Even though The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything are in fact more different from one another than, say, two typically mindless, explosion-laden blockbusters, it's hard not to compare the movies to one another. For a number of reasons, I'd give the edge to The Imitation Game. Still, The Theory of Everything is a fairly good film.
As is so often the case with biopics, the performances make the movie. Eddie Redmayne, who has lurked at the periphery of true fame for several movies now, is sure to break out in a big way now; his nomination for a Best Actor Oscar is guaranteed. He gives an exceptional performance as Stephen Hawking, in the face of two enormous challenges. First, the man he is playing is still alive, thus creating the need for a more spot-on "impersonation" that at the same time doesn't actually feel like a trick or an act. Second, he must portray the advancement of Hawking's motor neuron disease over a period of decades. In both of these aspects, Redmayne is flawless. His carefully modulated physicality early in the film hints that something is wrong even before Hawking's condition in diagnosed. His contortions in the later part of the film feel absolutely realistic, but leave you thinking afterward that he must have spent every day shooting the film in intense pain. I feel like Oscar voting for Best Actor could be sharply divided between those most wowed by this "degree of difficulty" and those impressed by the endless nuance of Benedict Cumberbatch's Alan Turing. (Though I admire both performances, my vote would go to the latter. But I think both camps may lose to those supporting the comeback of Michael Keaton -- another fine performance, though for me a distant third.)
Another impressive performance, though in an entirely different way, comes from Felicity Jones as Stephen's wife Jane. I suppose if you know next to nothing about Stephen Hawking's life, this qualifies as a spoiler, but Jane ends up divorcing him after about two decades of marriage. Felicity Jones thus has the challenge of taking the audience through the gradual decay of the relationship. And she has another challenge in mostly doing this opposite an increasingly restricted actor who can't be giving her much to work off of. The fact that Jane comes off in fact sympathetic at the end of all this is a great testament to Jones' efforts.
So, as with The Imitation Game, the acting is flawless. And, as with The Imitation Game, it's the script that's flawed. It's ironic, given Stephen Hawking's quest for a unifying theory of physics, but the problem is that the movie lacks a unifying theme. It doesn't zero in on Hawking's work, or his disease, or his marriage -- it's about all those things, and doesn't really seem to be making a single, clear statement that weaves together all those separate threads.
Actually, the movie comes closest to crystallizing when viewed not as the story of Stephen Hawking, but of Jane Hawking. I was feeling this by about the halfway point, and the end credits confirmed that I wasn't imagining it -- the script is attributed as an adaptation of her autobiography. I suppose the powers-that-be thought it would be harder to market a movie about "the woman married to Stephen Hawking." But even in this focus, the movie stumbles a bit; the last 15-20 minutes of the film shift theme as Professor Hawking releases his famous book, A Brief History of Time. Jane suddenly feels like an extraneous character in the story she had been secretly the center of.
Continuing the inevitable comparison, The Theory of Everything is, like The Imitation Game, a film for people drawn to good performances. It arguably offers even more to that audience, though it also offers a bit less to the general audience. I would grade it a B-.
No comments:
Post a Comment