The following is a guest post by Eve Pearce
When Ben Affleck claimed the Best Picture Oscar a few weeks ago it was a
far cry from his first Academy Award win. Many commentators enjoyed the
comparison of a youthfully exuberant actor on the cusp of career and
stardom with his older, wiser self; many others failed to even make the
connection. Yet Affleck’s original screenplay prize, shared with
childhood friend and fellow actor Matt Damon, was heavily lauded,
applauded as well as derided at the time. It may be hard to believe, but
it was fifteen years ago that the two bound joyously and
enthusiastically onto the stage to thank their mothers, wearing tuxedos
that seemed ill-fitting in more ways than one. Both have achieved highs
in their careers, but only one has suffered the bitter backlash of fame
and that is the current toast of Hollywood, Affleck. But how did a film
about a maths genius from Boston charm the Academy and pave the way for
Hollywood success? Indeed, was this seemingly small-budget and heartfelt
emotional drama in fact a cynical attempt to capture both awards and
fame for its two young stars?
A leading man with a difference
It’s difficult to imagine the pitch of this film, let alone anyone
biting for the rights. Let’s face it, mathematics is hardly considered
the stuff of Hollywood gold - add to that two first time screenwriters, a
less than glamorous location and a relatively obscure director and
it is hard to believe the film was ever made. However, confining
Damon’s character of Will Hunting to the pigeon hole of ‘maths genius’
is unfair to the piece as a whole. It is a characteristic symbolic of
far more than numeric skill and significant in many ways. His God-given
talent is his curse, instead of heralding the promise of a brighter
future it seems to further instil feelings of worthlessness in him as
even his genuine genius fails to raise him from the low aspirations his
unpleasant upbringing has created: highlighted by the memorable image of
Will working as a janitor whilst simultaneously solving the most
complex of sums. His experience of the world of education reveals to him
a different world from the one he has known. Mountains of mathematics textbooks,
chalk board cliff faces and rivers of intellectualism represent a
better world, with better people and better prospects. In a film that is
unafraid of liberal ideals the notion that education is the key to
bettering yourself rings ear-piercingly true.
On
a more distrustful level, there is no mistaking the purpose of Will
Hunting’s given skill. Damon and Affleck would have known to steer clear
of making their protagonist a sportsman or an artist. One is almost too
admirable in its implications of strength and physical prowess and the
other, in terms of filmic conventions at least, too individual and
introverted. When baiting Oscar, it appears characters with more unusual
issues are required. Ricky Gervais’ comedy Extras, which featured a
number of celebrities playing skewed versions of themselves , though
often wide of the mark in its observations got it absolutely spot on
when it came to the Academy and their penchant for certain cinematic
tropes. Kate Winslet, then a multiple nominee but also a multiple loser
at the Oscars, explains clearly to Gervais’ character what must be done
in order to win an acting gong at the ceremony – her theory revolves
around the perceived ‘worthiness’ of character and subject. Or in her
unreservedly politically incorrect terms, ‘You’re guaranteed an Oscar if
you play a mental.’ Strangely enough, her eventual win saw her portray
an unhappily illiterate woman in The Reader … and in Good Will Hunting’s
year, Matt Damon lost out as Best Actor to Jack Nicholson as a man with
obsessive compulsive tendencies and a deep-rooted social ineptitude in
As Good As It Gets. Perhaps she had a point.
Movie magic
The
image of the two soon-to-be stars carefully crafting their love song to
the nurturing of undiscovered talent raises a surprisingly rarely posed
question: why have the two not written together again? As images of
Damon and Affleck, fresh-faced with golden statuettes in hand, were
beamed around the world, a number of fun-sapping sceptics dared to
suggest that the whole thing was a sham. In fact, they purported, Damon
and Affleck did not compose the script at all. The implication that they
were the far more pretty and acceptable face of the true writer of the
piece was far from welcomed by Miramax, the Weinstein powered company
behind the film’s distribution. Understandably so, as it had been a key
component of a highly successful marketing scheme orchestrated by
Weinstein and friends. It must also be noted that the two have written
again, just not together. So perhaps Good Will Hunting was as baffling
an equation as those that the eponymous hero solves with ease – quite
simply a case of right place, right time for Damon and Affleck.
Affleck
himself did not fail to notice the significance of his return to the
winners’ enclosure. His acceptance speech was warm and as genuine as an
actor can deliver. Following Good Will Hunting’s success, Affleck
appeared distracted by fame: he made terrible choices both personally
and professionally (with Jennifer Lopez as the common denominator –
sorry J-Lo!) before regaining his equilibrium and re-establishing
himself as a rare filmmaker: one who has something to say. Choosing to
believe in Good Will Hunting’s authenticity in terms of its authorship
in addition to its purpose means choosing to believe in the magic of the
movies and choosing to believe in the alchemy of filmmaking.
Furthermore, it makes Affleck’s current success all the more remarkable,
as a man who has seen his career go full circle it almost sounds like
the premise of a movie script that has yet to be written.
Now wouldn’t that be the perfect reason for Affleck and Damon to reunite?
No comments:
Post a Comment