James Marsh’s The Theory of Everything is a biographical picture adapted from the memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen written by Jane Hawking. From a framing perspective, this film is pretty ideal when compared to the other representations in this study and in films with disabled characters in general. According to Darke, most disability films construct the disabled characters as abject where the impaired are easily fatigued, totally dependent, socially isolated, asexual, and infantilized, and have an impaired posture (“No Life” 104). In fact, the film’s representation of Stephen Hawking’s (Eddie Redmayne) experience with the degenerative effects of ALS is unique when compared to other films of the same nature. Several scenes
…show more content…
In order for a more extensive critique of this change in representation, I turn to feminist and disability scholar Jenny Morris for her take on masculine portrayals of disabled men in film. In her feminist critique of films such as My Left foot (1989) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), which are films also based on real people, she observes that the films’ “male characters are metaphors for exploring dependency and vulnerability while relying on the general association of impotence with disability and heterosexuality with a stereotyped masculinity” (94). Even though we are reminded of Hawking’s sexuality in the film because he does father children, others are surprised by this idea, such as his friend Brian (David Lloyd) when he asks “does everything work?” This supports Morris’ idea of the relation between impotence and disability in film. Hawking sexual abilities are questioned because it is viewed that he is unable to perform sexually due to this disability. However, and contrasting Morris’ argument, the film does sexualize Hawking. Later in the narrative, there are scenes where Hawking looks at a penthouse magazine with the help of Elaine, his new caretaker who starts an affair with him because she is generally attracted to him. Hence, Hawking, contrasting previous stereotypes, is in fact an object of desire and, therefore, not a metaphor for
In order for a more extensive critique of this change in representation, I turn to feminist and disability scholar Jenny Morris for her take on masculine portrayals of disabled men in film. In her feminist critique of films such as My Left foot (1989) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), which are films also based on real people, she observes that the films’ “male characters are metaphors for exploring dependency and vulnerability while relying on the general association of impotence with disability and heterosexuality with a stereotyped masculinity” (94). Even though we are reminded of Hawking’s sexuality in the film because he does father children, others are surprised by this idea, such as his friend Brian (David Lloyd) when he asks “does everything work?” This supports Morris’ idea of the relation between impotence and disability in film. Hawking sexual abilities are questioned because it is viewed that he is unable to perform sexually due to this disability. However, and contrasting Morris’ argument, the film does sexualize Hawking. Later in the narrative, there are scenes where Hawking looks at a penthouse magazine with the help of Elaine, his new caretaker who starts an affair with him because she is generally attracted to him. Hence, Hawking, contrasting previous stereotypes, is in fact an object of desire and, therefore, not a metaphor for