While this movie is based on true events, I have noted IMDb user reviews challenging its accuracy. Let me state up front that I'll steer clear of this controversy and rely on the merit of the movie itself.
This is the story of an unlikely partnership between S. Ramanujan (Dev Patel) and G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) in cracking the purportedly unsolvable mathematical problem of "partition", thereby making earth-shaking history in the academic world and in the process earning Ramanujan's Trinity Fellowship.
Drama, be it real-life or fictional, strives on conflicts. My summary line suggests three for this movie. The first is highly theoretical. Ramanujan is a genius likened to Mozart by Hardy, with a brain that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. He works on intuition which sources his "profound, invincible originality" (a phrase Hardy used in his speech arguing for granting Ramanujan's fellowship). But scholars in Cambridge (Hardy included) adhere steadfastly to academic tradition and principle: requirement of proof. This fuels the conflict between the two, until eventually they agree to meet half-way.
The next conflict can be viewed as an alternative expression of this first one. Hardy is an atheist. Ramanujan is a believer in divinity. His religious faith in his pursuit of mathematical truth is just as palpable. Again and again he comes up with formula which he just knows is true. So why does he need to supply further proof after the Cambridge fashion? He suggests that Hardy does not understand this because he is an atheist.
The third and last one affects the making of this movie to the extent of almost rendering it Schizophrenic. To be able to interact in that lofty level of intellectual plane as between the two protagonists makes them almost godlike, particularly Ramanujan. And yet, there is a parallel story between him and his lovely wife who stays back in India on the strength of his promise that she can join him as soon as feasible. Thrown in for good measure is even the melodrama of the mother-in-law blocking her letters (without her knowing) to ensure that his son will come back.
Years, no, decades, ago I had the privilege of reading Hardy's book "A mathematician's apology", introduced to me by a friend who is a mathematician. Understanding next to nothing about the subject matter, I was nevertheless overwhelmingly impressed by Hardy's mesmerizing description of how elegantly beautiful a mathematical proof can be. There is not enough depiction of this aspect in the movie although in all fairness it is not neglected. I want even more mathematical jargon even though that will all be Greek to me. I want to see more of the godlike Ramanujan rather than the ordinary human being missing his wife, staying faithful to his vegetarian diet, victim of bigotry and ultimate consumed by tuberculosis.
On casting, Iron is impeccable, while Patel shows what he can do with a serious role. Among the supports, I like to mention two in particular. Toby Jones's Littlewood has been referred to as a figment of Hardy's imagination in jest. While temperamentally he is mild and gentle, Littlewood is academically the other two's equal. Jones, whose excellent portrayal of Truman Capote ("Infamous" in 2006) was overshadowed by the great, late Philip Seymour Hoffman's award winning "Capote" (2005), is a joy to watch as Littlewood. Jeremy Northam's Bertrand Russell is only a minor role here, the character's gigantic status notwithstanding. The actor however is my favorite. Among a variety of roles I have seen him portrayed, the most impressive is poet Randolph Henry Ash in "Possession" (2002).
This is the story of an unlikely partnership between S. Ramanujan (Dev Patel) and G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) in cracking the purportedly unsolvable mathematical problem of "partition", thereby making earth-shaking history in the academic world and in the process earning Ramanujan's Trinity Fellowship.
Drama, be it real-life or fictional, strives on conflicts. My summary line suggests three for this movie. The first is highly theoretical. Ramanujan is a genius likened to Mozart by Hardy, with a brain that is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. He works on intuition which sources his "profound, invincible originality" (a phrase Hardy used in his speech arguing for granting Ramanujan's fellowship). But scholars in Cambridge (Hardy included) adhere steadfastly to academic tradition and principle: requirement of proof. This fuels the conflict between the two, until eventually they agree to meet half-way.
The next conflict can be viewed as an alternative expression of this first one. Hardy is an atheist. Ramanujan is a believer in divinity. His religious faith in his pursuit of mathematical truth is just as palpable. Again and again he comes up with formula which he just knows is true. So why does he need to supply further proof after the Cambridge fashion? He suggests that Hardy does not understand this because he is an atheist.
The third and last one affects the making of this movie to the extent of almost rendering it Schizophrenic. To be able to interact in that lofty level of intellectual plane as between the two protagonists makes them almost godlike, particularly Ramanujan. And yet, there is a parallel story between him and his lovely wife who stays back in India on the strength of his promise that she can join him as soon as feasible. Thrown in for good measure is even the melodrama of the mother-in-law blocking her letters (without her knowing) to ensure that his son will come back.
Years, no, decades, ago I had the privilege of reading Hardy's book "A mathematician's apology", introduced to me by a friend who is a mathematician. Understanding next to nothing about the subject matter, I was nevertheless overwhelmingly impressed by Hardy's mesmerizing description of how elegantly beautiful a mathematical proof can be. There is not enough depiction of this aspect in the movie although in all fairness it is not neglected. I want even more mathematical jargon even though that will all be Greek to me. I want to see more of the godlike Ramanujan rather than the ordinary human being missing his wife, staying faithful to his vegetarian diet, victim of bigotry and ultimate consumed by tuberculosis.
On casting, Iron is impeccable, while Patel shows what he can do with a serious role. Among the supports, I like to mention two in particular. Toby Jones's Littlewood has been referred to as a figment of Hardy's imagination in jest. While temperamentally he is mild and gentle, Littlewood is academically the other two's equal. Jones, whose excellent portrayal of Truman Capote ("Infamous" in 2006) was overshadowed by the great, late Philip Seymour Hoffman's award winning "Capote" (2005), is a joy to watch as Littlewood. Jeremy Northam's Bertrand Russell is only a minor role here, the character's gigantic status notwithstanding. The actor however is my favorite. Among a variety of roles I have seen him portrayed, the most impressive is poet Randolph Henry Ash in "Possession" (2002).