Stephen Hawking

“The Theory of Everything” explores the relationship between physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and his first wife, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). The film premieres Friday.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Focus Features | Daily Texan Staff

“The Theory of Everything” is a film about both failure and success. On one hand, it pays tribute to the achievements and hardships of Stephen Hawking — one of the most celebrated scientific minds of all time. On the other, it explores the slow deterioration of his romantic relationship with his first wife and greatest friend. The balance between the narratives is in favor of the romanticized account of their relationship, which ultimately displays Hawking’s life as an engaging and emotional journey.

While studying at Cambridge, young Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) meets Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). The two bond instantly, around the time Hawking begins to develop an intricate theory about black hole radiation. Tragically, Hawking discovers his body is deteriorating because of a motor neuron disease, which shuts down his body over the course of several years and leaves him nearly paralyzed. Despite this, Stephen marries Jane and becomes world famous for his research. As he becomes more renowned, and his body continues to shut down, Stephen and Jane’s marriage begins to disintegrate. This leaves the couple wondering whether their relationship can survive both the destruction of Stephen’s body and the fame thrust upon the physicist. 

The focus on Hawking’s relationship with Jane bodes well for the film because the true emotion of the movie relies on the bond between the two. It’s interesting to see the marriage develop, which makes it more devastating when it becomes inevitably clear it will not survive. Anthony McCarten’s script details both the humor and tragedy that defined the duo’s time together.

It is indeed jarring to watch the breakdown of his body. Director James Marsh does not gloss over how agonizing the disease is to Hawking. The gradual impact of the disease is subtle and disturbing. Every limp and failed attempt to create motion are painful to witness, but they make his journey feel more inspiring.

Redmayne is great at portraying the awkward yet clever demeanor Hawking possesses. The character becomes more enjoyable as he struggles with and adapts to the disease. Redmayne underplays some of the arrogance that the real-life Hawking has been accused of possessing and spends more time playing-up Hawking’s charismatic side. Jones wonderfully displays the patient struggle with her husband’s disability and success. She accurately showcases the kindness of the character, along with the sorrow she feels as she recognizes the marriage is slowly collapsing.

“The Theory of Everything” is heavily romanticized yet remains an intriguing look into Hawking’s accomplished life. The film explores the more emotional side of his legacy and does so with brilliant acting from the leads. It examines a relationship that is wonderful to watch and heartbreaking to see collapse. The combination of McCarten’s screenplay and Marsh’s direction creates a stellar look at both Hawking’s accomplishments and failures.

Photo Credit: Ploy Buraparate | Daily Texan Staff

In one corner, we have prominent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, well-known for his books about the
universe.

In the other, we have evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who popularized the “selfish gene” view of natural selection and provided a face for the atheist movement.

These major scientific figures both released memoirs this month, but neither one offers the level of insight that readers expected.

Hawking’s memoir, “My Brief History,” is the lighter of the two and perhaps does a better job of providing an overview of the author’s life. At a scant 144 pages, with many pictures, there are times when it reads like a high school essay. It goes over the expected beats, but there’s little that can’t be found in Hawking’s
Wikipedia entry.

His style is light and modest, sometimes amusing — “When I was 12, one of my friends bet another friend a bag of sweets that I would never amount to anything. I don’t know if this bet was ever settled, and if so, which way it was decided,” — but the point of a memoir isn’t to just go over the details of your life, it’s to provide some level of perspective looking back on it. Major events, such as Hawking’s divorces, are glossed over briefly, without going into details about the events or emotions that led to them.

Dawkins’ memoir, “An Appetite for Wonder,” suffers from the same problem, which only adds to the stereotype of the emotionless Spock-like scientist. Additionally, Dawkins distracts himself every chance he can to make obvious and out-of-place jabs at religion. Though some of his stories are amusing, many of them more closely resemble the ramblings of a man who needs to let go of the talking stick and give someone
else a chance.

The second half of both books are more exciting than the first because instead of looking at childhood moments, they focus on the science they each did in order to become prominent in their fields. Hawking’s thoughts on black holes and other strange phenomena in our universe read interestingly at times. But when it comes to astrophysics, it’s nearly impossible to present anything in a way that will make sense to a layperson. Dawkins fairs better, but he’s working with easier material — animal behavior.

Neither book is entirely
satisfying, with Dawkins’ being especially disappointing because it includes a few problematic passages that will likely rub readers the wrong way: One has already made headlines for dismissing claims of childhood sexual abuse and another accuses his critics of attacking him for being an educated white male, showing that he doesn’t understand the first thing about the concept of privilege. Hawking also offers up a few lines that will make some readers cringe, such as his
suggestion “that disabled people should concentrate on things that their handicap doesn’t prevent them from doing and not regret those they can’t do.”

Despite the underwhelming nature of both titles, it’s hard not to recommend them to those who admire the
scientists. These are brilliant men who at least attempt to describe the paths they took. That they can’t truly reveal any of their dark secrets, mistakes and regrets they’ve made along the way perhaps reveals more about their personalities than
they realize.