Theory of Everything is too Conventional for its Own Good

Both Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne have been on the brink of career breakthroughs for several years now. Jones won acclaim for her naturalistic performance in 2011's "Like Crazy", which failed to nab her substantial awards attention, and any success with meaty roles. Redmayne has been apart of several high profile projects, namely 2012's "Les Miserables" which, I believe almost nabbed him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

So, it makes no sense then that 2 actors on the verge of mainstream success team up in a buzzy, high-profile biopic detailing the relationship between the brilliant Stephen Hawking and his incredibly strong (now ex) wife Jane. Directed by James Marsh, the film has enjoyed much acclaim, especially for Redmayne's performance. which requires a vast amount of physical commitment from the young actor.

But despite the Oscar buzz, "Theory of Everything" is far from relevatory, and in fact, is just an ordinary biopic.

Though the focus of the film could have easily focused on Hawking's (Redmayne) rise to fame, it actually is more concerned with Hawking's marriage to his first wife Jane (Jones). The two meet at a dinner party at college, and are instantly attracted to one another. But things get complicated when Hawking is diagnosed with motor neuron disease, slowly crippling him and eating away at his body; he is given two years to live, tops. Though he urges Jane to leave him, she refuses, insisting to stay by his side and enjoy the short amount of time they have together. They marry, have a child, and try to start a life together.

But things get more complicated as Stephen's disease weakens him more and more, with Jane not only having to care for their child, but for him too, sometimes running back and forth between rooms to dote on the both of them. The marriage becomes more and more strained as Stephen becomes more and more successful.

But for all the time spent detailing the relationship between these two, I never once bought that Jane would throw away everything to spend her life with a man who could die at any moment. Save for a few cute first date scenes thrown in before the narrative starts, there isn't really any fire between the two characters. The film wants to sell us this romance, but fails to do so in any way that's really believable. That angle of the film gets even weaker as the film goes on; soon Marsh's scope becomes too distracted by trying to fit in parts that detail Stephen's successes. It almost feels like he's trying to fit a triangle blog into a square peg. It's a rather straightforward, bland biopic with some pretty above average performances.

But despite the film's faults, both Jones and Redmayne give it their all. Though I preferred Jones' work in "Like Crazy" to her work here, she still gives a steely performance, despite not having any support from the film whatsoever. There was a lot of opportunities for her to really display the frustration and exhaustion that was created as a result of her situation, much like Jennifer Connelly in "A Beautiful Mind", but the film reserves her to the usual "supportive wife" meme, despite the film itself being adapted from Jane's memoirs. There is one scene towards the end, however, shared with Redmayne, where she breaks down, and despite my annoyances with the film, I couldn't help but break down with her.

Speaking of Redmayne, he gives the most physically demanding performance since John Hawkes in "The Sessions", maybe even more so. It's honestly very hard to determine him from the real Stephen Hawking at some points; it's the most authentic thing about the film. However, Redmayne really doesn't have a chance to delve deep into Hawking as a character; so much of his performance lies in the physicality, which is pretty commendable, but hollow at the same time.

The film does have some moving moments, aided by a gorgeously understated score by Jóhann Jóhannsson. But for all of its attempts at being emotionally engaging, Theory of Everything is never able to rise above its familiar, very contrived execution. 

Grade: C

Oscar Chances: Despite my personal reservations with the film, this is no doubt the middle of the road, emotional film that resonates with Oscar voters, especially when it has such a transformative performance at its center; actors eat that up with spoons. Actor for Redmayne is a lock, and I guess you could say Actress is too. Picture? Probably, with some other below the belt categories like score and costuming recognizing it. Redmayne may face some stiff competition from Michael Keaton, or David Oyelowo if "Selma" really catches on like I think its going to, but until the critics start annointing their winners, he is the Best Actor frontrunner.