In Proof, based on David Auburn's Tony- and Pulitzer-Prize-winning play and directed by John Madden, Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the daughter of a great University of Chicago mathematician who had done all his best work by his mid-20s and later lost his mind. Catherine is the faithful daughter who gave up her own promising mathematical education to take care of him until his death. The heroine has inherited her father's talent for math, but having seen him lose his mind she's afraid she's too much like him, and this fear has cut her off from her sister, her career, and any possible friendships or relationships. When a groundbreaking mathematical proof turns up among her late father's notebooks, no one is close enough to Catherine to know if she's capable of having written it, as she claims. They think she's at best delusional.
The drama draws its tension from Catherine's fear that her inheritance from her father is not only a gift but possibly a curse as well. The story is not developed naturalistically, however—the proof at the heart of the piece, for instance, is not explained to us. (The uninitiated couldn't possibly know what is meant when a character refers to an element of a proof as "hip"). Instead, Auburn keeps the romance functioning by setting the plot up as a melodrama with two potential villains: Catherine's sister Claire (Hope Davis), an anal, pink-lady professional who wants to take Catherine back to New York and stash her in a mental institution, and the father's grad student Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), who romances Catherine but who may be exploiting her for the good that association with such a proof could do his career.
The play employs melodrama, but also tries to moderate it. Hal, for instance, turns out to be as nice a guy as his face tells us he is, he just has to learn to have faith in Catherine. Claire is more problematic because the script goes back and forth on an ad hoc basis: she became a currency trader in New York to support her demented father and she is genuinely concerned about Catherine; but she's also a shallow yuppie who cares about hair conditioner, nice clothes, and gourmet coffee, as well as a power freak who sells the house she paid for out from under her sister. Plus she has no faith.
Of course we're in no better position to judge Catherine's competence, and to me the heroine's insistence that she be trusted came off as pretty unreasonable. In the real world, her claim to have written the proof would as a matter of course be subject to verification; it's only in romance that you just know who's right and who's wrong. If you doubt, it's a sign there's something wrong with you. Thus, although mathematics provides the central symbol, the script is not a work of mind but of the theatrical craft involved in disguising Catherine as a loser as long as possible. The editing of the masterly Mick Audsley (My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), Sammy and Rosie Get Laid (1987), Dangerous Liaisons (1988), The Grifters (1990)) provides some cinematic enhancement to that craft, but he's a mosaicist not an alchemist.
![A Stolen Life (1946) [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21TZ2KTD98L._SL120_.jpg)
![Dark Mirror (B&W) [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418KY281KGL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Aaman
Interesting post, Alan - I didn't see the parallels with The Lady Vanishes until you pointed them out.
Gwyneth is just so Gwyneth
2 - Alan Dale
Hey Aaman,
Thanks for the comment. I think it was the breath on the window that made me realize about The Lady Vanishes. Gave me a point of focus for my carping, anyway.
What's up with Paltrow? This could start a brushfire here on Blogcritics, I suppose, but does anybody like her? I don't know anyone who can stand her and the critics who praise her don't sound like they actually like her but rather like they think they should. She's so classy, and all that. Every time I hear or read something she's said, I can feel my arteries harden. If she were fun to watch I wouldn't care.
3 - Jamal Sledge
Hey Alan,
First, I'd have to say great review, as always. Only if more critics could be as educational and witty as you in their reviews. I agree with Aaman that I didn't see the parallels with "The Lady Vanishes" until you pointed them out as well!
And thank God I'm not the only person who isn't a big fan of Paltrow! It’s really quite disturbing to see critics fawning over her while ignoring how much of a crushing bore she is. And what's more shocking is that so many critics fail to point out that she's nothing but a mechanical actress with no soul. But can you believe she's going to play Marlene Dietrich in an upcoming biopic? Poor Dietrich; she's probably rolling over in her gave as we speak. I always felt if anyone could play Dietrich (or Garbo, for that matter) it should be Uma Thurman.
Anyway, I wanted to know if you've seen Wong Kar-Wai's "2046" yet? I'd love to hear your opinion on that film. I've read nothing but rave reviews and yet I can't understand why. I felt it was masturbatory in style and it just couldn't support the thesis Wong was working with. Maybe I'm wrong. Talk to you soon.
4 - Jamal Sledge
Hey Alan,
First, I'd have to say great review, as always. Only if more critics could be as educational and witty as you in their reviews. I agree with Aaman that I didn't see the parallels with "The Lady Vanishes" until you pointed them out as well!
And thank God I'm not the only person who isn't a big fan of Paltrow! It’s really quite disturbing to see critics fawning over her while ignoring how much of a crushing bore she is. And what's more shocking is that so many critics fail to point out that she's nothing but a mechanical actress with no soul. But can you believe she's going to play Marlene Dietrich in an upcoming biopic? Poor Dietrich; she's probably rolling over in her gave as we speak. I always felt if anyone could play Dietrich (or Garbo, for that matter) it should be Uma Thurman.
Anyway, I wanted to know if you've seen Wong Kar-Wai's "2046" yet? I'd love to hear your opinion on that film. I've read nothing but rave reviews and yet I can't understand why. I felt it was masturbatory in style and it just couldn't support the thesis Wong was working with. Maybe I'm wrong. Talk to you soon.
5 - Alan Dale
Thanks, Jamal, for the compliments.
It really would be infinitely better to have Uma Thurman as Dietrich--esp. in her Henry & June mode. Paltrow is all wrong, but the one ray of hope I got from reading all those horrible interviews is that she said she was producing the movie but not necessarily starring in it.
I did see 2046 and "masturbatory" is a great term for it, except that it makes it sound like it would be fun, which I can't say it was. I'm not a Wong Kar-Wai fan. Gorgeous lulling visual style and no narrative traction. I can't remember the stories or characters or even the stars (or titles). I can't even remember which ones I've seen all the way through and which ones I've walked out on.