Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Oliveros, Joshua 2014-74128 1

Reaction Paper
Theory of Relatability
The Theory of Everything was a sensitively directed inspirational biotic spectacle
that is centered on Dr. Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, and his tearjerking
struggle with a motor neuron disease. Well-acted, the said film with its biopic elements is
somewhat fairly conventional according to some critics, however, the technique of
relatability, or in other terms using Hawkings life experiences as a springboard to examine
universal issues, proved to be a very feasible method for it to connect to its audience.
Although, as much as I want to dwell and react on the magnanimity of physical
concepts, theories and ideologies that were presented by the film in a media of puns,
courtship phrases, and intimidating witty slurs, I, myself, would rather talk about the films
reconciliation with life. Particularly how Stephen Hawking not only fulfilled his lifes
mission, yet also shared it with the people that loved him.
Now, let me start by meticulously analyzing the structures of the film.
James Marsh, an Oscar winning director, blatantly portrayed a dynamic film that
engaged both fields of documentary filmography and narrative features that resulted to a
brilliant combination of positive cinematography. He applied a technique of graceful vibrancy
that complemented the script formed by Anthony McCarten. This was achieved alongside
Benot Delhomme, a cinematographer, by filming certain sequences in the style of oldfashioned home recordings and traditional cinematic with stylistic flourishes. This
furthermore enhanced the movies central idea and performance that led to the formation of a
structured movie that emphasized each corner of Stephen Hawkings biographical accounts
with the help of visual design that supported the subject matter.
The film really had the initial signs and markings of a valorizing cine-biographical
film that is one of the safest and most conventional of its kind.
The movie provided a much deeper aspect on the life of a British theoretical physicist
wherein familiarity of lives were compared and connected. This familiarity was shown by
providing different perspectives from different characters in the story, or in the life of Stephen
Hawking.
Eddie Redmayne (plays as Stephen Hawking) stunningly depicted the said factor of
biographical filmography. His performance was so compelling for he did not only elucidate
on how the audience would perceive Stephen Hawking (e.g. as a superbly intelligent
scientist) but rather he effectively portrayed his wit, his haughtiness and his obstinacy. Again,
this was a technique implemented by the director to not only expand the diversity of his
viewers and audiences, but to also showcase natural intimacy and boldness, that not only
average/normal people can exhibit, even unduly astute scientists as well.
Triumphing the difficulty and Augean task it would take to show the scientists
physical decay was more than enough to impress its viewers, however, he was able to
juxtapose it against his mental and emotional maturity as the film progressed. This was one of
the things that I observed that was an absolute marvel. How he submerged his fashion-model
identity with the use of remarkable physical and facial contortion provides a windsome
charm to a character.

Next is Felicity Jones (plays as Jane Wilde), and her ability to communicate with
Stephen despite a multitude of conflicted thoughts, and struggles with the use of simple
gestures and expressions. Her character portrayed a strong young woman that delved between
the ideas of femininity/relationships, how it was accepted before (1960s) and how she
managed to live with these principles in order to be with her loved one.
Another great factor of this visual representation of a life story was that the love
story it showed, (even though this type of movie genre/theme/idea is now considered to be
stereotypically cancerous) was not based on melodramatic soap-opera style love child with
zero-sum ultimatums, but rather as a mature relationship between imperfect adults, fraught
with many relatable and familiar complications, flaws and fatal setbacks. The directors
brilliance particularly during the denouement of the Hawkings marriage, wherein his
penchant for delicacy and lyricism was compared during the rustic first days of their
romance, provided one of the most stunning allusions in the film.
But even with the said liberties and factors that made this film a spectacular eye show,
the Theory of Everything triumphs as something deeper and more complex than facile
great-man portraiture. This is because although Redmaynes impishness and charm virtually
eradicated Hawkings real-life shortcomings and devastations, theyre still existent and
evident, especially during the latter stages of his life/disease wherein he grows to be more and
more dependent on Jane as his demands begin to seem increasingly peevish and cruel. But
Jones, still also deserves just as much credit for her passive but more technically confusing
portrayal of a woman who, far from being a tradition self-sacrificing helpmate, is trying to
enliven her Christian conscience and conjugal devotion with her own academic career and
evolving physical and spiritual needs.
Finally, another idea that impressed me about the director and actors as well was how
the film carefully and meticulously depicted a precious life using a book, to find intimate,
personal applications for Hawkings cosmic inquiries, tracing the story of how the author of
A brief history of Time came to defy time itself.
The film achieves its uplift by acknowledging that uplift isnt always possible, at
least in the strictest sense. It is a very exceptional film, not because of its protagonists
impressive triumphs, but because it honors their struggle.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai