Review: ‘The Theory of Everything’ From The Editor
After witnessing the surprisingly moving, romantic and inspiring The Theory of Everything, there is no question that star Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables) is looking at his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor for his turn as legendary physicist Stephen Hawking.
And we wouldn’t be surprised if the woman who plays his wife, Jane Hawking (Felicity Jones), also scores one as well. After all, this is the love story of a marriage that would go through a great deal and give the world so much.
The film also chronicles one of the greatest minds of our time and how incredible it is that he is even, frankly, alive.
We meet Hawking as a young man at university and it is clear that he has a gift, unlike any his professors (especially Dennis Sciama, played astoundingly by David Thewlis of Harry Potter fame) have ever seen. But just as his promising academic career is heading into places that are downright historic, he starts having physical problems that threaten his ability to walk, talk and even breathe.
He learns he has ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and already his ability to function with his hands, legs, feet and speech are slowly but surely crippling. Hawking is also given two years to live.
Who challenges him to overcome this death sentence? The love of his life and that’s why The Theory of Everything is equal parts historical lesson in the enormity that is the mind of Stephen Hawking and a tribute to a marriage that inspired that greatness and truly was, and is, a gift to the world.
Director James Marsh works brilliantly from the Anthony McCarten screenplay (which itself was based on Jane Hawking’s book). It is as rich as a story can be and a true triumph in how it chronicles decades of a person’s life that textbooks have been and will be written about. And this is a life that will be told in terms of volumes and not just pages or chapters.
The film spans decades and tells the story of Hawking, played by Eddie Redmayne, beginning with his time as a cheeky Cambridge grad student in the ’60s and running all the way through his adult life and the release of A Brief History of Time in 1988. Within those decades, the film is largely structured around key points of scientific discovery and the progression of his disease, throughout which Redmayne does an incredible job of recreating the crooked positions of Hawking’s fingers and the uncomfortable shifts in his neck and cheeks. We see him come up with breakthrough theories, and we see him fall and stumble and head to the hospital. This is a film tracking Hawking’s life — but the film isn’t primarily concerned with those key events.
They’re all presented in the context of how Hawking’s relationship with Jane is developing, but his relationship with Jane isn’t made half as interesting as these world-changing events that we’re just speeding past. It’s hard not to want to see more of them. The film is torn between Jane and Stephen
At the same time, the film never gives you as much as you want of Jane, played here by Felicity Jones, who actually is quite interesting. As Hawking becomes less and less capable of expressing himself, the film slowly diverges from him and begins to explore what it’s like to be around him. It isn’t pleasant. Jane works slavishly to assist Hawking while also raising kids and pursuing her own studies. She’s ignored by Hawking’s colleagues, all men, who don’t care about her beyond her ability to get him to and from campus. Even Hawking is ungrateful sometimes.
Jane is fascinating and strong and dealing with all kinds of problems. She’s a woman trying to have an academic career and a family at a time when that really, really is not easy. And she’s constantly torn over what to do about Hawking: she married this man because she truly loves him, but she only expected him to live for two more years — not to require constant care for ten or twenty or thirty or more. That’s an intense struggle, and the best parts of The Theory of Everything are when we get to see Jane living it.
What’s strange is, The Theory of Everything never realizes that Jane is the most interesting part of this story. In fact, The Theory of Everything is based on a memoir by Jane, so the source material is coming from her point of view — perhaps explaining why we never really get inside of Hawking’s head. That’s not to say that Jane doesn’t get her due here: she increasingly does as the film goes on, but Hawking is always the core of the movie. Jane, for the sake of her narrative, is often quite literally in the background or being pushed aside, and there simply isn’t enough of Hawking himself to provide us with something meaningful to hang on to instead.
Hawking is one of the most recognizable humans in recent history. How an actor captures someone who has permeated our consciousness is the most difficult of endeavors. Then again, Redmayne had to look at the man he was playing and feel there was no way he could not dig deeper than he ever thought humanly possible.
And he does, and it is one of the great moments of cinema in this decade.
Our The Theory of Everything review found the film is a moving journey that has an inherent call to action for its viewer. It simultaneously allows you to marvel in what one extraordinary man did with such complex personal trials, but also leaves you heading home from witnessing this movie with an undeniable urge to tackle all the hills that life puts in front of us.
Sparx Entertainment 