Whether by design or by accident, The Theory of Everything feels more like a showcase for its two leads’ acting skills than an actual film.
Much has already been said about Eddie Redmayne’s portrayal of Stephen Hawking. He gives a charismatic performance in the lead role. And in the second half of the film, he uncomfortably contorts his body to replicate the theoretical physicists’ paralysis caused by early-onset ALS. It’s a memorable performance, even if the film itself isn’t.
Hawking proves to be a complex figure. He is certainly charming and brilliant, but he can also be incredibly difficult. As his disease progresses, he initially refuses in-home care, instead expecting his wife Jane (Felicity Jones) to care for him and their children.
Speaking of Jane, Jones is phenomenal in the part. She really captures the complex range of emotions that come from loving and caring for a brilliant, disabled, challenging man. You sympathize with Jane when she develops feelings for Jonathan Jones (Charlie Cox), a musician she meets through the church who helps her care for Stephen. And it’s even more heartbreaking when she fights off her urges to be with Jonathan, only to watch Stephen develop feelings for the in-home nurse they eventually hire, Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake).
Based on the real Jane Wilde Hawking’s memoir Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, it is very much Jane’s film. Before seeing it, we all know the contributions Stephen Hawking has made to science and his physical struggles, but the film helps show the supporting wife who nurtured him and helped keep him alive so that he could achieve greatness, putting her own academic pursuits on the back burner to support him.
While I really enjoyed their tragic love story and thought the two leads were fantastic, the film as a whole just never really came together. It lacked any real depth or nuance and instead mostly felt like it was touching the most noteworthy parts of these two people’s lives without ever really revealing anything beyond the surface. There’s no new insight you gain about the couple. Considering its based on a memoir, it’s disappointing that you never get deeper inside their heads.
I appreciate that the film showed how flawed and difficult their relationship could be. Their’s is a love story, though one Hollywood shies away from since it’s not the type of love most people think about. What they have is deeper than romantic love. And even as their marriage began to fall apart, you can tell that they both care deeply about one another. It’s refreshing to see a film attempt to capture that, instead of simply taking the easy route of glossing over or ignoring the unpleasant parts.
But the film never really finds its footing. It has a collection of really great scenes, but the narrative as a whole just isn’t there. The end result is a film that is both pleasant and at times heartbreaking, but is ultimately forgettable.
Still, if it gets people more invested in Stephen Hawkings life or his work and it gives us all a new appreciation of Jane Wild Hawking’s sacrifices, it still feels like a worthy endeavor.
Written by Joel Murphy. If you enjoy his reviews, he also writes a weekly pop culture column called Murphy’s Law, which you can find here. You can contact Joel at murphyslaw@hobotrashcan.com.