A very, very brief history of Jane Wilde's time with Stephen Hawking.

Rating: 7/10 (22 November 2014)

For a movie that claims to be about the life of world renowned, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything has remarkably little to do with the life of a world renowned, theoretical physicist. Through and through, the movie is a love story; and it is beautifully told. It's not necessarily a movie for fans of Stephen Hawking or his work, considering the subject is hardly ever touched upon except in moments of praise for his brilliance, but is instead geared towards anyone who is interested in a good romance between two lovable people.
It begins with a chance meeting between the young and brilliant, lovable but clumsy, Ph.D. student and his soon to be wife, the literature-loving Jane Wilde (The movie is actually based on her book: Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen). For some inexplicable reason – I suppose you could call it "love at first sight" but it seems more like "convenient for the plot" – these two take an instant liking to each other. After 3 or 4 brief encounters the two students fall deeply in love, but their happiness is quickly sucker-punched by Stephen's diagnosis of ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), a disease that eats away at his motor controlling neurons, causing paralysis and, as the doctor predicts, death within two years. It's a very sad realization for both the audience and the characters, but when Jane promises her life-long love and commitment to Stephen, there is a sense that everything is going to be okay. The rest of the film takes us through several decades of their life and how Stephen and Jane cope with his physical limitations.
Eddie Redmayne plays Stephen Hawking brilliantly; delivering a performance that is, at times, so very delicate and at other times fueled with confidence. The wit characteristic of Hawking is presented perfectly and his disease, including the gradual loss of his ability to speak, is handled with respect. Not once is there a moment of overacting, and we are reminded that there is a fully functioning and genius mind within a debilitated body. Felicity Jones plays Jane Wilde beautifully, showing us the strong commitment and inevitable weariness faced by someone in her position. Ultimately, it is Redmayne that steals the show.
The most glaring issue the movie faces is time. It's understandable and perhaps even a little ironic given the subject matter of the movie. To faithfully and honestly tell the story of their long marriage is a gargantuan task, and we often find ourselves skipping through massive periods of time without warning. Stephen is almost fully paralyzed about half an hour into the movie and the two characters are well into a marriage with their first child. There is little time to believe that they are actually falling in love until we are thrown headlong into their lives.
Still, the story is as honest as it can be. Jane and Stephen are two caring, loving, and normal people who have to deal with impossibly difficult circumstances. After the initial bullet-train ride through their first years, I spent the rest of the movie actually caring about their relationship. Unfortunately, there is no sense of urgency or some larger than life goal, only their onwards struggle and perseverance. It provides the movie with a direction-less quality. As we watch his body degenerate, his drive is an intellectual one and we are promised that he is working diligently on his unified theory of everything behind the scenes of the movie.
In fact, aside from his disease, Stephen's life seems relatively unremarkable. They have children, a family, friends, and Stephen pursues his career brilliantly, although little time is spent explaining it. Stephen learns to deal with his disease as best he can and is able to succeed with the help of everyone who cares for him. On the other hand, Jane seems to be the one who suffers the most. We learn of her goal to earn a Ph.D. in literature early on in the movie, but she quickly forfeits her own wants to support her husband. She is a strong and admirable woman, but there is a sense of unfairness as she is forced to completely remove her own goals from the picture and instead take on the full time task of caring for a family that can't care for itself. By the end of the movie, I realized (if we're to believe the story) the famous Stephen Hawking may not have made it where he is today if not for the unyielding love, optimism and attention he received from Jane.
Not surprisingly, their relationship begins to crumble when we see Jane attempting to pursue her own desires. Soon enough, after years of happiness, the gravity of it begins to weigh down on her shoulders. There are even hints of some mutually agreed upon acts of infidelity, although it is handled with grace rather than betrayal. The two seem to grow apart for reasons beyond their control and neither blames the other for their inability to continue the uphill battle, despite the years of love between them. There is a gentle understanding there; rather than greed and guilt, there is a shared sadness when they realize perhaps it was just too difficult after all. It's very nice to know that Hawking himself contributed to the movie and even cried when he watched it. It's a hopeful love story, even if it ends bittersweet.
I watched The Theory of Everything with a free screening pass given to me by a friend. I noticed Intersteller was playing at the same time and was so tempted to go watch that instead, but I resisted. While I certainly don't regret my choice and left with a feeling of gratification, I also didn't leave with any significant thoughts of the movie on my mind. The Theory of Everything is a nice movie to watch, but it's unfortunately forgettable.