The Theory of Everything is a classic love-conquers-all story with an intellectual spin. Based on the memoirs of Stephen Hawking’s first wife, the plot follows the development of his and Jane Hawking’s start at Cambridge University. The power of the movie as a love story lies in the romantic appeal of Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. As the characters begin to fall in love, so do you: with either, or both of them.

The camerawork is notable for its beautification properties. Every shot exudes elegance and charm. There is a suggestion of the vintage in its use of filters, and a suggestion of the idealistic in its tendency towards visual perfection. The atmosphere of the May Ball scene is infused with the magical hues of a fairytale. The action is set against a background of Cambridge at its best; the favorite postcard-image of King’s College Chapel and Clare College figuring often and prominently in the distance. At times the movie feels a bit like an advertisement for Cambridge. There are multiple shots of the town: all of them flattering, some of them incongruent to the needs of the storyline. The cameraman is brazenly using the town and University to seduce the audience.

Exiting the cinema, I didn’t feel much enlightened about what precisely it was that Hawking had accomplished academically in his lifetime. The movie does not purport to be a detailed summary of his career as a physicist. Rather, it openly presents itself as a love story; and succeeds greatly in being a very wholesome and extremely touching one.

There are certain moments of lighthearted humor. At times, the movie tends towards tasteful romantic comedy; yet its emotionalist riptide always carries it away, again. Redmayne is magnificent. It is when Hawking’s illness has progressed, and Redmayne is limited to expressing himself with eyes and nearly imperceptible movements of lips and brows, that the sublimity of his acting skill is thrown into stark relief.

The Theory of Everything is superbly, and very consciously, inspirational. Extremely and overly sentimental at times, it purposefully tugs at your tear ducts almost from its very beginning. Certain scenes are more subtle than others in pursuing their aim of moving the audience. Yet even the blatantly maudlin ones are satisfying and emotionally filling. The audience comes away with the comfortable feeling of having received its dose of poignancy for the week.

Interview: James Marsh