Movie Review:
Good
Will Hunting
Review by Katharine
E. Monahan Huntley
(Quotations used
in this article are from the development script dated 12/4/96 by Matt
Damon and Ben Affleck.)
The film delivers
an intellectually and emotionally fulfilling story. Cast with real life
friends and screenplay authors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, dialogue
is realistic, if sometimes too quick, accents thick, and asides perhaps
too inside for the audience to catch. A nice moment intimating
Damon and Affleck's long time friendship is a glance into their characters'
daily routine--the fluid motion of sliding into the car, coffee in hand,
and moving off. The storyweaving of all four throughlines
is tight--a scene depicting the passionate argument can
also contain points pertinent to the main character, obstacle
character, and objective story throughline (e.g., Sean McGuire
in his psychologist role). It is no surprise this fine first effort
has, as of this review, already been awarded Best Original Screenplay
from the foreign press, and nominated for an Academy Award for Best
Original Screenplay.
Will Hunting is
a punk prodigy. He is the main character; his problems
occur in the physics domain. Will is concerned with doing
what it takes to get by--his activities have no inherent purpose. Abandoned
and abused, Will carries a colossal chip on his shoulder--he is a do-er
who strikes out with his fists, and defends himself and his friends
with brilliant intellect ("My boy's wicked smart"). He has
a male mental sex, particularly well represented in his focus
of cause and direction of effect, yet his genius,
in a sense, is holistic:
WILL:
Stone deaf and he [Beethoven] saw all of that music in his head.
SKYLAR:
So, do you play the piano?
WILL:
Not a lick. I look at a piano and I see black and white keys, three
pedals and a box of wood. Beethoven, Mozart, they looked at it and
it just made sense to them. They saw a piano and they could play.
SKYLAR:
--But you can do my O-Chem lab in under an hour, you can--
WILL:
--When it came to stuff like that I could always just play.
Will works as a
janitor at M.I.T. under the auspices of the Parole Employment Program.
That he has solved difficult theorems on the main hallway chalkboard
while swabbing floors causes Nobel Prize winner Professor Gerry Lambeau
to seek him out. Lambeau finds Will at his arraignment for assaulting
a cop. The objective story takes shape as the judge decides,
under the following circumstances, to allow Will a stay from
his jail sentence:
LAMBEAU:
I've spoken to the judge and he's agreed to release you under my supervision.
. . . Under two conditions. . . . That you meet with me twice a week--get
into some more advanced Physics. . . . The other condition is that
you see a therapist.
The story goal
of progress is then established:
LAMBEAU:
The judge was very clear about this, you're to meet with me and a
therapist every week and I'm responsible to submit reports on these
meetings. If you fail to meet any of these conditions (optionlock),
the Judge told me you will have to serve time.
Meeting these conditions
by the week after Will's 21st birthday (six months) indicates a timelock,
however, emphasis is placed on the limited options Will has in order
to make progress with his intellectual and emotional potential.
Test is the
problem shared by the objective and main character's
stories. In the objective story, students prepare for
examinations; rivalries between the "smart kids" and the "Southies"
provoke challenges to prove oneself: "We can step outside and deal
with it" and so forth. For Will, any relationship outside his own
tightly knit friendships is subject to a proving ground exemplified
by the number of therapists he goes through until meeting his obstacle
character, Sean McGuire:
SEAN:
Why is he hiding? Why is he a janitor? Why doesn't he trust
anybody? Because the first thing that ever happened to him on God's
green earth was that he was abandoned by the two people [who] were
supposed to love him the most!"
Sean is Lambeau's
last ditch effort to find a therapist for Will. His throughline is explored,
appropriately enough, in the psychology domain. The screenplay
description sketches his current existence: "Although there
is a confidence in his eyes . . . he lost his enthusiasm long ago. Tired
of teaching, tired of life, he finds himself resigned to the tedium
of teaching core classes to an indifferent student body." Lambeau
calls on their past friendship for the favor of Sean counseling Will,
divulging, "You're from the same neighborhood."
Will sets off the
subjective story concern of preconscious in his first
session with Sean. He rudely and cruelly makes assumptions about Sean's
marriage, unwittingly determining (subjective story problem)
Sean's focus, the ceaseless mourning for his wife:
WILL:
Or maybe you married the wrong woman--
SEAN:
Hey, now--
WILL:
That's it isn't it? You married the wrong woman. She leave you?
Sean is trying
to contain himself.
WILL (CONT'D):
How are the seas now, Doc?
In a flash,
Sean is out of his chair, around his desk and in Will's face. He holds
him by the collar.
SEAN:
You watch your mouth! Don't you ever patronize me! I don't care what
you do! But when you open your mouth to speak to me you do so with
some respect!
Will is skilled
at taking one's measure, illustrated when he attacks Clark's pretentiousness
and exposes hapless shrinks' affectations, but lacks real world experience
to truly understand the ramifications of his actions, particularly when
the actions are thoughtless (main character critical flaw).
Sean, stung by Will's comments about his deceased wife, identifies his
main character thematic conflict:
SEAN:
You're just a boy. You don't have the faintest idea of what you're
talking about. You've never been out of Boston. So if I asked you
about art you could give me the skinny on every art book ever written
. . . Michelangelo? You know a lot about him I bet. Life's work, criticisms,
political aspirations. But you couldn't tell me what it smells like
in the Sistine Chapel. . . . Do you think I would presume to know
the first thing about who you are because I read "Oliver Twist"?
A conversation about
the progress of the therapy sessions illustrates the fixed mindset
established in the subjective story throughline:
LAMBEAU:
What do you mean "he didn't talk"? You sat there for an
hour?
SEAN:
No, he just sat there and counted the seconds until the session was
over. It was pretty impressive, actually.
LAMBEAU:
Why would he do that?
SEAN:
To show me he doesn't have to talk to me if he doesn't want to.
LAMBEAU:
Oh, what is this? Some kind of staring contest between two kids from
the "old neighborhood"? This is ridiculous.
SEAN:
I can't talk first.
Will finally opens
up, revealing his interest in Skylar. Sean's unique ability of
knowledge compels Will to consider the notion of trust:
SEAN:
Well, are you going out again?
WILL:
I don't know.
SEAN:
Why not?
WILL:
Haven't called her.
SEAN:
Jesus Christ, you are an amateur. (Inexperience)
WILL:
. . . You don't get it, she did everything right. Right now she's
perfect, I don't want to ruin that.
SEAN:
My wife's been dead two years, Will. And when I think about her .
. . those are the things I think about most. Little idiosyncrasies
that only I knew about. Those made her my wife. . . . we get to choose
who we're going to let into our own weird little worlds. You're not
perfect. And let me save you the suspense, this girl you met isn't
either. The question is, whether or not you're perfect for each other.
You can know everything in the world, but the only way you're findin'
that one out is by giving it a shot.
As the story continues,
Lambeau asks Sean if he and Will have discussed the boy's future
(objective story benchmark) because his (Lambeau's) "phone's
been ringing off the hook with job offers. . . . Cutting edge physics,
think tanks . . ." Lambeau has a fantasy (objective story
issue) of Will as the second Einstein: "But it was one twenty-six
year old Swiss Patent clerk, doing physics in his spare time, who read
the mind of God. He changed the world." This conflicts with Sean's
reality check (fact): "That's great, Gerry, if that's
what he wants. But this kid's not here for nothing." He further
ruminates: "Einstein. Had two marriages, both train-wrecks. The
guy never saw his kids, one of whom, I think, ended up in an asylum."
Chuckie homes in
on the main character benchmark of obtaining, declaring
if Will fell in with Lambeau's plans, at least he'd "make some
nice bank." In this same conversation, the objective story
focus of unending, and direction of ending is illustrated:
WILL:
What do I want a way outta here for? I want to live here for the rest
of my life. I want to be your next door neighbor. I want to take our
kids to little league together up Foley Field.
CHUCKIE:
Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way, but
in 20 years, if you're livin' next door to me, comin' over, watching
the fuckin' Patriot game and still workin' construction, I'll fuckin'
kill you. And that's not a threat, that's a fact (objective story
catalyst). . . . My best friend's sittin' on a winning lottery ticket
and he's too much of a pussy to cash it in. And that's bullshit 'cause
I'd do anything to have what you got! And so would any of these guys.
It'd be a fucking insult to us if you're still here in twenty years.
Hangin' around here is a fucking waste of your time.
WILL:
You don't know that. (Test)
The passionate
thematic exploration between worth and value explodes
in the climatic last session between Will and Sean:
SEAN:
This is not your fault.
WILL:
Oh, I know.
SEAN:
It's not your fault.
WILL:
I know.
SEAN:
It's not your fault . . . )
The therapist is
finally able (obstacle character issue) to convince Will
of his self-worth and subsequent value to others, setting
up the subjective story solution of expectation.
The Lambeau/Sean
subplot effectively serves to develop the obstacle character throughline,
yet is also responsible for the film's most awkward moment. Sean's
problem is his hunch that Lambeau and the rest of their peers
think he's a failure. While he remains steadfast in his relationship
with Will, Sean changes in the subplot by starting to apply his
concerns to his own theories. His new resolve occurs approximately
at the same time Will is making his change--momentarily distracting
the audience's attention from the power of the story's successful
outcome. The moment passes, however, and it is all good for Will
Hunting. He finally wises up (unique ability) and stops
the careless treatment of his impossibly high IQ, and is last seen cruising
cross country "to go see about a girl."
|