This movie is highly rated. At the same time, more than 70% of my neighbors gave out five stars, and the rest are four stars. But I can’t agree with it. As a mathematics enthusiast and a former mathematics student, I feel when I watch it It is more uncomfortable if you are in the throat, because the person in the film is nonsense.
Let's make a background summary:
In the film, Will has a superb level of mathematics (a math problem that the professor can't do), he is rude and aggressive. His talent makes him a rare treasure, but his personality makes it difficult for him to cooperate with others. Unable to truly use his genius and invincible ability, this is the conflict in the play. After experiencing many treatment failures, we finally found a real psychologist, and in the gradual and in-depth communication, he opened the wound in his heart and healed it. This flawed genius.
It can be seen that the whole story is based on Will's image of a mathematical genius, and this image is very problematic in my opinion. Two points:
1. The professor’s problem can be solved by a genius who spends "a few spare time" reading mathematics books. There is a sentence in "Deep Work" that I agree with: The current society is over-loving the dramatic effects brought by mythical geniuses, so come up with Such farce. Seeing Will's problem of killing the professor in an instant, I can only say that the screenwriter neither understands mathematics, nor understands genius.
First of all, since modern times, mathematics has accumulated a multi-layered theoretical framework, and the problem is often to describe the nature of a certain aspect of a theory. Here we can discuss a (seeming) counterexample that is Goldbach’s conjecture, which does not seem to involve theory at first glance Ordinary people of the framework can also understand the topic. However, if you understand a little bit, you will know that this kind of thing can not be made by elementary methods. Therefore, whether you are a genius or a ghost, the only way is to fill up the theoretical stack and try again. If You only use the time of an amateur, you don’t read the paper and don’t understand the cutting-edge theoretical tools and the progress of other people’s work. The security at the door couldn't make it through.
Secondly, the biggest characteristic of genius is not quick response, but creativity. Big questions and conjectures need to invent new theoretical tools, rather than compete with calculation skills like a junior high school quick calculation competition. Modern math puzzles certainly don’t require you to be in three. It can be done in minutes (because it is impossible). In fact, it will be no problem in 30 years (like Zhang Yitang), as long as you can do it. If you find that the problem is fast, the only reason is that the problem is too simple.
2. Personality. In math masters from ancient times to the present, the proportion of strange personalities is obviously higher than that of ordinary people. But if you know something about it, you will find that these guys' personality problems are basically adducted, similar to "Stay in the woods. "Wish to meet people" (Perelman) or "stuttering in lectures" (Hilbert). If a person acts like a ruffian, but you tell me that he is a math genius, it's like talking about a skinny person Like a weightlifting champion, there are obvious loopholes.
Finally, I want to say that the film still has some merits: the psychological analysis is quite exciting (especially after reading Wu Zhihong's comments). For most non-math enthusiasts, maybe this requirement is enough, just be me Think about it.
View more about Good Will Hunting reviews
