But that’s really a different question. The OP isn’t who has done the best portrayal of a real person, the OP is about the best portrayals of being smart. A Beautiful Mind might not have captured the truth of John Nash, but I think it was a well-done portrayal of a brilliant man suffering from mental illness.
Wolowitz only has a Masters Degree so he’s one step above trained chimp.
I can’t talk detail because it’s a long while since I’ve seen the movie, but I recall a lack of recognition on her part of how others without her training, education and knowledge and with a very different worldview would receive what she said and did, and no or insufficient tailoring of her communications to take this into account.
The father, yes, the son is more believable when they’re not spouting the ridiculous biography. The width/depth of knowledge is believable, extreme but possible, and his main task is interpreting for Daddy Weirdo - in several of my consulting jobs, interpreting between groups which spoke the same language but thought in different ways and had diverging vocabulary was a huge part of my daily work (never of my job description), it’s a process I’m familiar with and they do that part well. I’ve had three letters on that specific line of work just this morning.
But heck, blonde’s bio is another part where my suspension of disbelief tries to fall apart. I enjoy that series by approaching it with the knowledge that any character with more than two lines will have a CV stolen from a Lovecraft story.
It’s depressing when you make this realisation about the depiction of intelligent people on TV, isn’t it?
I didn’t notice that, to be honest. Rather, what she’s up against are people who simply have different agendas. Characters like the James Woods character don’t fail to understand her; rather, they are talking at cross-purposes.
Ellie Arroway isn’t another “smart person who doesnt understand people” at all. She’s not another Asperger’s hero. She is, in fact, reasonably personable and likeable; the employees she works with are loyal to her, and she doesn’t hit people with unreasonable levels of technobabble. Note that she says she needs a “primer” to decipher the alien transmissions (inexplicably pronounced “primmer,” but whatever) using an easily understood metaphor rather than trotting out something like “cryptographic algorithm.”
She’s just a smart lady who works in astronomy/SETI. Her discovery draws her into a world where people have completely different agendas. The really big shock for Ellie is that she’s moved from a situation where she is effectively in charge in her little shack out in the desert to a situation where she is most definitely a minor player.
Much of the dramatic tension comes from the fact that while Ellie is the one with the bulk of the technical understanding, she is politically powerless. As well she should be. The movie in this regard is highly plausible. In a traditional Hollywood schlockfest the tech wizard would move into a position of power and trust as or alongside the hero, usually after either a gotcha! moment or an impassioned Hollywoodesque speech. In Contact, Ellie Arroway’s place is mostly in the shadows, pushed around by people who have longstanding influence, which is in fact where she’d probably end up if this really happened. Tom Skerritt screws her over; the government panders to the religiously batshit; the defense department is (with some justification, though I don’t think it was intended that way) wary of inviting the aliens over for drinks; the government in general doesn’t care if she gets credit or not because they have no reason to care. She gets shoehorned into a hero’s position at the end - and even that’s dismissed, because the government wants to keep the truth hidden.
This isn’t a failure on Ellie Arroway’s part at all. There’s no “tailoring” of her message she can do; the people she’s speaking to either don’t want to to hear it, don’t care, or have conflicting motives. At the end of the film she is left in an absolutely hopeless position, where she has no facts at all to present.
Possibly having ‘inside knowlege’ ruins it for me, but I see it more as a well-done portrayal of mental illness, and not so much one of a ‘schmott guy.’ But, as I note, I may be a biased sample.
[quote=“RickJay, post:66, topic:567826”]
Ellie Arroway isn’t another “smart person who doesnt understand people” at all. She’s not another Asperger’s hero. She is, in fact, reasonably personable and likeable; the employees she works with are loyal to her, and she doesn’t hit people with unreasonable levels of technobabble. Note that she says she needs a “primer” to decipher the alien transmissions (inexplicably pronounced “primmer,” but whatever) using an easily understood metaphor rather than trotting out something like “cryptographic algorithm.” QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
Are you British? Ellie was referring to the meaning “short introductory book on a topic,” for which Merriam-Webster gives /pri-mər/ as the preferred pronunciation; /prī-mər/ is the British pronunciation.
Primer pronounced as you seem to suggest, with the long i, means an explosive cap or a material used to prep a surface for painting.
Professor Frink
I just learned that Pauley Perrette has a Master’s in criminology.
That’s just odd. I would never pronounce “primer” as a short i, because there’s only one m. And I’m an American.
This is probably the best example I’ve seen, but another set that occurs to me is Julius Caesar and his slave/factotum Posca from the series Rome. They radiate a complementary ability to coldly scheme a little better than the two Augustus characters IMHO. Even Julius’ failure in emotional intelligence ( failure to properly manipulate the Brutii, mother and son, to his advantage ) seems believable in context without subtracting from his ability to strategize.
I daresay that is because the meaning of “book” has become unusual hereabouts; “explosive cap” and “material used for preparing to paint” are a lot more common, and they use the other pronunciation. I blame the Etruscans.
Well he certainly understood her from the get go (rather too well for her good, was my impression) but I didn’t get the feeling that the understanding went the other way. I think I’m going to have to see the movie again.
Don Draper in Mad Men. He’s a genius at reading people and convincing them that what he has to offer is what they want.
There’s a great scene where, after he just disappears from a business trip, he reappears in the office three weeks later. Another character goes to confront him about this and Don completely disarms him in just a few sentences.
The show in general does a very good job of showing people who are smart and good at their jobs instead of just telling us they are.
During the scenes in the first movie where Tony is building the first suit at his home… I kept thinking, this is something Robert Downey, Jr. could actually do in real life, if he had the education and didn’t have all the, shall we say, health problems he’s had. I mean, he really looks as if he’s thinking through all these technical problems, with muttered asides to his computer coming fast and furious.
Everyone in “Good Will Hunting” unfortunately including Ben Affleck, whose character is meant to be normal. The two professors did a great job, and it was fun to watch their angst in the bar scene.
::dons hard hat:: Also John Travolta in “Phenomenon.” I thought he did an excellent job of showing the frustration of not having anyone to really share with. Even better though was Forest Whittaker, looking at him with that mix of ‘impressed,’ ‘bored,’ and ‘concerned’ that so characterizes the isolation of genius, even amongst friends and loved ones.