← Back to Reviews
in
#98 - The Theory of Everything
James Marsh, 2014
A biopic of world-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who is afflicted with motor neurone disease and slowly loses control of his body while managing to develop revolutionary theories about time and space.
Biopics can be so fatiguing, especially the sub-genre involving intellectual giants whose brilliant achievements are offset by the drama of their personal lives, especially if they have some sort of physical or mental disability. Such individuals have their life's work boiled down and compressed into a recognisable narrative, and while I understand that it's ultimately a matter of pragmatism in trying to condense a person's life into the space of a couple of hours, the end results don't always make for strong films. As such, the strength of these films tends to rely heavily on the performers to do the best they can with their material and the directors to make it at least visually compelling. The Theory of Everything definitely tries in that regard, but the execution doesn't always work that well.
I'll concede that its two leads, Eddie Redmayne as Hawking and Felicity Jones as his first wife Jane, definitely provide performances worthy of Oscar nominations. Redmayne throws himself into method territory in trying to convey Hawking's nervous yet oddly confident humour even as his eventual diagnosis and his disorder's progression lead to his performance becoming much more physically demanding. Jones, meanwhile, does her fair share of emotional heavy lifting in what could have been an otherwise thankless role as an extraordinarily loving, patient and supportive spouse (but not too much so, because there needs to be some tension between the two so as to make for good drama, right?). Speaking of tension, she does get a sub-plot involving her growing apart from Hawking and considering an affair with a local piano teacher, but it doesn't play into the narrative of the film in any significant way (I mean, it does eventually, but it ultimately feels a bit inconsequential when all is said and done). Otherwise, the cast involves a cavalcade of fellow students, teachers, authority figures and family members, almost none of which do much to stand out except maybe provide layman's explanations of complicated theories (there are a lot of spirals and circles being drawn, for instance).
Just as biopic writing is all but forced to conform to certain narrative conventions for the sake of providing a widely engaging story, so too does the technical side tend to avoid anything too ambitious unless the subject matter truly calls for it. The photography is competent enough but any attempts at using special effects seem ill-advised (except maybe the space visuals in the closing credits). The modern classical score is appropriate and hits all the right notes, but doesn't stand out on its own merit. As far as biopics go, The Theory of Everything only just manages to rise above its sub-genre trappings, but beyond an especially ambitious method performance by Redmayne it plays things very safe and is thus merely alright as a film.
James Marsh, 2014
A biopic of world-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who is afflicted with motor neurone disease and slowly loses control of his body while managing to develop revolutionary theories about time and space.
Biopics can be so fatiguing, especially the sub-genre involving intellectual giants whose brilliant achievements are offset by the drama of their personal lives, especially if they have some sort of physical or mental disability. Such individuals have their life's work boiled down and compressed into a recognisable narrative, and while I understand that it's ultimately a matter of pragmatism in trying to condense a person's life into the space of a couple of hours, the end results don't always make for strong films. As such, the strength of these films tends to rely heavily on the performers to do the best they can with their material and the directors to make it at least visually compelling. The Theory of Everything definitely tries in that regard, but the execution doesn't always work that well.
I'll concede that its two leads, Eddie Redmayne as Hawking and Felicity Jones as his first wife Jane, definitely provide performances worthy of Oscar nominations. Redmayne throws himself into method territory in trying to convey Hawking's nervous yet oddly confident humour even as his eventual diagnosis and his disorder's progression lead to his performance becoming much more physically demanding. Jones, meanwhile, does her fair share of emotional heavy lifting in what could have been an otherwise thankless role as an extraordinarily loving, patient and supportive spouse (but not too much so, because there needs to be some tension between the two so as to make for good drama, right?). Speaking of tension, she does get a sub-plot involving her growing apart from Hawking and considering an affair with a local piano teacher, but it doesn't play into the narrative of the film in any significant way (I mean, it does eventually, but it ultimately feels a bit inconsequential when all is said and done). Otherwise, the cast involves a cavalcade of fellow students, teachers, authority figures and family members, almost none of which do much to stand out except maybe provide layman's explanations of complicated theories (there are a lot of spirals and circles being drawn, for instance).
Just as biopic writing is all but forced to conform to certain narrative conventions for the sake of providing a widely engaging story, so too does the technical side tend to avoid anything too ambitious unless the subject matter truly calls for it. The photography is competent enough but any attempts at using special effects seem ill-advised (except maybe the space visuals in the closing credits). The modern classical score is appropriate and hits all the right notes, but doesn't stand out on its own merit. As far as biopics go, The Theory of Everything only just manages to rise above its sub-genre trappings, but beyond an especially ambitious method performance by Redmayne it plays things very safe and is thus merely alright as a film.