Recently, I watched Good Will Hunting (1997) starring Matt Damon and Robin Williams. Overall, the acting was well-executed, with all actors delivering solid performances. In particular, Matt Damon shone in his role, while Robin Williams convincingly portrayed the empathic psychoanalyst. The cinematography was unremarkable but didn't detract from the story.
However, I found the script problematic. It contained many harmful messages typical of 1990s Hollywood and pretended to be realistic while promoting a false moral. My criticism focuses on the character of Will and his storyline. The main issue was the unrealistic portrayal of Will's genius, from his exaggerated arrogance to his sudden mastery of complex subjects like mathematics and chemistry. The movie implied that his genius was innate rather than the result of dedicated study and practice, which is unrealistic. For instance, in one scene, Will compares himself to Beethoven and Mozart, implying that they were able to play without any practice. This message is incorrect because both Beethoven and Mozart devoted countless hours to perfecting their craft. The fact that Will can excel at subjects so different and far away as Mathematics and Chemistry can't be a gift of nature. The only way to achieve this level of expertise is through practice and study. How can Will, a very young kid that spends his nights at the bar and his days on construction site, know more than a professor that has dedicated his life to the subject? Throughout the movie we are never shown Will studying or exercising or practicing Mathematics.
It's necessary to go through formal learning to understand Mathematics. In this movie, however, an extremely genius teenager easily freestyles the field of Mathematics. In a dialogue, Professor Lambeau examines the work of the genius boy, and says: "I see you used Maclaurin here." And Will replies: "Yeah, I don't know what you call it, but...". This is pure manipulation. The writers of this film deceive the uneducated audience giving a perception of Mathematics so far away from what it really is. I'm not saying people can't excel at something without a college education, but fields like Mathematics and Chemistry require countless hours of practice, complicated instruments and laboratories (especially for Chemistry). In a later scene Will conquers the young girl solving her Chemistry problem, showing apparently better skills at Chemistry than a pre-med student. Finally, I didnt really like either the ludicrous and totally out of touch way the university world was represented.
I know very little about Psychology, but I'm wondering if the way Damon and Affleck have dealt with this topic could be as accurate as the way they approached Mathematics. The movie suggested that all traditional psychologists are incompetent and that a special, unconventional psychologist was needed to treat Will's problems. What really surprised me, however, was the way Will's problem was solved suddenly in a single scene (very well acted by the two leads, I have to admit). However, psychological problems are not solved easily and quickly, as the movie suggests. It takes a lot of time, effort, and often involves relapses. Psychology is not magic.
A better comparison to this movie would be A Beautiful Mind (2001), which portrayed mathematics and psychology more realistically. It conveyed the message of overcoming difficulties with dedication and commitment, while Good Will Hunting portrayed genius as a magical gift.
By contrast, Good Will Hunting approaches these same topics in a way that feels closer to the fantasy world of Harry Potter. How to explain the acclaim this movie receives? The public likes stories about aberration and Will is aberrant, to the point that it seems like magic to a normal person who struggled through calculus in high school. The public likes the idea that humans can diverge from normal development so much that it seems superhuman. I can appreciate this concept in a fantasy or super hero movie, but I found it off-key in this movie. All in all I found the portrayal of genius and psychology in this movie unrealistic and misleading.
However, I found the script problematic. It contained many harmful messages typical of 1990s Hollywood and pretended to be realistic while promoting a false moral. My criticism focuses on the character of Will and his storyline. The main issue was the unrealistic portrayal of Will's genius, from his exaggerated arrogance to his sudden mastery of complex subjects like mathematics and chemistry. The movie implied that his genius was innate rather than the result of dedicated study and practice, which is unrealistic. For instance, in one scene, Will compares himself to Beethoven and Mozart, implying that they were able to play without any practice. This message is incorrect because both Beethoven and Mozart devoted countless hours to perfecting their craft. The fact that Will can excel at subjects so different and far away as Mathematics and Chemistry can't be a gift of nature. The only way to achieve this level of expertise is through practice and study. How can Will, a very young kid that spends his nights at the bar and his days on construction site, know more than a professor that has dedicated his life to the subject? Throughout the movie we are never shown Will studying or exercising or practicing Mathematics.
It's necessary to go through formal learning to understand Mathematics. In this movie, however, an extremely genius teenager easily freestyles the field of Mathematics. In a dialogue, Professor Lambeau examines the work of the genius boy, and says: "I see you used Maclaurin here." And Will replies: "Yeah, I don't know what you call it, but...". This is pure manipulation. The writers of this film deceive the uneducated audience giving a perception of Mathematics so far away from what it really is. I'm not saying people can't excel at something without a college education, but fields like Mathematics and Chemistry require countless hours of practice, complicated instruments and laboratories (especially for Chemistry). In a later scene Will conquers the young girl solving her Chemistry problem, showing apparently better skills at Chemistry than a pre-med student. Finally, I didnt really like either the ludicrous and totally out of touch way the university world was represented.
I know very little about Psychology, but I'm wondering if the way Damon and Affleck have dealt with this topic could be as accurate as the way they approached Mathematics. The movie suggested that all traditional psychologists are incompetent and that a special, unconventional psychologist was needed to treat Will's problems. What really surprised me, however, was the way Will's problem was solved suddenly in a single scene (very well acted by the two leads, I have to admit). However, psychological problems are not solved easily and quickly, as the movie suggests. It takes a lot of time, effort, and often involves relapses. Psychology is not magic.
A better comparison to this movie would be A Beautiful Mind (2001), which portrayed mathematics and psychology more realistically. It conveyed the message of overcoming difficulties with dedication and commitment, while Good Will Hunting portrayed genius as a magical gift.
By contrast, Good Will Hunting approaches these same topics in a way that feels closer to the fantasy world of Harry Potter. How to explain the acclaim this movie receives? The public likes stories about aberration and Will is aberrant, to the point that it seems like magic to a normal person who struggled through calculus in high school. The public likes the idea that humans can diverge from normal development so much that it seems superhuman. I can appreciate this concept in a fantasy or super hero movie, but I found it off-key in this movie. All in all I found the portrayal of genius and psychology in this movie unrealistic and misleading.