MovieChat Forums > A Beautiful Mind (2002) Discussion > Was he actually literally gaslighted and...

Was he actually literally gaslighted and not mentally ill at all?


Mistaken identity of the prior post aside. I immediately wondered about this when I first saw this movie. "Gaslighting" wasn't a term that was well known about in 2001, and now all of a sudden in the past year or two it is being overused by the media and so its meaning being watered down. It literally means where a victim is targetted with a series of disorienting techniques by a group of individuals with the goal of getting the victim to question their own sanity and believe themselves what they know to be true to be an aberration of their own mental illness. The meaning comes from how political prisoners were interrogated under a "gas light" by "authorities" wishing to discredit the case AGAINST the authorities.

So considering that John Nash MAY have known some important national security information that exposed some deep cabal is it possible the government gaslighted him into thinking he was insane so that when he talked about such things he wouldn't be taken seriously? Maybe the meetings at the mansion were real but the secret service agencies easily and simply made it appear to have never happened and/or possibly offed his roommate and wiped the record of his existence since his roommate may have "known too much" as well and/or gone into the secret services himself.

Just a hypothesis. But that's the nagging feeling I got and now everyone has heard of the term "gaslighting" by now I thought I'd ask the question. Were the claims that John Nash was making actually real?

reply

That is a very good hypothesis, but I think it relies too much on hindsight, and was not the film’s intention. He realizes that he is delusional because the little girl never ages. Without chemical manipulation (and even then) I do not think it is possible to fabricate such a vivid delusion, and there is no evidence in the film that he is being drugged. And the real John Nash was clinically diagnosed as schizophrenic.
However, “Shutter Island” comes to mind as a film that demonstrates how ‘gaslighting’ might actually occur.

reply

Right but as he aged it turned out he really never was mentally ill and he just appeased the predators by saying that when certain hormones abate it reduces the effects of schizophrenia. I really think he was just appeasing them. I'll have to watch the film again because I don't remember a little girl (but that could just be a film fictionalization) since it has been over a decade since I watched it. But the reason I wrote this question was because I recently read the above somewhere in the news.

reply

The little girl was the niece of his college roommate, who was also a delusion/hallucination.
In the context of the film, I think it is very clear that he was indeed schizophrenic, in fact that’s kind of the whole point of the movie. Madness mingling alongside genius.
As for what happened in reality, I haven’t the faintest idea, other than John Nash was indeed schizophrenic (self-admitted) and learned to live with it, and he was also a brilliant mathematician. He probably wasn’t a CIA operative, or had any professional connection to the government, so why would he be gaslighted? And his work was put into use in the real world in ways that made a lot of people rich, so if anything the ‘gaslighters’ would have wanted to trick him into thinking he was sane so that he could be more productive.

reply

Quite insightful.

reply

Go ask John Charles Martin Nash if his schizophrenia is "just gaslighting."

reply

Yeah, then he'd go off on a tangent about the revolutionary war or something... Haha get it? Because he has schizophrenia...and that's one of the symptoms... Hahaha

reply

Where the hell have you been? Both he and his wife died in a car accident a few years ago. And also this is what he said before he died, that it "wore off." And if he were to say it wasn't real all along he could become targetted again. Man you kids are naive and ignorant as hell.

reply

John Charles Martin Nash is John Nash's son. Please, just go look into him and come back around and tell me who is naive here.

reply

First you go look into the meaning of "naive." I wasn't writing about John Nash's son.

reply

Thanks for driving my point.

reply

I didn't drive your point, but you drove cj3333's point by going off on a tangent about his son.

"Yeah, then he'd go off on a tangent about the revolutionary war or something... Haha get it? Because he has schizophrenia...and that's one of the symptoms..." Hahaha

reply

You don't even know the basics of what you're talking about but you're going around and insulting others while making grandiose statements about something you're clearly ignorant about. The fact you'd rather remain in ignorance than to see what I'm talking about shows that you're not serious about this.

reply

You were WRITING about asking John Nash's son if he has schizophrenia. That's the most basic thing you're WRITING about here. However, I was writing about John Nash. If you wish to discuss his son then start another thread. You do realize we are just writing here and not talking? Are you hearing voices?

–] estcst (1735) an hour ago

Go ask John Charles Martin Nash if his schizophrenia is "just gaslighting."

reply

Once again, attacking the messenger instead of talking about the subject at hand. Either that or you're very naive and ignorant about schizophrenia.

The fact that you seemingly know nothing about him speaks volumes about you.

reply

Well you've got to take into account that's not where the term comes from at all.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gaslighting

Boom. Face, motherfucker!

reply

Dear Mr. Boom. Face, Motherfucker:

Did you even read your own definition? It's EXACTLY where it comes from.

"Gaslighting, an elaborate and insidious technique of DECEPTION and PSYCHOLOGICAL manipulation, usually practiced by a single deceiver, or “gaslighter,” on a single victim over an extended period. Its effect is to gradually undermine the victim’s confidence in his own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or reality from appearance, thereby rendering him pathologically dependent on the gaslighter in his thinking or feelings."

The only thing false about this definition is "single deceiver".

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

From the OXFORD Dictionary of English in it's most basic definition it is:
verb gaslights, gaslighting, gaslighted
1. Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/gaslight

That's exactly what it appears they did to John Nash.

reply

No. Synopsis: The play is set in fog-bound London in 1880, at the upper middle class home of Jack Manningham and his wife Bella. It is late afternoon, a time that Hamilton notes as the time "before the feeble dawn of gaslight and tea."

Bella is clearly on edge, and the stern reproaches of her overbearing husband (who flirts with the servants in front of his wife) make matters worse. What most perturbs Bella is Jack's unexplained disappearances from the house: he will not tell her where he is going, and this increases her anxiety. It becomes clear that Jack is intent on convincing Bella that she is going insane, even to the point of assuring her she is imagining that the gas light in the house is dimming.

The appearance of a police detective called Rough leads Bella to realise that Jack is responsible for her torment. Rough explains that the apartment above was once occupied by one Alice Barlow, a wealthy woman who was murdered for her jewels. The murderer was never found.

Jack goes to the flat each night to search for the jewels, and lighting the apartment's gas lights causes the lights to dim in the rest of the building. His footsteps in the supposedly empty apartment persuade Bella that she is "hearing things." Rough convinces Bella to assist him in exposing Jack as the murderer, which she does, but not before she takes revenge on Jack by pretending to help him escape. At the last minute she reminds him that, having gone insane, she is not accountable for her actions. The play closes with Jack being led away by the police.

reply

Ok Boom Face Motherfucker, so you cherry picked one line about where I thought it's origination is (I'd read that somewhere) in order to distract attention from the original question. Congrats. But my original question remains. Was John Nash really just gaslighted similar to how the character Alice Barlow was?

1. Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/gaslight



reply

Maybe, I could see it being a bit of both.

reply

Well gaslighting can lead to the perception of insanity. They did it to Ignaz Semmelweis one of the discoverer of "germs." He went insane because they refused to listen to him about what was causing Child Bed Fever.

reply

[deleted]

While that may have been done, but then they would have not showed up after the hospital. However as Nash pointed out in the movie - they dont age, thus they cant be real. Furthermore, he still sees them in his old age, something that clearly isnt part of the gaslighting plot.

reply

Both he and his younger son were diagnosed with schizophrenia by professionals. The son is doing okay because of medication. It's unlikely Nash really cured himself of his schizophrenia, he and his wife just learned how to handle it better. Nash and his son were/are most certainly mentally ill, even the wife ackowledged that and she must've witnessed more of that sort of behavior up close, and not just the conspiracy theories.

reply