There is a strange phenomenon at the Academy Awards in which the Best Actor Oscar is given to a leading performance in what is rarely one of the best films of the year. Only a handful of winners in the last two decades – Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, Jean Dujardin in The Artist, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote, to name a few – have been for performances in excellent films. The vast majority of Best Actor trophies are awarded to actors whose work is often the best part of the film in which they appear (Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club, Sean Penn in Milk, Forest Whitaker in Last King of Scotland, and the list goes on and on).
It appears that the 2015 Academy Awards will surely continue this strange trend as Eddie Redmayne should have very little competition for his outstanding performance in The Theory of Everything, a film of suffocating mediocrity and lifelessness. As Day-Lewis does with nearly every role, Redmayne disappears into his character, here a brilliant astrophysicist whose physical abilities slowly wither away. Directed by James Marsh (Man on Wire), The Theory of Everything follows Stephen Hawking (Redmayne) from his days as a brilliant but rebellious student at the University of Cambridge through most of his adult life as he battles a motor neuron disease that eventually leaves him speechless and nearly paralyzed.
Like so many biopics, Marsh’s film tries to cover too much of his protagonist’s life, making the film feel thin and emotionless. Based on the memoir My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, played by the incredible Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything attempts to be as grand as the title implies: addressing every aspect of Stephen and Jane’s life together, from his initial diagnoses through their rocky marriage and eventual divorce. While this throw-everything-into-the-movie-and-hope-it-works approach enables us to witness Redmayne’s incredible physical transformation, it isolates the audience as we are left wondering where the central love story resides: between Stephen and Jane or Stephen and his work?
As a director, Marsh also seems unable to decide on either oversentimentality or detached observation of his characters. We see Stephen’s devastating decline into paralysis and the way that changes the dynamics of his marriage to Jane. She becomes more of a caretaker and nurse than a wife. But we don’t see how their love can be strong enough to sustain them for as long as it did. We feel no emotions between the characters though Marsh blasts strings-heavy music at us to tell us we should feel something.
Most frustrating is that in a movie about Stephen Hawking, there is insultingly little science. We don’t know why Stephen Hawking, arguably the smartest person alive, is so obsessed with a “theory of everything” or why his discoveries are so revolutionary. Anyone unfamiliar with the basics of physics, relativity and the concept of spacetime will be lost during the few interludes which actually address scientific ideas.
The film is saved only by the performances of the cast, all of whom turn in fantastic performances. As with so many other highly-discussed performances, Redmayne’s work in Theory of Everything is impressive for both its emotional and physical commitment. But, unlike Christian Bale or Robert De Niro, Redmayne’s transformation has nothing to do with gaining or losing weight; Redmayne contorts his body and facial expressions into terribly unnatural positions to accurately display the loss of control Stephen experienced as the disease ravaged his nervous system. Few other actors could have portrayed this crippling disease while also delivering a performance of extreme humanity.
While Redmayne will undoubtedly receive the most attention for his performance, Jones is every bit as impressive as Jane. Jane is quiet and reserved, but never expressionless. Jones displays so many emotions, sometimes simultaneously, that any sense of artificiality is absent. Jane also embarks on an arduous journey and Jones delivers an amazing performance that is so subtle it is almost invisible.
The Theory of Everything is worth seeing for Redmayne’s unbelievable performance and the work of Felicity Jones. Otherwise, it is a mess of a movie that doesn’t do justice to the man who has given more to science since anyone since Albert Einstein.
Grade: D+
Streaming Options
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!
Recommendations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
