The Theory of Everything -- Film Review

The Theory of Everything

Directed by James Marsh

This is a beautifully made film about the life of Stephen Hawking, who, at the beginning of a promising career in theoretical physics, was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease).  His doctor told him there was nothing he could do for him and gave him two years to live (in 1963), but he is still alive today, and continues a very productive life as a theoretical physicist.  He was lucky.  He had an exceptional woman who loved him, was willing marry him and take on the arduous task of caring for him, dedicating herself to keeping him alive and giving him the best life he could have under the most unfortunate circumstances.  If it wasn't for her, he would be long dead.  They raised three children together and he is one of the leading theoretical physicists in the world today.  This is not a tragedy from any perspective.  It is a great story of multifaceted triumph of the human spirit against tremendous odds. 

The film does a number of things very well.  The characters of Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and his wife, Jane (Felicity Jones), are very well drawn.  Superb acting brings the characters to life with great vividness.  The film also very effectively portrays the formidable task of caring for someone with a progressive, degenerative disease.   My family went through this in a ten year decline of my mother with Parkinson's Disease and other ailments.  My father insisted on keeping her at home and caring for her himself, which he did with unswerving devotion all the way to the end in 2010.  I was there at one point when she was slumped in a wheel chair with her head down refusing to eat, and the nurse told us her body was shutting down and she would probably not last two more weeks.  My dad told me to go uptown and get some jars of baby food, which I did.  I brought them back, he fed them to her with a spoon, and she ate it.  In two days she was eating normally.  She lived another four years as a terminal patient. 

The point is that having one person who is totally committed to caring for such a one who is disabled and hopelessly declining can greatly extend their life and vastly improve the quality of their final years.  It is not something you can buy; it is not something you can manufacture; it is not something that can be done by institutions.  The value and advisability of such a herculean effort I will not discuss.  It is something born out of inner necessity -- love, if you will -- on the part of the one who takes on the task, like someone who decides to climb Mt. Everest, or sail across the ocean.  One cannot force a person to do it, but a person who has set his or her mind to the task can hardly be dissuaded.  It is an obvious, unquestionable dedication that does not quail before the most insuperable challenges.  I think it is what Nietzsche had in mind when he wrote that whatever is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.  Jane Hawking shared this fathomless inner drive for selfless dedication. 

As I watched the film I wondered how this woman was produced.  She is unlike any woman I have encountered in my adult life.  I am sure it had to do with the fact that she is English, and that she came of age in the early 1960s, but I feel there has to be more to it.  Over many years I have had dealings with many young American women, and my observation is that as you get close to them, you find great question marks over their lives.  Particularly in their dealings with men, sex, marriage, motherhood, all of the classic aspects of femininity, are very problematic and confusing to them.  Their heads are full of illusions and conflicts and uncertainty to the point where they are just not equipped to deal with intimate personal relationships.  It is very typical and does not require extensive documentation. 

The girl in this film is not like that.  She is absolutely solid in her personal identity, her sense of herself as a woman, and what she wanted for her life.  She is remarkably free of serious psychopathology.  She had an unshakable self confidence in her ability to deal with the arduous undertaking that she was embarking on.  And she achieved what she set out to do.  She got her Ph.D., she raised three children, and she cared for Stephen with unflinching dedication that enabled him to have a long, productive life far beyond anyone's expectations.  If there is a Nobel Prize for superwomen, she should get it. 

It is probably true that she was naive and that her self confidence was inflated.  My own experience with my father caring for my mother evinces the need for outside help.  No matter how determined and self reliant one feels, the task of caring for a person with extreme disability overwhelms the capability of a single person.  A reliable support network is necessary.  My father eventually accepted this against initial resistance, and the film shows that Jane Hawking also built a support network in the face of the toll it was taking upon her. 

The film does not dwell on the conflicted aspects of the relationship between Jane and Stephen nor on the toll that the weight and burden of caring for him took on her as he progressed in his illness.   Rather, it emphasizes her sturdiness and resilience and unflagging dedication to Stephen.   It is an inspiring, touching story that is relevant to many people in the United States and around the world.  There is enough of the physics to get a flavor of Stephen Hawking's work, but the film is not about ideas.  This is a human drama, a romance, a story that is intimately personal.   It is an achievement of the highest quality, beautifully filmed and masterfully told.  It should become a classic.