The Theory of Everything
The Theory of Everything is a movie about the relationship between Stephen Hawking and his first wife, Jane. I was determined to see it after the first movie theatre preview I saw for it. The funny thing is that I am not entirely a fan of Stephen Hawking's work, because his theories directly aim to disprove God and creation. However, I could tell that this was not meant to be a film about the scientific breakthroughs of one of the world's top scientists. It is the story of a man struggling with motor neuron disease, and the woman who loves him (and whom he loves) learning to deal with the disease along with him.
I suppose that actually sums it up pretty nicely, but I will give a bit more of a synopsis. Stephen was a bit of an outsider. He was smart, but not particularly social. And yet, he met and fell in love with Jane. They seem like the most unlikely couple who were perfectly meant for each other. When he got diagnosed, he shut everyone out of his life, particularly Jane. He didn't want her to have to see him suffer and then to lose him. This may seem selfish and unfair to her, and in a way it was. But at the same time, he was being selfless; he was willing to go through the pain of losing her so that she wouldn't have to suffer the loss of his death. However, the woman loved him and worried, so she insisted on being with him still and tried to help him to live his life as normally as possible. Based on the diagnosis, Stephen should have only lived a few years. Stephen fought the disease with everything he had (and he still does).
In time, the two got married. They even managed to have two kids, while Stephen was still working towards his PhD, and later towards his great breakthroughs. His disease progressed much slower than it does in most people, but his body deteriorated little by little. Jane was essentially the only one capable of running the household. Stephen's physical dependency on his wife, along with his occasionally childlike, stubborn attitude meant that Jane was basically looking after three children. It became clear that this was taking a toll on her. The couple later had a third child, giving her more responsibility.
The other difficulty in the marriage came about with Stephen's research. At first, his theories could and did agree with Jane's religious views. Yet they eventually became explicitly anti-creationist. His wife had to put up with his health problems, his attitude (and ego), and opposition to her faith. She gained the help of her church choir director, Jonathan. Unfortunately, the relationship got stretched too far, and the marriage dissolved.
This movie was well written, acted, and filmed. By the time I watched it, it had already won a number of awards, including Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role for Eddie Redmayne. Considering the fact that he beat out Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game, I knew his performance had to be at least as good. And indeed it was. I was also very impressed by Felicity Jones' portrayal of Jane. It was also nominated for many other awards.
The other actors I would like to mention from this film - partly because they had the other large roles, and also because I am a fan of some of their other work - are David Thewlis (Lupin in Harry Potter) as Stephen's professor, and Charlie Cox (Tristan in Stardust) as Jonathan. All of these characters (and the real people who inspired them) were great sources of support and encouragement for Stephen during their time of acquaintance.
I liked Stephen at the beginning, and I felt for him when he was struggling with his disease. But I was annoyed by his pity parties, and his arrogance, which came in alternating waves. I was angered by his outright opposition to his wife's faith and her opinions on the subject. He became a dependent, rather than a partner to share an equal burden, and he made this worse by working against Jane rather than with her. By the time Jonathan came on the scene, I began to despise Stephen sometimes. I still felt that he was not a horrible man, but I was upset about the way he acted toward his wife. I was actually in favour of the relationship forming between Jane and Jonathan, and was glad to read at the end of the movie that the two got married a while after her divorce from Stephen, and that the two are still married. The movie seems to imply an affair between the two. If this is true, it upsets me that she would have done that to Stephen, even considering how he was.
None of this means that the movie was bad, of course. In fact, it was clearly written to create sympathy for Jane. After all, it was based on her book about their life together.
I don't even know what all to say to convince you all of how good this movie actually is. It is very good at getting you emotionally involved. The romance is adorable, and it is upsetting to watch disease and science/religion come between it. Yet, it ends amicably and satisfactorily. It is a tragic story of love found and lost, but told so artfully that I couldn't help but love it. It is, at the heart of it, a piece of film made for the sake of art and storytelling, rather than for the sake of entertainment.
Enough said.
I suppose that actually sums it up pretty nicely, but I will give a bit more of a synopsis. Stephen was a bit of an outsider. He was smart, but not particularly social. And yet, he met and fell in love with Jane. They seem like the most unlikely couple who were perfectly meant for each other. When he got diagnosed, he shut everyone out of his life, particularly Jane. He didn't want her to have to see him suffer and then to lose him. This may seem selfish and unfair to her, and in a way it was. But at the same time, he was being selfless; he was willing to go through the pain of losing her so that she wouldn't have to suffer the loss of his death. However, the woman loved him and worried, so she insisted on being with him still and tried to help him to live his life as normally as possible. Based on the diagnosis, Stephen should have only lived a few years. Stephen fought the disease with everything he had (and he still does).
In time, the two got married. They even managed to have two kids, while Stephen was still working towards his PhD, and later towards his great breakthroughs. His disease progressed much slower than it does in most people, but his body deteriorated little by little. Jane was essentially the only one capable of running the household. Stephen's physical dependency on his wife, along with his occasionally childlike, stubborn attitude meant that Jane was basically looking after three children. It became clear that this was taking a toll on her. The couple later had a third child, giving her more responsibility.
The other difficulty in the marriage came about with Stephen's research. At first, his theories could and did agree with Jane's religious views. Yet they eventually became explicitly anti-creationist. His wife had to put up with his health problems, his attitude (and ego), and opposition to her faith. She gained the help of her church choir director, Jonathan. Unfortunately, the relationship got stretched too far, and the marriage dissolved.
This movie was well written, acted, and filmed. By the time I watched it, it had already won a number of awards, including Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role for Eddie Redmayne. Considering the fact that he beat out Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game, I knew his performance had to be at least as good. And indeed it was. I was also very impressed by Felicity Jones' portrayal of Jane. It was also nominated for many other awards.
The other actors I would like to mention from this film - partly because they had the other large roles, and also because I am a fan of some of their other work - are David Thewlis (Lupin in Harry Potter) as Stephen's professor, and Charlie Cox (Tristan in Stardust) as Jonathan. All of these characters (and the real people who inspired them) were great sources of support and encouragement for Stephen during their time of acquaintance.
I liked Stephen at the beginning, and I felt for him when he was struggling with his disease. But I was annoyed by his pity parties, and his arrogance, which came in alternating waves. I was angered by his outright opposition to his wife's faith and her opinions on the subject. He became a dependent, rather than a partner to share an equal burden, and he made this worse by working against Jane rather than with her. By the time Jonathan came on the scene, I began to despise Stephen sometimes. I still felt that he was not a horrible man, but I was upset about the way he acted toward his wife. I was actually in favour of the relationship forming between Jane and Jonathan, and was glad to read at the end of the movie that the two got married a while after her divorce from Stephen, and that the two are still married. The movie seems to imply an affair between the two. If this is true, it upsets me that she would have done that to Stephen, even considering how he was.
None of this means that the movie was bad, of course. In fact, it was clearly written to create sympathy for Jane. After all, it was based on her book about their life together.
I don't even know what all to say to convince you all of how good this movie actually is. It is very good at getting you emotionally involved. The romance is adorable, and it is upsetting to watch disease and science/religion come between it. Yet, it ends amicably and satisfactorily. It is a tragic story of love found and lost, but told so artfully that I couldn't help but love it. It is, at the heart of it, a piece of film made for the sake of art and storytelling, rather than for the sake of entertainment.
Enough said.
Comments
Post a Comment