Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Genius’

A Touch Of Genius Probably Helps

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on May 17, 2026| Leave a Comment »

I was obliged to be industrious.  Whoever is equally industrious will succeed equally well.
    —    Johnannes Sebastian Bach
.
Click here (17 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Living Document: Subject To Change

Posted in Faith, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Simon Wilder (Joe Pesci character):  You asked the question, sir, let me answer it.  The genius of the Constitution is that it can always be changed.  The genius of the Constitution is that it makes no permanent rule other than it’s faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
Profesor Pitkannan (Gore Vidal character):  Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
Simon Wilder:  Crude?  No, sir.  Our “founding parents” were pompous, middle-aged, white farmers, but they were also great men.  Because they knew one thing that all great men should know:  that they didn’t know everything.  They knew they were gonna make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them.  They didn’t think of themselves as leaders.  They wanted a government of citizens, not royalty.  A government of listeners, not lecturers.  A government that could change, not stand still.  The president isn’t an “elected king,” no matter how many bombs he can drop.  Because the “crude” Constitution doesn’t trust him.  He’s a servant of the people.  He’s a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan?  He’s just a bum.  And the only bliss that he’s searching for is freedom…  and justice.
Quotes from the movie:  “With Honors”  (1994)  (review here)
.
Click here (20 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Abyss At The Edge Of Genius

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 13, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“{Proof}” (2005)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the drama film:  “{Proof}” (2005), starring Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine Llewellyn (brilliant but emotionally fragile daughter), Anthony Hopkins as Prof. Robert Llewellyn (Catherine’s genius mathematician father), Jake Gyllenhaal as Harrold “Hal” Dobbs (former student of Prof. Llewellyn turned love interest of Catherine), and Hope Davis as Claire Llewellyn (Catherine’s pragmatic (OCD) and somewhat patronizing sister).
Background:  This movie tries to explore genius vs mental illness, trust vs ambition, and family dysfunction in the shadow of a presumed age deadline.  I went in expecting a medical drama about a daughter looking after her dying father and instead got a lesson on hiding one’s self from one’s self.  Math is involved in this film, but only to the extent that “big” math words and concepts are thrown into the script to make it sound academic.  I’m almost always taken in by films that delve into the complexities of science, the human mind or family interpersonal dynamics.  I did know this film had “something” to do with “Math”, but really I bought (and viewed) it based on the strength of Hopkins, Paltrow’s and Gyllenhaal’s prior roles.  This was my first viewing of this film.
Plot:  the film centers on Catherine who is grieving the death of her father Robert — a once-brilliant mathematician whose final five years were marked by mental instability.  The father seems to be suffering from some form of dementia but I don’t recall them specifically saying what it is, only that it’s been proven to not be hereditary.  Catherine is not relieved by this knowledge.  The father has left behind stacks of notebooks (100+), most of which are pure ramblings.  Catherine refuses to open the notebooks because she doesn’t want the “proof” of her father’s mental slippage.  “Hal”, a former student of Robert’s has asked permission to read the notebooks in the hopes of finding one brilliant math concept he can base his own doctoral paper on.  After the dad’s funeral and all-night reception (and a night of passion), Catherine gives Hal a key to a drawer containing one notebook which she initially claims is her father’s work.  She later admits it’s her notebook / work and the couple must come to terms with the fact that Hal didn’t initially believe she was capable of such brilliance.  She, in turn, accuses him of being small minded, untrustworthy and they have the obligatory fight before the tender reconciliation.
In the background thread, Claire (the sister) arrives from NYC with plans for selling the family home and nudging Catherine toward institutional help — ostensibly with good intentions, but layered over with tension and old wounds – the typical, but unspoken “dad always liked you best” syndrome.  The film toggles between present-day and flashbacks, to explain Catherine’s relationship with her father, her fear of inheriting his mental illness, and her desire to be seen on her own terms.
So, is this movie any good?  How about the acting?  Filming / effects?  And, did I like it?  The short answers:  Yes;  very good – with Paltrow outstanding;  so-so and almost none;  and, yes, I quite liked the film.
Acting:  Paltrow is the dominant actor in her lead (and central) role.  She is fragile in grief and self-doubt, yet we see hints of her character’s eventual brilliant intellect throughout the body of the film.  I’m a fan of Hopkins, so I’m biased in judging his role.  He appears mostly in flashbacks and is believable as a brilliant Professor in mental decline.  He seems to have moments of absolute clarity and then we find it’s not the case at all.  Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of Hal is solid.  He is a math nerd in a nerd rock band (the drummer).  Hal’s role in the film is to drive home the “common belief” that mathematicians are “made” by the early to mid-20s and (at post-25) he’s too old to ever be considered “brilliant”.  Hope Davis as Claire is the contrast to Catherine’s brilliance, she’s the practical and sometimes overbearing older sister who paid the bills while “dad was slipping”.  The interactions between the sisters reflect their differing views of their relationship and their perspectives on how each dealt with their father’s illness.  Claire “chooses” the “older sibling” role of bread-winner and leaves Catherine the full-time care-provider role.
Filming / FX:  The film’s setting in the rundown family house “filled” with hoarded books and papers and is a reflection on both the father and the daughter’s “slipping” away from dealing with reality.  The dad due to illness and the daughter emotional surrender to losing both her mentor / father and her own opportunity at the brilliance he wants for her legacy.  Other than setting the tone, there was nothing I noted for “special effects”.
Other Thoughts:  Hollywood rarely “gets” mathematical depth and they don’t in this film either.  The titular “proof” isn’t shown or stated — it’s just a plot point.  It’s a tool to get the viewer to the premise — that brilliance and mental illness might mirror each other — and it (the premise) is meant to raise compelling if uncomfortable questions.  Viewing “Proof” isn’t just about the discovery of a mathematical proof;  it’s about the profound struggle of a daughter trying to find her own identity and sanity in the shadow of a brilliant, yet troubled, father.  It’s a poignant exploration of genius, mental illness, and the nature of inherited traits.  The film skillfully blurs the line between inspiration and delusion, leaving the audience to ponder the true authorship of the “proof” and Catherine’s ultimate state of mind.  I found the film a quiet and intense drama.
Problems:  As I’ve mentioned in several other film reviews, I’m not a big fan of flashbacks to fill out a story.  One of the problems is it leads to viewer (okay, me and my) confusion over what is a flashback and what is imaginary.  This is particularly a problem for the viewer when the character is portrayed in such a way that we are not sure what is flashback and what is imagined.  The director “should” resolve this for us by altering the scene background in such a way to give us the visual clues of which is which.  Having the dad say:  “You know this isn’t real, because you know I’m dead.” is really just a cop-out.  On a similar note, I’m not a fan of fuzzy focus while driving at night with glaring lights reflecting off the windshield and into your eyes / face…  Just tell us:  Is the character having an “episode” or is it just a crappy drive home.  Anyway, both of these are relatively minor problems with the film.  The former is explained by the end of the film.  The latter is probably only a “me” problem.  LoL
Final Recommendation:  Strong to highly.  If you like character-driven dramas with a math / science framing, “{Proof}” is a strong film.  It’s more about valuing yourself than math, more about service than logic.  This is film with not so quiet tension.  Watch it for Paltrow’s performance;  for the layers of trust and identity, and maybe for the notion that sometimes proving something isn’t about numbers — it’s about being believed and believing in yourself.  I believe those interested in the themes of genius, madness, and family dynamics will find this film particularly thoughtful.  Paltrow’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the film’s exploration of its complex subjects elevates it beyond a simple mystery – “who wrote the notebook?”.  As stated, I’m already a fan of Hopkins.  Now, I’ll add Paltrow and Gyllenhaal to the list of actors I want to view more films with.  LoL!
.
Click here (13 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Containing Bounty

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , on January 30, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character had abounded;  and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and courage which it contained.
    –    John Stuart Mill
.
Click here (30 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Laughing At #45:DonTheClown

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2023| 2 Comments »

I have been in those rooms with [Trump] when he met with those [world] leaders, I believe they think he’s a laughing fool.
    —    John Bolton
Former National Security Advisor to President Trump
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.  They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    —    Carl Sagan
.
Click here (2 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Who Do You See?

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on April 15, 2023| Leave a Comment »

Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.
    —     Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
.
Click here (15 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Deliver

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2023| 2 Comments »

Genius gives birth, talent delivers.  What Rembrandt or Van Gogh saw in the night can never be seen again.  Born writers of the future are amazed already at what they’re seeing now, what we’ll all see in time for the first time, and then see imitated many times by made writers.
    ––     Jack Kerouac
.
Click here (4 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The 99% Solution == 10,000 Hours

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, Work, tagged , , , , , , , on May 29, 2022| Leave a Comment »

If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn’t seem so wonderful at all.
    —     Michelangelo
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.
    —    Thomas Edison
.
On This Day In:
2021 A Chance Meeting Finds A Way
Over 50 Years Ago!
2020 The Magnitude Of The Challenge
2019 Still Tearing, Still Being Rewarded
2018 Nothing More, Nothing Less
2017 Memorial Day – 2017
No Wonder I’m Smiling
2016 Thinking Science Fictional
2015 Dawn Is Coming
2014 Back When I Was A Firebrand
2013 Pen In Hand
Word Up!
2012 Disturbing
Trying To Keep Up
2011 Unreliable And Selective
2010 Adult-Onset Athlete

Read Full Post »

Tragedy

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , on August 14, 2019| 7 Comments »

The most tragic thing in the world is a man of genius who is not a man of honor.
     ―     George Bernard Shaw
.
Click here (14 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Patterns Of Caring

Posted in Education, Health, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 31, 2019| 2 Comments »

“X+Y” (2014)  —  movie review, released in the US as “A Brilliant Young Mind” (2015)
Today’s review is for the 2014 / 2015 movie “X+Y“, aka:  “A Brilliant Young Mind“.  The movie stars Asa Butterfield as Nathan Ellis (autistic math genius), Rafe Spall as Martin Humphreys (Nathan’s tutor), Sally Hawkins as Julie Ellis (Nathan’s mum), Eddie Marsan as Richard (UK tutor), Jo Yang as Zhang Mei (Nathan’s love interest), Martin McCann as Michael Ellis (Nathan’s dad), Jake Davies as Luke Shelton (mocked math genius), Alex Lawther as Isaac Cooper (mocking math genius), Alexa Davies as Rebecca Dunn (Piano girl / jealous crush).
There is something called the “International Mathematics Olympiad” (IMO) which brings together all of the maths geniuses from around the world to compete on their respective national teams.  It seems China is the historically dominant power at this event.
Nathan is an autistic maths wiz.  The only person he is close with is his dad who dies in a car accident.  The accident makes Nathan even more reclusive / eccentric than he was before.
Nathan’s mum (the fish lady / maid in “The Shape of Water“) is not able to relate with her son and finally gets a piece of relief by shipping him off to compete in the IMO.  Nathan’s tutor (Martin) is himself a “failed” maths prodigy and slowly builds a relationship with Nathan and his mum.  Eddie Marsan plays the UK team manager who’s only concern is for the team to beat the Chinese team.  Zhang Mei is Nathan’s “love” interest.  He slowly pries Nathan from his turtle shell.  Martin McCann is Nathan’s dad and is the only one who sees him as special and not weird.  At least that is how Nathan feels.  The final three main characters (Luke, Isaac and Rebecca) are other “kids” on the IMO team who are meant to demonstrate some other levels of autism or to act as a kind of alternative love interest.
Is this movie any good?  Does it say anything about math?  Does it say anything about kids?  Does it say anything about autism?  Yes, a little, nothing new, and I don’t know.
I really enjoyed this movie.  I got interested in it a while back when I saw Butterfield in “Ender’s War” and thought I’d look out for any of his other work.  (I’ve seen the previews for this film and the bits and bobs available on YouTube and have been waiting for this movie to become available on cable or on Vudu.)  Now I’ve seen him in two very good roles and it will be interesting to see if he develops into a good adult actor or if he fades.  As with “Ender“, Asa plays the straight role well and the emotional role almost as well.  I don’t really understand autism, so I can’t say how accurately he portrayed the ending transformation.  My gut feeling was it was too Hollywood and not realistic, but that just may be me.
The movie relates math to various aspects of the real world:  pattern recognition, music, art, architecture, philosophy and love.  They were not main points of the film though, so if you blink, you may miss a couple of them.
I don’t think this movie says anything original about kids.  Certainly nothing you couldn’t get from a half-dozen other movies starting with “Lord of the Flies“.  Yes, kids are mean and pick on other kids who may be viewed as somehow “different”.
As mentioned above, Nathan is “transformed” at the end of the movie.  I doubt autism is cured on the road to Damascus, so I didn’t care for the resolution / summing up.  It just seemed too tidy for my taste.  Apparently, the movie is based on a real-life person and his reaction to viewing the film was:  “I am a maths wiz.  I am not a rain man.”  For me, to the extent the movie related Nathan’s love for math, I felt it stood on firmer ground.
Final recommendation:  very strong to highly.  I do have an “unusual” fondness for movies with even the slightest math / science / computing theme, so you have to take this recommendation with the normal grain of salt you take my reviews…   (LOL)  I’m not usually a big fan of hazy / distorted filming to represent the perception of genius, but in this case, it worked pretty well.  I liked the acting, the story and loose correlation of math to music, color, flow and pattern recognition.  I will watch it again in the future.
One final note:  I got to see this movie for free!  I joined my local library (re-joined) and they have a pretty interesting selection of movies you can stream just for being a member of the library.  It saved me having to purchase a movie I really wanted to see.  They do limit my viewing to eight per calendar month, but it still seems a great deal to me!  Who knew??
.
Click here (31 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Bull’s Eye

Posted in Quotes, tagged , , , on December 17, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;  Genius hits a target no one else can see.
     —    Arthur Schopenhauer
.
Click here (17 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Two Geniuses

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 21, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Today’s reviews are for a pair of biographical movies about two geniuses.  The men are Srinivasa Ramanujan and Alan Turing.  Technically, both are mathematicians, but Turing is more remembered for his work with computers.  The two movies are titled:  “The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015) about Ramanujan, and “The Imitation Game” (2014) about Turing.
“The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015)  —  movie review
This movie stars Dev Patel as Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan and Jeremy Irons as his British mentor (collaborator) G. H. Hardy.  Basically, a poor, self-taught mathematician moves to Trinity College at Cambridge after mailing some of his work to a world famous mathematics professor (Hardy).  The two collaborate (and publish), but the movie is basically about their personal relationship and not about their maths.  The movie is beautifully shot in both India and England and I was moved by the depictions of both environments:  brightly colored poverty contrasted with muted earth-toned (relative) wealth.  A second major plot contrast is Hardy’s atheism vs Ramanujan’s devout Hindu faith.   Ramanujan tells Hardy that his math comes from the lips of his god.  Hardy can only struggle to understand divine inspiration.  In the end, Hardy accepts that his friend believes it is true even if he cannot share that belief.
Final recommendation:  highly recommended and I look forward to reading the book (of the same title) the movie is based on.
“The Imitation Game” (2014)   —  movie review
This movie stars  Benedict Cumberbatch (aka Sherlock Holmes / Doctor Strange) as Alan Turing and  Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke who was Turing’s fiancé briefly.  Turing was a homosexual and at that time, being gay was considered a serious crime in England.  Both Turing and Clarke were mathematicians who became cryptologists.  They famously developed a computer which was used to break the Nazi Enigma cypher.   This movie describes this invention and Turing’s subsequent suicide.   As a personal note: I consider Turing to be one of the seminal figures in computer science and in artificial intelligence.  The “test” for general purpose artificial intelligence is named “The Turing Test” and based on one of his papers.
Turing and Clarke worked closely together and are reported to have actually been very close friends although I’ve seen Turing portrayed as almost autistic in dealing with social settings, so I’m not sure how accurate the descriptions or the portrayals have been.  In any case, Turing proposed marriage to Clarke and then later withdrew and admitted to being gay.  The movie purports to Clarke being indifferent to Turing’s sexuality as she is contented with having a relationship with a friend and an intellectual equal.
The “surprise” hack at the end of the movie is the realization that the Nazi messages all end the same and this can be used as a key to reduce the number of variations the computer needs to evaluate.  Whether this is what actually happened or not, I don’t know, but it did make for a plausible ending!  Final recommendation:  highly recommended!
While I enjoyed both movies I would rate “Infinity” slightly higher than “Imitation“.  I’m not really sure why, but I’ve already re-watched “Infinity” twice and I’m just getting around to my second viewing of “Imitation“.  But, again, both highly recommended…
.
Click here (21 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Reflections

Posted in Quotes, tagged , , , , , on February 24, 2016| Leave a Comment »

Books are like mirrors:  if a fool looks in, you cannot expect a genius to look out.
    ―     J. K. Rowling
.
Click here (24 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

How To Be Omnipotent

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , on February 8, 2015| Leave a Comment »

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.  Talent will not;  nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.  Genius will not;  unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.  Education will not;  the world is full of educated derelicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
    —    Calvin Coolidge
[Emphasis provided by yours truly…    —    kmab]
.
Click here (8 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Dark Processes

Posted in Quotes, tagged , , , , , on August 9, 2014| 5 Comments »

There are two kinds of geniuses, the “ordinary” and the “magicians.”  An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better.   There is no mystery as to how his mind works.  Once we understand what they have done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it.  It is different with the magicians.  They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible.  Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark.  They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician’s mind works.
    —    Mark Kac
Quoted by:  James Gleick;  in the Prologue to his book:  “Genius“
.
Click here (9 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started