Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The Theory of Everything


Directed by James Marsh.
2014. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Eddie Redmayne
Felicity Jones
Charlie Cox
Emily Watson
Simon McBurney
David Thewlis
Maxine Peake
Harry Lloyd
Abigail Cruttenden
Guy Oliver-Watts

Long before the boys of TV's The Big Bang Theory came around singing his praises, it was widely accepted that Stephen Hawking was one of the smartest people in the world, and quite possibly alone at the top of that list. He gets the biopic treatment with Eddie Redmayne portraying him. We pick things up 1963. He is an astrophysics student and it is just before he meets Jane (Jones), whom he would go on to marry. It's also before he finds out that he has ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease. To put it in terms even I can understand, he slowly lose the ability for any voluntary movement whatsoever, becoming completely paralyzed before dying. Stephen doesn't let this stop him and goes on to become world famous for all sorts of scienctific theories. Meanwhile, his and Jane's life together ensues.

The whole of Hawking's life is uplifting simply for the fact that he's still alive. As it is noted in the movie, his life expectancy from the time he was diagnosed with ALS was about two years. Fifty years later, he's still around. There is a fantastic story to be told. Unfortunately, this movie does not tell it. It prunes nearly everything to its driest state making it a tedious and repetitive succession of events that fails to move the viewer. Early on, as things are being set up, this isn't so bad. Shortly after Hawking is diagnosed, we get the most powerful scene of the movie. Understandably distraught, he withdraws from the world. He and Jane had just started to become serious when this happens. She shows up in his dorm room and shames him out of his self-imposed exile. This demonstrates Jane's strength and immediately establishes the lengths to which she'll go for her man. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is spent reducing their relationship to that of caretaker and genius rather than man and wife. This is a very odd tactic for a couple reasons. We'll get to the second one, later. The first is that it gradually removes emotion from the equation. What started as the fiery courtship of two people who truly fancy one another quickly becomes a dispassionate working relationship. It would be easy to say Redmayne and Jones don't have enough chemistry to pull off what they were going for, but that would be unfair. Both give wonderful performances throughout the film and show early on that there is enough of a spark between them to light up the screen. The film itself refuses to let them show it. We're left with two people who co-exist rather than share themselves with one another.


The lack of anything truly moving stems from the film's insistence on hitting the big moments of Hawking's life. The little things, the things that would make him a real human being are either skimmed over or ignored. Let's come back to his diagnosis with ALS. There is that short while where he mopes around his room, which is great. However, once Jane drags him out of his self-pity party, and finds out what lies ahead for her should she continue with this relationship, any hurdles they face are conquered within seconds. Often, this happens before we even have time to process how the problem might impact the couple. There are also seems to be no learning curve at any point throughout the journey that is a life neither of them were prepared for. Jane is instantly the best nurse ever with never a doubt of her ability to handle it nor her decision to go down this road in the first place. The only inkling we have that she has any frustrations at all in an extra-marital affair she has with Jonathan (Cox), a guy she meets at church who befriends both her and Stephen. We can surmise it happens because she has a sense of loneliness since Stephen can only reciprocate so much. However, it's not something made explicit. After all, Stephen is a perfect patient. And they keep having kids, so something's happening. What's missed in all this are the hard times at home just doing the routine things other couples take for granted. What is it like for Stephen to dress, eat, drink, or make love? What is it like for him to interact with his children? We almost never see this. In fact, they only occasionally show up as props, not characters. What is it like for him to actually do any of the research that led to the theories he became world renowned for? In lieu of learning any of this, we get seemingly random advancements in his care just popping up from time to time presented by people we don't know. These advancements, by the way, also mark the passing of time for us. These people disappear as quickly as they showed up. The next time we see the kids they're older and Stephen is either telling us his latest theory or being honored by someone. It's all very cold.

Another issue with The Theory of Everything is one lots of biopics run into. It deifies its subject. Stephen can truly do no wrong. Even in a film based on real people, however, someone must. In an effort to establish some sort of villain, the film will occasionally place Jane in that role. She's taken to task before she's even done anything. People are all over her when they merely suspect she's having an affair even though she's not. The movie also clearly wants us to feel that she is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since Stephen's condition simultaneously takes a turn for the worse the moment she actually does do something and her reaction is to immediately break things off, it comes across like a cosmic warning to her. Later, when Stephen rather callously informs Jane that he's leaving her for woman hired to help them out, we're to make nothing of it. It's almost like he just says "Ya know, kid, we had a good run, but it is what it is." He then shows up years later and takes her to a swanky event and all is forgiven. This finally brings me to the second reason the depiction of Stephen's and Jane's relationship is strange. The movie is based on the memoirs of the real-life Jane Wilde Hawking. How could a movie based on a book written by Jane fail her so spectacularly as a person? How could it be so lacking in any of the details that would really make us feel something as we watched it unfold? In place of a representation of what it must have been like to live with and care for Stephen Hawking we get a sanitized fluff piece.

18 comments:

  1. I'm going to see this later this month or next month since I have HBO as I want to see if Redmayne really deserved that Oscar.... plus, I like Felicity Jones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are both very good. I don't begrudge Redmayne his nom. Still on the fence about him actually winning, though.

      Delete
  2. Good review man, I think this movie needed to decide what its focus was and what it wanted in the periphery. It's stuck between showing us Hawking's work as a scientist and his life at home and doesn't properly give us an idea of either because it never decides what the focal point of the story is. It fails when compared to great biopics such as 'A Beautiful Mind' or 'Imitation Game'. I think Redmayne fully deserved the Oscar, it's easier to see the good acting when you portray a person with a disability but there were also more subtle pieces of skill on show. That being said, I don't think he was the best actor amongst the crop of nominees but that's a discussion for another time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's it. It never decided what it wanted to show us. Redmayne is excellent. Can't take that away from him.

      Delete
    2. I'd take excellent away from him. He's good. That's it. He's great at the physicality of the role (although the gimmicky editing style makes me question just how great he actually was there or if it was all spliced together to make him look better), but like you mentioned...all emotion is practically stripped from this film, and because of that, Redmayne's performance becomes one of a technician and not a real character. In my review I argue this point more, but the fact remains that we never get to know who Hawkins is as a person, and that is a shame.

      Delete
    3. So true. I know nothing more about Hawking than I did before I watched it. Good point about Redmayne's performance.

      Delete
  3. Great review. I liked this more than you did. It was clear Oscar bait, but I'm fine with that if they turn out a good movie, and this was one. They did show Stephen doing wrong at one point, he did leave his wife for his nurse. And that scene where he and Jane split up was easily the most powerful for me. I cried. (shocker)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did leave his wife for his nurse, but to me it came off like, 'oh well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.' Didn't really feel the emotional impact I should have.

      Delete
  4. I think this film is far more complicated than you give it credit for. (Full disclosure: for three years I was living with my partner on dialysis and basically became a glorified home health aid after a while, so I have a bit of a unique perspective on this.) Since the film is based on Jane's memoirs, it makes sense that Stephen's work is mostly left out, and the film truly does make this a portrait of a marriage, not one man and his accomplishments. In that way, I found it incredibly focused. And neither Jane NOR Stephen comes off as totally evil or totally saintly. He has terrible mood swings throughout, often lashing out at Jane for no good reason (or at least, for no reason that's her fault). And she sits back and just takes it, and is often quite callous in her caring for him.

    But then, she HAS to. You can see her struggle in that scene with the letter board (Felicity Jones is truly wonderful in this film) - she's trying to keep it together, for her sake and his. She can't let her emotions come through; she has to be strong for him. Or at least, she feels she must. This is why her relationship begins with Jonathan, as an outlet for her emotions. And that great scene when he comes over for dinner, the moment with the peas... Redmayne and Cox play it so well. So much goes unsaid.

    And the climactic scene between them? "I have loved you..." I can't even. Jones absolutely NAILS that line reading, making it the key to the entire film. She's loved him this entire time. But it's hard. It's hard to care for someone in this way, to be strong enough for him, your kids, and yourself. It's a huge burden she has had to bear, but bear it she did. And she could have chosen not to, but she felt duty-bound and also loved him. So she stayed. You can see the toll it took on her, even as she wouldn't have had it any other way.

    I could go on, but my thoughts are too scattered elsewhere right now (stupid work, getting in the way of things that are REALLY important!). Suffice it to say, I loved this film, ridiculously golden-hued cinematography notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I truly appreciate your perspective and your passion. This is a great comment. For me, how much of a burden this was on Jane doesn't come through. It's something I can assume, but not feel. The same goes for how callous Stephen was at certain points. It's there, but the film seems to want to give him a pass. So without a similar experience, not enough was done to get me as invested as I needed to be to make it work.

      Delete
  5. Redmayne is great, and I can't wait to see him in The Danish Girl.
    I thought Jones was wonderful too though. Not the Oscar baiting role of course, but she really stood up to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate both Redmayne and Jones. I thought they were both terrific.

      Delete
  6. Well put Dell. I felt very similarly to the way you do about the film. It was doubly disappointing since bio-pix are one of my favorite genres. Quite frankly even the lead pair's performances didn't blow me away. Jones was okay but it was a performance any competent actress could have given and Redmayne's very calculated, he was nowhere as good as Keaton who didn't have a hook to hang his performance on. For that matter Cumberbatch was better than he was in Imitation Game. Then narrative which should have been riveting was dry as dust. Their house was pretty though.

    What killed me even more was that the brilliant Emily Watson was completely wasted in a nothing part as Felicity Jones's mother. It inexcusable that that's the best she's being offered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it was just so...so dry. I did like the leads, but agree Redmayne was not as good as Keaton. Haven't seen The Imitation Game, yet. Soon, I hope. And yes, Watson is wasted.

      Delete
  7. "The little things, the things that would make him a real human being are either skimmed over or ignored." Yes!!! I said pretty much the same thing. Great review. We are right in line on this one. It isn't even close to everything. Such a safe, easy movie.

    Check out my review if you want: http://speaksinmovielines.blogspot.com/2015/02/well-not-quite-everything.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Safe and easy are great ways to describe this. I'll swing by your place some time today to read your review.

      Delete
  8. I agree it was a sanitized fluff piece. Eddie Redmayne was the best thing about the film. For me, he gave the best performance of the year and deserved his oscar. The actual film was decent enough, just I wish it had done a better job of explaining why he is a genius. Too much emphasis on his disability, not enough focus on his achievements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still mulling over whether I think he was a deserving Oscar winner. As for the film, it just failed to show me much of anything worthwhile.

      Delete