2 hrs & 3 min,
color, 2014
Listening
to scientists of any variety discussing the ramifications of their science has
always made me squirm with frustration.
I feel as if my ears as well as my limited brain are being stuffed full
of wire mesh or crammed with cotton, hay and rags. And this cramming can make me dizzy or it can
dull my interest until I recoil against what seems like the prattling of a
foreign tongue. I always struggled
through Biology and Mathematics when in high school and college, until my
retentive powers slowly began to flivver out.
I know what buttons to push to make my TV give me what I want, but do
not ask me to explain why that button produces that desired result. Just tell me the sequential steps to take; do
not expect me to perceive the electronic principle of it. I guess I am saying in so many words that I
feel intimidated when called upon to fathom the shop talk of any scientist,
even my doctors, who have mastered medical science, attempting to explain to me
what has gone awry in my body. Rather
embarrassing! I am a
right-side-of-the-brain individual, and it does not take very much left-side
chatter to find me wanting for comprehension.
Surely
one of the virtues of “The Theory of Everything,” the current biopic of world
famous English theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, is its
easy digestibility, even on the part of a dullard like me. I feared before seeing it that I would once
again have to face the intimidation of a lower caste Science student. No such problem! The film contains some shop talk, but it is
enshrouded in a narrative that puts a human face upon the man and the struggle
in which he has been for many years enmeshed.
It is a very warm human tale that traces the path he took from utter
helplessness to a rich fulfillment of vision and purpose.
Most
of present day western humanity is already somewhat familiar with the
particulars of his affliction – being struck down with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease) at 21, in which the cells and neurons
in the brain that control muscle use die off, eventually rendering the victim
totally helpless, unable to move an arm or a leg. He was told at the time when he was diagnosed
that he only had at most two years to live.
Meanwhile , 52 years and three children later, at age 73, he is Director
of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of
Cambridge in England. In short, he
retarded the disease’s progressive rate, though we have to bear in mind the
fact that he has had medical technology at his disposal that Lou Gehrig never
did. (Gehrig lived only three years after
he was struck down.)
There
is considerable discussion in the film about black holes and space/time and the
behavior of neurons and cell formation/dissolution. But it is all palatable. I found myself rooting for him when he faces
the scientific establishment in his limp and slurring condition, knowing
already that he is going to break through and be accepted as an equal in spite
of this, whether I fully understand the theories and claims being set forth or
not. It is the man I root for, not a
school of thought. I never felt
intimidated by his interplay with other brilliant minds, thanks to screenplay
writer Anthony McCarten, Director James Marsh and to the woman, Jane Hawking,
who rescued him at least twice from the jaws of death , married him, inspired
him and finally wrote her book “Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,”
from which the screenplay is adapted.
Not
real often does an actor or actress come along, previously unfamiliar to movie
audiences, who appears to be the perfect fit for a dominant screen role of
iconic dimension. Eddie Redmayne makes
Hawking so completely his creation that it is inconceivable that anyone else
could have been cast. Where does the
actor leave off and the character begin?
Hawking viewed the film before release and commented that at times he
thought he was watching himself. So
thoroughly and naturally does the fusion take place that I wonder if the actor
in this case will ever be free of the man he has portrayed. Will he find other parts just as demanding,
that draw forth the same degree of skill and imagination and innovation? Is there somewhere else to go?
I
guess I take some measure of comfort from recalling Peter O’Toole’s explosive
screen debut as T.E. Lawrence in “Lawrence of Arabia.” I remember wondering at the time whether he
could ever possibly even approach the caliber of portrayal he evidenced in that
monumental juggernaut of an adventure.
Since that debut, he has worn many faces of many unforgettable figures
and excelled at them all. I had no need
to worry. I hope for the same in
Redmayne’s case.
Especially
powerful and engaging are those moments in which Hawking has to grope with
normal functions but with such limited capacities – struggling with the task of
bringing his spoon up to his mouth to eat, his hand shaking uncontrollably, and
literally climbing stairs one at a time by himself prostrate and face down,
with nothing to assist him in his climb but the wooden bars on the
railing. A very physically demanding
role! And his face, with his wide mouth,
his almost flat stretch of a smile and his big beady eyes that appear to be
always searching by themselves for cosmic answers to cosmic questions! I can only begin to imagine how much training
and practice Redmayne had to undergo before he could perform in front of the
camera.
And
let us not throw mere passing glances at Felicity Jones as Jane; she has
engraved on my memory the image of a small-of-stature, seemingly innocent,
protected young language student who surprises her family and the world and
maybe the movie audience by turning into a strong, determined and fiercely
loyal woman almost overnight, who sets the bar considerably high for Stephen in
the steps he takes to fight ALS and pursue his career. No shrinking violet, hers is a fully
committed love that requires her to make some difficult, major league
decisions. Ms Jones hits her mark in
every scene, whether it calls for humor, anxiety, tough-mindedness,
confrontational anger, tears, tenderness, or visible emotion unaccompanied by
words. Her face speaks most
incisively. Her previous film work has
been sparse, but now she should have a productive career ahead of her.
One
issue never quite resolved between Stephen and Jane is the religious
question. She is a faithful member of
the Anglican Church fully accepting of the tenets of her faith. When after having just met him she asks him
about his specialty, Cosmology, he remarks that the science is “a kind of
religion for intellectual atheists.” In
place of worshipping and seeking for God, he claims to be in search of “one
single unifying equation that explains everything in the universe.” Whether or not this difference impacts upon
their marriage is open to question. Let
the viewer decide, after their marriage is lovably terminated, each of them
having become attracted to someone else.
Though
I found the film to be an inspiring tribute to human resilience and
compassionate caring, there is one aspect of the production about which I feel
the need to speak a little negatively, and that is the photography. I have no quarrel with where the
cinematographer chose to put the camera, but the use of color images I found at
times confusing and annoying. One moment
we are bathed in a cold dim blue, at others in a splashy yellow or orange that
seems a little overexposed and all for no apparent reason artistic or
otherwise. Better choice of palettes
would have been a plus. Easier on the
eyes!
Everyone
who takes an interest in “The Theory of Everything” should bear in mind that the
film only deals with the man’s early life.
It does not by any means cover the entire range of his writings and his
findings and the contribution he has made to making science accessible to the
average person. If you want to know how
far his persistent struggle has taken him and the many innovations he has made
in his field, I recommend his Biography as posted on line by Google. It would be a very fitting and hopefully
exciting follow-up to seeing the movie.
It was for me.
To
read other entries in my blog, please consult its website: enspiritus.blogspot.com. To learn about me consult on the website the
blog entry for August 9, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment