A Theory of Everything, The Movie: Hollywood-ized

I've Seen This Movie, Only Better, Before 

I looked for "The Theory of Everything (2014)" after learning that Eddie Redmayne had won the best actor at the Academy Awards. I stumbled over the movie weeks ago while looking for something to watch, but failed to allow myself to be absorbed because I'd already seen this story told in a better and more sensitive way. I was spoiled by a better version. 

Last year the Benedict Cumberbatch craze was in full-force, delivering innumerable YouTube videos of his previous work, including "Hawking (2004)", the story episodic story of Stephen Hawking's rise to fame as the foremost physicist & cosmologist in the world. I found it to be disturbing, a little sappy, but all over a good watch. Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of Hawking was frightening and poignant without being too long or tangled in the minutia. 

Dr. Stephen Hawking and Benedict Cumberbatch. Unknown Photographer, Unknown source courtesy to The Radio Times

 The differences in the recent version and the ten-year-old presentation are vast - the cinematograhy used in "Hawking" was simple BBC budget series - a little sepia tone, a little black and white, no special lenses, no special sets, no unusual wardrobe. "The Theory of Everything" featured a filter that blurred every image, softening everything on-screen until one has to wonder if one's corrective lens prescription has suddenly gone out of whack. It's painful from the very first "happy" moment, as Hawking engages in a sporting bicycle race with his roommate. 

Benedict Cumberbatch does play the role a little "My Left Foot", working the painful damage of Motor-Neuron Disease carefully, adding just a little more difficulty as the years go by. His anger and sadness at not having enough time to be recognized are apparent. He voiced it, bending his world and his mind until he finally came up with his thesis, but not before seasons of struggle and inner-turmoil. In contrast, Eddie Redmayne plunged into the role with the crippling disease almost immediately. We were not given much time with the unaffected Hawking before he was struck down. It didn't help the audience identify with him.

 

The story was different, too - in the episodic version, we are introduced to a quiet secretary hired by Hawking to help him write his book. This is familiar - in previous biographical work on Hawking's life, this mostly silent young man seemed to have the strength to help Hawking with his needs, physical as well as mental. What was left out of those tasteful accounts was dashed and splashed all over the Hollywood version. The meek secretary became the choral teacher, and suddenly Hawking's wife was seriously involved with him. It's entirely possible that the previous versions kept the idea under the table because Hawking and wife were possibly entertaining thoughts of amicable divorce. A very British story, stiff upper lip and all has been turned lurid, to sell tickets.

All this considered, I wonder why Eddie Redmayne won this award. Mimicking Hawking's condition was of course exhausting, but was it something so new? Haven't we seen this over and over again, from "Rainman", to "A Beautiful Mind"? What is so mysterious about portraying a famous person with a disability that grabs the Academy and wrings awards from it like so much dishwater? 

This is not to say that Mr. Redmayne did not do a great job - he did. he was believable, soft, thoughtful, brilliant, and accomplished. I think that the production around him could have done a much better job, though. In comparison with Cumberbatch's version, it seemed as though the production should have been better for him. 

One final note:  I noticed the flagrant use of actors from "Hawking" in "A Theory of Everything". A feeling of "Loooook! We acknowlege "Hawking" , and here's proof: It's Stephen's father! Or: Hey! See who else we fit in, just to poke the Cumberbatchians!" At some point I gave up struggling with who was whom, and resigned myself to just letting the movie flow - and hopefully end. Unfortunately, it was painful instead of inspiring.