Secular humanists groan when movies such as God’s Not Dead and Son of God gross millions at the box-office. “They’re preaching to the choir,” they scream in their own choir-like unison. These movies infuriate them to the bone. Why? Perhaps it is for the same reason that I detested The Theory Of Everything (admittedly, this biopic is nowhere near as alienating as the formerly mentioned films; however, its agenda lies deceptively in the background). It is unbearably maddening to see your worldview trashed in order to prop up a contrary one.
Although worldview analysis is a legitimate tool in the critic’s hand, it should not be decisive, as a film is more than just ideology.
From a technical standpoint, this is not a dreadfully made film. The production design is authentic as it recreates the mid 1900’s; compositionally, the visuals are conventional but effective at highlighting the physical aspects of Eddie Redmayne’s admirable performance through close-ups. The film excels at visually capturing Stephen Hawking’s slow progression of being healthy to becoming wheelchair bound.
It is the writing and storytelling that make this film the worst kind of kitschy schlock. Stephen Hawking is a humanistic hero who is glorified as a patriarch of atheism, thus puffing up the atheistic spirits of the chorus already singing Hawking’s praise.
As this is a biopic, ask yourself, was his divorce from Jane Wilde done without any confrontation in the light of his demanding need for care due to his physical decay? Why is the abuse by Hawking’s second wife glossed over?
Conveniently, Hawking’s rumoured nights out at strip clubs are excluded. It seems a little too suspicious that the events the story skips over are the very ones which would make us see flaws in Stephen Hawking or those around him. Even in a scene that identifies his objectification of women through a pornographic magazine is played off as humourous. Everything feels fake and too nice.
Evidently, film critics such as Mike McCahill who cried, “ban this sick film,” in The Guardian regarding God’s Not Dead, will not say such things of this movie. Why? Because their worldview is being propagandized on-screen. I have no problem with banning abysmal Christian movies if they are abysmal, but equally I also have no problem banning The Theory of Everything because of its poor storytelling.
From a worldview standpoint, my main objection is that Hawking’s atheism is seen as rational (with no evidence given) and the theistic beliefs of his wife (Jane Wilde) irrational. There is an interesting exploration to be delved into here about a wife and husband with contrasting views on the natural and supernatural, but since this film leans so far to one side there is no struggle to be had. The film thinks it’s nice that she has her own beliefs, but that she is most definitely wrong and it never explains why. Jane is a smart woman, just not when it comes to her faith.
At the end of the film, even after Hawking preaches one of the most cringe-worthy speeches in recent memory — telling us the meaning of life — his ex-wife’s faith still has not been refuted nor has any evidence been marshalled for denying supernaturalism. Yet the choir will sing.
Unfortunately, I believe the author of this piece conflates the notion of ‘faith’, with the belief that some dude named Jesus who lived over two thousand years ago was the literal son of God who sacrificed himself for our sins. Because faith in ‘something else’ isn’t totally outside the realm of rational thought (though bordering on it), but belief in a magical man who performed miracles most certainly is.
And, of course, this is the rub. That we have married these two concepts is the real injustice. To question that, perhaps, there is another plane of existence is one thing, but to embed the very concept of faith in a grander matrix of superstitious folklore is another entirely.
Nowhere in my article did I state my position other than that I found the film’s manipulation bothersome. Your comment is completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about in my review.
When you state “I believe the author of this piece conflates the notion of ‘faith’, with the belief that some dude named Jesus who lived over two thousand years ago was the literal son of God who sacrificed himself for our sins”. I did not say any such thing; in fact, nowhere in my article did I mention my religious affiliation. For all you know I could be Muslim, Hindu or Christian. Consequently, your very comment collapses under its own ‘injustice’; how could it stand if it is merely built on a straw man?
Now I’ll ignore this and just look at the content of what you’re saying.
Your comment is a classic example of begging the question, or in other words, arguing in a circle. You deny everything supernatural so you end up with the conclusion that belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God is superstitious folklore. It’s ironic that you are committing the same fault as the film- you have tried to knock down a worldview by merely asserting your own, and not providing any evidence for it.
Nobody is wheelchair bound brah…get some people first language.
Your objective in writing this eludes me. All you have said is that atheists dislike movies that promote theism, while theists like yourself dislike movies that promote atheism. Is anyone supposed to be surprised by the notion that people dislike things that clash with their own opinions and like things that support their own opinions?
Although that is a portion of what the review is about it goes deeper than that. It is talking about how critics should evaluate films that disagree with his/her worldview. Before you dismiss this as evident you must also recognize that this is a problem as many critics allow their own beliefs to taint their evaluation of other qualities of the filmmaking. My review attempts to exemplify this argument as it is a level-headed assessment of aspects other than the worldview.
The major theme of the article is the hypocrisy in film critics who pan films for disagreeing with their worldview while praising ones that employ the same forms of manipulation only that it is their worldview being encouraged.
A personal example is Cloud Atlas; although, I disagree with its many messages I believe it to be a great film. The critic is not only to be a social critic but an evaluator of art for art’s sake.