THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

UK, 2014, 123 minutes, Colour.
Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Simon Mc Burney, Emily Watson, David Thewlis.
Directed by James Marsh.

While Stephen Hawking may not have developed a theory of everything, he was certainly one of the major science theoreticians of the 20th century. Because of his book, A Brief History of Time, he became more than celebrated and has continued famous, this film reinforcing audience knowledge of him and admiration for him.

It is not the first time that Hawking has appeared in a biographical film. In 2004, he was portrayed in a film and television by the then comparatively-unknown, Benedict Cumberbatch. The film treated his early years, the onset of motor neuron disease and his marriage to Jane.

Since then, there have been documentary films and television programs, on his science, on his personality, on his coping with his illness. American documentary-maker, Errol Morris, also made a film of A Brief History of Time. Audiences coming to see The Theory of Everything, may well have some idea, many ideas, about Hawking and his life and work.

The major challenge for any actor portraying Hawking is to communicate his experience of motor neuron disease, its gradual debilitating effect, the initial anticipation that he would have only two years to live, his being reduced to travelling in a wheelchair, less able to speak, undergoing surgery and a tracheotomy which meant them that he had to use a computer simulation speech to communicate by word. All this, and more, are extraordinarily communicated by Eddie Redmayne (who had been Marius in the film version of Les Miserables).

The early part of the film is set in the 1960s with Hawking as a student at Oxford, seemingly casual with his approach to studies, having an extraordinarily quick brain and an ability to penetrate and solve mathematical problems. With his doctorate, he was interested in old stars and the collapsing in on themselves, theories of black holes. Later, he was to change his opinions and return to the beginnings of the universe and explorations of the Big Bang Theory. He continued to think, write, speculate on physics questions and draw on mathematical theory.

In case anyone thinks that the film is overloaded with scientific information that does not communicate well to the general audience, they are only partly right. There are sufficient indications of Hawking’s thinking and some explanations, but not overly tasking for a general audience. Scientists might think it is theory-light.

While the film Is about science and mathematics, It Is also tells the story of a man who in his early 20s was diagnosed with motor-neuron disease. The beginnings are suggested, and then Hawking collapses, is diagnosed by the doctors and, often reluctantly, has to come to terms with his condition. In fact, it is quite extraordinary to see what happened to Hawking in terms of the disease, the gradual degeneration, but his extraordinary survival.

The film also has a love story. Stephen met Jane, a devout Church of England young woman compared to his atheistic stances. They meet, date, some courting and then the crisis of his illness. In retrospect, audiences may well know the Jane spent 25 years of her life looking after Hawking, bearing three children and bringing them up, a lifetime of generosity. But, it all became too much for both of them, Jane experiencing the toll on her life with and for Stephen, his becoming dependent on his nurse, whom he married after divorcing Jane. While this might be the sensationalism of headlines, it is important to see just what happened with each of the two, hardships, regrets, the experience of a long time. (the screenplay for this film is based on Jane’s book about her life with Stephen Hawking, the second book she wrote, it seems less angry than the first one – and both Stephen and Jane approved of this screen version.

For anyone expecting something of a scientific treatise, they will be disappointed. For those who find the screen portrayal of serious illness demanding but informative, there will be much to offer in this film. And for all who get caught up in the love story, live through the hardships of the decades and see a marriage collapsing, it will seem more realistic than they might have thought, yet still very disappointing in its finish.

Which means, on the whole, this is a moving experience for a general audience.

1. The film’s impact? True story? Stephen Hawking? As a person, scientist, victim of motor neuron disease?

2. Audience knowledge of Hawking? Admiration? This film based on the books by his wife, Jane?

3. Media awareness over the decades, The Brief History of Time and the film version? Television appearances and documentaries? The 2004 television film biography?

4. The title, Hawking’s aim?

5. Hawking as a scientist, his initial studies, quiet, seemingly no effort, with the Professor, the exam and the formulas? His thesis and explanation, old stars, black holes? At work on his thesis? Before the panel, their comments? The member of the panel whose lecture he had attended? The Professor and his congratulations? Further studies, research, writing papers, discussions, conferences? Praising him? Reversing some of his opinions? Publishing his book, the Big Bang Theory? researching equations? The film’s title and his theory of everything?

6. The scene where he explained his theories to the assembled international professors, those walking out, those staying and praising him?

7. The communication of scientific theory for ordinary audiences in the film?

8. As a person, his father and his ideas, his mother? Family relationships? The encounter with Jane, the glimpse, talking, the dance? Her Church of England background, his atheism? Yet waiting at the church, taking her out, in the country, the family meals and introductions? The proposal, marriage, the children? Jane and her care, the pressures on both, the 25 years? The friendship with Jack, the attraction, coping, his helping with the family? Stephen, weary after so many years, the tensions of business, some alienation from Jane?

9. Motor neuron disease, the gradual approach, his slips, the fall, hospital, the diagnosis, two years to live, debilitation? Jane, the decision, her care? The physical deterioration, walking sticks, the chair, confined, yet studying? The Wagner concert, his collapse, pneumonia, the tracheotomy, the machine to speak, the voice, American accent? Communication, coping, persevering? Its toll on him, physically, psychologically, emotionally? The friendship with Jack, the playing with the children, sharing? The innuendo about Jane’s pregnancy, Jack leaving? The disintegration of the marriage?

10. Jane, in herself, her family background, church, attracted to Stephen, her decision, the details of care over the years, the children? Living with a genius, its toll? The recommendations of the choir, Jack, her feelings, her marriage disintegrating, Stephen and his nurse, not communicating with Jane, their parting, the later story, her marrying Jack?

11. Her mother, discussions, her father?

12. The Professor, teacher, encouraging Stephen, taking him to the lecture, the panel of the doctorate, the conference where Stephen spoke, his hosting and introducing? His pride in Stephen? The best of university lecturers?

13. The background of Stephen’s friends, the undergraduates, sexual preoccupation, carefree, the friend not believing Stephen about the illness, his later being in the audience listening?

14. University life, family life, illness?

15. Stephen Hawking, 72 at the time of the film’s release?