Skip to main content

Patches of Tenderness are Not Enough for the Maudlin We Live in Time

There’s a gorgeous tenderness through the best scenes of We Live in Time. A warm and impassioned ambience matched by sweet performances articulating strong and very difficult emotions in resonating ways -everything that makes movie romance so attractive, and this in both broad and subtle aspects. In microcosm, the signs of a movie that ought to pluck at your heartstrings in all the right ways, not least factoring in as well its extremely sympathetic subject matter. And yet, the movie beyond such touchstones is mild and underwhelming -not so effective on the whole as its singular spaces of real power.
This latest film from Brooklyn director John Crowley promises a lot of the sentiments and structural devices I gravitate to most in a romance film. A relationship spanning a great length of time, touching on the emotional highs and lows from first meeting to maturity. A pair of attractive, talented, and charismatic lead actors capable of working off each other in natural ways. And an element of scope not just in time but in theme, endeavouring to say something deeply personal or rich about the nature of relationships, the power of love, the human capacity for it. Several of these are indeed features of the film, but to a less ambitious degree than let on by marketing. Likewise the central narrative point is more pronounced.
The film employs a non-linear structure, which works at setting up the severity of the stakes early, but soon becomes an ill-fitting, more confounding device. Thus we meet Almut (Florence Pugh) and Tobias (Andrew Garfield) several years and a young child into their relationship, as she battles terminal ovarian cancer and they reckon with what little time they have left together. That time began when Almut, an esteemed Bavarian chef, hit Tobias, a Weetabix advertising representative, with her car. Despite this, and in the light of his own separation and eventual divorce from his wife, the pair strike up an immediate and passionate romance. In fragments, the film presents their life over the course of the next few years through her early cancer scare, her pregnancy and the birth of their daughter, up to the present where she attempts to partake as the British representative in the Bocuse d'Or all while the cancer exacerbates.
Several plot points here, including the cancer not least of all, seem almost engineered to be acting showcases for the stars. And indeed, what spark there is to the movie comes largely from Garfield and Pugh, though Pugh especially. A gamut of emotions are on display across this movie -and Pugh gets the most difficult ones in the extremes of her illness-induced anger and depression, and especially a highly challenging and intense childbirth scene. She was put through the ringer on this movie, though not I detect in a manner akin to Don't Worry Darling; on the contrary she appears to relish this challenge and relates a very warm and honest chemistry with Garfield. For his part, he's at his most charming and affable. And the pair together do enough of a good job, especially through the most moving (daresay saccharine scenes) that it modestly distracts from the thinness of their roles.
Tobias suffers more for this, as the movie gradually goes from centring the relationship equitably to honing in on Almut decidedly more prominently, to the point Tobias's life and outside relationships disappear after a while. We don't even get much a sense of his career after the early days of his affair with Almut, where she was showing him off to friends as the 'Weetabix Man' (I appreciate how Crowley makes no effort whatsoever to placate his non-UK audience). But he’s mostly a doting boyfriend in the latter parts of the movie, his own agency subtle, if present at all. However Almut, who was a teen skating champion before the traumatic death of her father saw her give it up forever -in spite of a more detailed backstory and greater attention feels a bit shallow at times too, often only getting by on Pugh’s own charisma.
And this comes largely out of the banality of the story she is given, which does feel more than a little patronising. Countless times we’ve seen the narrative of the wife and mother dying tragically young, for their spirit to live on in the husband and child. And the way it is handled here slides neatly in to the basic tropes, not just in characterisation but the film’s whole sappy execution of it, with big overwhelming music beats, dreary montage, and even a last scene of playfulness before the inevitable. I like bittersweet love stories, but this feels just too calculated -especially with a discomforting non-linear structure that doesn’t much contribute anything, and the motivation of personal pride the script unconvincingly disguises as virtuousness as explanation for Almut’s rather reckless attitude and skewed priorities through her last months. It comes off as a moral statement that feels false, that elevates the feelings and sustained well-being of those around her, particularly her daughter, over her own.
These frustrating decisions and themes undermine those parts of the movie that have genuine life to them, that feel like beautiful touchstones in the evolution of a romantic relationship over time, or just luxuriate in the actors' chemistry or some charming beats of comedy. Indeed, the movie may have been more effective had it embraced a more rom-com orientation, as both Pugh and Garfield are capable of being quite funny and sexy together. Some nice, wholesome moments are contributed by side characters as well, like Almut's protégé Jade (Lee Braithwaite), a pair of convenience store workers Sanjay (Nikhil Parmar) and Jane (Kerry Godliman) who help deliver her baby in an emergency, and Tobias's sweet father Reginald (Douglas Hodge), whose own related love story at the mid-point is one of the most unexpectedly touching beats in the film. 
But scattered bright spots are still just spots. The title of this movie is designed to evoke the limited time that Almut has left -We Live in the Time we have left together. But in light of her second fateful diagnosis, making the most of that time is not what we see Almut and Tobias doing, much as their happy if challenging life together is seen in spurts beforehand. Rarely is there a sense of urgency felt, as the movie by its style spends most of its time situated in eulogy mode, remarking back on their love together in the knowledge of its tragic end. Its grace is in those performances that bring power to several scenes of solemnity and romance. They are degraded by context though, making what is meant to be a lovely sad story into a largely dismal sad story.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more