>>11451774I think I've watched it twice in my life, but not for a long time, and I didn't find it cringe-inducing at all. I thought there was only a little something missing in MD's performance at times, but that otherwise it was a great film with a rewarding and meaningful moral lesson.
>In your experience, do 'smart' people act this way in real life?You have it backwards: MD was not a portrait of "smart" people. He was a gifted person who had emotional difficulties, and became resentful and dismissive of his talent. The whole film serves as a lamentation of neglected talent... and avoids basking in the man's intellect. The antagonist of the film was the stereotypical "smart" person: he was articulate and persuasive, could regurgitate theory convincingly, accomplished, well-dressed, and had like-minded friends that looked up to him. Seen through the lens of MD's character, however, we also saw his pettiness, shallowness, and sense of entitlement. He was the cookie-cutter academic, and MD the dough left behind.
Most importantly it is the story of how a person was slowly convinced to foster his talent thanks to the much-needed mentorship of RW's character, the guidance of a friend, and inspiration of a women. I guess the film could have spent more time evidencing his studiousness, but that would have taken away from its focus. Why belabour it, when it is so clearly alluded to in the film already (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMD2vUErcYU)? The role called for a personally-conflicted and endearing performance, not a studious intellectual, or a sperg. He's gifted, not a socially-incapable autist.
