In doing research to prepare for The Man Who Knew Infinity, I have read many comparisons of the film
to 2014’s The Theory of Everything,
and critiques of this film about a mathematician often fell along the same
lines as what critics said about the Steven Hawking biopic: little emphasis on
the actual mathematical breakthroughs at play, a protagonist who exists
primarily for the character arcs of other characters, and a plodding screenplay
held together by decent performances, yet many found that forgivable for the
sake of having a feel-good “true story” to pass the time. Given my verbosely strong feelings against The Theory of Everything, you would
think that I would fall in line with that train of thought, but I actually find
myself noticing more similarities with a different 2014 biopic: American Sniper, of all things.
The points of comparison to The Theory of Everything are fairly obvious once one takes the
societal impediment of Steven Hawking’s disability and replaces it with the
racism of early twentieth century England.
The Man Who Knew Infinity
stars Dev Patel as Srinivasa Ramanujan, a self-taught Indian mathematician who
travelled to Cambridge to seek publication under the tutelage of Professor G.H.
Hardy (Jeremy Irons). Much like in the
Hawking film, the focus is not so much on the mathematical achievements of the
key figures as it is about those figures having to deal with the pressures of
their circumstances, and the cartoonishly blunt racism of the Cambridge students
and faculty is apparently supposed to be the thematic glue that holds the film
together. Patel and Irons do their best
to play their socially solemn characters and play off one another as only
people who love numbers more than companionship can, but the film itself
acknowledges that neither excel at friendships, so their arcs fall flat as a
consequence.
This is where the comparison to American Sniper starts to rear its ugly head. Much like in that film, here there is
seemingly no purpose in telling the story of the central character. Ramanujan’s character arc seems to revolve
around learning humility in accepting that his breakthroughs require proofs,
yet at the same time it is about the white faculty of Cambridge continually
insisting how worthless he is until Hardy swoops in as his white savior to get
him the recognition he deserves, so those two arcs butt heads in a way that
neither feels satisfying. Then, at the
halfway point, the movie transforms into a tragedy about Ramanujan struggling
with a terminal tuberculosis diagnosis, shuffling his primary struggle to the
background as this new, alien conflict takes center stage. The accuracy of these events is a moot point
if we don’t see a gratifying transformation in our lead character, an emotional
journey that we can relate to as an audience.
This just feels like a checklist of moments listed on Ramanujan’s
Wikipedia page, dramatized in the vague semblance of a feel-good plot that
lacks a central narrative arc.
I’ll say the same thing here that I did about American Sniper: if the filmmakers
wanted to make this story into a
film, they should have made a documentary.
Patel and Irons are good actors who aren’t given much room to breathe in
their un-nuanced roles, and without strong central character arcs, a biopic has
nothing to stand on besides fidelity to the real events it portrays. And if that’s all you have going for your
story, then it’s time to go back to the drawing board and present your research
in a format that better serves your narrative.
Otherwise you’re doomed to wallow in biopic mediocrity, which is exactly
what has happened to the story of Srinivasa Ramanujan. I hope some documentarian does justice to his
story; I would much rather see that.
I haven't seen the movie, but my brother's advisor for his PhD was the math consultant, so he's super excited about it. Did the movie do all the stuff about India and Ramanujan's childhood? I think the India parts have the greatest potential for deconstructing both colonialism and the myth of magical genius.
ReplyDeleteThe India portions of the film are the cheapest looking parts; they look like they were filmed in a back lot with some Indian extras wandering around, at least when they're not clearly on a set. We never see Ramanujan as a child, and the majority of the scenes that take place in India are about his wife and mother, who can't seem to consistently decide which of them wants to return home and which of them wants him to pursue his dreams. So, in short, that potential you're wishing for? Nope. No deconstruction of colonialism. I'd argue that the film even advocates for the myth of magical genius. It's a movie to make middle class white people feel good about themselves. To hope for more would give it too much credit.
DeleteThe book was in the interesting position of having one living source (the wife) who was extremely biased (in favor of getting fame and money for herself), so some of the weird flip-flops may be from the book. It's super disappointing that they neglected the Indian portion of the story, especially since Ramanujan is a national hero and on the currency and everything, and what Hardy found and refined was definitely created in India, and involved a lot of education and time spent playing with numbers (although even in the book Ramanujan had a shaky you-don't-understand-me relationship with school).
Delete(Er, the India parts from the book, which is pretty good.)
ReplyDelete