The Theory of Everything

Rating: 6/10 (26 November 2015)

Basic biopic in storytelling, about physicist and professor Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) not so much focusing extensively on the science which defines the man as much as his travails with motor neurone disease and his relationship with wife, Jane (Felicity Jones), a young woman he met at Cambridge U. At once walking and talking like any other student, he is gradually struck with a disease that debilitates him. Confined to a wheelchair, a bout of near-fatal pneumonia requiring a tracheotomy, unable to speak, and needing a computer system to voice the words in his brilliant mind, Stephen Hawking would be a great influence on the scientific community, particularly in his work on the black hole and the vast boundaries of the universe. The film occasionally touches on his dealings with religion and God due to his wife and helpful assistant (a choir director Jane eventually falls in love with) being of the Christian faith. And while also occasionally highlighted considering the focal character's profession and genius so intertwined with science, the struggles with disease and how Stephen overcomes what limits him is the most important aspect of the biopic. Stephen and Jane are equally important to those behind this biopic. Stephen is so well thought of in this film, he's basically a patron saintthe film seems to go out of its way to make him as endearing and worthy of affection as possible. Jane is shown primarily as a wife and mother in constant struggle to help him, but her efforts eventually demand someone more inclined to patiently offer devotion to him, which a hired nurse is able to (which Stephen eventually falls in love with). The ending reflects a reunion between former married partners when the queen offers a special accommodation, and Stephen has Jane look at their children, realizing what they have accomplished. Sugary and sweet when it needs to be, rarely showing any strife despite a disease that one would think might exist, the film just doesn't want to look at Stephen as anything but commendable. The score is fitting for the kind of biopic being presented: it is effectively sentimental, elegant, tragic, and encouraging. The score, like the dreamy photographic look, aims to manipulate our emotions and take us on a journey that allows us to embrace this man wholeheartedly. As far as depicting the complications of a horrible disease, this film knocks it out of the ballpark. But I think what is ultimately fascinating about the man—the genius and the science that came from it--is less important to those that made this film. This film cares deeply about Stephen, but it glosses over a great deal of what people in his field consider important.
Redmayne offers a painstakingly detailed physical performance mimicking Stephen's plight; it screams Oscar bait, but he's damned impressive just the same. Felicity Jones is equally good as the burdened but mostly loyal wife. Their chemistry is first rate. I do think the film takes creative license and paints in strokes that allows us to come away with a great deal of respect and admiration for Stephen, without seeing him *warts and all*.