The curse of most biopics about famous individuals is that the films in question always boil down a subjects life to a "greatest hits" reel and then stuffs the rest of the run time with a sub-narrative to tie all these moments together. More often than not, this sub-narrative is a love story, which isn't inherently bad; it's just that when a proper balance isn't struck between the major themes and the filler, the results are usually lackluster. "The Theory Of Everything" charts the tumultuous marriage of legendary physicist Stephen Hawking and his wife Jane as they struggle to keep their life together while Stephen slowly succumbs to the symptoms of ALS. And while it puts all of its efforts into trying to be a heartbreaking portrait of a strained marriage (a portrait that at times is quite beautiful), the movie seemingly forgets that one of its subjects also happened to be one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.
Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) meet in college and forge a bond through the universal law of "opposites attract". Jane believes in romance and poetry and God, while Stephen believes in logic and reason and the rejection of what he calls a "celestial dictatorship". Jane is pursuing an education in the written word while Stephen seeks to find a unifying theory that can explain life, the universe, and everything. The two fall in love, only to face a roadblock when Stephen is diagnosed with a neurological disorder that threatens to destroy his motor skills one by one, giving him two years at most to live. Jane pledges to stay by his side, and although Stephen beats the odds and manages to live year after year, the struggles of caring for her crippled husband take their toll on Jane.
If the above description seems like it forgot to mention that Stephen Hawking was a world famous physicist whose theories were revolutionary and world changing, it's because for the most part, the movie forgets this too. The most we see of Stephen's career is regulated to the beginning and end of the movie, with passing mentions made to the evolution of his work made whenever the film needs to remind the audience of where we are in history; such as in a moment shortly after the birth of Stephen's third child, when his father mentions that Stephen is "world famous". Having never seen Stephen working on anything beyond giving a lecture or two, we never actually see how he got to this point. It's frustrating, because the film doesn't seem to want to find a way to balance "Stephen the Husband" with "Stephen the Physicist", and so we watch as The Physicist is shoved to the margins.
Not that the story of Jane and Stephen is terrible, it's just that its good moments are few and far in between. A lot of these struggles manifest in tropes so familiar, there was a point when I really felt that this could've been any story about a husband and wife dealing with the pain of a partner's disease. The fact that it involves Stephen and Jane Hawking is, at times, almost entirely inconsequential. These flaws aren't helped by some of the film's problematic directing and editing choices. Certain scenes seem to trail on after they clearly should've ended, and important characters are thrown into the film far too late, only to disappear again without mention. When Emily Watson showed up almost an hour in without being identified, I was left baffled until Felicity Jones drops a "Mum" in her line to signify who she's speaking to. Why are we meeting such an important person in Jane's life, played by such a serious actress, this late in the movie? It's just one example of some of the sloppy structure choices made by director James Marsh.
It's only Eddie Redmayne, who truly makes his presence as an actor known here, that keeps the movie from sinking into the muddy bog of familiarity. As Stephen loses more and more of his basic motor skills, Redmayne finds ways to make every movement count, whether it's a playful smirk or a downward glance of pain. His chemistry with Felicity Jones, who turns the inner conflict of Jane's struggles into a revelatory performance of its own, is endearing; and when the two are allowed to flex their acting muscles they create some of the films greatest moments. Honorable mentions also go to Benoît Delhomme's gorgeous cinematography and Jóhann Jóhannsson's powerful score.
Ultimately "The Theory Of Everything" has joined the ranks of "Ray" and "Jobs" and "Dallas Buyers Club": performance pieces more concerned with winning acting awards than telling a good story. As memorable as Redmayne and Jones are, their talents only serve to turn a film that would've been completely forgettable into "good but not great". The Hawking's deserved better.
Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) meet in college and forge a bond through the universal law of "opposites attract". Jane believes in romance and poetry and God, while Stephen believes in logic and reason and the rejection of what he calls a "celestial dictatorship". Jane is pursuing an education in the written word while Stephen seeks to find a unifying theory that can explain life, the universe, and everything. The two fall in love, only to face a roadblock when Stephen is diagnosed with a neurological disorder that threatens to destroy his motor skills one by one, giving him two years at most to live. Jane pledges to stay by his side, and although Stephen beats the odds and manages to live year after year, the struggles of caring for her crippled husband take their toll on Jane.
If the above description seems like it forgot to mention that Stephen Hawking was a world famous physicist whose theories were revolutionary and world changing, it's because for the most part, the movie forgets this too. The most we see of Stephen's career is regulated to the beginning and end of the movie, with passing mentions made to the evolution of his work made whenever the film needs to remind the audience of where we are in history; such as in a moment shortly after the birth of Stephen's third child, when his father mentions that Stephen is "world famous". Having never seen Stephen working on anything beyond giving a lecture or two, we never actually see how he got to this point. It's frustrating, because the film doesn't seem to want to find a way to balance "Stephen the Husband" with "Stephen the Physicist", and so we watch as The Physicist is shoved to the margins.
Not that the story of Jane and Stephen is terrible, it's just that its good moments are few and far in between. A lot of these struggles manifest in tropes so familiar, there was a point when I really felt that this could've been any story about a husband and wife dealing with the pain of a partner's disease. The fact that it involves Stephen and Jane Hawking is, at times, almost entirely inconsequential. These flaws aren't helped by some of the film's problematic directing and editing choices. Certain scenes seem to trail on after they clearly should've ended, and important characters are thrown into the film far too late, only to disappear again without mention. When Emily Watson showed up almost an hour in without being identified, I was left baffled until Felicity Jones drops a "Mum" in her line to signify who she's speaking to. Why are we meeting such an important person in Jane's life, played by such a serious actress, this late in the movie? It's just one example of some of the sloppy structure choices made by director James Marsh.
It's only Eddie Redmayne, who truly makes his presence as an actor known here, that keeps the movie from sinking into the muddy bog of familiarity. As Stephen loses more and more of his basic motor skills, Redmayne finds ways to make every movement count, whether it's a playful smirk or a downward glance of pain. His chemistry with Felicity Jones, who turns the inner conflict of Jane's struggles into a revelatory performance of its own, is endearing; and when the two are allowed to flex their acting muscles they create some of the films greatest moments. Honorable mentions also go to Benoît Delhomme's gorgeous cinematography and Jóhann Jóhannsson's powerful score.
Ultimately "The Theory Of Everything" has joined the ranks of "Ray" and "Jobs" and "Dallas Buyers Club": performance pieces more concerned with winning acting awards than telling a good story. As memorable as Redmayne and Jones are, their talents only serve to turn a film that would've been completely forgettable into "good but not great". The Hawking's deserved better.