Page 26 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • November 26, 2014 ‘The Theory of Everything’ is a must-see film by Dennis Seuling “The Theory of Everything” tells the story of astrophys- icist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) from the point in the early 1960s when he began his doctoral studies at Cam- bridge. There, the gawky, shy scientist meets humanities student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), who responds to his intellect, sense of humor, and charm. At the age of 21, he develops puzzling infirmities and is diagnosed with a neu- rological disease that will gradually rob him of most motor functions while his mind will remain clear and fully func- tional. He will become completely dependent on others and eventually unable to communicate his thoughts. Medical opinion estimates that he has just two years left to live. The first half-hour of the movie shows Hawking before the disease becomes evident and starts to take its toll. He has good friends, some athletic ability, and an eye for pretty women, and mixes his intense studies with having fun. In this part of the film, Hawking is humanized. He is por- trayed as a young man with interests beyond his books, and his broad smile suggests just a hint of naughtiness. Most of the picture — and the most compelling portion — depicts his gradual physical decline while he manages to marry Jane, have children, present his theories to learned people worldwide, and become a celebrity. Spurred by Jane and supported by family and friends, Hawking achieves success even as the disease takes its toll on his body. Remarkably, even as his ability to speak declines and his muscles fail to perform, he retains his sense of humor. There are many fine performances in movies, but few as memorable and grueling as the one turned in by Redmayne. The actor puts himself in pretzel-like configurations, dis- torting his face, and giving the impression the size of his body has diminished. Clearly, it is an uncomfortable role. In addition, since movies are seldom filmed in sequence, Redmayne had to represent precisely what the stage of Hawking’s deterioration was for each scene. This role should vault Redmayne to a new phase of his career. Viewers have seen him perform admirably in “Les Miserables” (as Marius), “My Week with Marilyn,” and “The Other Boleyn Girl,” but in “The Theory of Every- thing,” he achieves an extraordinary level of performance — one that will surely garner him an Academy Award nomination. The camera is amazing at getting the viewer close to the action, but it is terrifyingly honest. A false note from an actor is magnified and can easily destroy credibility. One never sees a false moment in Redmayne’s performance, whether his Stephen is struggling to spoon up a morsel of food, cradle his infant son, or address a symposium of physicists. Viewers may recall Daniel Day-Lewis’ perfor- mance as Christy Brown in “My Left Foot,” since both roles require an actor to turn in a believable performance without his full variety of tools. Jones is outstanding as the woman who stands by Ste- Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking phen even when she learns of his devastating diagnosis. She wants to be with him for as long as time and the disease allow. As his condition worsens, she becomes his primary caretaker, devoting herself to her husband’s growing, con- stant needs. When two other people enter the scene — Jonathan Jones (Charlie Cox) and Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake) — the relationship between Stephen and Jane becomes more complicated. Both Jonathan and Elaine become caretakers and take on many of the responsibilities Jane used to handle by herself. The help provides Jane with needed relief, but also causes her to question her role in Stephen’s life. Director James Marsh based the film on Jane Hawking’s 2008 memoir, “Traveling to Infinity.” Although the movie does address Hawking’s mathematical inquiries into space and time, the primary focus by far is on the unconventional love story. Hawking is still alive at 72, having outlived his diagno- sis by over 40 years. Rated PG-13, “The Theory of Everything” is riveting, primarily because of Redmayne’s extraordinary perfor- mance. It is a “must see.”