The Man Who Knew Infinity tells the story of the life and academic career of the pioneer Indian mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and his friendship with his mentor, Professor G.H. Hardy.
If I’m quite frank, and I like to think that I usually am, I had completely forgotten about this film until I saw it again when browsing through the Apple Store for a movie to watch. I had made note of it so I made sure that I watched it when it came out at the cinema but I quickly forgot about it though this wasn’t exactly a shame because when I did manage to sit through the film, it was long and arduous. I was never a person for maths, struggling to understand it and pass the subject while in high school before thankfully dropping it when I reached my final two years. This brings to question why I watched the film in the first place and that’s because I was interested in Ramanujan’s life despite not understanding the mathematical equations, and from what I could see he didn’t understand the process either despite how his mentor played by Jeremy Irons tried to help him understand that.
Though I could see some emotionally connection to the story, and it was truly remarkable story at that, but the question that I have is why did it still feel so cold and mathematical?
I still enjoyed the film, however, but it could’ve been so much better and condensed it’s time frame or even location to a specific portion of Ramanujan’s life. That’s the issue with a lot of biographical films that cover too much of a time frame, or even films that are spread out to thinly that aren’t of the biographical nature. It had potential but without that specific tight-knit focus, it doesn’t work. And I guess this is why The Imitation Game worked and something likeThe Man Who Knew Infinity didn’t, almost being forgotten amongst the slew of other films that flogged the market at the time of its release and since then.