The Theory of Everything - directed by James Marsh
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Simon McBurney, Emily Watson, Charlie Cox
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rated: PG - nothing at all in terms of profanity, sex or violence
I love the recent focus on smart people as subjects for movies.
With movies like "Interstellar", "The Imitation Game" and even animated movie "Big Hero 6" scientists have been thrust from the sidelines as mere providers of exposition and equipment for square jawed pretty boys and into front and centre hero roles.
Celebrating people for what they achieve with their minds is a great trend and long may it continue.
Which brings us to the latest film to do so.
"The Theory of Everything" is the story of Stephen Hawking - a man ironically probably as well known for his physical attributes as his intellectual ones.
Based on the book by his now ex-wife it is in reality her story more than his.
But still- even viewed through the eyes of another person this is a fascinating subject for a film.
Starting with Hawkings time at Cambridge as a student where he meets Jane the woman who would become his wife the film shows his early scientific brilliance and the onset of motor neuron disease- the affliction that would see him confined to a wheelchair permanently.
The shadow of the disease is felt from the first frame - so strong is the association of it to the real man.
I found myself looking for the first signs and the film does throw in multiple shots of wobbly ankles and slightly twisted feet and crooked fingers.
It may be accurate - I don't know- but for me it was a bad decision to allow it to feature so noticeably before Hawkings genius was fully exposed.
I can see the reasoning- this is in many ways the story of the power of the mind to overcome enormous obstacles be they physical or the daunting nature of the size and complexity of the Universe.
I say in many ways but really this is in fact Jane's story.
The positive aspect of this is that it places Felicity Jones in what is effectively the lead role.
Not to take anything away from Eddie Redmayne who delivers a remarkable performance that requires what must have been an exhausting physical transformation but Jones really is the star here.
I am a huge fan.
I loved her in the underrated "Like Crazy" (review here) and she is even better here.
Both actors are Oscar nominated for their work in this film but for me Jones delivers the finer performance.
She flawlessly portrays a woman who goes from the first stages of falling in love to the realisation that it is over. In between she becomes wife, mother, caretaker before being cast aside.
Jones never lost my sympathy in a role where it was a very clear possibility.
She is probably going to lose out to current Oscar favourite Julianne Moore come February 22nd but I sincerely hope that there is already enough recognition of her talent to open up many, many more opportunities.
What stops this very good film from being a great one for me is the source material.
Not that it is a poor piece of work - rather that it shifts the focus and makes this the story of a marriage.
The far more interesting story is Hawking himself.
Obviously Jane's book is from her perspective but by not showing us in more detail the importance of what Hawking has discovered it makes him seem like just a really smart guy who deals with an illness.
He deserves better.
I wanted to see what drove him and how his theories changed the field of physics.
When the film wants to champion his achievements it struggles. It just hasn't shown them well enough for the impact to be there.
This one leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered and some of them really needed to be.
How does a man confined to a wheelchair with a crippling disease manage to raise a family with three children?
His book sold 10,000,000 copies but that was not until much later. Where did the money come from?
In early scenes we see him using complicated formulas on a blackboard to prove his theories.
How does he manage this when the disease prevents this method?
Some liberties have apparently been taken and some of Hawkings shortcomings as a human being that Jane describes in her book have been smoothed over or left out but this appears to be mainly accurate.
It is still fascinating stuff but it left me wanting more.
Compared to the superior "The Imitation Game" (review here) this takes second place.
RATING: 70 / 100
CONCLUSION: See it for the two excellent performances (Jones in particular) but this is far from the definitive Hawking film
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rated: PG - nothing at all in terms of profanity, sex or violence
I love the recent focus on smart people as subjects for movies.
With movies like "Interstellar", "The Imitation Game" and even animated movie "Big Hero 6" scientists have been thrust from the sidelines as mere providers of exposition and equipment for square jawed pretty boys and into front and centre hero roles.
Celebrating people for what they achieve with their minds is a great trend and long may it continue.
Which brings us to the latest film to do so.
"The Theory of Everything" is the story of Stephen Hawking - a man ironically probably as well known for his physical attributes as his intellectual ones.
Based on the book by his now ex-wife it is in reality her story more than his.
But still- even viewed through the eyes of another person this is a fascinating subject for a film.
Starting with Hawkings time at Cambridge as a student where he meets Jane the woman who would become his wife the film shows his early scientific brilliance and the onset of motor neuron disease- the affliction that would see him confined to a wheelchair permanently.
The shadow of the disease is felt from the first frame - so strong is the association of it to the real man.
I found myself looking for the first signs and the film does throw in multiple shots of wobbly ankles and slightly twisted feet and crooked fingers.
It may be accurate - I don't know- but for me it was a bad decision to allow it to feature so noticeably before Hawkings genius was fully exposed.
I can see the reasoning- this is in many ways the story of the power of the mind to overcome enormous obstacles be they physical or the daunting nature of the size and complexity of the Universe.
I say in many ways but really this is in fact Jane's story.
 |
| Redmayne as Stephen Hawking and far right- with the real Hawking |
Not to take anything away from Eddie Redmayne who delivers a remarkable performance that requires what must have been an exhausting physical transformation but Jones really is the star here.
I am a huge fan.
I loved her in the underrated "Like Crazy" (review here) and she is even better here.
Both actors are Oscar nominated for their work in this film but for me Jones delivers the finer performance.
She flawlessly portrays a woman who goes from the first stages of falling in love to the realisation that it is over. In between she becomes wife, mother, caretaker before being cast aside.
Jones never lost my sympathy in a role where it was a very clear possibility.
She is probably going to lose out to current Oscar favourite Julianne Moore come February 22nd but I sincerely hope that there is already enough recognition of her talent to open up many, many more opportunities.
 |
| The excellent and very beautiful Felicity Jones |
Not that it is a poor piece of work - rather that it shifts the focus and makes this the story of a marriage.
The far more interesting story is Hawking himself.
Obviously Jane's book is from her perspective but by not showing us in more detail the importance of what Hawking has discovered it makes him seem like just a really smart guy who deals with an illness.
He deserves better.
I wanted to see what drove him and how his theories changed the field of physics.
When the film wants to champion his achievements it struggles. It just hasn't shown them well enough for the impact to be there.
This one leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered and some of them really needed to be.
How does a man confined to a wheelchair with a crippling disease manage to raise a family with three children?
His book sold 10,000,000 copies but that was not until much later. Where did the money come from?
In early scenes we see him using complicated formulas on a blackboard to prove his theories.
How does he manage this when the disease prevents this method?
Some liberties have apparently been taken and some of Hawkings shortcomings as a human being that Jane describes in her book have been smoothed over or left out but this appears to be mainly accurate.
It is still fascinating stuff but it left me wanting more.
Compared to the superior "The Imitation Game" (review here) this takes second place.
No comments:
Post a Comment