The Theory of Everything | Film Review

If you are like me, you know more about the mythos of Stephen Hawking than his real story. The physicist, who has garnered more attention as of late from his random visits to The Big Bang Theory, is an enigma of sorts. In fact, if you asked an average person, ‘Who is Stephen Hawking?’, most will reply he is a brilliant scientist…and that is all they know. ‘The Theory of Everything’ is director James Marsh’s attempt to change that.

The most surprising element of ‘Everything’, is that it focuses more on the relationship between Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and the love of his life, Jane (Felicity Jones), than the science. One of the most known victims of ALS, even his medical condition nor his fight to survive are the root of this film. Given how greatly Hawking has tossed life expectancy for his situation to the wind, this was a surprising approach for the filmmakers to take. Some might even find this discouraging, I found it incredibly refreshing.

How many times have we seen biographies of real-life personalities that focus solely on their disease or overcoming their obstacles, yet completely blow by the repercussions to their spouses or family? They generally and generically become films about those disadvantages and often skim by those relationships as nothing more than drama to fuel the narrative. Instead, ‘Everything’ attacks the subject matter almost as a romantic drama. This is a story about Hawking’s triumphant overcoming of a tragic disease, sure, but this is more about these two souls and their connection in a universe that keeps throwing diversion after diversion in their path.

The acting is integral in a story as tumultuous as this. The film only works if you believe Stephen and Jane truly share a rare love that would allow them to endure the anguish they are about to face, and Marsh has found two gems in the performances by Redmayne and Jones.

Redmayne perfectly embodies both the intelligent condescension of your typical genius, as well as the warmth and heart behind the eyes that is absolutely necessary to both convince us Jane would devote her life to caring for this man, as well as continue to move us even as his disorder eats at his very core. Redmayne simply BECOMES Hawking. Even as we move through the years and he is forced to rely exclusively on his familiar Speak-N-Spell-like robotic voice text to communicate to his family and the audience, Redmayne’s performance remains stellar. By tuning in to Hawking’s mannerisms and selling his character through minor inflections and character tics, Redmayne firmly grasps our sympathy in his disease-ridden hands. This is a role that will no doubt garner Redmayne much award consideration.

For me personally, though, I am much more impressed with Felicity Jones as Jane. This is the more difficult role to pull off and rarely receives the credit a role like this deserves. There are no showy scenes of physical ailments, no painful transformations to overcome. Jones is forced to win us over by sheer will and charisma alone, and there was not a single scene where she did not own the frame, even against the aforementioned Redmayne. His struggle to remain a father is tragic and heartbreaking, yet her struggles as a mother and caregiver become overwhelmingly more relatable. For once, we actually have a film daring to confront life in a tragedy from both sides of the ailment.

The first moment we meet Jane, we are taken aback and immediately understand why Hawking would be smitten with her. As the film and their relationship soldiers on, Jones unwraps layer after layer until we are left with a fully realized character who is not simply along for Hawking’s journey…she IS his journey. There is a moment in the film that will challenge the audience to dare rooting for Jane, and in the hands of a lesser actress, this is where she would lose us. Because Jones infuses so much into the character, instead we completely understand her motives and even against all of man’s moral righteousness, we absolutely feel for her plight.

James Marsh does pay some attention to Hawking’s scientific obsession with time, especially Hawking’s well-respected book ‘A Brief History of Time’, yet the film remains a simple story about this devoted couple and the trials their love endures. I recommend not reading up on Hawking’s story as where it goes was an interesting surprise for the uninitiated and made more a much more engaging and heartfelt drama than I believe knowing the outcome could possibly accomplish.

The Theory of Everything is an unconventional love story centered around two immensely unconventional people. While nothing revolutionary occurs in the film, the performances from Redmayne and Jones elevate this biography above your typical Oscar fare and you will thankfully walk out of the theater feeling uplifted instead of emotionally exhausted. As Hawking can most certainly attribute, this film is easily worth the time.

Aaron Peterson
The Hollywood Outsider