Review: The Theory of Everything

The story of the relationship and marriage of physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), who meet as University students at Cambridge. When Stephen is diagnosed with motor neuron disease (AKA Lou Gehrig’s disease) after a bad fall, and given a short life expectancy, Jane nonetheless is committed to staying with the man she loves and making it work. His deteriorating condition, their wildly different religious views, and several children to raise, do prove quite the strain over time, however. Charlie Cox plays a local choirmaster who befriends the couple and clearly has a romantic interest in Jane.

 

I was a bit sceptical when Eddie Redmayne won the Best Actor award at the Oscars, given that he had previously delivered pretty awful performances in “The Good Shepherd” (an otherwise excellent film), “My Week with Marilyn” (ditto) and the seriously icky but bland “Savage Grace”. Basically, without having seen Redmayne’s performance, I was on Team Michael Keaton at the Oscars. Having now seen this 2014 biopic from director James Marsh (the documentaries “Man on Wire” and “Project Nim”) and Kiwi-born screenwriter Anthony McCarten (who wrote four episodes of “Worzel Gummidge Down Under”!), I can admit to being wrong in this particular instance. It’s always silly to judge without having seen something anyway. Michael Keaton gave a really good ‘comeback’ (but he never left!) performance in the slightly overrated “Birdman”, but Redmayne absolutely deserved the Oscar he won for playing real-life physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking.

 

It’s not just Oscar bait, either. The story of Stephen Hawking was begging to be told (though this is just a snapshot of his life in its most ‘interesting’ stage perhaps), and although comparisons will likely be made with “A Beautiful Mind”, I prefer to think of Stephen Hawking as Mark Zuckerberg but posh and not as much of an arsehole (Though some might suggest that Hawking has arsehole-ish moments. Then again, don’t we all?). What happened to Hawking was a tragedy, and it all started with such a seemingly innocuous accident. His intellect remains untouched, however, and it’s really amazing that once his motor neuron disease is uncovered, doctors initially gave him a life expectancy of just two more years. Thankfully, this was a gross under-estimate, perhaps due to the power of the human spirit- or maybe intellect?

 

Redmayne is amazing. Forget the disease for a moment, put it to the side. Since not many people know what Hawking was like prior to his current state, how do you portray his pre-disease period? That can’t be easy. Redmayne sells you immediately in the role so that he is Hawking as much as anyone can be before the illness and all the rest of the way. It’s fascinating watching his posture and mannerisms pre-disease that offer up slight hints of what is to come. Perhaps it’s a way of linking Hawking pre-disease to the man as he is now, if so it’s quite clever. It’s also subtle enough that it doesn’t come off like Redmayne showing off trying to get an Oscar. Showy, yes, but showing off? No. The man deserved the Oscar, he still had to do the hard work and pull this thing off. Since this is a film based on a book by the man’s first ex-wife Jane, one assumes it has to be a pretty accurate picture of the man (I believe she had some say in its making, for instance refusing to allow any love-making scenes between her and Stephen in the film), a man with a great mind trapped in a deteriorating body. It’s so very tragic, and I say that without any patronisation whatsoever. Yet because of that very same source, one does indeed wonder just how critical (or uncritical) Jane is of herself here. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, however, you can definitely see through Felicity Jones’ performance the love she has for Stephen. It comes to truly break her heart to see what is happening to him physically. The film really does get across the indignity of not being in control of your own body. As a paraplegic myself, I must admit it’s small potatoes compared to what Mr. Hawking has gone through, not to mention his carers. No one deserves to be afflicted with this disease, genius or not. Also, if one were to accuse Jane of bias, it’s pretty much moot when you realise that her character is by far the less showy one in the film. It’s almost a thankless role that Felicity Jones has in the film, but as ever, she’s fabulous and charismatic. In fact, it’s not only a bit thankless, but also perhaps the trickiest role in the film because she has to stop us from losing sympathy for her character, which isn’t entirely easy. Casting Jones in the part then, is a masterstroke, because ever since the underseen “Like Crazy” (Seriously, go watch it or I’ll never speak to you again!) I’ve found her to be one of the most charming and innately likeable actresses around. I’m a disabled person myself, so my sympathies might normally instinctively gravitate towards Hawking, but if this story is accurate to what Jane Hawking went through, I have both sympathy and admiration for her for even trying to stick by Stephen in the first place. I said Jones’ role is somewhat thankless (and I still believe that), but the longer it goes on, you really do get an idea of her perspective, and you can’t hate her. They were so young when they fell in love, they thought it would work out and that they could deal with life’s hardships. It’s heartbreaking, and when you add their differing views on religion, it makes sense that things wouldn’t work out. When Jane meets a guy who shares her beliefs, because you’ve seen the entire trajectory played out from her point of view, it’s neither jarring nor does she lose your sympathy.

 

Special mention must also be made of Charlie Cox who is really quite good as the ‘interloper’ into this marriage. Like Jones’ Jane, this guy is likeable and well-intentioned, and the way things play out, you feel OK for everyone involved. You know they’re all gonna be fine. This part of the film could’ve gone horribly wrong, but it has been sensitively handled and I’m not going to be cynical about the source of all this. That’s because when you see the way things play out, it’s not quite the way you think it’s going to go anyway. I’ll leave it to you to discover that on your own (Also, I should mention that the book the film is based on is a revised edition, possibly a softer, friendlier account of persons and events. Take that for what you will). There is one absolutely wrong note played near the very end of the film, however. It’s a dopey bit of daydreaming that simply doesn’t fit in with the rest of the film. It really is regrettable, because the rest is so good. The subsequent speech by Hawking via computer is really, really moving, though. He’s a fucking remarkable human being (though I’ve heard he has quite an ego and is a bit of a pants man!), and I was left in tears at the end of this. However, it’s not all doom and gloom, I totally buy the idea that Hawking messed around with his new voice/type technology by making “Dr. Who” jokes and the like. This is a guy who performed ‘The Galaxy Song’ for a Monty Python concert special a little while ago, not to mention his appearances on “The Big Bang Theory”. I also loved the rather saucy performance by Maxine Peake as Hawking’s carer and eventual second wife Elaine (who, surprising for a film based on a book by Hawking’s first wife, is painted relatively affectionately for the most part). I did, however think that Emily Watson was pretty poorly wasted as Jane’s mother. Anyone could’ve played that role, though it’s always nice to see David Thewlis as Hawking’s University thesis advisor/mentor, small as his part is. One of these days the talented and versatile character actor is gonna get that one great part. It’ll happen, I’m sure of it.

 

Rather than simply a biopic of Stephen Hawking, his brilliant mind and deteriorating body, this is really a love story. It really is. It’s a love story between two people who loved each other, faced an insurmountable obstacle, still tried to make it work, and when it didn’t they still managed to be OK with each other anyway. That last part shouldn’t be a rarity, but it probably is. Anyone who calls this film mere ‘Oscar bait’ is as narrow-minded and heartless as anyone who said the same of “Rain Man” or “Forrest Gump” or “The Elephant Man”. This is a tragic, moving true story with excellent performances. Redmayne looks and acts as much like Stephen Hawking as anyone could, and gets the physicality down near-perfectly (It’s virtually impossible for an actor with a regular spine to 100% replicate the posture of someone with such a disease/disability, but Redmayne gets as close as possible. Is the film really good? or is the true story itself simply a really good story in and of itself? Does it even matter which? I don’t think it really does, but I’ll go on record as saying that it is indeed a really good movie. One of the year’s best.

 

Rating: B