The movie {Proof} starring Gwyneth Paltrow, Anthony Hopkins and Jake Gyllenhaal got me thinking (well, there’s a surprise you might say!) It got me thinking about a number of issues. Here’s a couple of them.
How do you prove anything? The basis of the scientific method is (according to Popper) falsification. He meant that nothing can be proven but testing can reveal a hypothesis to be false – and so science progresses, coming up with more and more robust hypotheses which are harder to disprove. Of course, in mathematics, advances are made by writing “proofs” which are solutions to puzzles or dilemmas I suppose (don’t ask me, I’m not a mathematician!). A key part of this movie is how to show who actually wrote the groundbreaking “proof” – the father (Robert), or the daughter (Catherine)? What’s the solution? Well, can it be shown that the daughter could NOT have written the proof? If that can’t be shown, then her claim to have written it can gain strength.
OK, I know, that all sounds pretty convoluted. Don’t let that put you off. This is an intriguing and engaging movie, and not at all hard work!
So that’s the first theme – how do we know what we know? How can we ever be sure of anything?
The second one is the theme of how our traits, skills, and qualities come from our roots, from our origins. We can see qualities in ourselves that seem inherited and we can see some of our qualities in our children. We don’t start with a blank sheet, but neither do we start with a fully written script. We make our lives our own and each and every one of us is unique and different but there are threads that run through us which trail way, way back into other people’s pasts. Catherine seems destined to carry forward her father’s work having inherited his mathematical genius but she hopes she has not also inherited his madness. When her father dies, her challenge is to become herself in her own right. This reminded me of Kieslowski’s Blue.
In “Blue” Kieslowski considers how loss creates the possibility of new beginnings. The main character, Julie, loses her husband and her daughter in a car crash in the opening scenes of the movie and her way of dealing with her grief is to try to rid herself of all memories and connections with them. She tries to start again. But there’s no such thing as a clean sheet. Deleuze showed that we are in a continuous process of becoming and that in every present there is the past and the future. Interestingly, in “Blue” there is also the question of exactly who created a work. In this case, who composed the great music – Julie, or her husband? How can we know?
{Proof} also made me think about what it’s like for two people to create together and how, when it works well, what is created can NOT be attributed solely to one person. Yes, sure, an individual can sit alone and create, but something different manifests itself when the creative process is shared. I think that’s a good example of why its important to know a person within the contexts and connections of their life.
Here’s a fanvid of {Proof} – clips set to “I think I’m Paranoid”, by Garbage
And here are the last few scenes of Trois Couleurs; Bleu
Excellent blog — I really enjoyed going through it.
Oh thank you damewiggy
Just paid you a visit and read some of your blog and you are a truly amazing writer. Praise from you is high praise indeed.
Keep writing. You have the gift
{Proof} was very enjoyable, but don’t go searching for a morality tale.
[…] other factors to consider when thinking about science. Popper’s famous principle of “falsification” really hit the mark too. The scientific method is not one of proving things; it’s one […]