Film Review: The Theory of Everything (James Marsh, 2014) ★★★★

(Source)

A very overdue review of the Oscar nominated film that saw Eddie Redmayne take home the Oscar for Best Actor, 2015. Based on the life and marriage of Stephen and Jane Hawking, The Theory of Everything follows a young, gifted but unfocussed physics student (Eddie Redmayne) who meets Jane (Felicity Jones). Their romance is tested, however, when Stephen is diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease at a breakthrough time in his work. With Stephen's health ever decreasing, the couple decide to battle the disease together for whatever time they have left.

(Source)

Set in picturesque Cambridge, this Oscar winning title is the second Academy recognised film to examine the human condition through the medium of astrophysics. However, if Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) was a little on the cold, sci-fi eccentric side for you then The Theory of Everything offers a more heart-felt option. Unlike that of Interstellar, the narrative is rapid, thrusting you in to Stephen and Jane's situation as Stephen Hawking was when suddenly diagnosed with a terminal illness. 

Tragically, we are given clues to Stephen's demise; a quivering hand, an awkward walk suggesting his feet might give out at any moment. While their romance initially has signs of a fairy tale - dancing by under tea lights on the cobbled bridge - there is the assumption that we as an audience know what is looming over the star crossed lovers. Stephen tries to push Jane away, insisting he does not want to see her, and his father warns Jane to stay away but a steely-eyed Jane asserts her devotion to the man who will become completely dependent on her for his every need. 

(Source)

Going in to the film, I was very reluctant. Having seen extended trailers, I expected a rose-tinted romantic tale of a couple whose love defied the odds - not my kind of film at all. What we get instead is actually the story of a young women's life sentence. Giving up her PHD, her social life and all her own needs, she gives her all to the care of one man, simply because she loves him. As a genuis, Stephen remains successful and world famous for his work in physics, adding yet more strain to the relationship and the ever-growing stress of his deteriorating health. Every now and then we see a glimpse of the romantic love they felt for each other, their joy for having their two children but under the surface Jane is struggling to cope. Attracting attention from a gentlemen at church (Charlie Cox), Jane resists the temptation to have a new life, a new love, for which no one would blame her. The direction is clear, though, not to blame Jane for the feelings of love lost, her struggle and hardship -fully empathising with her situation. All in all, there is a perfect balance showing both a struggle for Jane and for Stephen who despite medical reasoning, is still alive and remains one of the world's leading physicists for his extraordinary work and best selling books. This is anchored heavily by the performances from both Redmayne and Jones who make the narrative believable. 

(Source)

With such a tricky subject to tackle, a heavily disabled character for the leading role, this had to be handled delicately. Redmaybe provides a believable yet moving performance which adds to the overall success of the film. Without this, the audience would lose site of the goal of the film and be distracted from the main message of hope. As stated by Hawking himself, "...while there is life, there is hope". 

Though the couples' marriage eventually ended in divorce, Stephen feeling a need to "set Jane free", the couple remain good friends although some large details were still left out from the motion picture.  The film does not include Hawking's second marriage, the rumoured abuse he endures by his second wife nor the strong relationship that remains between him and Jane. Perhaps director, James Marsh felt it was unnecessary to include these and perhaps ending the way it did prevented the narrative from taking a dark turn but I felt it was note-worthy all the same. 

(Source)

The Theory of Everything is a sometimes touching, perhaps tear-jerking glimpse in to the life of two extraordinary people. Combined with a few hazy, pretty shots, an Oscar recognised cast and a powerful message, The Theory of Everything gets a Sophie star rating of 4 out of 5 stars. Whilst the potential was there, I felt it wasn't as powerful and awe inspiring as some of the other titles I'd seen leading up to the Academy Awards. While Redmayne deserves his Oscar whole heartedly, I felt he was the typical choice for the gold. A fully enjoyable film none-the-less and worthy of it's Academy nominations. 

(Source)

What did you think of The Theory of Everything? I put it off for so long but glad I saw it in the end. Whilst it is not my top pick of the year, I found it inspiring and another example of why I love film so much. Certainly one of the greatest British films is recent years. I truly thought it would have been kind of cool to see Steve Carell or Michael Keaton take home an Oscar but knew this would be the choice...and probably for better reasoning. 

Thanks for reading my review, I love reading our comments so please leave them below! 

Peace and love,