We Live in Time: The Off-Balance Review.
Life, love and loss.
Try as we might, to control the inevitable uncertainty that often defines both our day-to-day and the human experience as a whole? It is an exercise in futility.
Small moments of love, larger outbursts of the same, under veneers of anything but.
Life, inherently complicated, our relationships, more so.
And while the romantic drama sub-genre has, across a broad spectrum, more-or-less boiled these elements down a science, We Live in Time, the newest film from director John Crowley and screenwriter Nick Payne which released earlier this month, does try, to some extent, to bring a fresh approach.
Not reinventing the wheel per se but primarily elevated by its excellent lead performances, it stands above most of its similarly-styled contemporaries: despite struggling across its two hours to maintain its momentum, characterization and an honest emotional investment.
After a difficult end to his marriage, in the process of separating from his wife, breakfast cereal executive Tobias (Andrew Garfield) finds himself at something of a (very literal) crossroads.
Returning from a bathrobe-clad shopping trip while in the midst of signing his divorce papers, he is promptly hit by a car. And sheepishly taking him to the hospital, is the woman behind the wheel, restauranteur/chef Almut (Florence Pugh), who, in a gesture of apology, extends an invitation for him to stop by for dinner one night.
Not the most love-at-first-sight meet-cute no but it works well enough to get things moving, the pure absurdity of the situation, contrasted by a chemistry that only grows as, naturally, Tobias and Almut quickly find themselves falling in love.
The catch though, is that We Live in Time is presented in a non-linear fashion, it structure loose but not quite openly experimental, as it is moves between three eras of Tobias and Almut’s relationship:
The beginning of their romance, where the best days of easy conversations and better sex are contrasted with arguments, differing viewpoints, on how to share their potentially intertwined lives going forward. Tobias wants children one day, to be married, to start a family. Almut isn’t so sure: all that, requiring a focus she’d rather put towards her professional aspirations.
Some years later, as they navigate the trials of conceiving naturally and eventual parenthood (to their daughter Ella, played by actress Grace Delaney), the couple must also grapple with more life-changing news when Almut is diagnosed with ovarian cancer and decides against a complete hysterectomy.
Later still, when Almut’s cancer returns and despite chemotherapy treatment, rapidly metastasizes to Stage 3, her and Tobias, in their own ways, struggle in coping with their difficult reality. She wants to live her life to the absolute fullest, for however long it lasts, instead of confining herself to hospital - more so, as she takes up an invitation to the prestigious Bocuse d'Or cooking competition.
For the most part, We Live in Time brings all these narrative threads together successfully - as in, it settles into a consistent grove and doesn’t waver. One shouldn’t find themselves confused or all that lost along the timeline, clarity, being the operating word. As beyond just being the crux, the relationship between its two protagonists is the entire foundation of the film, from the rise of the opening title card to the closing credits, lending it a certain focus. Yes, it is accented by some strong technical highlights: the costuming, the muted but sharp cinematography of Stuart Bentley or musician Bryce Dessner’s soundtrack but it never drifts too far, with no time misspent on preamble or extraneous subplots.
Around the edges though, a handful of supporting cast members do get a few chances to shine in solid, if not particularly noteworthy work. From Lee Braithwaite as Almut’s commish chef, Douglas Hodge as Tobias’ father or Lucy Briers as one of Almut’s doctors, who all bring a warmth, an approachability, despite pretty limited screen time.
For it is ultimately the one-two punch of Garfield and Pugh who do virtually all of the movie’s heavy lifting, pushing the material to its very limit.
You can see the appeal.
Two Oscar-nominees, who, while versatile, are no strangers to things like extensive action and stunt work - and so here, in stepping outside of their usual orbit somewhat they go for a straight-up romance: albeit, one overlaid with heavier themes that they’ve both proven adept at bringing to life.
Garfield, while he brings his usual suavity and impossible-to-look away charm, also adds a slight awkwardness, a shyness to Tobias that contrasts well to Pugh’s portrayal.
He is a man that has already lived through a marriage, with all the ups-and-downs such a thing entails and as he recognizes himself falling in love once more, wants to be sure it will be a relationship with legs. But as his and Almut’s dynamic grows and evolves throughout their long-term partnership, parenthood and Almut’s health, he slowly begins to shed some of that hesitancy: not to become aggressively assertive but instead, simply more fully-rounded, both as a partner and a father. There aren’t many glimpses, outside of the story-first work into his interiority but even then, maybe as a byproduct of these choices, he still feels fleshed out.
When interviewed by Esquire for a larger profile earlier this month, Garfield spoke to this: how he actively collaborated with both director Crowley and Pugh to establish his character as someone who would stand up for himself, even if, when next to Almut, he was more than content to take a relative back seat.
And while it is never explicitly stated as it relates to their characters? Garfield, though seemingly forever young, is thirteen years older than his co-star, adding a believability to these particular wrinkles of his chosen characterization work here. Though to nobody’s surprise, he sells it all wonderfully
On the whole however, the movie belongs to Pugh, who pushes back both against the shortcomings of the direction and script to deliver a character in Almut, who comes across as startlingly genuine, real, in a way that feels believable. A woman who balances various plates - her high-stress career, partnership and motherhood - with mostly-successful ease. Yet in confronting her cancer diagnosis head-on and on her own terms, she must also fight to find an inner peace that relates to all three but most importantly, for herself.
Pugh, within her fabulous chemistry with Garfield and next to her ability to own a scene through her physical acting alone, is the anchor the movie needed - as collectively, little else can match them.
Well, at least, not to the same creative level.
While We Live in Time made much ado during in its promotional lead-up over its non-linear structure, from Crowley’s direction to Payne’s script, neither seems all that interested (or capable, frankly) in taking on that storytelling challenge with any real skill: just fine, the cleanest descriptor of the final product.
As it cuts between its three eras, it becomes clear that the movie, rather than bringing the viewer closer to its emotional core, is most interested in keeping them at an arm’s length. Never allowing any particular beat or revelation to linger for too long, to build with any effective weight. A teary-eyed scene in a doctor’s office, immediately followed by a sunny flashback to earlier in the timeline. Almut expresses uncertainty regarding parenthood but soon afterwards is seemingly fully on-board, without any explicit connective tissue to explain her thinking to the viewer. People change over time, of course but this, just one example of the whiplash that is prevalent (if not wholly detrimental) throughout
The movie’s most striking sequence then, the birth of Almut and Tobias’ daughter, is a standout if only because of its very out-there nature (the specifics of which, won’t be spoiled here). The film’s deception of Almut’s battle with cancer, on the same hand, is kept somewhat distant. Not totally dishonest but again, seemingly done with the intention of minimizing any possible emotional impact - not sidelining the topic necessarily but not having the maturity to tackle her story wholesale, either.
Which, given the fact that We Live in Time is ostensibly a drama first, is undeniably odd.
The longer such decisions are sat with, the stranger they seem.
Sure, presented chronologically, the back-half of the movie would be gut-punch after gut-punch, so perhaps that was the reasoning but it is a feeling that can’t be shook regardless. Either commit to the material with both feet forward or not at all.
In the end, We Live in Time has potential that is never utilized as effectively as it could be. Saved mostly by the performances of its leads (who have been bringing cardboard cutouts of each other to premieres) it is far from a write-off or a complete loss.
Good, alright, unspectacular. Solid.
But nothing more.