Paul Morphy or Alexander Alekhine;)
oh, and Paul Keres
Why should there be a film made about such an irrelevant and boring topic as some historical chess player only known to geekdom?
Can someone answer that question?
I find math boring, but I think that says more about me than about math.
I just read the wiki on Sultan Khan. amazing.
If you do it on Paul Morphy, for example, the producers may show what 19th century life was like in his time. They could address the problems Morphy had with being considered a professional chess player. They could put forth theories regarding his psychology. There are a variety of ways one may make interesting the life of a famous chess player, in my view:)
Because the movie might be about a person and their trials and their interesting times, as opposed to about chess per se.
Yes but math is not irrelevant.
Yes, why would I want to watch a movie about someone or something I don't know about? That's too much for a simpleton like me.
A good book/movie is never ultimately about a person, place or thing, which are just conveyances, but an idea or a theme. Irrelevance is in the mind of the audience.
Why make a movie about a nutty mathametician?
That couldn't be very good.
Why make a movie about anything BradStone19 isn't interested in?
capablanca already has a movie
Morphy could overpower a canary.
A small girl would have probably given him a good fight.
anthony hopkins as aaron nimzowitsch!!
#1: "producers may show what 19th century life was like in his time"
Ya think that this hasn't been done before? Try done in like hundreds of films, more notably even in the last 13 months with Django Unchained and Lincoln.
Which is, of course, merely proof that the concept sells and plays to a broad spectrum of audiences.
#2: "address the problems Morphy had with being considered a professional chess player"
How exactly would that be interesting to anyone? Particularly since Morphy had no interest in being considered a professional chess player. So now not only is your idea dull as paint drying, but its dishonest.
You are, of course, correct. There's no place for a film where a misunderstood hero is seen differently by both the audience and himself than he is to his contemporaries. That must be why Batman movies always flop.
#3 "They could put forth theories regarding his psychology."
Why would anyone outside of chess geekdom give a flying hoot about anyone discussing Morphy's "psychology."
For the same sorts of reasons people outside of mathematics cared about John Nash, or people outside of physical anthropology cared about Dian Fossey, or people who weren't autistic cared about Rain Man -- because the writers and cinematographers make it into a story worth hearing, and a movie worth seeing, with excellent acting and well-selected material. Try to imagine a duller lead role than Mr. Holland's Opus, or Helen Keller, or Josh Waitzkin, who didn't even end up being all that good.
Nice try. Got any more ideas?
Nice try, indeed. Better luck next go around.
I actually like the 19th century era being portrayed in film. Of course, after such themes as 'revenge', being portrayed for the billionth time in films like "Django Unchained" you may consider the subject exhausted.
I also think the social mores which added a lot to Morphy's trepidation about being considered a chess professional is interesting, but I understand that Batman may be more interesting to some people. I must be "dishonest" if I don't admit this "fact".
I'm pretty sure that Morphy has been the subject of psychology in many books, but I could be wrong.
@majipoor: You responded much better than I
I don't see why a chess player cannot be as interesting as a banker, writer, sports person, etc?
David Bronstein. Amazing man, interesting life....