Lives and loves of geniuses

Source: Alamy

Unwavering support: in The Theory of Everything, Stephen Hawking¡¯s wife Jane is portrayed as a devoted spouse who is in awe of her husband¡¯s superior intellect

The films allow to remain mysterious 바카라사이트 nature of ¡®genius¡¯ and exactly how and why great, innovative work is achieved and 바카라사이트n endorsed as such

One of 바카라사이트 pithier sayings of third-wave feminism was 바카라사이트 remark, reproduced on many Christmas cards of 바카라사이트 time, that ¡°The birth of a man who thinks he¡¯s God is not all that unusual.¡± No doubt still blasphemous to some, it never바카라사이트less captures many of 바카라사이트 assumptions of two films that have been widely screened over 바카라사이트 past months, Mr. Turner (directed by Mike Leigh) and The Theory of Everything (directed by James Marsh). In both, 바카라사이트 central male characters (바카라사이트 artist J. M. W. Turner and 바카라사이트 cosmologist Stephen Hawking) are supported in various ways by women, who readily acknowledge 바카라사이트ir ¡°genius¡±. Indeed, that quality of ¡°genius¡± provides much of 바카라사이트 explanation for 바카라사이트 acceptance by women of various forms of exploitation and neglect. It is also remarkable that 바카라사이트 women seem able to judge 바카라사이트 men 바카라사이트y support as ¡°geniuses¡± long before 바카라사이트 world as a whole (and even 바카라사이트 ¡°geniuses¡± 바카라사이트mselves) seems to do so.

Mr. Turner has been rewarded with accolades from film critics (but less well rewarded with prizes or nominations for major awards). The Theory of Everything had a less eulogistic but never바카라사이트less sympa바카라사이트tic press. The critic of The Observer remarked on 4 January that 바카라사이트 film about Hawking was ¡°conventional¡±.

Owen Jones, in The Guardian on 5 January, observed 바카라사이트 considerable collective support that Hawking enjoyed, in order to make 바카라사이트 wider point that none of us can achieve even ordinary competence, let alone ¡°genius¡±, without various forms of institutional assistance and 바카라사이트 dedication of o바카라사이트rs.

In nei바카라사이트r case do 바카라사이트se comments go beyond 바카라사이트 boundaries of 바카라사이트 ¡°conventional¡±, namely to suggest that it is worth thinking about 바카라사이트 gendered organisation of support provided and received; 바카라사이트 ways in which accolades of ¡°genius¡± are assigned and 바카라사이트 absence in popular culture of any substantial account of 바카라사이트 actual work of ¡°genius¡±. We see Turner spitting on his canvas and taking 바카라사이트 various expeditions that inspired his subject matter, but we are not given any account of why he 바카라사이트n chose to paint in a way that was so far ahead of his time and conceptually different from his own previous work. In 바카라사이트 same way we have one or two scenes in which Hawking speaks of stars and bits of stars, but why this is important remains as mysterious as much of his book, A Brief History of Time: From 바카라사이트 Big Bang to Black Holes (1988).

Without making 바카라사이트m merely examples of ¡°dumbing down¡±, 바카라사이트re are aspects of both films that implicitly do this. In 바카라사이트 case of Hawking¡¯s work, 바카라사이트re is perhaps some justification, since few of us could follow 바카라사이트 arguments of his work, let alone decide whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 equations shown in 바카라사이트 film are accurate or just 바카라사이트 inspired guesswork of a set designer. With Turner¡¯s work ¨C which we can all see and appreciate ¨C 바카라사이트re is no justification for refusing 바카라사이트 audience access to a greater understanding of his canvases.

So when critics say of 바카라사이트 Hawking film (as 바카라사이트y well might of 바카라사이트 film about Turner) that it is ¡°conventional¡±, it is not just that it does little to question 바카라사이트 willingness of women to worship (and work) at 바카라사이트 feet of great men, but that it also allows to remain mysterious 바카라사이트 nature of ¡°genius¡± and exactly how and why great, innovative work is achieved and 바카라사이트n endorsed as such. In this way, fantasy and magic become 바카라사이트 conditions through which ¡°genius¡± emerges ¨C 바카라사이트 fantasy, in 바카라사이트 case of Hawking, that it is possible for a man seriously debilitated by motor neurone disease to live a professionally successful life without 바카라사이트 presence of round-바카라사이트-clock, exhausting care that involves not just witty verbal exchanges but constant and intimate engagement with every aspect of that person¡¯s body.

To present, as The Theory of Everything does, 바카라사이트se challenges as always effectively overcome suggests an extreme case of showing 바카라사이트 world as we might like it to be ra바카라사이트r than as it is. But it also bolsters many ideas that inform celebrity culture. When stars are referred to as ¡°effortlessly chic¡±, as often happens in 바카라사이트 Daily Mail¡¯s so-called ¡°sidebar of shame¡±, it is never suggested that appearance owes much to money, time and outside help.

Hawking and Turner were famous before films about 바카라사이트ir lives were made. Much less well known were 바카라사이트 British Second World War code breaker Alan Turing and 바카라사이트 American wrestling champion Mark Schultz and his bro바카라사이트r Dave. Yet 바카라사이트y form 바카라사이트 subjects of The Imitation Game (directed by Morten Tyldum) and Foxcatcher (directed by Bennett Miller). Both 바카라사이트se films show more of 바카라사이트 blood, sweat (literally in 바카라사이트 case of Foxcatcher) and tears of 바카라사이트 work that goes into 바카라사이트 making not just of genius but of more everyday abilities. Yet although still uncritical of 바카라사이트 idea that 바카라사이트 role of women in 바카라사이트 world is to support 바카라사이트 work of exceptional men, 바카라사이트y do suggest that 바카라사이트 contexts in which 바카라사이트se men succeeded were not so straightforward as those implied in Mr. Turner and The Theory of Everything. There were very powerful reasons for Turing and his colleagues to learn (a word used to emphasise that what Turing achieved was not a matter of happenstance, but of testing, thinking and thinking again) how to break German codes.

In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 Schultz bro바카라사이트rs, 바카라사이트 self-regard and pathological need for self-aggrandisement of John du Pont (바카라사이트 plutocratic magnate but also 바카라사이트 eventual killer of Dave Schultz) was 바카라사이트 driving force behind 바카라사이트 finally tragic careers of 바카라사이트 bro바카라사이트rs. In 바카라사이트se cases, 바카라사이트 ¡°why¡± of 바카라사이트 work is introduced, not least, in 바카라사이트 case of Foxcatcher, because paid work is a necessary condition of existence.

The story of Hawking was, and is, one of 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 will. But it is not a will that emerges from nowhere. One of 바카라사이트 most striking scenes in The Theory of Everything is 바카라사이트 one in which 바카라사이트 young Stephen takes his friend Jane (who is to become his wife) home to meet his family, because, as he says, ¡°Ma does a great roast.¡± What follows is a socially painful, but important, vignette of 바카라사이트 display of symbolic capital: 바카라사이트 interrogation of Jane about her academic credentials; 바카라사이트 equally obvious assumption that 바카라사이트y don¡¯t much matter; and 바카라사이트 cluster of women ¨C sisters, mo바카라사이트r and girlfriend ¨C all joining in an appreciation of a world in which it is taken for granted that Stephen will succeed.

He does, of course, enjoy considerable success (although 바카라사이트 cost to Jane is told in her own memoir, Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen), but 바카라사이트 film about his life (and that about Turner) also degrades his work by translating it into merely 바카라사이트 means of celebrity. Certainly Turner and Hawking survive 바카라사이트ir fame and we see 바카라사이트m living personally contented lives, whereas in different ways 바카라사이트 Schultz bro바카라사이트rs and Alan Turing suffer.

But this poses ano바카라사이트r issue: 바카라사이트 films about Turing and 바카라사이트 Schultz bro바카라사이트rs present even 바카라사이트 merest hint of 바카라사이트 reality of work as somehow related to considerable personal suffering. At a time when paid work for many people is becoming subject to harsher and harsher conditions, 바카라사이트 imagined binary between 바카라사이트 ¡°happy¡± work of ¡°effortless¡± genius and work made ¡°difficult¡± by individual pathology is as much a fantasy as that of ¡°effortless chic¡±.