The Theory of Everything was as captivating and intriguing as the critics and audiences had boasted it was. The film focuses on the relationship between Jane Wilde Hawking and Stephen Hawking, Stephen's diagnosis and his work in physics. Premièring last September at the Toronto Film Festival, the film has continued to garner attention from the masses and from award boards. With it's UK release earlier this month, many have flocked to the cinema to learn more about the infamous Hawking and to understand more about a man who has taught us so much about the world we live in.
The film is heartbreaking from the outset. We all know the condition Hawking is in now, so when our first encounter of him in the film is of a happy and mobile young man, it can be difficult to watch knowing the eventual outcome. Watching a disease completely envelope someone is tough but thankfully, the film had some well timed moments of comic relief. Even once the marriage between Hawking and his wife dissolves, the film remains uplifting. Trying simply to mirror the strength and determination of Hawking to not let his disease over come him. One interesting element was the involvement of Hawking himself in the film. In order to achieve a more realistic electronic voice for actor Eddie Redmayne, Hawking's own electronic voice is used. This was a nice touch and showed the support the film had from its subject but was also likely a relief for Redmayne as it was one thing he wouldn't have to worry about perfecting.
The acting could not have been easy. Whilst it's always difficult trying to embody the character of someone real, it's arguably much harder to portray someone as famous and respected as Stephen Hawking. Redmayne did, however, do a wonderful job of showing his characters struggle with movement and speech without looking gimmicky or exaggerated. Whilst Redmayne is certainly growing in popularity, I think it was important not to clog this film with famous actors and actresses. The story needed a cast that were humble and down to earth otherwise the characters, who themselves seem 'real' and homely would have been lost in a sea of Hollywood egos.
What was interesting to me was the way the film depicts extramarital affairs. Both Hawking and his wife experience romance, lust and desire out-with their relationship with each other. Perhaps it was because the film completely engaged with me and I was lost in their world and their struggles, but I didn't feel like either affair was deplorable. I completely empathised with Jane and how hard her life must have been taking care of the man she loved as he deteriorated before her. Stephen was understanding of the fact that his wife needed help in more areas than one and once he got to know Jonathan he saw a man that could make her happy. It was bitter sweet to see their relationship end although, it seems that that's what they needed to progress in their lives individually.
As for the films ending... I thought closing such a poignant and thought-provoking film with Hawking and Wilde gazing upon their children was wonderful. It showed how despite having a life seemingly focused purely on science, Stephen was and is able to appreciate his children and the family he created. The scene lingered which allowed it to seep in properly and have the desired effect. I left the cinema in awe of a man who continues to challenge himself and the doctors who originally estimated only 2 years. How wonderful and challenging it must be to have a brain as quick and as inquisitive as his and not be able to use every fibre of your being to explore it.
This widely anticipated film was not on my list of must-sees for 2015. But with the media storm surrounding it, I decided to sit down with a glass of wine and watch from the comfort of my own home as James Franco and Seth Rogen taunt and humiliate one of the worlds most immature yet hostile leaders.
Rogen and Franco have made a name for themselves in contemporary Hollywood comedy films, in particular, by appealing to young teenagers and stoners. Having said that, I know this film will be seen and likely enjoyed by the masses and probably by some critics. So for what seems like the millionth time, I'm writing from my own personal point of view. A view that may not be agreed with but is valid nonetheless. Back to the actors! I've enjoyed their work individually but somehow, when they team up I find myself curling into a ball of cringe and wishing I hadn't started watching in the first place. The comedy is simple at best and franc-ly (see what I did there...) whatever acting skills the two possess separately are flushed down the toilet when they appear together.
The film in question garnered months of publicity following a hack on Sony by what many would believe was the North Korean government - despite several computer hacking specialists claiming that this is unlikely. This then led to an announcement that The Interview would not be shown in traditional theatres but instead would have an online release. Personally, I opted to view the film on youtube. It's hard to believe that this was not an elaborate marketing scheme to release an average and underwhelming film to a blockbuster sized audience. The most surprising element was the inclusion of several celebrities and 'serious' actors, most likely vying to break into the younger audiences and to revive careers in this 'huge hit'. Forgive me but each time a new familiar face popped up, I found myself asking 'aren't you better than this?' - obviously not!
The film is filled to the brim with stereotypes and easy gags produced solely for three minutes of entertainment that will be forgotten by the end of the film. Less than 30 minutes into the film, we are treated to our first drug induced party scene. Admittedly only a short clip, this sort of scene has become a staple in Rogen/Franco films. Everyone loves an alcohol fuelled party set to electronic music, right? Slow-mo walking, raging fight scenes and a little bit of nudity combined with innuendos, crude language and stupidity - that is the essence of The Interview. And the forced love story between Aaron (Seth Rogen) and Sook (Diana Bang) was a prime example of filler content. At nearly two and a half hours, it's a real waste of time.
I haven't even brushed upon the plot of the film yet. James Franco is Dave Skylark, a popular television chat show host and Seth Rogen is Aaron Rapoport his producer. After a series of bizarre scenes including a gay Eminem and a bald Rob Lowe, Skylark discovers an article stating the show is a favourite of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. After another series of unnecessary events, producer Aaron flies to China and sets up the interview with Sook, one of Kim Jong-Un's attractive henchwomen. As the rest of the entertainment world comments on the legitimacy of the interview, the CIA contact the pair of idiots, for lack of a better word, and instruct them to kill the leader. Once in Korea, they meet the leader and engage in several comical adventures together.
Spoilers coming up...
Kim Jong-Un charms Dave (Franco) and as a result, the TV host gets rid of one of the important strips of poison that would be used to kill the leader and even stops his partner Aaron (Rogen) from completing the assassinating with the final strip. But of course, this problem is resolved in true Hollywood style with the best friends reuniting, with the help of the attractive female side kick Sook, to kill the leader with a tank.
This films only redeeming quality is it's power to potentially humiliate an awful dictator. But other than that, The Interview was too long for what it was and contributes nothing to society. Some people who are uneducated on the situation in North Korea will watch this film and not quite understand the extremity of the cause and plight of the people living there. I certainly hope that this film, if anything, makes audiences google North Korea and find out what is actually happening.
