Une merveilleuse histoire du temps

This film is highly recommended.

You can certainly tell it's Oscar time when all the more dignified and personal projects inundate the movie houses in hopes of capturing the gold. For most of the other nine months, we get lesser efforts and big blockbuster spectacles to fill-in until late October arrives. Then, it's time to get serious about our cinema choices. The Theory of Everything is one such film. It carries its pedigree with style and class, even if it is a rather conventional biopic in disguise, with its main character suffering through a debilitating disease while finding the stamina to go on.

With a very literate screenplay by Anthony McCarten and accomplished direction by James Marsh, the film tells the story of famed scientist Stephen Hawking and his battle with ALS. It also concentrates on his relationship with his supportive and loving wife, Jane.

Love will conquer all. Or so it should. But the horrors of this disease and the hardships they face seem unsurmountable. We see the couple meet, fall in love, marry, have children, and grow weary of each other. Stephen achieves adoration, fame, and fortune while Jane takes a back seat to her caregiver role and bringing up the family, amid the tears and frustration they face on a daily basis. One immediately empathizes with these characters due to their tragic situations.

The two leads are splendid and their acting is peerless. Felicity Jones plays Jane. Her role may be less showy and far more understated, but the actress is perfect at showing Jane's endurance and strength in the subtlest of ways. Eddie Redmayne is Stephen Hawking and his performance is literally trans-formative. (He must have learned his craft from tons of research about Hawking and creative influence from Daniel Day Lewis.) This is an impressive physical performance, from his black horn rimmed glasses to his walking cane and distorted posture. Both will receive well-earned accolades for their memorable work. Fine supporting work by Charlie Cox as Jonathan, their loyal friend, and Simon McBurney as Stephen's father add more clarity to the film.

As with most biographical films, one sees the rise and fall of the protagonist before it arrives. This film follows that tries-and-true formula. But Marsh's direction compensates for the linear structure and predictability of the story. The director relies heavily on his actors' subtle actions to tell more about their characters than the mere words they speak. He also wisely shows Hawking's point of view by angling the camera range from a lower stance or keeping it stationary to reinforce the characters' immobility. The final scene, recapping Hawking's life in reverse, beautifully sums up Stephen's life full circle in the most visual of terms.

But The Theory of Everything is foremost a love story. The film desperately wants to be a crowd-pleaser with an uplifting message of inspiration, even when the reality and truth of their actual lives is bleaker than it appears on screen. The film glosses over some factual content to play up the human drama of this pair of young lovers. It skillfully manipulates its audience to wallow in the heartbreak. Director Marsh successfully capture the pangs of young love and bittersweet romance in this emotionally involving film.

The Theory of Everything is an immensely satisfying film with stand-out acting and skilled direction. The proof is right there on the screen, even if the facts are slightly askew. GRADE: B+

Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: jadepietro@rcn.com

FIRST: Let us FOCUS on the Title´s Content and Context.....

Quite Literally.... Expecations are EVERYTHING! And I must say that mine were SKY HIGH... Before viewing!

And although I tried my very best to keep them in check, when I sat down to watch this, unfortunately, my expectations were just like what I mentioned earlier! Perhaps, just a tad TOO high...

PLEASE Don't get me wrong! EVERYTHING is both an exquisitely well-made film and a rather delicious, interesting and quite entertaining experience! Here, I will make my very best effort to explain exactly why this is the case.

EVERYTHING jump starts itself by introducing us to a rather soft-spoken, nerdy (what else?) young Physics doctoral candidate: One Stephen Hawking! Within minutes, we are inserted into the stop-motion bloom of Stephen and Jane's surprisingly intense and, yes, sweet relationship!

In its early minutes, we also get some foreshadowing of Stephen's ominous deteriorating health, which, obviously, in and of itself, will not prove to be the least bit surprising to anyone watching the film. EVERYTHING is clearly Stephen Hawking from his first wife, Jane's perspective. Considering that the movie is based on her book, could it have been anything else? As a logical result, what we get here is a focus on Stephen Hawking the man, the husband; his private persona, much more than his public and professional persona!

Will this emphasis on his relationship with Jane and his prolonged struggle with ALS and its debilitating effects, leave some people feeling somewhat shortchanged? Undoubtedly, there will be some. EVERYTHING isn't completely devoid of moments that underscore Hawking's scientific mindset and insight, however...They're just not nearly as many as one might expect, particularly in light of exactly who he is and what he has done to achieve fame! I prefer not to go into any more detail, because we wouldn't want any SP**LERS.... now would we?

An interesting personal anecdote in relation to Mr. Hawking: For many years, I naturally assumed that he was an American...Why? Well, as I'm sure perhaps millions of you have noticed, when he speaks, using what has come to be considered his trademark computerized voice, he clearly speaks with an American accent! To my chagrin, just a few years back, did I discover that it was simply a case of AMERICAN technology determining to use its own voice!

EVERYTHING's only real shortcoming? Quite honestly, the movie seems to do a lot of "Reelin In the Years!" during its last three-quarters of an hour, or so. To clarify that a bit, the movie constantly skips forward a few years at a time, briefly shows us a new son or daughter, for example, in a couple scenes, then jumps forward a couple years and repeats this process! Perhaps the sheer volume of detailed events in Hawking's life would have been better served by presenting them in a four or six hour mini-series? Just a parting opinion!

8********.... ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en ESPAÑOL, are most welcome!

I've read scientists are turned off by this film for its omissions, simplifications, falsities, and other failures to explain Prof. Hawking's theories. I can understand that, being a law specialist who can't watch law dramas. But if you're not a cosmologist or a physicist you should not be discouraged by the film's failure to give you enough detail for a two credit course. It's a good drama of people, a bit schmaltzy as befits the facts, and in that regard I understand it's pretty accurate, and is definitely well acted and directed. Also a nice glimpse of what Oxbridge life was like in the 1950s. As they say, the male lead is Oscar bait.

Encompassing all the best parts of films like A Beautiful Mind by Ron Howard but creating its own signature and style to the biopic genre, James Marsh's gorgeous and beautifully compelling The Theory of Everything, the true story of Stephen and Jane Hawking, is a sensitive piece of filmmaking that stands as one of the finest movie efforts of the year. Starring Eddie Redmayne as Stephen and Felicity Jones as Jane, the two develop a masterful and sonorous dynamic that behaves as a naturalistic relationship that inhabits qualities of both love and sadness. They're a match made in heaven. Also acting as a morality tale, screenwriter Anthony McCarten puts forth intriguing questions regarding love in the shadow of someone's disability. Do you really know what is asked of you when you vow to love someone in sickness and in health? What happens when disability doesn't allow you to love the way you want? Are you better off just breaking free if you have the chance?

The film acts as a moving oil painting. Benoît Delhomme shoots to utter perfection. Intimate in scenes requiring the viewer's undivided attention, and taking the liberty to capture the essence of the time where the innocence of love offers many possibilities. The scenes ultimately feel as if we're in a dream sequence, sleeping silently as these two lives play out in our minds.

You don't get any tears or moving feelings without the bravura score of Jóhann Jóhannsson. Criminally overlooked last year in the grand scheme of things for his work on Prisoners, the composer orchestrates his best score of his career. Very likely not just my favorite score of the year so far but one of mine in the last few years. From the opening credits, Jóhannsson puts his stamp with heavy violins and beautiful piano playing. In the end credits, you can sit and marvel as the names cross the screen with the music that accompanies it.

When it comes to biopics, people tend to automatically give credit to makeup and body language when talking about a performer. Past winners like Jamie Foxx in Ray have always felt empty as a performance but people were so tied in with the mannerisms that he brought to the role, which he often did in his stand up comedy routines. In Eddie Redmayne, we get a fully realized and tender performance. The first twenty minutes of the film, prior to the diagnosis of Hawking's disease, Redmayne utilizes all the quick wit and charm to show what his Stephen loved the most of his work and his woman. Obviously going through the physical transformation must be rewarded. Contorting his body and learning the physical tics that Stephen Hawking has displayed in real life all ring true. Since his breakout work in Les Miserables, a role that should have landed him a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, I was wary to believe I'd revisit a praising session with the young actor so soon. It's one of the best things offered this year.

When it comes to Felicity Jones, the emotional backbone of the entire process has to be awarded to her. With stunning works in Like Crazy under her belt, Jones takes upon a daunting and heavily emotional character, never afraid to have the audience dislike or be disappointed in what she's doing. Marsh directs her to astonishing resolve. As a leading lady, Jones ignites such fiery and compelling questions not necessarily asked before in a biopic such as this. Complex and staggering in the way she decides to portray the brave Jane, Jones allows her character to grow, and both live and learn inside of her. What's most remarkable about Jones is she makes everything seem so effortless. She's not faking anything, she's really feeling and becoming Jane. She locates all the emotions required of her to execute successfully. It's a turn I wouldn't be surprised to see runaway with the Academy Award for Best Actress.

The supporting players are no shortage of talent, though secondary to this type of story. Charlie Cox was just as good in his screen time. As Jonathan, Cox lays it all out on the table, heart on sleeve, and soul bared for all of us to see. David Thewlis, Emily Watson, and Simon McBurney are all solid but brief.

Production Designer John Paul Kelly and Costume Designer Steven Noble should be commended for their meticulous craft in bringing the time period to the screen. An Oxford University dormitory along with a dozen outfits worn by all the characters can easily be taken for granted in a film like this.

Screenwriter Anthony McCarten adapts his script from the book "Travelling to Infinity: My life with Stephen" which was written by Jane Hawking. Audiences like their fair share of love stories, but some of them, rather most of them, don't like the ugly that goes with it. In real life, people make mistakes, and do things that can make some cringe. I believe some of the more questionable and controversial things during the Hawkings marriage was merely glossed over to not paint them negatively, even though the world is well aware of what went on. I'll be honest, I knew next to nothing about Stephen Hawking and his work prior to sitting for the movie. I knew the robot voice and that's where it about ended. If anything, the film inspires me to learn more about Stephen's work and theories presented. All of those things are definitely given a back seat to a film that doesn't really require them. The Theory of Everything is not about the equations or the mathematics. It's essentially about us. It's about love, and not just in the form of marriage. We as humans learn to love ourselves, our families, and our children. They are placed in our lives but I'm not sure how much we realize what goes into maintaining those relationships. The movie makes you think of those things.

What a wonderful accomplishment of a film by James Marsh (Man on Wire) who brings such depth and beauty to the life/love story of Stephen and Jane Hawking. The film is adapted from her novel on their life and brings forth much of the love and tenacity necessary to care for and love someone going through great physical struggles over time. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones give fantastic and intimate portrayals of Stephen and Jane during their courtship and lives together. My vote for best film at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. In Q&A after film James Marsh told a great story about Stephen Hawking's reaction to the film where he gave the response that it was in "largely genuine"... and Eddie Redmayne said that Stephen Hawking after viewing the film allowed them to use his actual "voice" instead of their approximation for the film that they had produced. The most touching was that Hawking had tears to be wiped away after viewing which will give to you a sense of how genuine this film is.