There’s been a recurring discussion about the state of Hollywood celebrities for over a decade. We have famous actors, but where are our movie stars? It turns out to be a deceptively deep debate, especially comparing the criteria to the stars as recent as the early 2000s. Which currently working actors will we revere as icons down the line? Who can sell an entire picture to mainstream audiences on just their name alone? Producers have recently struggled to identify which combination of actors has the most long-term relevance and box-office pull. There are several arguments as to why the “movie star” is a dying breed: the greater relevance of IP and franchises, lack of mono-culture, shorter attention spans — but the simplest answer is that Hollywood is not currently making projects that cultivate star power. Enter John Crowley’s We Live in Time, starring Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh.
We Live in Time is the kind of film that used to be abundant but feels quaint now: a romantic dramedy that is almost completely dependent on the strength of its two lead actors. We follow the love story between Almut (Florence Pugh), a fierce and ambitious chef, and Tobias (Andrew Garfield), a recently divorced company man who longs to build a family and home. The plot traverses through some of the most formative phases of their romance, from an unconventional meet-cute, the thrill of their newfound love, the birth of their daughter, and eventually, a confrontation with grief that shakes the core of their relationship.
The baseline plot of the film is certainly familiar, but where We Live in Time separates itself from the rest of the genre is in its experimentation with non-linear storytelling. Diegetically, this is not a time-travel movie. However, the script’s structure is refreshingly unrestrictive — flowing around the couple’s timeline with thematic intentionality (similar to how Greta Gerwig approached her adaptation of Little Women). Cinematographer Stuart Bentley contrasts the nostalgic warmth of memory with the harsher, colder realities of the present. Justine Wright’s editing is also a highlight here, juggling between extreme happy-and-sad tones with ease while logically keeping the viewer oriented.
We Live in Time Overview
On top of the film being technically proficient, it’s also purposefully understated to not distract from the main selling point: the fantastic chemistry between Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield. Looking back, it’s clear that director John Crowley (Brooklyn) has had great luck highlighting up-and-coming talent, so it’s interesting to see him fully utilizing the strengths of two younger but well-established actors. Romance/Drama are character-driven genres that live and die by their lead performance. Luckily, Pugh and Garfield are more than qualified for the job at hand. The pair have given precise character performances in the past, so it’s refreshing to see the two fan-favorite actors go back to basics and tune into their more naturalistic sides.
While the pair don’t disappear into their roles in We Live in Time, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh do utilize their physicality and personas as a foundation to build Almut and Tobias on top of. Garfield, who has worked with John Crowley in the past on Boy A, imbues Tobias with a gentle sensitivity and boyish awkwardness. Pugh, on the other hand, brings an aura of personal passion to Almut — the actress and her character even share a love for the culinary arts, which adds to the film’s air of authenticity. Especially given how both actors have been pursuing mainstream/blockbuster fare lately (like Marvel movies), it’s quite satisfying to see them both return to something more grounded and intimate.
As magnetic and charming as the leading duo may be, eventually, there’s a sense of diminishing returns as We Live in Time reaches its second half and starts to become something more conventional. It’s not that the film isn’t trying to subvert the romantic drama; it’s just that its attempts to do so aren’t fully fleshed out. For one, the traditional gender stereotypes are swapped in We Live in Time. Almut being an ambitious, work-oriented partner with goals outside of her family is typically a masculine trope, and there is no surplus of stay-at-home-dad male characters like Tobias fulfilling a supportive part in an onscreen marriage.
We Live in Time Analysis
Unfortunately, the screenplay, written by Nick Payne (The Last Letter from Your Lover), does very little to alter the formula outside of swapping the main gender stereotypes. The characters still end in a place that you could easily predict, and any potential conflict that would arise from the swapped gender roles deflates very fast. Furthermore, the central conflict that divides our two characters, career vs. domestic responsibility, feels oddly frictionless as the film concludes. The big emotional swings still work, though you would still hope that an effort with a unique storytelling device would have higher narrative and thematic ambitions.
Coming off his admirable yet messy studio adaptation of The Goldfinch, another film that flirted with non-linear storytelling via various elongated flashbacks, John Crowley has developed a fixation with the motif of time and, specifically, its ability to recontextualize story structure. We Live in Time may not be a home run, but it at least sets Crowley on the right track and gives the movie a sense of unique authorship. It would be interesting to see him build on what he started here and apply it to a strongly developed story that better fits his artistic impulses.
Though it never achieves greatness, We Live in Time has the benefit of being the kind of romantic drama that certain audiences have been starved of for so long. The backlash of cutting the kiss scene from Twisters proves this: the people want more romance! We long to see two attractive stars fall in love and make us feel something, and even if Pugh and Garfield aren’t categorically on the same level as movie stars of Hollywood’s past just yet, the creation of actor-driven films like this were important vehicles to nurture that stardom in the future. That positions We Live in Time to feel fresh enough despite its more contrived moments.
It’s unlikely that one romantic drama alone can turn the tide and wake up the industry. Be that as it may, We Live in Time has enough sincerity to satisfy those looking to be swept away by two charming actors and let themselves feel the waves of joy and melancholy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is We Live in Time considered a unique film?
We Live in Time stands out due to its experimentation with non-linear storytelling and the exceptional chemistry between its lead actors, Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield.
What are some notable aspects of We Live in Time’s production?
The cinematography by Stuart Bentley and the editing by Justine Wright are highlighted for their thematic depth and seamless storytelling.
How does We Live in Time challenge traditional gender stereotypes?
The film swaps typical gender roles, depicting an ambitious female character and a male character embracing domestic responsibilities, adding a fresh perspective to the romantic drama genre.
What is the significance of the film’s message about romance and stardom?
We Live in Time emphasizes the importance of actor-driven narratives and the enduring appeal of romance in cinema, suggesting a longing for more genuine and heartfelt storytelling.
What can viewers expect from We Live in Time’s impact on the film industry?
While not revolutionary, We Live in Time showcases the potential for more grounded and intimate films, contributing to the ongoing conversation about the evolving landscape of Hollywood stardom.
Credit: discussingfilm.net
