> Oh. I thought maybe "manipulative" was referring to the way the screenplay "adapted" so many details of Nash's life [read: tidied it up for a neater, tamer, more accessible story].

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Including the more controversial details of his life would have been one way to enrich the story and keep it from being such a sales pitch for the particular emotions the director desired. Of course, it's not just a matter of including the details but of integrating them with the overall purpose of the movie, so it's not as simple as that. And it's not inherently bad, though, that these details were left out. In reality-based stories, it's the story that counts, not the reality, so I don't object to divergence or omission on principle.