MovieChat Forums > Genius (2016) Discussion > So who was the real "Genius"?

So who was the real "Genius"?

posted 9 years ago by joekiddlouischama
5 replies | jump to latest

I felt that the film's subtext represented a play on the title: was the "genius" the author Thomas Wolfe (Jude Law) or the editor Max Perkins (Colin Firth)?

The movie does not provide a clear answer, and it gives both men their moments of genius or compelling and convincing arguments. But if anything, I would say that the film ultimately sides with Perkins—suggesting that sanity, selflessness, discipline, and balance ultimately make not just for better life, but for better art as well.

On the other hand, the movie indicates that you need originals and trail blazers like Wolfe, too.

[–] NeutralWord 8 years ago

Could be that both of them were geniuses.
After all if one of them were a genius they might have found the other dumb/irritating when they collaborated instead they "fell inlove"

While its customary in a movie to have a single genius just to make his excellence more obvious this is based on a true story so could be two of them.

Genius editor +Genius writer is my take on it

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

... a fair interpretation. There can be different kinds of geniuses, just as there can be different kinds of intelligence.

[–] mysay-97-581086 8 years ago

I think of it in terms of quality not quantity. Wolfe just spews out the words whereas Perkins was the one that was able to polish up the mess to make it into something usable. So I give the Genius card to Perkins.

But -Spoiler alert
I wonder if the brain tumors that Wolfe had caused some of his issues, if not all of them.

I guess it's not a spoiler unless you have no idea who Wolfe was. I, myself, never had to read any of his books and I really doubt I ever will.

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

I had never heard of Wolfe, but I would now like to check some of his stuff out. I am not sure when I will get around to it, though.

The argument for Wolfe would be that without his creativity and jazz-like spontaneity as a writer (in the film, Wolfe himself draws the connection between writing and jazz, years before Jack Kerouac came along), the words would have never emerged in the first place and Perkins would have had nothing to edit. Wolfe also, I imagine, offered a more free-flowing, joyous style. The downside was excess and becoming overwrought, lacking the discipline to achieve balance.