Voto:
Hello everyone, and thank you for the comments, even from those who think differently than I do. I respect your opinion and I don’t have the power to change your mind. However, if you allow me, I would like to respond regarding some of the critiques, which I consider to be pretextual and/or prejudiced. So the film would be, in summary, a sappy and absolutely unrealistic mess... A critique that could be directed at a vast category of films, from "Gone with the Wind" to "The Matrix", but let's get into more detail. Will and Sean are "too muscular." I would call Will "a gym rat" (nothing particularly distinctive, there are plenty around...) and Sean "overweight," given that he also has a nice prominent belly. "The lead actors are too beautiful." I wouldn’t say that: Matt Damon has a potato nose and Minnie Driver has a nice square jaw, but yes, they are definitely more attractive than the average people walking down the street. But actors in films are chosen like that, aren't they? And not just in Hollywood... Will "solves the world's hardest question in 4 seconds, and one wonders: why does he insist on cleaning the toilets then?" But that’s exactly the point! Sean keeps repeating to Will from beginning to end: "What do you want to do?". And also: "You could work as a janitor anywhere: why did you choose to do it at MIT?", because he senses there’s a dramatic contradiction between what Will is and what he does. I really don’t understand the parallel between Sean Maguire and Professor Keating from "Dead Poets Society" (a film I actually detest). The two characters describe an almost opposite trajectory throughout their respective stories. Keating is a positivist, imbued (and a bit overzealous) with an unshakeable faith in his fellow man and in "magnificent and progressive destinies," he is prim and polished, always impeccably dressed, he creates a lot of messes during the film that his disciples suffer for, and in the end, he is dismissed with a kick in the butt, albeit with honor. Sean is fat, hairy, has a rough beard, and dresses poorly. He’s a half-failure on the verge of completely giving up, and he will find in his relationship with Will the key to escape from the impasse that has held him back for years. And then, what a bore this wife dying of cancer, one can't stand all this sentimentalism... Or all these feelings? It's much better to vent anger, instead, like Fusillo does in his comment... Who tells me that "Will is perhaps the greatest living mathematical genius"? Professor Lambeau tells me that during his first interview with Sean, comparing him to the great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan. Furthermore, Will performs a proof that Lambeau, by his own admission, is not able to do. Of course, one might not believe it, but if you don’t give credit to the characters in the film, then there’s no point in watching it at all. The strictly mathematical part is very well documented, however: Lambeau cites Parseval's theorem and Fourier and Maclaurin series, topics that can easily be found in any textbook on Mathematical Analysis. The first problem that Will solves seems to be a problem of shortest paths on an undirected graph, showing formulas for numerical series and combinations, calculating the determinant of a matrix, and so on. I understand that listing all these things risks coming off as pedantic, but since I’ve been accused of not knowing what I’m talking about... Ultimately, I really have to thank those who are more critical for giving me the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on a film that is very important to me. Thank you for your patience, and see you next time.
