good will hunting

You know, there are very smart people here at Harvard, and even they have to study because this is really hard … and yet — you do it so easily, I don’t understand, I … I … I don’t understand how your mind works…

Good Will Hunting came out in 1997 and was directed by Gus Van Sant. Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is one of those super-intelligent people who reads science and maths textbooks for fun on the weekends. But he’s had a hard life and is a bit rough around the edges. With his posse of friends (played by Ben Affleck, Casey Affleck, and Cole Hauser) they terrorise their neighbourhood of South Boston. Will is arrested, and destined for gaol, but a sleazy MIT professor, Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgård), agrees to post bail on two conditions: that Will meet with him to help him solve complicated maths problems, and that he have weekly therapy sessions. After unsuccessfully trialling five different therapists, Lambeau turns to his old college roommate, Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), as a last resort. Along the way, Will meets Skylar (Minnie Driver) in a “Harvard bar”, and they begin a relationship.

I think the first time I saw this movie was the first time I heard a Boston accent. I put “Harvard bar” in inverted commas up there because of the way they say it (without the usual American post-vocalic “r”) which makes me smile: “Hah-vehd bah” … in fact, they pronounce it pretty much the same way an Aussie would! Speaking of accents, I also appreciate the fact that Minnie Driver uses her own British accent, and doesn’t have to fake an American one. A few actors and actresses are very talented at “doing” other accents, but I always reckon that if it’s not crucial to the story or history of the character, they should just be able to perform their part in their own voice. Anyway…

It’s kind of refreshing to see Robin Williams play a serious role. (His performance won him the Oscar that year for “best supporting actor”). It’s a testament to his acting ability, I think, knowing that he doesn’t always have to be the “funny guy”. He has a great four-minute monologue about halfway through the film, slamming Will for his cocky attitude.

You’re an orphan, right? Do you think I’d know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

As someone who’s worked in a university setting, I enjoy the little digs the movie takes at academia. It seems academics live in their own little world a lot of the time, doing research and either patting each other on the back, or stabbing each other in the back. You could be a genius in your field, winner of the Fields Medal, but if you suddenly need someone to unblock your toilet, all your work doesn’t count for very much. The interaction between Prof. Lambeau and the maintenance man shows the antagonistic relationship “academic staff” and “general staff” (or “faculty” and “staff”, as I think they’re called in the USA) have with each other. Lambeau’s reaction when Will sets fire to one of the proofs he’s been working on makes you realise how different they are to each other, and where their priorities lie.*

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have written an amazing story (which subsequently won them the Academy Award for “best original screenplay”). They’ve done a fantastic job at putting together a terrific script, from the light-hearted scene between Skylar and Will in the novelty shop, to Will and Sean’s lump-in-the-throat final two sessions. How are two twenty-something blokes able to write such a deep story so authentically? Speaking of authentic, there’s a lot of swearing in the movie, but — unlike some movies where the swearing is just gratuitous — I think in this case it helps give an insight into the characters, their backgrounds, and community.

Danny Elfman (composer of The Simpsons theme song) has written a subtle, poignant music score.

In Australia, Good Will Hunting is rated (M)15+: Medium Level Coarse Language, Low Level Violence. I should also point out that my copy of Good Will Hunting on DVD doesn’t come with subtitles/captions for Deaf or hearing impaired people. The purpose of this feature is usually to enable people access to the movie, which they wouldn’t otherwise have. How any DVD distributor can get away with this sort of discrimination in these modern times, for whatever reason, is beyond me. Shame, Village Roadshow, shame!

* Last night, I read this review in my copy of Time Out’s Film Guide of 2004 (Twelfth Edition): “To an extent, the film challenges America’s ingrained anti-intellectualism, yet its anti-elitist instincts lead it close to equating academia with a dubious effeminacy.” Hmm. What do you think?

film

/fılm/ n. a. a film strip containing an ordered set of pictures or photographs of objects in motion projected onto a screen so rapidly as to give the appearance that the objects or actors are moving. b. a story, event, etc., recorded in such a way and shown in a cinema, on television or video, etc. c. films in general. d. the creative art of film-making.

The other day, I watched a DVD at my sister’s house. It was a French film called Mon Oncle (“My Uncle”). This was the latest in a series of movies we’ve seen over recent months, and, to his credit, my brother-in-law Doug has done a pretty good job of recommending films which have been right up my alley.

(Ironically,) Mon Oncle was recommended by Doug’s uncle, and so what I’m about to say shouldn’t really count against Doug’s excellent record: We didn’t enjoy it. In fact, we didn’t even finish watching it — after sitting through the first hour and realising there was another hour to go, we decided to switch it off.

This incident in itself wasn’t enough to prompt me to revive my dusty, cobwebbed blog. Today, however, I did read the Wikipedia article on Mon Oncle, and I’ve pasted the link here, in case you want to read it yourself. If you’re not so keen on navigating between pages, let me summarise by saying this film has received praise for its criticism of clean, modernist (but inconvenient) 1950s French living, and the sacrifice of family and relationships for the sake of “keeping up appearances”. I guess I can see the elements of that in the part of the film we saw … but it was so buried in drawn-out pantomime and inane activity that the impact was lost on me (Not to mention the annoying “buzz” of every mechanised appliance in the house from the oven timer to the phone to the automatic gate opener … and that damn fish fountain!). Since I figured my frustrated ravings probably wouldn’t last long on a “respectable” site like Wikipedia, I decided I’d become my own movie critic. I like to think I know a little about what makes a good or a bad movie, and with my eclectic tastes I thought it’d be nice to share a little about why I like what I like.

So, over the next few weeks (and in completely random order; I shuffled the movie titles around in a bag and pulled them out one by one!) I’ll try and promote some of my favourite movies, explaining why I like them. Perhaps you’ll disagree with me completely on any number of these. If that’s the case, add a comment and let me know what you think, or send me an e-mail — I’m always keen to hear others’ opinions. On the other hand, maybe you’ll watch one or two of these gems, and perhaps add them to your own “favourites” list.

Cheers,
Andy