>> Hello.
I'm Annette Insdorf,
film professor
at Columbia University,
and for more than 25 years,
moderator of "Reel Pieces"
at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y.
We are in the Kaufmann
Concert Hall of 92Y,
where we have been bringing
the best of films
and film artists to New Yorkers.
It is my pleasure to share
the highlights
of "The Reel Pieces"
interview series with NYC Life.
Stephen Hawking has led
an extraordinary life,
overcoming debilitating
physical infirmity
to become a world-renowned
astrophysicist.
We know less about his wife,
Jane Hawking.
Both individuals are superbly
incarnated in
"The Theory of Everything,"
which I previewed
on November 5, 2014, before
interviewing the splendid young
British actors Eddie Redmayne
and Felicity Jones.
He won the Best Actor Oscar
for capturing Hawking's
complex trajectory
from mere awkwardness
as a Cambridge student in 1963
to the search for new ways
to move and express himself.
Redmayne had already done superb
work in films
like "My Week with Marilyn"
and "The Yellow Handkerchief."
And he made quite an impression
in "Les Mis" singing, too.
Felicity Jones earned
a Best Actress Academy Award
nomination for her role
as Hawking's wife, Jane.
Previously, she starred
in "Like Crazy"
and Ralph Fiennes'
"The Invisible Woman,"
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2,"
and my own favorite,
"Hysteria" from 2011.
Director James Marsh
is best known for "Man on Wire."
It won the Best Documentary
Oscar
for chronicling how
Philippe Petit came to walk
between the Twin Towers
of the World Trade Center
in 1974.
With "The Theory of Everything,"
Marsh went from the sky
of "Man on Wire" to the cosmos.
Enjoy.
♪♪
I have a lot of questions
about how this all came together
because it's a very rich,
moving, and,
as far as I understand,
authentic film.
I'll start with Eddie Redmayne.
Eddie, we know that
Stephen Hawking has this
motor neuron disease and that
he learned and you learned
in terms of playing him
that at some point,
all muscular control shuts down.
That is the most terrible thing
for a human being,
and perhaps just as bad
in a certain conceptual sense
for the actor
who has to have an increasingly
limited physical vocabulary.
Could you tell us a little bit
about the preparation
that you had to engage
in to play this man?
>> When I got cast,
I knew embarrassingly
little about Stephen Hawking.
And, uh, so I...
the day after I got cast,
I went to a motor neuron
disease clinic,
an ALS clinic in London,
called the Queen Square
Neurology Clinic.
And I met with a specialist
there called Dr. Katie Sidle.
And she basically educated us
on what this disease is.
And she, with her
clinical nurse,
introduced herself
in the next four months
to many people suffering
from this brutal disease
and to their --
to their families.
And so it was about
really investigating
the physical reality,
but also the --
the emotional reality
and the ramifications that --
of -- of living with ALS.
What's interesting about MND
is -- motor neuron disease --
is you have what are called
upper neurons and lower neurons.
And if the upper neurons go,
there is a -- a rigidity.
If the lower neurons go,
there's a kind of -- a wilting.
And ALS is a combination
of those two things.
But how it manifests itself
in each sufferer
is completely unique.
So I, because there's
no footage of Stephen that I
could find before the '80s,
it was about -- by which
point he's in the wheelchair --
it was about finding
as much photographs
as I could and taking it
to the specialist,
taking these photos.
And she would decipher
what muscles were
stopping working when.
Um, so things like there's
a wedding
photo of Jane and Stephen.
And Stephen's
holding Jane's hand.
But his hand is on top,
and you can see he's putting
all his weight into her.
And his hand is wilting.
So you knew by that date,
his hand had gone.
So we tried to sort of create
a tr--
a physical, uh,
projection of what
his physical decline was.
And -- and then, I said --
I decided to work with a dancer,
a woman called Alex Reynolds.
And she helped me,
over these four months,
find ways of teaching yourself
to shorten muscles.
It felt like training for a
sort of marathon or something.
You know, really trying
to teach your body to readjust
because unfortunately,
we knew from the outset
that we weren't gonna
be shooting chronologically.
So within a day,
you know, that sort of --
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down.
You were not
shooting chronologically?
>> Unfortunately, no.
Unfortunately, and -- and James,
our director,
did fight pretty hard for it.
But, um, it --
it -- nowadays it's economically
unviable, um, unless you're --
unless you're "Boyhood,"
in which you can do it.
So anyways, um,
but, no, we were --
>> So were there, forgive me,
days where you, for example,
would have to shoot a scene
at one time of the day
in one stage of
Stephen Hawking's life,
and then at another time
a completely different
in the same day even?
>> I mean, I'll never forget --
our first day
was a trial by fire
for both of us.
We started off
that scene
where they're spinning.
And then at lunchtime,
it was when Stephen was
on two walking sticks.
And then in the afternoon,
it was when they're in their 40s
in the chair.
So it was quite a -- it was --
that was the first day.
Sleepless night before that one,
but --
>> Okay.
I was sort of impressed
before knowing this.
And now I'm kind of in awe
because I just assumed
that it had to have been shot
chronologically in order
to give you the opportunity
to get your body used
to that progression
or degression.
>> Unfortunately not.
But what was amazing
is James gave both of us,
you know, this time,
which is so rare in film.
And for the last few weeks,
it was about
the two of us working together
because there's a sense of --
of when this person is suffering
and they lose their facilities,
it's like -- it's --
it's -- Jane becomes, like,
an extension of his --
his body almost.
It was like a dance.
>> And in a way
when it's not shot
chronologically, you know
you're gonna be just jumping off
a high diving board,
um, into deep waters.
So it makes you
really put as much time
into the preparation.
And so we were so lucky on this
that we had a -- we had time.
We had months on our own
to get to know these characters
and understand them.
But what was amazing
in the same way you do
with a play is having weeks
to run the scenes and --
and to try things out and --
and make mistakes, uh,
in a rehearsal room in London
with no one watching
before we got to set,
knowing that
you're gonna have to be,
you know, jumping between
so many different years
and periods and emotions
and, um, and situations.
So it really meant that we were,
like, for this one,
gotta do our homework.
>> Yeah.
>> That's the priority.
>> Wow.
And I knew
that the screenwriter,
Anthony McCarten,
did meet with Jane Hawking.
I want to ask you,
Felicity Jones,
did you meet with her?
And if so, what that gave you.
Yes,
I did meet with her.
I mean,
when I first read the script,
I, um, I actually -- when
my agent told me about the film,
I was a little bit, you know,
I was a bit cautious in
some ways because usually in --
in films about, um, in biopics,
the -- the female character
can be, um,
pretty two-dimensional.
There's often not a lot there.
She's just kind of propping up
the lead male.
So, um,
but when I read the script
and saw that this was about two
incredibly strong people
and exploring both their --
their flaws and nuances and --
and it was particularly
playing a woman who's neither,
you know, she's not a saint.
She's not perfect.
She is -- she is flawed.
Um, and that --
that immediately --
that was my responsibility.
And so -- so when I met Jane,
I was -- you're --
you're cautious.
You're -- you're nervous.
We were meeting Stephen
as well because you --
you are taking
these people's lives
and you're putting them
out there in quite --
in a big way. So you sort of --
you don't jump in and just start
asking them
really personal questions.
It was about building
a trust and a --
and a relationship
between each other.
Um, and that just started
with a cup of tea basically.
Um, like, good, you know,
good English tradition.
So I -- I went round and --
and spoke with her and --
and just talked
about their experiences,
her experiences with Stephen
and with Jonathan and --
and felt that was
really important,
this love that this --
this woman had for two men
in very different ways.
But also, you know,
I'd be talking to her
and watching how she moves,
how she -- how she picked up
a cup of tea.
And she has really...
Her hands, the way she --
I just was -- became obsessed
with hands basically.
Um, just everything
is so carefully done
and -- and the way she talks.
So I -- I was talking to her,
but at the same time trying
to observe as much about her,
her physicality as possible.
>> Sure.
And did you meet
Stephen Hawking?
>> Yes.
>> And?
>> [ Laughs ]
I did meet Stephen.
And similarly, it was
just before we started filming.
And it was complicated
because --
'cause we had spent these months
preparing and really
immersing ourselves in --
in everything
that we could get our hands on.
And because we knew that
we were about to start shooting,
I'd had to sort of --
to create a sense of the arc
and -- and the technical side
of the performance.
And there was this great fear,
what if I meet him
and I realize it was all wrong?
Um, and so he's an incredibly
busy man, Stephen Hawking.
He's solving some quite hardcore
problems
out there in the universe.
Um, and so, and he --
so I could only meet him
about five days
before we started filming.
And by this point,
he was genuinely -- I mean,
had sort of had moved from icon
to sort of idol-like status
in my mind.
And I arrived.
And it's now even more difficult
for him to communicate than it
is in the film.
He uses these muscles
around his eyes.
And there's a sensor
on his glasses.
And there is a screen
with the alphabet and a cursor
going across the alphabet.
So when he moves
one of these muscles,
it stops on one letter.
So it really does take a long,
long time to --
to -- to talk to him now.
And there's
a sort of very odd rhythm.
And I hate silence.
And I was really nervous.
And so basically
I just had this sort of
excruciatingly
embarrassing 40 minutes
in which I just
basically just told
Stephen Hawking
about Stephen Hawking.
[ Laughter ]
I mean,
genuinely, I sweated.
The whole thing was a nightmare.
I eventually calmed down,
and he was just looking
at me going, sort of, really?
Just tell me about myself?
Uh, and, uh,
and then I calmed down.
And he was wonderful.
He was witty.
And he was --
has this extraordinary humor.
But also this -- I suppose
the greatest thing I took away
from that meeting was this --
this sense of mischief.
There's a kind of...
I describe it as, like,
a Lord of Misrule quality
to him.
And it was wonderful
to bring that --
to have that at the end,
to bring it --
to bring into the --
>> Some -- somebody, um,
asked Stephen
"What's the greatest
mystery in the world?"
And there was a pause.
And Stephen just wrote, "Women."
[ Laughter ]
He has an incredible
turn -- yeah, turn of phrase.
He's really, really --
well, yes, and he's so
incredibly witty.
>> I occasionally appreciate
the reviews that other people
have written of films.
And one that I came across
by Justin Chang from Variety,
he actually said something
that I --
I wanna share with all of you.
He wrote, "It's worth noting
that 'The Theory of
Everything' derives its title
from Hawking's tireless search
for a single universal equation
that will account
for all existence,
reconciling quantum mechanics
and Einstein's
general relativity.
Dramatically speaking,
the filmmakers seem to have
incorporated that principle
by extending a generous spirit
of inclusion toward
nearly everyone on screen."
And I was even more aware
of it tonight than watching
the film a few weeks ago.
There were no villains
in this film.
There are no sort of pat
conventional bad guys,
no nasty doctors or anything.
In fact, one keeps sensing
that the only evil
is somehow a disease.
You know, that -- and --
and it doesn't have a face.
And I -- I think that all of you
are to be credited
with the humanity that emerges
at every moment
from this particular story
and the way it's told.
>> Thank you.
>> That was so important.
>> Um, one other thing.
Because we mentioned
Daniel Day-Lewis,
"My Left Foot," you know,
now that you've told me
you didn't shoot in sequence,
I'm even more aware that
no matter how challenging that
performance as Christy Brown
would have been for him,
at least he has one basic
physical reality
from the beginning
of the film till the end.
And you have, I mean,
you go from one cane
to two canes to a wheelchair
to the motorized
wheelchair to the box.
And I'm wondering, what for you
was the most challenging part?
Was it, in fact, towards the end
when the reduction
of a physical vocabulary down
to just, you know, the gaze,
is that harder, or were --
were there earlier parts
that you were even
more intimidated by?
>> That's a very good question.
I... The interesting thing
for me...
The answer to that is the most
difficult part
was the jumping around,
was just making sure that you
didn't miss a trick each time,
each physicality you were in.
And that that was truly
embedded and inhabited.
And the way I approached that,
I referenced, um, Alex Reynolds,
who is this dancer I worked
with, was that if you --
if you learn the steps
to a dance, you know,
it takes a while to get them.
But once you know them,
you can really play that
and express within the confines
of what those steps are.
And similarly, I wanted to make
sure I'd done all that work
because this is not
a story about a disease.
It's a love story.
It's a complicated and kind of,
I found, deeply intriguing
examination of love.
Um, and I wanted to make sure
that by the time
we started playing, that
Felicity and I could just play
the human aspect, the emotional
aspect of the story.
So I did try and learn
the physicalities in that way,
in a way
in which I was completely freed.
Um, what's interesting
about the later part of the film
where you can move less is
that it's not a relaxed place.
It's one in which your face
is in -- even if it's still --
it's in quite extreme, um,
sort of contortions,
it was weird.
But when you meet Stephen,
even though he can use
very few muscles,
it's amazing
how much expression there is.
He has one of
the most charismatic faces.
Because all of those --
those few muscles
that you can still use,
it's, like, every --
every form of gesture,
of intonation of voice,
of every facility,
all of that energy is channeled
through you
into those muscles which you can
still express with.
And, um, so, weirdly,
that was perhaps the most, um,
physically tiring period
were those later ones.
>> Yeah.
And what you just said, um,
I'd -- I'd like to maybe ask
Felicity Jones to expand on that
because I also feel
that even though
I thought this was going to be
a film about Stephen Hawking,
this brilliant astrophysicist,
what I take away
is the love story part.
I mean, the -- the tenacity,
the gentle tenacity
of the Jane character
that you present so beautifully.
Um, I mean,
what kind of effect on you
as a person does playing
that kind of love have?
>> Um, well, it -- it was --
with this particular film,
you know, it is something
that it does --
it's not one of those films
you make where you, you know,
you finish at the end of the day
and you just go home
and don't think about it
and have a drink in the pub.
Um, you -- you --
it lives with you.
It -- it -- you --
it becomes part of you.
Um, and it did actually take us
both some months
after finishing filming
before we --
we sort of found out
who we were again.
You know, you have the residue
of the characters lives in --
lives inside you.
And, um, um,
and becomes part of you.
And -- and it --
that's what we both felt
so strongly about Jane,
is didn't -- I that --
for that reason that you said,
because they're
not baddies or goodies.
They're -- they're complicated
and nuanced and they --
and they have, um, you know,
they both have incredible egos.
And they're both very,
very strong-willed people.
Um, but we -- we both felt
incredibly protective over them.
I think we --
we had often, you know,
we'd often have arguments
on set and be --
and be like, "No, Jane, this --
Jane would be doing this.
Stephen --"
And there would be conflict
between -- between us.
Um, and --
and that came from this, um,
this -- this true,
um, admiration for --
for who they were.
So it ha -- it has had --
it's had a huge effect on us,
without a doubt.
And we've --
or now that they're --
we've spoken
to them both afterwards
and that they feel
pleased with the emotio--
'cause you don't get every
single detail of the story.
But the emotional truth
of it has --
has resonated with them.
And they're coming
to the premiere in London,
which I feel is gonna be --
>> Wow.
>> A very emotional experience
for all of us.
>> Yeah. Um, London.
How important,
especially for you,
was it to shoot in some
of the actual locations?
I know that you went to
St John's College, Cambridge,
or the Cavendish Laboratory,
where indeed, um,
the atom was first split.
Was that an --
an integral aspect
of playing the character?
>> Well, I feel like, um,
certainly Cambridge is a --
is another character
within the film.
>> Mm.
>> They still --
Jane and, um,
and Jonathan and Stephen
still live very close
to each other in Cambridge.
It has this --
this extraordinary heritage
and sort of profound beauty.
And so I do feel
like that did inspire us.
Um, every day, you would --
you would walk to work
and just -- just be sort of
in awe of this, this sort of
idyll that is there,
but also that extraordinary
brutal things can be happening
within those contexts.
It was a sense of history
that I think informed it.
>> Absolutely.
And also our first week
of filming was, um, in the place
where
Jane and Stephen were living.
And so we'd be walking past
their house, you know,
their first house they had when
they've had their first child.
And so we were -- it was --
it -- just for your head space,
it's --
it's good to start in the place
that is so important to the --
the fabric of -- of the film.
>> And James --
James, actually, our director,
was shown to the bed where --
where Stephen did have
that epiphany
while stuck in his, um,
in his, uh, jumper.
>> Jane -- Jane gave him
a guided tour of Cambridge.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, but mentioning that,
I, the second time
watching it tonight,
I was even more aware of how
visually rich the film is.
In other words, it's anchored
in your performances.
But whether it's the way
that the cream swirls in the cup
of black coffee
or the circular, low-angle shot
of the looping staircase
with you, uh,
or that wonderful close-up
of the eye behind the sweater
seeing in the fireplace
the very incarnation, you know,
of the theory that is --
is being worked out.
Um, so first of all,
working with James Marsh.
You've both worked with a number
of extraordinary directors.
Later on, I'll perhaps ask
specifically about them.
But he was better known --
he is better known
as a director of documentaries,
like "Man on Wire"
or "Project Nim,"
than fiction films.
First of all,
what made you trust him?
And second of all,
could you tell us a little bit
about
the way he worked with you,
especially if it was
a bit different
from some of the others
with whom you've worked?
Well, um,
so, well, trust is a --
I think often
it's an instinctive thing.
Um, and I, after reading
the script, met with James.
And, um, it was actually
that conversation, you know,
when you just feel like you're
being on the same wavelength
with someone.
Um, and -- and actually
what was important was I --
I -- I'd watch "Shadow Dancer,"
which James made
with Andrea Riseborough.
And, um, and I thought,
this director is very good
at telling a female story and --
and does it very sensitively.
So that --
that was a major thing in --
in thinking, this is --
would be great to work
with this person.
And then obviously
"Man on Wire,"
where again, he dealt with at --
at points, tricky characters.
Um, but he does so in a way
that's entertaining without --
without judging them.
Um,
and then he did this amazing --
there's this trilogy in --
called "Red Riding"...
I don't know if anyone saw,
and that was in England.
And his episode
was just absolutely fantastic.
And there's something --
and I love
James's aesthetic as well.
I feel in the opening
of the film,
everything is so pared down,
like,
in the background of the scenes.
It's all very,
very simple.
And -- and there's,
um, there's --
there's -- there's a focus
to his direction that I love.
There's a sort of, um,
there's always
an incredible truth he gets,
which obviously comes
from the documentary.
His documentary --
>> Yeah.
I mean, some of our greatest
filmmakers
started out in nonfiction,
like Kieslowski.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>>
We were talking about backstage.
And then they bring to fiction
films a not only curious eye,
but one that is prepared
for the surprises that life
is always throwing at us.
>> Yeah.
>> And, um,
I can feel that very strongly.
And that's --
that's what he gave us.
I mean, the most
extraordinary thing about James
is he emboldens you.
And I know that it --
that can be rare in film
in which the circumstances
are so fraught.
But our instinct
on this film was that anything
that was happening physically
would have ramifications
on what the costuming was,
which would have ramifications
on what the makeup was and --
or what angle we were being shot
from versus things like
proportion of the wheelchairs.
And he really did
this amazing thing of allowing
every department
to have their voice.
It was like he...
And that these occasional times
when we would have a crazy idea,
and we'd be, like, can --
can -- can we do --
>> Often have crazy ideas.
>> Completely off-beat.
And he would go, "Do it."
And quite often, with directors
you do that, and then it fails.
And then you feel guilty
and embarrassed
that you've wasted time.
And he would go, "No, try again.
Try something --"
And he was really --
he really did make us feel
completely free to play.
>> Yeah, it was --
because that doesn't, you know,
sometimes you work with people,
and they're --
they're sort of two takes.
That's all you're having,
you know? Get it done.
You gotta come in,
and you've gotta know
exactly what you're doing.
And do it right there.
And with this, it was --
it went -- We still had to know
what we were doing, hopefully.
But, um, um, but it was more --
it was -- it was friendly.
It was
encouraging rather
than judgmental in any way.
And, um, lots of --
Eddie and I both like
doing lots of takes,
and so having a director
who doesn't get really
annoyed with you for that
is always a great help.
>> It strikes me that,
you know, both,
despite the obvious differences,
both "Man on Wire"
and "The Theory of Everything"
are about men who defy
conventional human boundaries.
So obviously he is drawn
to the spirit
that transcends whatever.
On the other hand,
it's also true
that if you've seen
"Man on Wire,"
what a meticulous attention
to detail
in order to tell that story
and in order even to do
what Philippe Petit did.
So, you know, you have
to somehow blend what I'm sure
Stephen Hawkings himself,
Hawking, blends, you know,
a sense of everything beyond,
but that ability
to just concretely get it
into some articulable
and, um, externalizable form.
>> He would allow us
this extraordinary freedom
at the end of the day
sometimes, though.
You're absolutely right.
There was a meticulousness
to the way that he worked.
But at the end of the day,
he would have us improvise
in character with --
with the kids in order to get
this sort of home footage,
which was his way of...
I think originally
in the script,
it was five years later
and 10 years.
And he wanted --
he wanted to blend time more
to get this sense of the, uh,
elasticity almost of time.
And, um, and for us,
that was a wonderful thing
just to be able to present --
and also because
of all the detail we had found
in research about things
like the hands, for example.
And James, you could see him
gently throughout the shoot
becoming infatuated
with what our hands were doing.
>> Our hands and feet.
>> And he would --
he said there's an entire film
to be made, a short film,
probably not
a particularly interesting one,
about our hands and feet.
But, um --
>> But we --
we found that when, um,
'cause we would watch rushes
in the evening,
and, um, and which is,
again, amazing.
Um, takes enormous confidence
to let your actors
see the rushes
as you're going along.
Um, and, um, we would notice
how much detail Benoit, the DOP,
was picking up of, you know,
of -- as Eddie said, you know,
of -- of feet and hands
and how, um, it's all rooted
in that detail.
Which when you're watching that,
you suddenly think, oh, God,
I better know what I'm doing.
And -- and --
but a really, you know,
every little movement
is gonna be captured.
And you want it
to get that just -- just --
just right 'cause he was
observing so closely.
>> Right.
Now, time.
Time is what Stephen Hawking
studies.
Time is what he learns
at the beginning of the film
that he has so little of.
But I think about what
the film does with time.
You know, at the end,
you get this montage
so that everything rewinds back
to the beginning.
I mean, basically, time
folds back in on itself.
And I was wondering,
was that in the original script?
Or is that something
that in the editing process --
>> That was there.
That was there
in the original script.
I think there were
different beats that were going
to be in the rewind, um, at --
at --
But, yes, that was --
that was in Anthony McCarten's
original screenplay.
>> And he always says
that that was the first instinct
he had when he --
when he wrote the script,
was that that --
that this had to rewind, this --
there --
there had to be a sense of it --
where it started and --
and -- and playing, as you say,
with it being
plastic and nebulous, time.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, and interestingly,
one of the very early
screenplays had even the,
um, it started with the --
do you remember the Universal,
you know, the symbol,
the Universal film company
with the Earth spinning?
>> Right.
>> And it came out of the Earth
spinning into the --
into the wheel spinning.
But I think that --
I think the idea
of that circular motif is --
is --
it brings you back to what --
to -- to the Earth, doesn't it?
It's constantly --
>> Absolutely.
>> Coming around.
♪♪
>> Eddie Redmayne continued
to incarnate physical
transformation on screen,
receiving
another Oscar nomination
for "The Danish Girl"
one year later.
Thanks for watching.
Join me next time
for more "Reel Pieces"
on NYC Life.
♪♪