The film - Einstein's Wife - Movie Review Example

The film, “Einstein’s Wife” The film Einstein’s Wife received varied reactions as some people expressed their criticism on the film while others acknowledged the content. The film features the historical life of the great scientist, Einstein and his wife Mileva Maric, focusing on their scientific life. The controversy in the film emanates from the acclamation that Mileva Maric is possibly a coauthor and partner to Einstein in his publication of 1905 about the theory of Relativity among other works. Thus, I seek to evaluate the historical evidence to determine that it does not prove that she was a coauthor to the works of Einstein and factors played by her gender in this controversial film. The critics observe varied factors and ideas expressed in the film that lead to their substantive evidences. The film presents an expository feature well documented and convincing; however, marred by factual flaws and ultimately misrepresented combination of the film and web presentations. Assessing this film from an impartial standing, the story itself is remarkably fascinating, tantalizing and deserves its existence. However, it also presents an exaggeration of the case supporting the claim of presenting Maric as a female scientist at the time (“Einstein’s Wife (Television program review)”, 34). It presents various arguments far beyond what the historians and people of the time never established as authentic. The presentation of the film contains expertise of its making. It arouses the critiques to evaluate its claim as it is trying to either dent or modify the reputation of Albert Einstein. The film contains limited certainty leading to the doubts on the truth of its claim. Secondly, the film setting is such that, it is creating a deliberate impression that Maric was a full partner to Einstein in every sense. Thus, from this point alone, many critiques and historians present various arguments and thoughts to support and oppose this claim accordingly. The evidence made in the film, on watching the film it does not explain the component of the mind of Einstein in his later career in the creative scientific filed (“Einstein’s Wife (Television program review)” 41). This point brings the question that, if indeed she was a partner in his scientific work, why does she not appear in the later works of Einstein in the other significant works that he produced. Thus, she cannot possibly be a coauthor. Additionally, the release of the film also did not feature prominently in the scientific and public world as a headlining story. Thus, this facilitates the evidence that, the poor reception of the story in both the public and scientific worlds after its release indicates that she possibly was not a co-author as the film claims. The known facts and evidences do not back the claim of the story, thus, the reason it does not appear famous in the audience concerned. Thus, the critique argument is evidencing that she was not a coauthor. In view of various critiques to the film, there is a collaboration of evidence that, the presentation of the material in the film has a particulate advocacy tone. This tone seeks to advocate for the role and contribution of the women in science at the time of significant discovery works, using Maric as an example. This is another level of the argument represented in the film. However, the classroom material has little evidence of the certainty of this claim. The classroom material makes evaluation of various comparisons, such as between the careers of Marie Curie and Mileva Maric. Additionally, it also features the evaluation of the social historical restrictions of that time on women; thus, the evaluation of support from social setting that would support the claim. Marie Curie was a significantly notable scientist of her time. However, there is not social or historical statements as such that support the claim putting Maric in that category of ‘one of the greatest scientists of the world. Therefore, this film seems to have biases, seeking to create an impression that women also contributed in science, which lacks supporting evidence. To understand the supporting arguments into the acclamation in the film, there are various evidences given. The first evidence presented by proponents of the claim that she was a co-author to the works of Einstein is that, interpretation of old letters between Einstein and Maric made public by their family members in the 1980s (“Einstein’s Wife (Television program review)” 67). The letters are old, written at around the 1900, which contain a brief allusion by Einstein that the two seemed to collaborate in their works. This evidence is quite convincing as word of confirmation from these letters is available. Thus, in view of this evidence, it could be possibly true that she was a coauthor. The evidence in these letters is the use of certain expressions such as, ‘our research’, ‘our paper’ and the most significantly notable observation that culminates the evidence, the expression ‘our work on relative motion’. The film uses this as evidence of the support that indeed, Maric was a partner in the works of relative motion and his publication of 1905. However, considering that we are evaluating a field of science, this would be a theory worth evaluating to establish its authenticity. Thus, as several non-specialists set to ponder the role of Maric in the works, the specialists of physics history conceived the idea, and it fascinated them that such a vague assumption could be evidence of the contribution of Maric. In view of the history of physics in development, there are few notable female figures in the industry. The acclamation that Maric coauthored the works of Einstein fails to meet substantive proof. Thus, she was not a coauthor. Considering the example of Christopher Jon Bjerkenes, an author of many works involving Albert Einstein, in which he evaluates translation of statements from letters between Albert and Maric, written in 1901. He claims that Albert Einstein alludes to bringing their work together; thus, it implies the work on relative motion (“Einstein’s Wife (Television program review)” 111). However, this is not evidence, as the work on relative motion was practically an idea to Einstein at the time. Thus, citing the expressions used in the articles; much as it is possibly convincing, it does not provide concrete prove of the acclamation. Nonetheless, the letters do constitute significant evidence indicating that Einstein did share his aspirations and findings with his wife. Thus, although the idea is possibly sustaining as evidence that he involved her in his work it is not conclusive to state authoritatively that the controversial claim is true. Another observable exaggeration to support the claim is an acclamation by the writer, Dord Krstic (1991) that from 1898 to 1911, Maric and Einstein worked at the same table, and she was quietly and modest, not in public view. However, the establishment from history that, from 1900 to 1902, the two lived in different cities and even different countries refutes it as evidence. Moreover, there is no written evidence that the two ever worked on physics together regularly. The film features the narrator suggesting that Maric was present in the ‘Olympia Academy’ discussion between Einstein, Moritz Solovine and Conrad Habicht, in Bern Switzerland. She is not traceable in any evidence, written or proved as a historical figure that lived at the time. There is no attestation that Maric was an active participant in the works. Historically, Maric hailed from a wealthy family, and her life was not as challenging as that of other girls at her time. She attended school regularly until she finished her high school, and passed well. She joined University of Zurich, to do medicine, before transferring to Zurich Polytechnic to do a diploma in physics and mathematics, where she met Einstein, and she was the only woman in the class of six students. However, she did not pass her final exams, a factor that plays as evidence contrary to the claims of the film. It is true that she was intelligent; however, she did not pass her final diploma course exams in physics and mathematics, raising the question of her eligibility in contribution towards the works of Albert Einstein. Thus, in view of this proof, she did not have the intelligence to contribute that significantly to the work of Einstein. However, it is possible that she failed her exams due to oppression and discrimination since women did not have the support from the societal setting in academics as their male counterparts at that time. Additionally, another argument that beats the acclamation of her contribution to the work of Einstein is that she is a woman. The social historical setting of her origin at the time is present day Serbia. In that society, the position of the woman at that time was such that, the women had little chance at fame. The women were merely ornaments attached to their husbands and their achievements. Therefore, this perspective would raise the question of what chance Mileva Maric would have in making it in the scientists’ world. Thus, this film fails to address the challenges that she had in contributing to the scientific work of her husband. From this argument, it could be possible that indeed, she did contribute to the works of Einstein, but did not get the deserved acknowledgment as a coauthor to his work. Additionally, the works appear so complex that it is nearly impossible to believe that Einstein produced such excellent work alone. Thus, this is evidence that Maric may be coauthor to Einstein. Conversely, it could also connote that Maric did not contribute at all, to the work of Einstein; thus, faulting the acclamation in the film. Contemporary standards for considering a person as a co-author to certain publication dictate that the person has recognition. Therefore, despite the inaccuracy of the evidences considering Maric as a co-author, if she played a role in the process of establishing the finding, whether in the discussions, research or sharing ideas, it is no more than reasonable that she gets the deserved acknowledgement. The role of evaluating and checking his calculations would put her in the position of present day editor work; thus, she qualifies to be a co-author to the works and publications of Albert Einstein. Thus, in view of the possibility that Einstein shared his ideas with her, then she would be a coauthor to his work. The role and circumstances of women in the society, in history, did not favor them in contributing to the field of science. The women were merely ornaments to their husbands; thus, they did not have significance in academic and scientific work. This is a possible cause for her misfortunes. For instance, in her diploma course, Maric was the sole woman in a group of six students of, and she failed her final exam. Therefore, considering these establishments, if she were a co-author to the works of Albert Einstein, she would open the gap for recognition of the abilities of women in science. Science was a subject of the males. Her involvement in the findings and works of Einstein would give women a better position to represent their gender in the field of science. This would influence the contemporary perception of the female gender in the field of science positively, creating a basis for many females to engage in conducting scientific studies and work. Work cited “Einstein’s Wife (Television program review)”. Science Books & Films 2006: 141. General OneFile. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. Read More