Subscribe

'The Theory of Everything': See the Stephen Hawking biopic for actor Eddie Redmayne

'Theory' itself is wildly uneven, but Felicity Jones, portraying Hawking's first wife Jane Wilde, is terrific and Redmayne's performance as Stephen Hawking is a triumph.

  • close
    Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) wins the heart of Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne).
    LIAM DANIEL/FOCUS FEATURES
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption
of

The great British scientist Stephen Hawking is already such an international icon – he’s even been portrayed on “The Simpsons”! – that for him to be the subject of a movie at this point seems almost reductive. “The Theory of Everything,” starring Eddie Redmayne as Hawking and Felicity Jones as Jane Wilde, his first wife, is highly uneven, but at least it doesn’t glamorize Hawking’s life or turn it into a paean to endurance. His physical degeneration from motor neuron disease, which shut down his muscular control and ultimately rendered him unable to speak on his own, is depicted without undue pathos. 

Diagnosed while studying for his PhD at Cambridge in the mid-1960s, he was given only two years to live. He is now 72. His ideas about space-time and black holes revolutionized modern thinking about the universe. His layman’s science book “A Brief History of Time” is perhaps the most famously unread bestseller ever. 

In the popular imagination, the Hawking iconography is keyed to the image of this slumping, speechless man spinning paradigm-shifting cosmic theories from his wheelchair. There is an element of morbidity in this sort of hero-worship that James Marsh, who directed “The Theory of Everything” from a screenplay by Anthony McCarten, generally avoids. (Source material is Jane Hawking’s 2007 memoir, “Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen,” written 12 years after their 20-year marriage ended). If only the film weren’t rendered in that flavorless way endemic to biopics (especially British ones) of the famous. 

Recommended: The 50 best movies of all time

Jones is terrific – she has a funny, offhand moment when she rues the way Stephen’s electronic voice simulator makes him sound American – but the chief reason to see the film is for Redmayne. This is the first full-scale nonmusical role he’s been handed in the movies and it ranks almost up there with Daniel Day Lewis’s performance in “My Left Foot,” though that role allowed Day Lewis far greater emotional latitude. Redmayne, like Day Lewis, is often at his most physically charged when he is the most physically confined. The early courtship scenes between Stephen and Jane, full of gawky gallantry, only emphasize Stephen’s loss when the disease hits. And yet the triumph of Redmayne’s performance is that Stephen, after he becomes incapacitated, is the same eccentric, quizzical quester that he was when he was sprinting across the Cambridge campus. He is such a brainiac that his search for a “theory of everything” – a unification of quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity – overrides, triumphantly, his debility.  

The filmmakers, fearing perhaps that we might get snarled up in cosmological conundrums, play down the physics. I wish they hadn’t; they underestimate the audience’s own avidity for scientific voyaging (as demonstrated by the success of such PBS series as “NOVA” and “Cosmos”).    

I also wish the filmmakers didn’t feel the need to provide a counterweight to the cosmology in the form of a running argument between Jane and Stephen about religion. (She’s Anglican; he’s an atheist.) Doesn’t the confluence of his difficult life and hers already provide an ample arena for conflict? “The Theory of Everything” doesn’t need this window dressing. It has Redmayne. Grade: B- (Rated PG-13 for some thematic elements and suggestive material.)

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK