At her father's memorial service Catherine stomps up to the church lectern and makes an unpardonable speech chastising all the other mourners for not having called or come around during the final five years of his decline. (She's Antigone, she's the Little Red Hen.) We're to think of Catherine as at least potentially mad, and certainly off-putting, yet in the absence of naturalistic character development, or even a modicum of ironic distance from her disheveled emotionality, the romance by default justifies all that she says and does. Catherine acts like a petulant adolescent but the movie sets her up as a noble caretaker and a genius, and also as a girl who's appealing in some way that's meant to be superior to mere social ingratiation.
But the fantasy embodied in the romance regresses even farther back than adolescence. It's an infantile fantasy, really, of not just being daddy's favorite but being chosen, by some mysterious power, to inherit his gift. Catherine ascends to her father's throne, abashing the ordinary, dim-sighted mortals who questioned the line of succession as unlikely. The proof thus identifies Catherine objectively as the "preferred" daughter—I bet a lot of rivalrous siblings would love to have something comparable found among their deceased parents' effects. However well educated the implied target audience for this play is, Proof is not at bottom an entertainment for adults.
Basically Catherine sulks and has tantrums until she gets what she wants. That might be fine if the play presented her as a "difficult" ironic protagonist who clearly made bad situations worse. On the contrary, the play regards her as a misunderstood heroine and this just isn't how a heroine behaves, not even a child heroine. Personally, I find the forgiveness of the outraged princess Ginevra in Händel's Ariodante far more moving—she expresses love for her obdurate royal father on her way to prison, before her honor is vindicated. (This might not be what you or I would do, but we're talking about romance heroines who are put forth as embodiments of certain ideals.) Catherine, by contrast, is so offended by Hal's doubt she doesn't even want the stinking proof. In a contemptibly clumsy bit of staging, Hal runs after the car taking Catherine to her new life with Claire in New York and flings the golden notebook through the window so that she'll have to take responsibility—and credit—for her work. (Lucky for her she hadn't developed a "hip" new waffle iron.)
There is some promise early on of more lively entertainment. Jake Gyllenhaal, for instance, shows a more alert vitality than he has before onscreen. In his first scenes he's not just batting his eyelashes at us, but working the dialogue. It actually helps that the movie plays like a stage piece because this imposes some discipline on Gyllenhaal. It requires him to exert more energy to hold his own because he senses, rightly, that he'll be judged by his delivery not by how photogenic he is. But once Hal is put in the position of repeatedly apologizing to the intransigent Catherine, Gyllenhaal can't save himself. Has any actor ever given a good performance when his material turned demeaning?
![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.