The Theory of Everything

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: James Marsh/Starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Emily Watson and Simon McBurney

I intended to skip a post for James Marsh's The Theory of Everything and to be quite frank, I also intended to skip the movie, which is out of character for a cinephile like myself. Given its numerous Golden Globe nominations (which mean as much to me as the Oscars, which isn't much), I figured I had better not let it pass without at least a cursory assessment. And given the quality of so many late-year films, the trailer for Theory left me feeling apathetic; with an I-bet-I-can-plot-out-this-flick-without-spending-a-penny-on-it attitude. I've come with tidings--though not necessarily with great joy--to tell you folks that my reservations were sadly realized. The only bright spot in attending the screening was the free medium popcorn I earned with my frequent visitor theater card. If I had only earned a free ticket.

If anyone is deserving of a biopic, it's Stephen Hawking. The brilliant cosmologist has made significant contributions to the fields of astrophysics and astronomy and his book, A Brief History of Time has been an international best seller.

Marsh's film is based on Hawking's former wife Jane's memoir Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, which chronicles her ill-fated marriage to the scientist.

As the film begins, we see the young Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne)preparing for his doctorate exams at Trinity College at Cambridge University. The bright but undisciplined student finds himself with his brainy chums at a black tie function, where he meets a young woman named Jane (Felicity Jones). The two hit if off, in spite of their divergent academic pursuits. To Hawking's cosmology is Jane's Art, but differences extend to their respective perceptions of the world. Hawking's atheistic view is fed by his scholarly pursuits while Jane makes it clear she is a member of the Church of England. The differing perspectives highlight an interesting, philosophical contrast.

As Hawking prepares for his doctoral defense, he begins to suffer from motor control problems; failing to adequately grasp objects with his hands and stumbling. When the problem becomes acute, he visits a physician, who diagnoses him with Motor Neuron Disease, or as its come to be known, Lou Gehrig's Disease. The prognosis is grim, as Hawking is given two years to live. The devastating news leaves Hawking alienated from his friends. His disease does little to discourage Jane's romantic ardor as she manages to draw him out of his uncommunicative morbidity. In spite of his grave condition, Stephen refuses to abandon his studies. He eventually earns his doctorate as his professors recognize the originality of his theories; one involving a black hole in the creation of the universe.

It becomes clear after some time that the disease isn't fatal, which makes it possible for Jane and Stephen to have children in spite of his severely diminished physical state. And though he survives, his condition demands he occupy a wheelchair and be fed, clothed and assisted in other physical functions.

We begin to see how Stephen's constant care impacts Jane as she divides her attention between her husband and her children. She is able to convince Stephen to take on help and in doing so, she finds it serendipitously. Jane befriends Jonathan (Charlie Cox), her choir master and as he becomes welcomed into the Hawking household, he also assists in caring for Stephen. Over time, it becomes clear Jonathan and Jane are fighting an obvious mutual attraction, which is consummated after Stephen transfers his affections to his next caretaker; a woman named Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake).

Meanwhile, Stephen achieves international fame for his theories and his book A Brief History of Time. Though Stephen and Jane divorce, he invites her to accompany him to his knighthood (an honor he rejects), which involves meeting the Queen. One can imagine the respectful gesture satisfying part of a debt to Jane, whose tireless care ensured Stephen the means to pursue academic and scientific work.

Aside from filling in details for the trailer, the movie does little to make his life as fascinating as his theories. Yes, behind most brilliant and famous men are wives or significant others who toil thanklessly behind the scenes, ensuring greatness isn't troubled with the pesky, mundane details of life but Marsh fails to translate this to compelling cinema. And the theories that made Stephen Hawking a peer of Newton and Einstein are mentioned and explicated in expository dialogue but they seem to be given short shrift. We get a sense of Hawking's fame but not how he achieved it. Or why he was awarded the very prestigious Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge; a position held by England's finest mathematicians; including Isaac Newton. I understand the story is, in a large part, Jane's but aside from her fierce, loyal devotion, why did this story need to be told?

It's tough to make a wheelchair-bound individual a riveting presence on film, even someone with a formidable mind like Hawking's. Try as he might to mimic Hawking's contortive physicality, Eddie Redmayne can't articulate the emotions and thoughts of someone who is bodily inert. And the famous, computerized voice that conveys Hawking's thoughts suffers the same emotive limitations.

But the film in general feels like an assembly-line biopic, in spite of the subject. Where one imagines the story will proceed is where it does, plain and simple. Those two adjectives could effectively characterize the film as a whole.

One effect of a mediocre or bad film is how it makes one eager to see a better film on the same subject. After watching The Theory of Everything, I couldn't help but think of Errol Morris' engaging A Brief History of Time, which not only attempts to make Hawking's theories accessible without dumbing them down, but makes them vital and exciting. Marsh's film seems like a condensed and dramatized, Reader's Digest version of Morris' documentary.

Rather than a Theory of Everything, we get a Theory of Not-Much. Another feat of mediocre film-making is to make a genius like Stephen Hawking seem so prosaic and dull, which this film does exceptionally well. The film also does little to make Jane Hawking appear as anything other than a pretty, put-upon caretaker who once loved Stephen Hawking.

Maybe the story should have been a biopic about Hawking's computerized voice. Hmmmmm....it has possibilities. Maybe I'll cast Nicolas Cage as the Voice. Could be interesting. Or at least more interesting than this film.