to him). By the end of the movie, he has grown enough, or become desperate enough, to try to trust Andy, and show him the most "most important photo I've ever taken."
Genevieve Picot, as the suffering, love stricken housekeeper of Martin, is great. I wish I could see more of her work.
This movie also has some really funny moments, and yes, the funniest line is "I forgot." The second funniest is "Brian." See the movie and you will understand (and laugh your ass off too).
One final note: SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!! (Also: make sure to watch on a TV with good sound. It's important for the ending (the last moment before the credits roll).)
It is definitely a small movie. But that's not a bad thing. Most people's lives are small, and this movie is a good example of how even small events -- especially small events -- can have a huge impact on a person's life.
The essential thing about the movie is not that it's about a blind guy. It's about a guy who is incapable (at the beginning, anyway) of trust. Which is why he must have "proof" of everything around him in the form of photographs (which he, paradoxically, cannot see himself, but must have described to him). By the end of the movie, he has grown enough, or become desperate enough, to try to trust Andy, and show him the most "most important photo I've ever taken."
Genevieve Picot, as the suffering, love stricken housekeeper of Martin, is great. I wish I could see more of her work.
This movie also has some really funny moments, and yes, the funniest line is "I forgot." The second funniest is "Brian." See the movie and you will understand (and laugh your ass off too).
One final note: SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!! (Also: make sure to watch on a TV with good sound. It's important for the ending (the last moment before the credits roll).)
What is real? -This one made me think
juneebuggy1 October 2014
Bizarre, well acted small film about a blind photographer who takes photographs as "proof" that the world really is as others describe it to him. This was quite good, a slice-of-life style movie as we never really get to know any of the characters that well with their backgrounds etc. It's Australian and super fun to see a young Russell Crowe and Hugo Weaving together. Weaving plays Martin who has a love-hate relationship with Celia his housekeeper, she really creeped me out, always watching him, toying with him, rearranging the furniture.
Russell Crowe is young, very cute and does a fantastic job as Martin's mate also getting played by the obsessed housekeeper so that she can have Martin all to herself. I liked how their friendship developed over time -the bit at the drive-in is hilarious. Made me "see" being blind in a whole new light. What is real? Clever movie that I'll be thinking about for a while. 6/20/14
Russell Crowe is young, very cute and does a fantastic job as Martin's mate also getting played by the obsessed housekeeper so that she can have Martin all to herself. I liked how their friendship developed over time -the bit at the drive-in is hilarious. Made me "see" being blind in a whole new light. What is real? Clever movie that I'll be thinking about for a while. 6/20/14
People can fool you
DennisLittrell7 March 2001
If you're blind people can fool you. They can lie to you. And if you're a photographer and you are blind, who will believe you? You need proof, and this is what Martin (Hugo Weaving) seeks. He is a man who projects onto others the lovelessness of his own soul. He believed as a child that his mother died to get away from the shame of having a son who was blind. Even as an adult he believed she lied to him. He goes to the mortuary and is led to her grave where he reads the head stone with his fingers. He asks the mortician if a coffin is sometimes buried empty. The mortician asks why anyone would do that. Martin suggests a prank. The mortician replies, "Seems like a pretty expensive prank." Martin spends his whole life obsessively seeking proof because he can trust no one. Until he meets Andy.
He trusts Andy.
It hardly need be said that Andy, played with boyish charm and just the right amount of discovery by Russell Crowe, will both disappoint Martin and teach him a lesson. Martin certainly needs some kind of lesson. He exploits his housekeeper Celia's obsessive love for him, tormenting her by keeping her on, while denying her love as he inflicts little humiliations. For her part Celia, played with a penetrating and desperate sexuality by Geneviève Picot, mothers him and seeks to dominate. She wants to keep Martin dependant on her in the hope that someday he will seek her love. She controls his life, teaching the dog to prefer her and to come to her when signaled. In her frustration she plays little tricks on Martin, such as putting objects in his path so he will run into them. When Andy threatens to become important to Martin, predictably she seduces him. Thus we have our triangle. Andy also serves as an objectifying device to underscore the obsessions of Martin and Celia.
Jocelyn Moorhouse wrote and directed this original little masterpiece of dark humor from down under. She carefully worked out the character-driven story so that humor and tragedy are in balance and we experience the revelations from the perspective of all three characters. Nothing is fake or hackneyed and no one point of view is preferred. She has the gift of seeing more than one side of the human condition, and it is this gift that makes her scenes so effective. Note that the drive-in theater scene depends on our knowing what Martin is doing and why, while seeing his actions from the point of view of the bikers. He faces the bikers from the driver's seat in the next car and holds up a packet of prophylactics. The biker guy looks over and thinks that he is being taunted by a "fag."
I have seen Moorhouse's How to Make an American Quilt (1995), which also explored the underlying psychological motives of human beings, but this is a better film. It will be interesting to see what she does next.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
He trusts Andy.
It hardly need be said that Andy, played with boyish charm and just the right amount of discovery by Russell Crowe, will both disappoint Martin and teach him a lesson. Martin certainly needs some kind of lesson. He exploits his housekeeper Celia's obsessive love for him, tormenting her by keeping her on, while denying her love as he inflicts little humiliations. For her part Celia, played with a penetrating and desperate sexuality by Geneviève Picot, mothers him and seeks to dominate. She wants to keep Martin dependant on her in the hope that someday he will seek her love. She controls his life, teaching the dog to prefer her and to come to her when signaled. In her frustration she plays little tricks on Martin, such as putting objects in his path so he will run into them. When Andy threatens to become important to Martin, predictably she seduces him. Thus we have our triangle. Andy also serves as an objectifying device to underscore the obsessions of Martin and Celia.
Jocelyn Moorhouse wrote and directed this original little masterpiece of dark humor from down under. She carefully worked out the character-driven story so that humor and tragedy are in balance and we experience the revelations from the perspective of all three characters. Nothing is fake or hackneyed and no one point of view is preferred. She has the gift of seeing more than one side of the human condition, and it is this gift that makes her scenes so effective. Note that the drive-in theater scene depends on our knowing what Martin is doing and why, while seeing his actions from the point of view of the bikers. He faces the bikers from the driver's seat in the next car and holds up a packet of prophylactics. The biker guy looks over and thinks that he is being taunted by a "fag."
I have seen Moorhouse's How to Make an American Quilt (1995), which also explored the underlying psychological motives of human beings, but this is a better film. It will be interesting to see what she does next.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Quirky Aussie comedy
safenoe18 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Proof kind of falls in the quirky Aussie comedy category that Australian comedic movies are kind of renowned for. Genevieve Picot pretty much steals the movie, with Russell Crowe on the verge of megastardom. Just a couple of years later he played the lead in Romper Stomper, a movie about a bunch of racists who direct their violent anger towards the LGBTI community.
A real blinder of a film!
wiggle-24 December 2000
Fantastic film with a slight surreal touch, helped by excellent producing that was not heavy handed or schmaltzy, but very human. Superbly acted by the three leads, particularly by Weaving and Picot. Haunting soundtrack to boot and you have a film that should stay with you for quite a while. Best line: I forgot!
The skeptical blind man
tanujpoddar23 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Proof is a subtle drama centered around Martin, a blind man, who has a deep conviction that everyone tries to deceive him, simply because they 'can'. He has built his life around in such a way so as to not allow anyone to hurt him. He doesn't intend to trust anyone. He has a bizarre system of taking pictures and marking them in braille to be convinced that the world is as is being described to him. His maid Celia has strong feeling for him. He in fact, is specially rude to her advances so that despite his handicap, she is the weaker one in the relationship. In midst of all this comes Andy, whom Martin is able to trust and asks him to describe all the pictures he takes so that he can appropriately tag them. Celia who keeps Martin dependent on her, feels vulnerable when she sees Martin's growing trust in Andy. She manipulates Andy into doing something that shakes Martin's trust in him. Will he be able to win the trust back.
It is not overly melodramatic nor is it very fast paced. It is a gripping tale where the director takes his own time to lay down the characters, revealing them only to the extent as needed to justify their actions. The chemistry between the characters is wonderful and all the three actors do a wonderful job of breathing life into their roles. Overall an enjoyable lighthearted drama with some funny moments in between.
It is not overly melodramatic nor is it very fast paced. It is a gripping tale where the director takes his own time to lay down the characters, revealing them only to the extent as needed to justify their actions. The chemistry between the characters is wonderful and all the three actors do a wonderful job of breathing life into their roles. Overall an enjoyable lighthearted drama with some funny moments in between.
Very Odd
tpwjjcbbv13 November 2023
I don't understand how this film is rated so high. I saw someone else say there's no intellectual density to it and I completely agree. I have to force myself to pay attention. Typically if I'm not feeling a film I'll come back later on and give it a couple more chances, but every time I've come back I actually found myself disliking it more and more. A few of these early Aussie films he was in are just a little too off the rocker for my liking, and not only that but there's just something about them that absolutely bores me to pieces. Im not sure what it is exactly but I'm glad he started doing American films where his brilliance was seen because it definitely was never going to be shown in something like this.
Early Crowe - total brilliance!
uds36 June 2002
Aussie Films are much like the Ford Motor Company. They're either a world beater - or mainstream mediocrity! This little offering is the Shelby Mustang of 90's movie-making.
Weaving is spellbinding (FORGET Agent Smith of THE MATRIX) as a blind photographer who has this unshakeable belief that people lie to him because of his blindness. His world revolves around photographs that others must visually interpret for him. He has a housekeeper that wishes she could do more than housekeep and the day he meets Andy, a dishwasher at the local restaurant, is the first day of a new beginning...but for who?
Suffice to say, Crowe as Andy shows all the portents of future stardom simply by being Russell Crowe. He is superb without really doing anything. For just a three character film, this is spellbinding stuff (much like THE INTERVIEW).
No more need be divulged. I would simply say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. It deserved every award it won. This is a 10! See it!
Weaving is spellbinding (FORGET Agent Smith of THE MATRIX) as a blind photographer who has this unshakeable belief that people lie to him because of his blindness. His world revolves around photographs that others must visually interpret for him. He has a housekeeper that wishes she could do more than housekeep and the day he meets Andy, a dishwasher at the local restaurant, is the first day of a new beginning...but for who?
Suffice to say, Crowe as Andy shows all the portents of future stardom simply by being Russell Crowe. He is superb without really doing anything. For just a three character film, this is spellbinding stuff (much like THE INTERVIEW).
No more need be divulged. I would simply say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. It deserved every award it won. This is a 10! See it!
Well-written, amazingly crafted piece of work.
ymmykay6 February 2008
For my Social Psychology class, my teacher showed this movie for one of our first lessons. The point of the movie was to not look at Martin, the main character, as a blind man, but as a fully capable person who was incidentally blind.
Martin, the main character, is a blind man who uses a camera and pictures as his "eyes," trusting the character of Andy to faithfully describe these pictures so that Martin can "see" them. However, trust doesn't come easily to Martin, who doubts many people in his life including his housekeeper, Celia, who is madly in love with him, and even his own Mother, who through flashbacks we see was never really trusted. Martin giving his trust to Andy, someone he barely knows, makes Celia angry and sets off a chain of events.
The story evolves from there, each scene an important piece of the puzzle (which is refreshing, no scenes are put there just to be there). The main theme of this movie is the element of trust, which Martin seems to lack, Andy seems eager to give, and Celia wants to receive.
Looking at Martin as a person, not as a blind man, makes this movie all the more rich. Martin is easily related to - Trusting someone and expecting honesty is something we all want. Similarly, Martin wants control of his life (and is by all means capable of it), but he still has that element of vulnerability, despite how much he tries to deny it. Martin must also accept the fact that people are not always perfect. They lie sometimes, and sometimes that's okay.
All in all, this movie is amazingly crafted, well written, and funny.
Martin, the main character, is a blind man who uses a camera and pictures as his "eyes," trusting the character of Andy to faithfully describe these pictures so that Martin can "see" them. However, trust doesn't come easily to Martin, who doubts many people in his life including his housekeeper, Celia, who is madly in love with him, and even his own Mother, who through flashbacks we see was never really trusted. Martin giving his trust to Andy, someone he barely knows, makes Celia angry and sets off a chain of events.
The story evolves from there, each scene an important piece of the puzzle (which is refreshing, no scenes are put there just to be there). The main theme of this movie is the element of trust, which Martin seems to lack, Andy seems eager to give, and Celia wants to receive.
Looking at Martin as a person, not as a blind man, makes this movie all the more rich. Martin is easily related to - Trusting someone and expecting honesty is something we all want. Similarly, Martin wants control of his life (and is by all means capable of it), but he still has that element of vulnerability, despite how much he tries to deny it. Martin must also accept the fact that people are not always perfect. They lie sometimes, and sometimes that's okay.
All in all, this movie is amazingly crafted, well written, and funny.
This is a Classic which can be viewed over and over
chevy_malibu9714 January 2002
I first saw this film in 1992 in the Angelica Film Center in Manhatten. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it and went back to see it at least 5 more times and 1 time on Long Island. This film has everything I look for in a film. A real human story. Even though the cast basically consists of 3 characters, it is very complex. I found myself particularly drawn to Andy ( Russell Crowe). Andy is a "Everyman" drawn into a unique situation of befriending a blind guy ( Hugo Weaving) who likes to takes photos as proof of what was there. I think Andy's attraction to Celia is probably Physical and unaware of the fact that he is drawn into an unlikely game between Celia and Martin. I own this now on Video and never tire of it. This is the film that I first saw Russell Crowe in. At the time I thought he was a very talented actor ( as is the rest of the cast). I knew then what the rest of America has discovered since "LA Confidential" that Russell is versitle and extremely talented. See this film . It does not have the blood and guts of "Gladiator" but is just as gripping. See the early talent of Russell Crowe. See a masterpiece.
Jocelyn Moorhouse explores relationships
lee_eisenberg3 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I learned about Jocelyn Moorhouse from her 2015 movie "The Dressmaker", about a seamstress (Kate Winslet) who returns to her conservative hometown with revenge on her mind. That movie addressed the protagonist's relationships with those around her.
An early movie wherein Moorhouse focused on relationships was 1991's "Proof". Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in "The Matrix") plays a blind man who takes pictures so that people can tell him what's around him. He also suspects that his apparently dead mother might have abandoned him in shame. Can he trust the people around him, given that anyone can take advantage of him?
A particularly effective scene is when Russell Crowe's character takes Weaving's character to a drive-in movie. Weaving inadvertently provokes a fight, not realizing what he was doing. This can happen with disabled people, since any disability - mental or physical - can cause a communication breakdown.
It's not any kind of masterpiece, but I like how it shows the development of the love triangle between the two men and the caretaker. I wish that there were more movies like this (not that I expect such movies from Hollywood).
An early movie wherein Moorhouse focused on relationships was 1991's "Proof". Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in "The Matrix") plays a blind man who takes pictures so that people can tell him what's around him. He also suspects that his apparently dead mother might have abandoned him in shame. Can he trust the people around him, given that anyone can take advantage of him?
A particularly effective scene is when Russell Crowe's character takes Weaving's character to a drive-in movie. Weaving inadvertently provokes a fight, not realizing what he was doing. This can happen with disabled people, since any disability - mental or physical - can cause a communication breakdown.
It's not any kind of masterpiece, but I like how it shows the development of the love triangle between the two men and the caretaker. I wish that there were more movies like this (not that I expect such movies from Hollywood).
A delightful -- and unexpected -- surprise
Addie-719 July 2001
This was a real sleeper for me -- I had never heard of it until I read Russell Crowe's bio on IMDb. I checked the movie out and, as soon as it was finished, I rewound it and played it straight through again. I just wasn't ready to let it go. I liked the story, admired the dialogue, and loved the acting. Crowe was a real revelation; I hadn't seen him in anything but LA Confidential, The Insider, and Gladiator -- in other words, a full-blown star -- and he was uttterly lovable as Andy, a basically decent guy with honest instincts. I have only one quarrel with the story and it is a minor one: Martin hates and distrusts his mother, yet we are given is no basis for this -- indeed, quite the contrary. As we see his mother in flashback scenes, she is a loving woman who patiently tries to teach her son how to listen to his world and see with his ears. There is simply no foundation laid to motivate Martin's antipathy toward her and his subsequent distrust of the world. Other than that, I found this film to be real and lovable, just like Andy.
Fundamentally false attractions
dougjn9 November 2008
I was interested in seeing this movie when it appeared on cable, and it's principally interesting, as one of the first bits of work of Russell Crowe which are widely available. He does a fine job. Unfortunately I really can't recommend it. Whoever did the casting did a dreadful and fundamentally false job. Yes it's slow paced but it also has low intellectual density. There just isn't enough going on in this narrow little world. Worse a good lot of what is going on rings fundamentally false.
There certainly could be a great deal interesting about a blind man, Martin, and his long time faithful housekeeper (played by Picot), who's sexually and emotionally obsessed with him even though or maybe partly because he treats her coldly and even semi cruelly, while never acceding to her desires for intimate relations. Martin too has a twisted attraction to Picot, primarily because he can deny her, and yet she keeps coming back to him. We learn it all goes back to some lies Martin's convinced his mother repeatedly told him as a child, and related things. Into all this twisted pair comes the early twenties Russell Crowe, working for the moment as a restaurant kitchen worker, who surprisingly accedes to the blind man's at first very hesitant efforts to befriend him. Increasingly they do become genuine if strange friends, around the conceit of Martin's use of picture taking as "proof" that he's experiencing the world, and his need for someone to describe the pictures back to him "so he can label them". The housekeeper Picot finds this sunny friendship threatens her psychological pas de deux with Martin, and so a dark psychological triangle ensues.
A story like this lives or dies according to it's artistic understanding of human character dynamics and psychological forces. This Martin would simply not attract or hold Picot's interest. I get the mutual masochism/sadism going on, but those things require a sufficiently worthy subject to become darkly obsessed with to begin with. I see why Martin might be to Picot, but not at all why Picot would. That simply doesn't work. Martin doesn't have the female sexual attraction chops sufficient for a Picot. It's false.
OK she's a few years (about five) older (though she doesn't look it) though both are in their thirties, but she is good if not spectacular looking, thin and even has a rather naturally elegant and intelligent air about her. He's good enough looking but hardly suffused with charisma or edgie energy. Instead he's at least fairly nerdy looking, with absolutely nothing going on in his life, socially or achievement wise. He does essentially nothing.
For her to be obsessively attracted to a blind man is hardly impossible. If he were accomplished in some way, especially artistically, or rich or socially connected, or very intelligent and intellectually interesting, or at least had compelling and believable ambitions, then it could be believable. If he had a truly magnetic personality others, a number of others, would be attracted to him too. They aren't. Here he's not even in any social network. He lives a tiny almost hermit life.
Meanwhile, it's unbelievable enough that a woman of Pico's age (mid thirties), looks and intelligence, with no immigrant language challenges, would remain a long term housekeeper, much less one to a blind man in a pokey little flat, for little money.
Her obsessive attraction to him just doesn't work for fundamental reasons of female sexual dynamics. The mutual orphans at a young age thing and duet of dependent cruelness could well juice up and twist an initial sexual attraction based on a lot more than we have here, but as it is, it just doesn't compute. And so it tells us false things about people, and women.
I could say similar things about Crowe being attracted to Martin as a friend he spends lots of time with. Now if Martin were rich or well connected, or had knowledge of or entre into some other world that Crowe felt shut out of, that would be something else. But the Crowe of this film, though believably enough a "black sheep" who's irresponsible and has gone from job to job, is obviously a high testosterone stud of a guy. Crowe can play the introvert and often has, and does here as well, in addition to the tough "bad boy" side to him. It's not impossible that his character would accept the friend overtures of someone with Martin's personality. But it does seem will nigh impossible to me that he'd spent lots of time with this Martin who has so little to offer i.e. inhabited such a tiny, do nothing and know no one world as Martin does here.
If dark psychological dramas aren't based on true character dynamics, then really what are they worth? False insights are worse than useless.
There certainly could be a great deal interesting about a blind man, Martin, and his long time faithful housekeeper (played by Picot), who's sexually and emotionally obsessed with him even though or maybe partly because he treats her coldly and even semi cruelly, while never acceding to her desires for intimate relations. Martin too has a twisted attraction to Picot, primarily because he can deny her, and yet she keeps coming back to him. We learn it all goes back to some lies Martin's convinced his mother repeatedly told him as a child, and related things. Into all this twisted pair comes the early twenties Russell Crowe, working for the moment as a restaurant kitchen worker, who surprisingly accedes to the blind man's at first very hesitant efforts to befriend him. Increasingly they do become genuine if strange friends, around the conceit of Martin's use of picture taking as "proof" that he's experiencing the world, and his need for someone to describe the pictures back to him "so he can label them". The housekeeper Picot finds this sunny friendship threatens her psychological pas de deux with Martin, and so a dark psychological triangle ensues.
A story like this lives or dies according to it's artistic understanding of human character dynamics and psychological forces. This Martin would simply not attract or hold Picot's interest. I get the mutual masochism/sadism going on, but those things require a sufficiently worthy subject to become darkly obsessed with to begin with. I see why Martin might be to Picot, but not at all why Picot would. That simply doesn't work. Martin doesn't have the female sexual attraction chops sufficient for a Picot. It's false.
OK she's a few years (about five) older (though she doesn't look it) though both are in their thirties, but she is good if not spectacular looking, thin and even has a rather naturally elegant and intelligent air about her. He's good enough looking but hardly suffused with charisma or edgie energy. Instead he's at least fairly nerdy looking, with absolutely nothing going on in his life, socially or achievement wise. He does essentially nothing.
For her to be obsessively attracted to a blind man is hardly impossible. If he were accomplished in some way, especially artistically, or rich or socially connected, or very intelligent and intellectually interesting, or at least had compelling and believable ambitions, then it could be believable. If he had a truly magnetic personality others, a number of others, would be attracted to him too. They aren't. Here he's not even in any social network. He lives a tiny almost hermit life.
Meanwhile, it's unbelievable enough that a woman of Pico's age (mid thirties), looks and intelligence, with no immigrant language challenges, would remain a long term housekeeper, much less one to a blind man in a pokey little flat, for little money.
Her obsessive attraction to him just doesn't work for fundamental reasons of female sexual dynamics. The mutual orphans at a young age thing and duet of dependent cruelness could well juice up and twist an initial sexual attraction based on a lot more than we have here, but as it is, it just doesn't compute. And so it tells us false things about people, and women.
I could say similar things about Crowe being attracted to Martin as a friend he spends lots of time with. Now if Martin were rich or well connected, or had knowledge of or entre into some other world that Crowe felt shut out of, that would be something else. But the Crowe of this film, though believably enough a "black sheep" who's irresponsible and has gone from job to job, is obviously a high testosterone stud of a guy. Crowe can play the introvert and often has, and does here as well, in addition to the tough "bad boy" side to him. It's not impossible that his character would accept the friend overtures of someone with Martin's personality. But it does seem will nigh impossible to me that he'd spent lots of time with this Martin who has so little to offer i.e. inhabited such a tiny, do nothing and know no one world as Martin does here.
If dark psychological dramas aren't based on true character dynamics, then really what are they worth? False insights are worse than useless.
A proof is a proof
orcagurl5 March 2004
Goodness, this is a terrific movie! I was lucky to get my hands on it, as it has VERY limited access where I'm from. If you can get your hands on this film, buy it! And if you don't like it....give it to me! ok, lol.
Proof is not a comedy. It is not even a black comedy (or black, BLACKEST comedy) though it has some moments that will make you laugh or smile broadly ("You killed ugly!"). It isn't a movie so heavy either that you'll feel like someone's been slapping you throughout the film either. It is very poignant, often surreal, but very, very intelligent. Proof is a very complex movie. In other words, you can't label the characters, 'evil' or 'good' and be done with it. You got to look deeper, and the actors subtly bring it out to an external medium and you'll see it. You just gotta remember to open your eyes.
Hugo Weaving was amazing here. In fact they were all good! Including the dog. Weaving really makes you think he's a blind person, and I almost thought for a second he was until I heard "Mr Anderson" ringing in my head again.
Proof is probably the movie that comes closest to reality in people's lives. And the drive-in scene is priceless.
Proof is not a comedy. It is not even a black comedy (or black, BLACKEST comedy) though it has some moments that will make you laugh or smile broadly ("You killed ugly!"). It isn't a movie so heavy either that you'll feel like someone's been slapping you throughout the film either. It is very poignant, often surreal, but very, very intelligent. Proof is a very complex movie. In other words, you can't label the characters, 'evil' or 'good' and be done with it. You got to look deeper, and the actors subtly bring it out to an external medium and you'll see it. You just gotta remember to open your eyes.
Hugo Weaving was amazing here. In fact they were all good! Including the dog. Weaving really makes you think he's a blind person, and I almost thought for a second he was until I heard "Mr Anderson" ringing in my head again.
Proof is probably the movie that comes closest to reality in people's lives. And the drive-in scene is priceless.
An Emotionally-Rewarding and Original Masterpiece
a-kos4 July 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Proof is an outstanding film that few people have even heard of, especially in the U.S. There are a few SPOILERS that follow, but I'll try not to reveal too much.
The plot of Proof is simple: A blind photographer (Martin) is obsessed with taking pictures to prove that what he senses it the truth. Numerous flashbacks of Martin's childhood indicate that his mother may have lied to him repeatedly. This is the emotional root of his pathological distrust of everyone. As a child, Martin's first photo reveals definitively whether his mother was in fact lying. Now, he must find someone he can trust to describe it for him.
Martin's life revolves around two other characters (well, three if you include Bill, the canine). First, Celia is his pernicious housekeeper with an obsessive love for Martin. The relationship operates in a vicious circle; Martin knows of Celia's feelings and uses this as a weapon to torment Celia. Celia resents this and vindictively torments Martin. This circle is the source of some fascinating dark humor. Later, Martin forms a friendship with Andy. Seemingly honest and forthright, Andy describes Martin's photos for him. Celia feels threatened by Andy, feeling that her territory (Martin) is being violated. Celia uses her sexuality to manipulate Andy to lie to Martin. Celia subsequently reveals Andy's lie to Martin in an attempt to destroy their friendship. In the final scene, Andy describes Martin's first photo for him (like Martin, we never actually see it).
The simple plot and limited number of characters allow Martin, Celia, and Andy to develop a triangle of emotional depth and resonance. Proof is psychologically complex and multi-faceted, requiring undivided attention. It is about the fragility of true friendship, betrayal, obsession, forgiveness and ultimately accepting the indefinite nature of truth. Proof evokes a full spectrum emotions, often being simultaneously comical and sad.
Though writer/director Moorhouse uses elements from other filmmakers (most notably, Hitchcock), Proof is like no other film I have ever seen. Such an usual story could have easily slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the writing is supple and the characters are played with perfect balance by outstanding actors (Russell Crowe garnered critical acclaim in this film well before he became popular). Viewers with patience and commitment will have difficulty finding a more emotionally rewarding film experience.
[Note: I'd be happy to discuss (no petty insults) this film with anyone. Please feel free to e-mail me any comments.]
The plot of Proof is simple: A blind photographer (Martin) is obsessed with taking pictures to prove that what he senses it the truth. Numerous flashbacks of Martin's childhood indicate that his mother may have lied to him repeatedly. This is the emotional root of his pathological distrust of everyone. As a child, Martin's first photo reveals definitively whether his mother was in fact lying. Now, he must find someone he can trust to describe it for him.
Martin's life revolves around two other characters (well, three if you include Bill, the canine). First, Celia is his pernicious housekeeper with an obsessive love for Martin. The relationship operates in a vicious circle; Martin knows of Celia's feelings and uses this as a weapon to torment Celia. Celia resents this and vindictively torments Martin. This circle is the source of some fascinating dark humor. Later, Martin forms a friendship with Andy. Seemingly honest and forthright, Andy describes Martin's photos for him. Celia feels threatened by Andy, feeling that her territory (Martin) is being violated. Celia uses her sexuality to manipulate Andy to lie to Martin. Celia subsequently reveals Andy's lie to Martin in an attempt to destroy their friendship. In the final scene, Andy describes Martin's first photo for him (like Martin, we never actually see it).
The simple plot and limited number of characters allow Martin, Celia, and Andy to develop a triangle of emotional depth and resonance. Proof is psychologically complex and multi-faceted, requiring undivided attention. It is about the fragility of true friendship, betrayal, obsession, forgiveness and ultimately accepting the indefinite nature of truth. Proof evokes a full spectrum emotions, often being simultaneously comical and sad.
Though writer/director Moorhouse uses elements from other filmmakers (most notably, Hitchcock), Proof is like no other film I have ever seen. Such an usual story could have easily slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the writing is supple and the characters are played with perfect balance by outstanding actors (Russell Crowe garnered critical acclaim in this film well before he became popular). Viewers with patience and commitment will have difficulty finding a more emotionally rewarding film experience.
[Note: I'd be happy to discuss (no petty insults) this film with anyone. Please feel free to e-mail me any comments.]
Beautiful story of friendship
bulgerpaul3 December 2021
An affecting, modest comedy-drama starring Russell Crowe and Hugo Weaving in their 20s, shattering my preconceived worldview that they were both born middle aged.
This will make a wonderful addition to my representations of people with disabilities list, one that directly confronts the challenges of a disability, how having a disability simultaneously isolates a person while placing them in a state of dependence, and how their vulnerabilities strains the integrity of their caretakers, leaving them open to predation and deceit.
"Why would I lie to you?" "Because you can"
Martin is a blind man. His blindness has made him bitter and hateful. He's fully aware he is dependent on the honesty of strangers, acquaintances, family members, and friends, but he's also aware he's been deceived by those he's dependent on. Fueling his frustration is his inability to prove when he's being lied to. This in tandem with the fact that he also knows he's being lied, but only sometimes, and he can never know when. Martin forms a friendship, built entirely on trust, with a man named Andy, due to his succinct and honest descriptions of the photographs Martin takes around his city. Martin's utter dependence on Andy's honesty is the foundational pillar under which their friendship is built, as the descriptions Martin places in Braille on the backs of his photographs are dependent on Andy's total honesty, honesty that is put to the test when a love triangle forms out of Andy's infatuation with Martin's housekeeper, and Martin's housekeeper's obsession with making Martin dependent upon her.
In the mix, exploitation becomes the common theme. Celia exploits Andy's infatuation with her to drive a wedge between Andy and Martin's friendship, Martin exploits Celia'a infatuation with him because it's one of the few powers he has in his life, and both Andy and Celia exploits Martin's disability each to their own ends, Celia to make for herself a romantic partner utterly dependent upon her, and Andy in a bid to simultaneously preserve his friendship while pursuing the forbidden woman. But then the ending of this movie legitimately surprised me, poignantly breaking the cycle of exploitation and ending on a note of forgiveness, with each of the characters in this triangle recognizing the hurt they've caused each other and making things right, delivering an ending far more uplifting than I could've expected from means this modest.
"Everybody lies. But not all the time, and that's the point."
The unexpected emotional wallop this film packs is of course aided by the surprising amount of chemistry between Weaving and Crowe. The groundwork for their friendship is truly delightful. All of the antics ensuing the drive-in sequence truly made me feel like I was making memories and sharing laughs with a good friend. It's wild just how well their on screen pairing works.
This will make a wonderful addition to my representations of people with disabilities list, one that directly confronts the challenges of a disability, how having a disability simultaneously isolates a person while placing them in a state of dependence, and how their vulnerabilities strains the integrity of their caretakers, leaving them open to predation and deceit.
"Why would I lie to you?" "Because you can"
Martin is a blind man. His blindness has made him bitter and hateful. He's fully aware he is dependent on the honesty of strangers, acquaintances, family members, and friends, but he's also aware he's been deceived by those he's dependent on. Fueling his frustration is his inability to prove when he's being lied to. This in tandem with the fact that he also knows he's being lied, but only sometimes, and he can never know when. Martin forms a friendship, built entirely on trust, with a man named Andy, due to his succinct and honest descriptions of the photographs Martin takes around his city. Martin's utter dependence on Andy's honesty is the foundational pillar under which their friendship is built, as the descriptions Martin places in Braille on the backs of his photographs are dependent on Andy's total honesty, honesty that is put to the test when a love triangle forms out of Andy's infatuation with Martin's housekeeper, and Martin's housekeeper's obsession with making Martin dependent upon her.
In the mix, exploitation becomes the common theme. Celia exploits Andy's infatuation with her to drive a wedge between Andy and Martin's friendship, Martin exploits Celia'a infatuation with him because it's one of the few powers he has in his life, and both Andy and Celia exploits Martin's disability each to their own ends, Celia to make for herself a romantic partner utterly dependent upon her, and Andy in a bid to simultaneously preserve his friendship while pursuing the forbidden woman. But then the ending of this movie legitimately surprised me, poignantly breaking the cycle of exploitation and ending on a note of forgiveness, with each of the characters in this triangle recognizing the hurt they've caused each other and making things right, delivering an ending far more uplifting than I could've expected from means this modest.
"Everybody lies. But not all the time, and that's the point."
The unexpected emotional wallop this film packs is of course aided by the surprising amount of chemistry between Weaving and Crowe. The groundwork for their friendship is truly delightful. All of the antics ensuing the drive-in sequence truly made me feel like I was making memories and sharing laughs with a good friend. It's wild just how well their on screen pairing works.
Early Weaving and Crowe - this film probably launched both their careers
YesterdaysJam3 December 2005
This film has long been a personal favourite, and I was recently prompted to watch it again on DVD, after the recent AFI (Australian Film Institute) Awards in November 2005, during which Russell Crowe (hosting the ceremony) presented the Best Actor award to Hugo Weaving for "Little Fish" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382810/). These two actors, since filming "Proof" together 15 years ago, have both carved out significant international acting careers.
"Proof" is a "three-hander" that you may think was adapted from a play, but is actually an original screenplay, by Jocelyn Moorhouse who also directs. The film revolves around a lonely, isolated blind man (Weaving) whose only outlet is, oddly, photography. His housekeeper (Genevieve Picot) abuses the power that she has over him due to his disability. She then becomes threatened by his new friendship with a kitchen hand (Crowe). As the twisted love triangle (of sorts) plays out, flashbacks show us how a blind boy's sad childhood led to an obsession with truth and a reluctance to trust.
This is a beautiful film that I enjoy more and more each time I watch it, thanks to a brilliant script, and great performances by all three leading actors.
"Proof" is a "three-hander" that you may think was adapted from a play, but is actually an original screenplay, by Jocelyn Moorhouse who also directs. The film revolves around a lonely, isolated blind man (Weaving) whose only outlet is, oddly, photography. His housekeeper (Genevieve Picot) abuses the power that she has over him due to his disability. She then becomes threatened by his new friendship with a kitchen hand (Crowe). As the twisted love triangle (of sorts) plays out, flashbacks show us how a blind boy's sad childhood led to an obsession with truth and a reluctance to trust.
This is a beautiful film that I enjoy more and more each time I watch it, thanks to a brilliant script, and great performances by all three leading actors.
Emotionally complex drama
bandw11 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard that this story involved a blind photographer my first reaction was, "I don't get it." So, one reason I watched this was to see how that premise could play out in any realistic way. And it does. Martin (Hugo Weaving) is the photographer; he takes photos and has people describe them to him. Dating to the relationship with his mother in childhood Martin has an industrial strength case of distrust.
Celia (Geneviève Picot) is Martin's housekeeper and the relationship between Martin and Celia is the central focus of the movie. We don't get too far into it before we realize that Celia is deeply in love with Martin, a love that he does not reciprocate. This situation seems to be agreeable to both parties--in fact they appear to get a thrill out of thwarting each other. For example, Celia moves objects around the house just so Martin will crash into them.
The game that Martin and Celia are playing is thrown off center when Andy (a young Russell Crowe) befriends Martin, and that is when things get interesting. Andy finds Martin's hobby curious and is happy to describe the photos for him. How Celia uses her sexuality to deal with her jealousy, how Martin uses his photos to deal with his trust problems, and how poor, innocent Andy deals with being sucked into the vortex of this battle of wills is what makes the movie engaging. It reminds me of how the innocent young professor and his wife were pulled into the private war that George and Martha were fighting in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
I had a little problem with the casting. It was hard to see what Celia found in Martin that would create an obsessive love, but I suppose in the area of sex and love anything is possible. And it was difficult for me to believe that the eminently handsome and likable Andy could have been alone in the world, so alone as to befriend Martin.
Celia (Geneviève Picot) is Martin's housekeeper and the relationship between Martin and Celia is the central focus of the movie. We don't get too far into it before we realize that Celia is deeply in love with Martin, a love that he does not reciprocate. This situation seems to be agreeable to both parties--in fact they appear to get a thrill out of thwarting each other. For example, Celia moves objects around the house just so Martin will crash into them.
The game that Martin and Celia are playing is thrown off center when Andy (a young Russell Crowe) befriends Martin, and that is when things get interesting. Andy finds Martin's hobby curious and is happy to describe the photos for him. How Celia uses her sexuality to deal with her jealousy, how Martin uses his photos to deal with his trust problems, and how poor, innocent Andy deals with being sucked into the vortex of this battle of wills is what makes the movie engaging. It reminds me of how the innocent young professor and his wife were pulled into the private war that George and Martha were fighting in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
I had a little problem with the casting. It was hard to see what Celia found in Martin that would create an obsessive love, but I suppose in the area of sex and love anything is possible. And it was difficult for me to believe that the eminently handsome and likable Andy could have been alone in the world, so alone as to befriend Martin.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
