|
I.Q.
(1994)
Director: Fred Schepisi
Cast: Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, Walter Matthau
I think all
of us have admiration for certain famous people. Many people today and
in the past have done various great things that make the people who are
not famous in society admire these famous people. But as you may know,
the public image of many famous people today or in the past often hides
aspects of a personal life that, if revealed, might tarnish the famous
person in the eyes of the public. Over the years, I have read a lot
about various famous people who had a side or sides to them that might
tarnish their reputations if the secret facts about them were better
known by the public. One such secret I have found is a regular
occurrence among the famous, though it's more like a category since
there are various variations among the theme. I am talking about SEX.
For example, there was Martin Luther King Jr., one of the big figures
among the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He is celebrated
today, but I
can't help but wonder how the public would view him today if the fact
that he had several extramarital affairs during his lifetime were
better known. I also wonder what would have happened had this fact been
released during his lifetime. Then there is Ludwig van Beethoven,
composer of classical music pieces that are popular even today. What
you may not know about him is that some historians today claim he only
had sex with prostitutes during his entire lifetime. In fact, one of
them may have given him a disease that ultimately killed him. A third
person with a sexual secret is Issac Newton, the scientist who came up
with scientific achievements such as the three laws of motion as well
as the theory of universal gravitation. His sexual secret that many
historians agree he had was that he never
had sex even one time in his life.
Although these revelations might give one pause for a
few seconds upon hearing them, we of course should remember that while
these people were famous, they were also human. This can be proven by
just picking of one of any tabloids that you find at the supermarket
cashier - it seems every week there is a story concerning someone
famous involved in some kind of foolish activity. Such observations
have made me conclude that every person, no matter how noble he or she
appears at first glance in this society of ours, has several kinds of
secrets in their personal life that they hope are never revealed out in
public. One such person that had secrets of his own was Albert
Einstein. Actually, while Einstein in his lifetime made some great
accomplishments like the theory of relativity and the construction of
the atomic bomb, he on occasion showed the public he was human. There
was the famous picture of him sticking out his tongue, for one thing.
He also didn't hide among his associates that one of his favorite
television shows was the children's puppet show Time For Beany.
But there were secrets about Einstein that he managed to keep until his
death. As you may expect, many of these secrets were related to the
subject of SEX. While Einstein may have been a scientific genius, he
had one failed marriage in his lifetime. The second woman he married
(who was related to him both on his father's and mother's side, by the
way) didn't seem to be a much happier marriage, since letters from him
unearthed after his death went into detail about many affairs he had
with different women at the time of this marriage.
I'm not sure what you now think of Albert Einstein now
that I have revealed those facts to you. As for me, I will go back to
what I said earlier: Famous people are human like you and me. If you
were to take a deep look at any
person, famous or not, most likely you will find some things about them
that may shake up your feelings about them. Knowing how imperfect I am
(except when it comes to writing movie reviews), I can accept some
flaws. I can also accept a movie that takes a famous person and shakes
them up in a way you might not expect. That happens to be what the
movie I am reviewing here, I.Q.,
does with Albert Einstein. It drops this real-life scientific genius
into a movie that can be safely labelled a romantic comedy. That by
itself might sound strange, but I think the following plot description
may make the movie sound even stranger. Let me illustrate the plot for
you now. Tim Robbins (The Shawshank Redemption)
plays a fellow by the name of Ed Walters, a
likable chap who makes a living as an auto mechanic in 1950s New
England. One day, a beautiful woman by the name of Catherine Boyd (Meg
Ryan, Sleepless
In Seattle) comes to Ed's garage. Ed is immediately attracted to
her, but
Catherine refuses to acknowledge Ed this way. Part of the reason is
that Catherine is a genius, a candidate at Princeton University for a
doctoral position, and feels that she should only brush shoulders with
other geniuses. This is emphasized by the fact that her English fiancé
James (Stephen Fry, A Fish Called Wanda),
who is accompanying her, is a top psychology
professor. After Catherine and James leave, Ed finds she accidentally
left her watch behind, and travels to her home to return it. Though
when Ed gets there, he bumps face to face with Catherine's uncle -
Albert Einstein (Matthau, The Bad News Bears).
It doesn't take long for Einstein to see
that Ed is a really great guy despite not being a genius, and also sees
that
he would be a better catch for his niece instead of the snotty James.
So with the help of his friends, which include the real-life geniuses
Boris Podolsky (Gene Saks) and Kurt Gödel (Lou Jacobi, The Diary Of Anne Frank),
Einstein starts to train Ed to come across as a kind of intellectual
that would attract Catherine, though at the same time Einstein
privately tries to convince Catherine that brains aren't everything.
Doing some research on I.Q.,
I uncovered the fact that it did sluggish business in North American
theaters when it
was released, and not doing
much better when released to the rest of the world. After subsequently
watching the movie for myself, I started to wonder why the movie
didn't perform better than it did. It could have been badly marketed,
though I don't
recall how the TV commercials at the time presented the movie. But
after some additional thought, I came up with a possible theory that
might explain in part (or whole) why moviegoers didn't line up to see
it. Even in 1994, people were living in a cynical age, and this movie's
decidingly uncynical tone and viewpoint may have seemed hokey and
unrealistic to most people hardened by the harshness of life. I.Q.
is a movie that has a real sweet and gentle tone. Although the movie
received a PG rating ("For mild language" according to the MPAA), even
its supposed use of mature language didn't shake the feeling that the
movie really deserved a G rating. The world in this movie is one full
of hope and confidence that things in the end will always work out for
the best. Most of this wonderful and reassuring tone is generated by
director Fred Schepisi (who also did Roxanne,
another underrated romantic comedy.) Exactly what Schepisi does I'll
get to shortly, but I first want to mention that he is also in part
aided
in the creation of this absolutely inviting world by his long time
cinematographer Ian Baker, who lenses this world to come across as
clean, neat, and absolutely bright and warm. Also, legendary movie
composer Jerry Goldsmith injects the right kind of musical score, a
score that's gentle yet full of heart. Wisely, Goldsmith seemed to know
that his music is not needed most of the time, because much of what
happens onscreen is already filled with so much heart and emotion that
we in the audience don't need to be told how we should be feeling by
possibly distracting music.
Though I am always up for a good old R rated movie full
of blood and violence, I have to admit I was completely charmed by the
world found in this movie. I think the biggest reason why I was so
captivated with what happened in I.Q. were the
characters. Director Schepisi deserves great credit for how likable
these characters come across. Now, he was certainly aided a great deal
by the screenplay he was working from. The screenplay gets the majority
of the central characters to come across as very likable. While Ed may
be a lowly auto mechanic, he has an interest in reading about
science-related topics, so he's clearly not stupid, even though it's
Einstein and his friends who come up with the plan for him to pretend
to be a genius.
And while he is fooling Catherine with this appearance, he worries
about it constantly, realizing that he can't do this deception forever
- something his wise garage buddies remind him of at one point.
Catherine is initially kind of blind to the issue of loving for the
heart and not of the mind, but we see right from her first encounter
with Ed that she has some attraction to Ed, even if she won't admit it
for a long time. And as the movie progresses, we see her learning about
the heart and bettering herself from it. Einstein and his intellectual
friends are not the stuffy geniuses that you usually see in movies.
They are up for a good game of badminton, always up for a good joke,
and are clearly having a lot of fun as they aid Ed in appearing as some
kind of genius. The only character that doesn't come across as
positive is Catherine's fiancé James. Yes, the movie does resurrect
the cliché found in countless other romantic comedies when the fiancé
is a snotty and stuffy kind of fellow. But it's a necessary evil, since
if the fiancé was really a nice and decent fellow, it wouldn't look
good for Ed to be competing for Catherine's affections.
Schepisi
takes these well-scripted characters and
directs the cast to interpret them so that they come across as people
you wouldn't mind meeting in real life. Robbins is made to have his
character definitely attracted to Ryan's, but a little shy and unsure
of how to do it without help, which gives the character extra appeal.
While Ryan's character may declare her attachment to her fiancé as well
as the idea of intellect ruling above anything else, the times she
looks at Robbins you see the instinct of attraction, which makes her
human just like us viewers in the audience. The biggest surprise is
what Schepisi manages to do with Matthau. Being accustomed to Matthau's
gruff and rough performances in other movies, I was unsure if he could
play a lovable intellect. But Matthau manages to pull it off. He
certainly looks like Einstein under all that makeup, but Schepisi
managed to get Matthau to play it slow, play it cool, and play it with
a charming grin on the face. It's not only unlike any other Matthau
performance I've seen, it completely works. Matthau makes Einstein a
completely human character, one that has a lighter side as well as a
serious side. By the way, the tone that Schepisi gets Matthau to play
also happens to be the tone he gives much of the rest of the movie. The
movie for the most part has a slow and leisurely pace, which although
may not sit will with teenagers who have grow accustomed to frenzied
speed and editing, definitely charmed this (slightly!) older viewer.
Without any flash or extravaganza, the movie made me observe and enjoy
the appealing characters and situations. Although this comedy may not
in the end be all that laugh-out-loud funny, I have to admit that I had
a big grin on my face from the beginning to the end, and I learned that
charm and whimsy can have as much appeal as the cinematic sight of
someone being blasted by a sawed-off shotgun.
(Posted May 30, 2015)
Check
for availability on Amazon (DVD)
-
-
Check
for availability on Amazon (Amazon Prime Video)
See also: Bunny O'Hare, Cheyenne Warrior, My
First Mister
|