MovieChat Forums > Good Will Hunting (1998) Discussion > Isn't the portrayal of psychology and in...

Isn't the portrayal of psychology and intelligence too unrealistic?

posted 8 years ago by FrederickWit
19 replies | jump to latest

First, about Will being a genius... I can believe that, but they never really show him a actually studying at the library. In fact, between being in bars, the batting cage, getting into fights, being on parole, his many jobs; I find it hard to believe that he actually has that much spare time to read that much. Einstein and other scientists known for being exceptional studied a lot throughout their entire lives, and they were mostly aware of their intelligence since they were kids. Furthermore, Will knew things about very different topics: art, history, economics, law, chemistry, math, etc... which would be quite unrealistic, even for a genius. In fact, about Math, you actually need to practice that *beep* to be good, no one is just naturally figuring out theorems by casually reading about it.

And now... about psychology. I kind of laugh at Hollywood for making deep research about almost all topics, but psychology is always portrayed almost as "mystical". First of all, about the first "experts" that quit on Will... Most psychologist have experiences with different kinds of people, and it is not uncommon to find someone uncooperative or hostile. A psychologist quitting because a patient made a comment about his sexuality is just outrageous in my eyes. Finally, "attachment disorder" would not be in a file for someone Will's age, the term is not specific enough, they would have chosen a more appropriate personality disorder to describe him.

[–] ladive 8 years ago

Great points!

[–] golta 8 years ago

I completely agree with everything you said. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised at the credit this movie has based on the huge script problems you mentioned. It IS a good movie, and I know it's the individual interactions and moments that have captured people's and critics' attention. But, Will's level of intelligence was a major focus of the movie, the core event that everything else revolved around, so the poor depiction of it detracts from the movie in my eyes.
They could have made him a math genius without making him good at many different topics at an academic level. The exaggerated depiction of his knowledge on all these topics, superior to the people that were academically studying them, was simply uninformed and somewhat immature on the writers' part.

P.S. I'm gonna miss finding threads like this about movies that came out 20 years ago when the Imdb boards go down, shame.

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1356) 8 years ago

To me it did show him studying. Early in the film it showed him at home late at night reading books. Also when he was prepping to see the psychiatrist it showed him reading the guys book. It also showed him turning the pages quickly indicating he is a very fast reader. I took it that he constantly was reading at night.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

That's my biggest problem with the movie. Will honestly comes off to me as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for angsty, adolescent youths with no basis in reality. I can accept him having a photographic memory and excellent debate skills. What I don't buy, is him having infinite knowledge on every academic subject there is, plus being well-built and athletic, plus having movie star good looks, plus huge circle of friends, plus good with the ladies, plus the ability to get through people's heads in a matter of seconds etc. And we never find out what fuels his thirst for knowledge, either. The character has little to no depth.

He's essentially just Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's (and probably a lot of angsty, bullied kids too) ideal image of themselves. A man of limitless intellect who's only faults as a person trace back to being hurt by others at a young age and growing up in a tough environment. It's for this very reason that I find this film very fake and superficial.

[–] scarlit (50) 5 years ago

i appreciate your comment, but i disagree with a few points.

first, i wouldn't say he's good with the ladies in terms of real intimacy. he's young and attractive (as you mentioned), so he can secure hookups, but he has yet to sustain any relationships of substance. this is confirmed during his conversation with sean and again with minnie driver's character.

as for having "infinite" knowledge on every academic subject, i think that's an exaggeration. but i've known a few people like this––insecure guys who pride themselves on being self-educated. they read and study a lot to combat their low self-esteem. and usually, they come off arrogant.

his only true genius was his math ability. everything else was studied in an attempt to feel better about himself.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He's not good at maintaining long-term, fulfilling relationships but he certainly knows how to pick up chicks at bars. That alone, coupled with the other traits I previously mentioned, make him come off to me as an adolescent fantasy.

His branch of intellect clearly extends beyond that of just math. He's also shown to have a photographic memory, a Sherlock Holmesian ability to read people based off the tiniest of hints, great public debate skills, a quick wit, and even a near psychic ability to predict the future as displayed with the whole NSA thing. I wouldn't mind if he just had one or two of these traits, but all of them? That's hard to swallow.

What bugs me just as much is how the movie more or less acts as though all his faults as a person are all based around him being hurt by others at a young age. It all comes off so manipulative to me to have a character who's such a dick towards others so often, only to have it all be chalked up to an abusive childhood. A story about a guy with a brilliant mind who makes mistakes left and right on his own accord without it being the result of events completely out of his control in his youth would have been far more compelling in my eyes.

[–] scarlit (50) 5 years ago

"He's not good at maintaining long-term, fulfilling relationships but he certainly knows how to pick up chicks at bars. That alone makes him come off to me as an adolescent fantasy."

being attractive enough to secure casual sex that never results in meaningful relationships is far from fantasy. it's a trap a lot of adults with intimacy issues find themselves in. i'm not sure why you characterize that part of his character as a teenage fantasy "on its own." this is a real thing that most people would believe is a deficit. no one wants to die alone.

i can agree that perhaps the combination of sexpot and supremely intelligent is less likely, but this is a movie... would it have been better if matt damon wrote himself in as being completely hapless with women in spite of his looks? that's certainly possible, but would this be more believable, or less?

"What bugs me just as much is how the movie more or less acts as though all his faults as a person are all based around him being hurt by others at a young age. It all comes off so manipulative to me to have a character who's such a dick towards others so often, only to have it all be chalked up to an abusive childhood."

the movie portrays someone with issues. most of our issues stem from childhood. his childhood was apparently shit. this doesn't excuse him for his choices. this is the very set up of the movie: can this guy get over the past to overcome his self-destructive tendencies and do better?

honestly, it sounds like this triggered you too much for you to criticize it objectively.

"A story about a guy with a brilliant mind who makes mistakes left and right on his own accord without it being the result of events completely out of his control in his youth would have been far more compelling in my eyes."

what does this even mean? the character *did* make mistakes on his own accord. what would be his motivation or backstory in your version? is he just an asshole? because that's not at all compelling....

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

What sounds appealing on paper isn't always what's actually appealing in practice. In the case of sex, many men often dream about the ability to live vicariously through it and bang women left and right regardless of whether it'll actually grant them happiness in reality. It's why so many of the most iconic screen heroes out there are womanizers (James Bond, Captain Kirk, Indiana Jones etc.) This movie could have twisted that around on its head and show how people like that in real-life are often just as lonely and sad as those who never get laid, but it doesn't work since he's always around a huge circle of friends. The latter itself, bypasses any possible issues of isolation he may face.

I think it would have been best for Matt Damon to not play the part at all. A guy without movie star good looks would have been far more believable as a guy who's had to endure physical and emotional abuse whom is also implied to be self-loathing (more on that later) over the years.

There is no objectivity in critiquing film at all. Everything someone says in regards to their belief over the quality of a certain film is formulated by that very individual's unique life experiences, personal hierarchy of importance with the medium, and personal tastes. You are no different, as am I.

Will did make mistakes on his own, but the film always goes back to his abusive childhood being the one and only reason why he's so often a prick. It comes off so cheap to me to have the emotional climax of the film be centered around the line "It's not your fault." That line doesn't work because Will has never shown to be particularly self-loathing throughout the entire film. It really comes off more as a justification for all the character's mistakes throughout the story. As though Sean is telling the audience why they should feel bad for him.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Didnt think Matt had movie stars looked in this. At least they didn't dress him up to be.

I think he is an example
Of the common obnoxious jerk who is an asshole to everyone else but is actually talented but people dont understand that it is because he’s been hurt that he is talented and lashes out cuz he is insecure. I know it sounds juvenile and superficial but it is so common that that is what it's aiming at and the source of his talent is his abuse that he cant make mistakes and let go ‘ hence’ its not your fault. Which I always found to be one of the great lines of film.

I know it is outrageous for a psychologist to quit because of a homosexual remark but it is so true I’ve had psychologist quit for far less than that and the bad part is that there are so many bad psychologist out there that the whole field should be questioned as a cure.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You think three people is a huge circle of friends? I'm sorry.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

While I agree to some of your complaints there are people with natural mathematics talent. Just go see what Polya said about von Neumann.

Maybe having someone who's an intellectual superman still being caught up in the turbulence of pedestrian urban life is part of the story itself.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I see him more as someone with a photographic memory to be honest. He understands some of what he reads but it is mostly just quoting other people and memorizing text. Like when he fronts that rich kid in the bar. It's like he is reading from something he had read previously.

In the end he wins that engagement by threatening the guy anyway. The guy backs down as he can see he standing in front of a thug. But in the end does it matter? The rich kid goes on with his life and Will is still a mess.

[–] scarlit (50) 5 years ago

i always laugh when people bitch about "realism" in film because there weren't enough shots of a character doing A Thing.

have you ever heard of the phrase, "Show, don't tell"? this is storytelling 101.

the idea is to establish who the character is, not load the movie with shots of him studying. the point isn't that the guy reads. the point is that he's stuck, and he believes his life is fine as is, when clearly, there are indications that he can and should do better. we are initially SHOWN his intelligence, not told.

it is not unrealistic for someone to overcompensate (which in will's case meant being obnoxiously self-educated) as a defense mechanism. if you know anything about psychology, you might want to consider that instead of taking issue with the fact that you never saw the character at the library.

not everyone needs or wants movies that telegraph everything so that there's little to no deduction required. that's lazy writing for lazy thinkers.

[–] Jones70 (6534) 5 years ago

A little bit I’d say.