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.

Belle

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Amma Asante, Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson and Miranda Richardson

Amma Assante's Belle re-creates the 18th century British political and social climate but also addresses the issue of slavery and those who sought its destruction.
The film tells the story of real-life Dido Elizabeth Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw); a woman whose father was white and mother an enslaved African. An Admiral in the British Navy, Dido's father's duty called him to the West Indies, which meant placing his illegitimate daughter in the care of his uncle; Lord Chief Justice William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson) and his aunt; Lady Mansfield (Emily Watson) on a rural estate known as Kenwood.

The Earl and his wife are naturally reluctant to raise Dido; though they are bound to duty as relatives. The Earl decides to raise her along with his other niece; Lady Elizabeth Murray (Sarah Gadon), who also lost her mother. Dido's suitability as a companion to Elizabeth is a factor in the Earl's decision to raise them together. Dido's color is a social complication to the Earl and his wife. It even becomes house-etiquette that Dido not dine with the family when guests are present but is permitted to mingle after formal dinners, where the restrictions of social decorum become more less-constricting.

Social life at Kenwood is complicated when Lady Elizabeth Murray is presented into society while Dido is denied the same by the Earl and Lady Murray. While Elizabeth is courted by a young man named James Ashford (Tom Felton), his older brother Oliver (James Norton) is smitten with Dido; which sickens James. The Ashford family hopes an Ashford/Murray union will bring wealth to the family but become furious when they learn Elizabeth is penniless. Meanwhile, Dido's financial future is secured when it is revealed her Admiral father left her with a substantial income; making her a more attractive catch to the Ashford clan. Though Dido responds to Oliver's wooing, her heart belongs to John Davinier (Sam Reid); a clergyman's son who hopes to rise in the legal ranks where he might effect change and more importantly; end slavery. The Earl opposes Davinier's attentions for reasons involving the young man's feeble social rank but also complicating the relationship between them is a case known to history as the Zong Massacre.

In 1781, a British naval vessel named Zong, owned by a slave-trading syndicate, sailed from Africa to Jamaica with its human and non-human cargoes. The overcrowded ship, ill-provided with water and ravaged by disease, decimated both crew and slaves alike. It comes to light later that the captain deliberately missed several ports to restock its dwindling supplies. Fearful that the diseased crew would contaminate the cargo (as was claimed later), slaves were thrown overboard to their watery deaths. The company who owned the slaves made an insurance claim; demanding compensation for the value of human cargo lost. The incident created a uproar back in England, with accusations of fraud by those hoping to seek justice for the murdered slaves and by abolitionists who wanted Britain to end the ignominious slave trade. In the center of this controversy and scandal was the Lord Chief Justice himself, who was pressured by various parties who believed the company deserved financial restitution, those who were convinced of the company's heinous, fraudulent practices and by abolitionists.

In the film, Dido learns of the incident (much to the Earl's annoyance), which draws her closer to John Davinier, whose indefatigable efforts to persuade the Lord Chief Justice to deny the slave-trading company its claims and his romantic interest in Dido, make him persona non grata at Kenwood.

Dido becomes engaged to Oliver Ashford then breaks it when she is mistreated viciously one day by Oliver's younger brother. The Ashford family's aggressive pursuit of wealth and status also contributes to her decision. Defying the Earl's disdain for Davinier, Dido becomes involved in the efforts to bring the slave traders to justice by providing documents of the Zong's ship log to the young lawyer.
The climax of the film involves Dido's love for Davinier and the crucial judgement by the Lord Chief Justice on the Zong Case. The rest is history, to use an over-summoned and overworked cliche.

From the previews, I expected Belle to be a dry, sterile costume drama in the tradition of Merchant-Ivory productions. I was impressed with how it handles the complicated Zong case and Dido's life at Kenwood. It is difficult to follow the developments in the case (make sure you don't doze) but it is fascinating. Kudos to the screenwriter Misan Sagay for crafting a screenplay that addresses both Zong and Dido's life, which are inter-related and speak to the issue of servitude. The film recognizes slavery in all its isidious guises: the African slave trade, Dido's near servile position in British society and John Davinier's diminished social ranking; a class distinction that leaves him in a position not unlike Dido's.

Fine performances all around, particularly from Mbatha-Raw and Reid. Reid also delivers a terrific performance in The Railway Man and here he offers the same square-jawed charisma and fine acting. Mbatha-Raw plays her character with dignity and intelligence.

I enjoyed the dialogue, which resurrects the eloquence of a vanished age, where education, diction and englightenment were once highly-regarded.

I don't know that Belle is a brilliant film but it has much on its mind and it is an effective drama. Its statement about slavery and inequality--the latter still sadly evident today--is very relevant and its triumphant conclusion demonstrates society's potential for eradicating a persistent, global problem. Assante handles the material deftly, showing directorial promise. Belle isn't just one more costume drama with striking scenery and comely finery; it has plenty of brains to match its beauty.