> I find the controversy surrounding "A Beautiful Mind" to be rather stupid

Absolutely. Just about every year, Hollywood picks some ridiculous sort of "scandal" to make up and get wired up about, and people speculate about whether or not it'll skew the Oscar voting or not. It often doesn't. Another controversy I didn't mention is the recent story about Halle Berry getting away with the fallout of her car accident (driving under the influence, right?).

Neither one of these scandals -- especially the Halle Berry one but the Beautiful Mind one as well -- have anything to do with whether or not the respective *movies* have intrinsic merit or not. Halle Berry's public image and record has NOTHING to do with whether or not she turned in the best performance of the year or not.

Similarly, the factual accuracy of "A Beautiful Mind" has NOTHING to do with whether or not it's a good film. The case is slightly less clear cut, because there are instances with factual accuracy and completeness can make a difference (imagine a World War II drama that glosses over, say, the Holocaust), but this is not such a case. "A Beautiful Mind" is, or is not, a well-told and compelling story. If it is factually inaccurate, then it may be interesting to note why, but unless the movie has a moral agenda that it furthers only by concealing facts, then why should it be held accountable if the story is still compelling? If it is factually incomplete, then, well, DUH, you can't condense a whole life into two hours without leaving something out. Biographies have more specific purposes than just relating a life story. The stuff that gets left out is the stuff about that person that doesn't help illustrate that point, or which functionally duplicates material that *is* included.

Sometimes knowing what was left out of a movie can reveal how a movie might have been better with its inclusion. It is entirely conceivable to me that if a lot of the negative stuff about the man was included in the movie, the movie would be all the stronger for it: it would spur its viewers to deeper thought and come to more considered conclusions. I can accept all that. What I *can't* accept is someone coming out of the movie and saying, "That was great!" but recanting when he learns of how it might have been better. If it's great, it's great. Period.

But the suspicion is that the movie was watered down in this way not for any artistic purpose but to cater to Academy tastes. The Academy continually favors feel-good dramas that do the thinking for the audience. Without all that negative stuff, it's easy to infuse a story with a calculated emotional arc. You watch the movie, and everybody is on the same page regarding their emotional feelings toward the story and characters (even if individual audience members can relate those emotions in unique ways toward things in their own lives). The emotional impact of the film is predetermined and choreographed accordingly.

Movies that do this are not inherently bad. It still takes an incredible amount of talent and understanding of humanity to make a movie that people respond to. However, it is arguably a greater accomplishment if a movie can incite *differing* emotions within people and make them *think* about how they feel, instead of a feel-good drama manipulating one's feelings in prescribed manners. This is one reason why both "Saving Private Ryan" and "Pleasantville" were more deserving of Best Picture in 1998 than the actual winner, "Shakespeare In Love" was. Still, "Shakespeare In Love" is a great film.

At any rate, as I said, the controversy is that the movie of "A Beautiful Mind" was made into the kind of choreographed film that the Academy loves, but adapted from a book which is more demanding of its readers, for the express *purpose* of catering to the Academy. And that prospect turns a lot of people, including Academy voters, off.

But what a mess! And it's all irrelevant! Answering the question is not that hard. "What is the best film of the year?" If "A Beautiful Mind" is the best film of the year, it is the best film of the year even if the screenplay *was* adapted with an eye on pandering to the Academy. If "A Beautiful Mind" is not the best film of the year, then it is not the best film of the year *anyway*.

But I don't have the good faith that Academy voters know how to separate the film from the drama behind the scenes. Hence, I wonder if the movie will be hurt at the Oscars over the controversy.

If it loses Best Picture, I won't automatically assume it lost because of the controversy. "Moulin Rouge" is the best film I've seen in years, and "Lord of the Rings" is an epic, the only genre that does better at the Oscars than Biopics of the Mentally-Handicapped. If it loses Best Adapted Screenplay, however, you can be certain that the controversy will be what caused the loss.