Unconditionally caring and providing for the person they love, both physically and emotionally, can be an equally passionate and harrowing experience for anyone. That experience becomes especially difficult when they watch the other person surpass every limitation they’re faced with, and become extremely successful in their career, as they defy the odds of the life-threatening illness they’re living with. While promoting her new biographical drama, ‘The Theory of Everything,’ actress Felicity Jones enthralling discussed her powerful portrayal of Jane Hawking, the first wife of famed physicist Stephen Hawking. Jane admirably supported her husband while he thrived in the world of science, and didn’t allow his battle with motor neuron disease affect his work. While the scientist definitely deserves praise for his achievements, Jones’ performance helps prove that Jane should also be recognized for wholeheartedly dedicating her life to her husband, while also retaining her own sense of identity in her family and career.
‘The Theory of Everything,’ which is based on Jane’s memoir, ‘Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,’ begins in 1963, when Stephen (Eddie Redmayne) is a cosmology student struggling to find a topic for his thesis at the U.K.’s Cambridge University. While contemplating how he can find the one simple equation that could explain the start and meaning of the universe, and how he could figure that question into his doctrine, he meets and instantly connects with a fellow student, arts major Jane Wilde (Jones). But soon after they realize their true love for each other, Stephen is diagnosed with motor neuron disease (which is more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease). His doctors give him a prognosis of two years to live, during which his limbs and motor skills will deteriorate, and leave him with limited speech and movement.
Despite the short amount of time Stephen’s doctors believe he has left to live, Jane is unwavering in her love for him. Her resolve to maintain their relationship leads them to get married, and gives him the courage to finish his doctorate. While Stephen tries to prove the initial theory of the creation of the universe and embarks on his most ambitious scientific work, he begins a family with his new wife.
Since he’s faced with the limited amount of time he’s expected to have left in his life, Stephen also incorporates how time also factored into the universe’s history. Through his commitment to his scientific work and family, he continues to defeat the odds and remains healthy enough to keep living. However, the strain of maintaining Stephen’s care throughout the course of their marriage leads Jane to take comfort in her new friendship with Jonathan Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox), the choir director at their church. But Jane remains loyal and committed to caring for her husband and their three children. Through her continued support for Stephen, the family achieves more than they ever could have imagined in medicine, science and the appreciation of love.
Jones generously took the time recently to sit down for a roundtable interview to talk about playing Jane in ‘The Theory of Everything’ at New York City’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Among other things, the actress discussed how she was inspired to star in the biographical drama, as the film isn’t a straight-forward biopic of Stephen’s life, but instead focuses on the struggles Jane often faced and was forced to overcome during her marriage; how she appreciated that Marsh had faith in her and Redmayne’s instincts as actors, and gave them the freedom to the way they felt was the most natural and accurate; and having the support of Jane, who she met before filming began, eased her worries about her performance.
Question (Q): This film is interesting because it shows Stephen Hawking through his ex-wife’s eyes. So it’s your movie, as much as it is his film. Can you talk about that attraction for you when you accepted the role? Did the fact that the film is based on the life of a real peson who’s still alive also attract you to the film?
Felicity Jones (FJ): That’s what I loved about the script when I sat down and read it. I liked that it’s not a straight-forward biopic. It felt like it’s telling a story about a very famous person in an unusual way. It was very much about the intimate sides of this person’s life. But ther was also this formidable female character who was just as important and relevant to the story as Stephen. As an actress, I thought this was going to be an adventure.
When I met Jane during the filmmaking process, it made my job so much easier. She’s such a character. What I love about her is that she has this classy voice. So I worked with a dialect coach to get this particular lady-like, highly pitched English accent. I also worked with a coach to capture her movements. She’s very much the embodiment of the ideal woman from the 1950s. That period was all about being presentational, appealing and unthreatening.
But at the same time, she has this formidable strength, determination and strength to her. I loved having the opportunity to play someone who’s also vulnerable at the same time. She was also emotional and loving, but tough and strong at the same time.
I have the sense that in cinema now, there’s a lot of emphasis on women being tough. I always want to say, “No, women can be both. They can be vulnerable at the same time as being tough. It’s about having more than two sides; there can be multi-faceted female characters.”
Q: How did you become involved in the film?
FJ: Well, I auditioned for the role of Jane after I made ‘The Invisible Woman.’ There were a few other actors they were looking at for the part. But something really worked when I was in the room with James, Eddie and me. Usually you have to wait for two weeks after you audition to hear back about whether you got the role.
But James immediately said, “I’d love for you to do this.” Him saying that gave me such confidence. He was instinctive and put himself out there by being so open so early on. That openness continued throughout the whole filming process. Eddie, James and I met in Copenhagen, which is where James lives, months before we stared shooting. So he welcomed us into his house, and we discussed the characters and the story.
What was interesting was that Eddie and I both come from the theater, so we like to use theatrics in our filmmaking. There’s a lot of preparation that goes into really building our characters through our voices and movements. We work with specialists, and take the time to really build our characters, before we get on the set. James gave us the opportunity to do that.
James said, “In some ways, the sets are very simple; there isn’t a lot of clutter.” So I immediately realized the focus was so precisely going to rely on our performances. So we really had to up our game. The filmmaking was unique in the fact that it was so rooted in our characterizations.
Q: James has said both you and Eddie had input on your scenes and in the details surrounding your characters. How much influence did you really have on how your scenes played out?
FJ: Yes, James understand how we like to work. Both Eddie and I don’t like to be overly controlled, and made to feel smothered and claustrophobic. We both like to have the freedom to make mistakes, and explore our characters. It’s like being detectives in our preparation.
The more I would find out about Jane in going to meet her, it was really important for me to explore the way she moved, for example. So James gave us the freedom to bring all of our knowledge into the story.
Q: What went into the process of filming the scene where Jane and Stephen are playing cricket? That scene was the first time Eddie had to play the physicality associated with his character’s illness.
FJ: That scene was always about Jane seeing what was happening to Stephen for the first time, and not wanting to show her reaction to him. It was the first time she was seeing the physical effects of his illness. The knowledge that the love of her life is going to die hit her so profoundly. At first they were told he only had two years to live after he was diagnosed, so it was a troubling time for Jane.
Q: Had you read Jane’s book before, or after, you met Jane?
FJ: I read the book before I met her. I read the book very early on during the process of making the film, and it became my Bible. I would constantly underline things, and refer back to it. It’s very detailed, as Jane, like Stephen, is an academic, and has a very precise mind. So the book was a detailed personal document of how she was feeling in the ’70s, as opposed to the late ’80s, for example. So that was very vital to helping me in my performance. It really helped because I didn’t know anything about Stephen’s background before I signed onto the film.
Q: What was your relationship like with Jane after you met her?
FJ: Well, when I met her, she was so warm and open. She showed me her private family album of Stephen and her when they first met. She wanted to give everything she could to help the performance. Eddie also had discussions with Jane and Jonathan. But Jane really had to think, can I trust this woman with my life? Luckily, it worked out.
Q: What was your first meeting with Stephen like?
FJ: It was incredible. Both Eddie and I went to meet him. It was nerve-racking, because he’s such an icon. But he’s so brilliant, funny and witty, and he has this incredible charisma and charm. So you understand right away why he’s such a famous celebrity.
Q: What was the most emotional scene for you to film?
FJ: When I read the script early on, I loved the moment when Jane has these two men in her life. I feel like she had it all, because she liked them for very different reasons. I thought the moment when she had them both was quite revolutionary and unconventional. (laughs) I thought she was an extraordinary woman.
Q: Did you know Eddie before you signed on to star in ‘The Theory of Everything?’
FJ: I did know him before we began filming. We both worked under (Artist Director) Michael Grandage at the (London theater) Donmar Warehouse, and that’s where we came across each other. That’s what was so great about making this film, in that we have very similar ways of working and approaching acting. So we had a very harmonious working relationship.
Q: Is is difficult to say goodbye to a character once you wrap a project?
FJ: It does take quite a bit of time, as characters do penetrate your subconscious. Even the physical movements stay with you, so it takes a bit of time to say goodbye to the characters. You fall in love with them, and do inhabit them. So I try to take a break after each project to recalibrate before I start working on the next one.
Q: Do you think this film is a turning point in your career, as before now, you played a lot of girlfriend and supporting roles?
FJ: Well, Jane, as well as my character of Nelly in ‘The Invisible Woman,’ are complicated, nuanced women. If I get to keep playing these kinds of interesting women, that’s my priority. I love playing these kinds of women. Acting is such a precarious profession, so you often think, will I ever work again? You hope that you keep get to make work that’s interesting in some way.
Q: Do you know what you’re doing next?
FJ: I’m prepping a film now called ‘A Monster Calls,’ which is being directed by J.A. Bayona, who made ‘The Impossible’ and ‘The Orphanage.’ He’s an extraordinary director.
It’s interesting-I’m playing a woman with terminal cancer, and it helped that I learned so much from Eddie’s performance. So it’s a fantastic challenge to be approaching it from a physical perspective. Jane was an interesting introduction into it, as playing her was physical to a degree, but it was also hugely emotional, as well. So it’s been exciting to approach the subject as the patient.
Written by: Karen Benardello