Oliveros, Joshua 2014-74128Reaction Paper

1

Theory of “Relatability”

The “Theory of Everything” was a sensitively directed inspirational biotic spectacle that is centered on Dr. Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, and his “tearjerking” struggle with a motor – neuron disease. Well-acted, the said film with its biopic elements is somewhat fairly conventional according to some critics, however, the technique of “relatability”, or in other terms using Hawking’s life experiences as a springboard to examine universal issues, proved to be a very feasible method for it to connect to its audience.

Although, as much as I want to dwell and react on the magnanimity of physical concepts, theories and ideologies that were presented by the film in a media of puns, courtship phrases, and intimidating witty slurs, I, myself, would rather talk about the films reconciliation with life. Particularly how Stephen Hawking not only fulfilled his life’s mission, yet also shared it with the people that loved him.

Now, let me start by meticulously analyzing the structures of the film.

James Marsh, an Oscar winning director, blatantly portrayed a dynamic film that engaged both fields of documentary filmography and narrative features that resulted to a brilliant combination of positive cinematography. He applied a technique of graceful vibrancy that complemented the script formed by Anthony McCarten. This was achieved alongside Benoît Delhomme, a cinematographer, by filming certain sequences in the style of old-fashioned home recordings and traditional cinematic with stylistic flourishes. This furthermore enhanced the movie’s central idea and performance that led to the formation of a structured movie that emphasized each corner of Stephen Hawking’s biographical accounts with the help of visual design that supported the subject matter.

The film really had the initial signs and markings of a valorizing cine-biographical film that is one of the safest and most conventional of its kind.

The movie provided a much deeper aspect on the life of a British theoretical physicist wherein “familiarity” of lives were compared and connected. This familiarity was shown by providing different perspectives from different characters in the story, or in the life of Stephen Hawking.

Eddie Redmayne (plays as Stephen Hawking) stunningly depicted the said factor of biographical filmography. His performance was so compelling for he did not only elucidate on how the audience would perceive Stephen Hawking (e.g. as a superbly intelligent scientist) but rather he effectively portrayed his wit, his haughtiness and his obstinacy. Again, this was a technique implemented by the director to not only expand the diversity of his viewers and audiences, but to also showcase natural intimacy and boldness, that not only average/normal people can exhibit, even unduly astute scientists as well.

Triumphing the difficulty and Augean task it would take to show the scientist’s physical decay was more than enough to impress its viewers, however, he was able to juxtapose it against his mental and emotional maturity as the film progressed. This was one of the things that I observed that was an absolute marvel. How he submerged his fashion-model identity with the use of remarkable physical and facial contortion provides a “windsome” charm to a character.

Next is Felicity Jones (plays as Jane Wilde), and her ability to communicate with Stephen despite a multitude of conflicted thoughts, and struggles with the use of simple gestures and expressions. Her character portrayed a strong young woman that delved between the ideas of femininity/relationships, how it was accepted before (1960’s) and how she managed to live with these principles in order to be with her loved one.

Another great factor of this visual representation of a life story was that the “love story” it showed, (even though this type of movie genre/theme/idea is now considered to be stereotypically cancerous) was not based on melodramatic soap-opera style love child with zero-sum ultimatums, but rather as a mature relationship between “imperfect” adults, fraught with many relatable and familiar complications, flaws and fatal setbacks. The director’s brilliance particularly during the denouement of the Hawking’s marriage, wherein his penchant for delicacy and lyricism was compared during the rustic first days of their romance, provided one of the most stunning allusions in the film.

But even with the said liberties and factors that made this film a spectacular eye show, the “Theory of Everything” triumphs as something deeper and more complex than facile great-man portraiture. This is because although Redmayne’s impishness and charm virtually eradicated Hawking’s real-life shortcomings and devastations, they’re still existent and evident, especially during the latter stages of his life/disease wherein he grows to be more and more dependent on Jane as his demands begin to seem increasingly peevish and cruel. But Jones, still also deserves just as much credit for her passive but more technically confusing portrayal of a woman who, far from being a tradition self-sacrificing helpmate, is trying to enliven her Christian conscience and conjugal devotion with her own academic career and evolving physical and spiritual needs.

Finally, another idea that impressed me about the director and actors as well was how the film carefully and meticulously depicted a precious life using a book, to find intimate, personal applications for Hawking’s cosmic inquiries, tracing the story of how the author of “A brief history of Time” came to defy time itself.

“The film achieves its uplift by acknowledging that uplift isn’t always possible, at least in the strictest sense. It is a very exceptional film, not because of its protagonists’ impressive triumphs, but because it honors their struggle.”