Movie Review: "The Theory of Everything"

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Two and half Stars out of Five

PG13

Stephen Hawking: Eddie Redmayne

Jane Hawking: Felicity Jones

Director: James Marsh

Writer: Anthony McCarten, Jane Hawking

Music: Jóhann Jóhannson

Stephen Hawking is widely regarded amongst the world’s lay public as a modern-day Albert Einstein, while amongst his peers, his reputation is more nuanced. He is perhaps best known for his description of a method whereby a black hole cannot only emit radiation (now termed Hawking radiation), but in the process of doing so can actually cause the black hole in question to slowly “evaporate”. Amongst the lay public, he is also well known for his book, “A Brief History of Time” (1988). One of his many significant contributions that he has made to science is the work he started in his Ph.D. dissertation, and that was a mathematical explanation for a singularity at the beginning of time. There has been considerable work since his dissertation on this topic by Hawking and others, but the implications that grew from this work and the nature of God are important philosophical points that have played a role in his life and in the movie, “The Theory of Everything”.

“The Theory of Everything” is a movie adapted from a book by Hawking’s first wife, Jane Hawking. She shares writing credit for the movie with Anthony McCarten. McCarten was nominated for an Oscar, which to my mind is an astonishingly bad choice. The movie is an uninspired and pedestrian biopic on the months leading up to Hawking’s marriage to Jane Hawking nee Wilde, their 30 year marriage and its ultimate dissolution. The movie avoids delving any deeper into their emotional lives than skin deep. The trials and difficulties experienced by Jane as she struggles to raise their three children, finish her own work towards a Ph.D., or her reaction to Hawking’s roving eye for other women is likewise barely displayed. The biggest missed opportunity is the contrast that might have been shown between Jane’s life as a devout member of the Church of England and her career aspirations into medieval Spanish poetry versus Hawking’s atheistic and scientific world views.

The movie begins with Hawking in the early stage of his graduate work in cosmology at Cambridge. He is played by Eddie Redmayne as a fairly typical young man moving through life within a small circle of fellow graduate students. The movie makes clear early on that Hawking is a gifted student, working at a level above that of his contemporaries. He meets a young woman at a party, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) and despite their quickly apparent differences on religion and career choices, the attraction as portrayed by Redmayne and Jones is readily apparent. This early part of the movie is charming and is marred only by the frequent use by director James Marsh of a series of over-saturated color choices. (There are repeated scenes of nearly phosphorescent greens surrounding Hawking, of browns around Jane, and of yellows and golds surrounding several flashback scenes.) What Marsh has in mind for these color choices is completely lost on me. If he is trying to use color the way most directors use musical scores to subtly acknowledge a character, he needs to re-read the definition of “subtle”. There are times when it appears as if Marsh is trying to show a distorted view of the world as seen by Hawking. But he uses this technique very inconsistently early in the movie (sometimes to a very jarring effect) and then he drops it completely once Hawking’s illness becomes manifest. Its use is simply sloppy.

As Hawking enters into the early stages of his graduate student stay at Cambridge, he starts to display a series of physical problems. He stumbles; he knocks over coffee cups; he cannot easily use a pen. He is eventually diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), more well known in the United States as Lou Gehrigs disease, or in the UK (and in the movie) as motor neurone disorder. This poorly understood disease usually strikes late in life and usually results in a death within two to three years. In Hawking’s case, it struck early, but he has far exceeded the norm for survival (he is still alive at 73, nearly fifty years after his diagnosis). Hawking wants to withdraw from life, but Jane won’t have it. She pulls him back and they marry quickly. They ultimately have three children. Their life together seems difficult but still good, initially. Time and career demands do cause strains. The movie hints at extramarital relationships for both Hawking and Jane.

Redmayne’s performance as Hawking is markedly good. His award of the 2015 Oscar for Best Actor could well have been earned. Watching Redmayne signal his emotions to Jane and to the audience as his motor skills slowly disappear is almost always nuanced and skillful. Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Jane’s wider range of emotions as she feels she is losing him at the beginning and at the end of their relationship is heart rending. The acting by both actors brings the only joy to this movie that I experienced. They both surely were honestly awarded their Oscar nominations, though the Oscar committee’s well documented history of awarding Oscars to portrayals of characters suffering some disease or other does cause me to wonder a little at Redmayne’s victory.

In the final analysis though, “The Theory of Everything” is a movie easily skipped. To be sure, there is good acting, but the Oscar nominations for “Best Picture”, “Best Score”, and most egregiously, “Best Adapted Screenplay” are serious miscarriages. This movie is somewhat like Hawking himself in the sense that Hawking has been criticized by some of his contemporaries for receiving accolades partly due to his disability. In the movie’s case, the movie has quite likely received some accolades due to its depiction of a severely handicapped individual and not due to its artistic merits. Fine acting, yes; anything more, a decided no in my opinion.