Youthful love (relatively speaking) beset by terminal illness and heartbreak is well-worn cinematic and literary territory. Examples include “The Fault In Our Stars” (Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort), “A Walk To Remember” (Mandy Moore and Shane West), “Sweet November” (Charlize Theron and Keanu Reeves), “P.S., I Love You” (Hilary Swank and Gerard Butler), even the classic Oscar-winning “Love Story” (Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal). These movies, usually portraying a heterosexual romance, have the man or the woman or both facing a debilitating medical condition. The potential for schmaltz is high with human interest stories about overcoming adversity. Thus, the presence of high-wattage movie stars, like Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield, who are discerning in their choices, makes “We Live In Time” a notable entry. Director John Crowley’s film does enough to justify their participation.
READ MORE: TIFF 2024 Preview: 21 Must-See Films To Watch
There is no large plot to recount. Almut and Tobias (Pugh and Garfield) meet cute, fall in love, build a life together, and then something very bad happens. It is the particulars and the manner in which this plot is presented that helps in generating interest for the audience. Crowley and screenwriter Nick Payne employ two notable gambits to set “We Live In Time” apart. Firstly, they fill the film with copious detail and verisimilitude. We delve deep into both Almut and Tobias’ families and professions – he works at Weetabix, she owns a restaurant. Every moment that could be derivative – their first meeting, their first kiss, the birth of their child etc – is carefully sculpted with vivid elements, staged in arresting settings, to make them striking and memorable.
The other novel approach is the scrambling of the chronology. Scenes from various points in their journey together follow each other, and it is puzzle-like; one piece at a time, the complete picture is assembled. The jumping back and forth creates some interesting effects, especially in the beginning, as the audience is trying to get a handle on the shape of the movie. Payne cleverly uses the early scenes to mislead viewers about what will transpire. Lastly, Pugh and Garfield’s contributions also distinguish “We Live In Time.” Their well-shaded performances and industry stature are unusual for films of this ilk.
Despite these inventions, “We Live In Time” is ultimately constrained by the genre it belongs to and unable to transcend audience expectations at the broadest level. Non-linear narratives are often structured as such because the storytellers are trying to hide specific details and curate an experience where the payoff is delivered at the right moment. In essence, the audience is conditioned to understand that there are very good reasons for telling the story this way. “We Live In Time” doesn’t quite meet that bar, and we must presume the time-shifting conceit was used only to get the screenplay past the zealous studio culling process where anything commonplace is discarded.
“We Live In Time” is also a fascinating exhibit that illustrates the peculiarities of the Hollywood billing system. While the filmmakers expend considerable detail on both Almut and Tobias, Pugh’s Almut is explored at much greater length. Besides Tobias’ job and his inherent decency and love of Almut, there isn’t much more to him. Meanwhile, multiple aspects of Almut’s dreams and passions are explored, including her love for ice skating and drive to excel in high-pressure gastronomical competitions. We meet more of Almut’s colleagues, friends and family than Tobias’, and Almut’s situation and decisions drive the story forward. Yet Pugh is billed second to Garfield, a fate shared by Jodie Comer in “The Bikeriders” despite also being a more primary protagonist than Austin Butler.
The imbalance between the characters means that Pugh and Garfield have different levels of material to work with. Pugh goes full tilt and brings visceral physicality to Almut, especially in scenes of pregnancy, labor, and childbirth, as well as ice skating. She ably tackles the vulnerability of her illness, shaving her head on camera. Pugh also aces the numerous cooking scenes with believable competence, perhaps a hangover from her delightful YouTube cooking show. She’s a gifted, charismatic performer, demonstrating once again why she is one of the brightest stars in the constellation of Hollywood.
Andrew Garfield, working with less, is her equal. His always-on-the-brink-of-tears puppy eyes, gentle demeanor and nonchalance belie an effortless masculinity, which will make audience members swoon if so inclined. There’s an aww element in his commitment to Almut, and he suffers a genuine risk of being everyone’s favorite internet boyfriend of the year. Pugh and Garfield obviously take pleasure in each other’s work and that shines through in almost every scene. Their considerable ease is enhanced by performing in their native accents, an opportunity neither often gets in Hollywood.
“Brooklyn” was a career-high and breakout hit for Crowley, and “We Live In Time” can potentially match that film in interest from mainstream audiences. The film doesn’t have a definite sense of place, it could be set anywhere, but it is pleasingly shot in a generally slick production. The editing keeps things coherent, though, after the first act, the time-hopping aspect doesn’t yield any significant value. Bryce Dessner’s score is striking and supports the visuals.
“We Live In Time” attempts to breathe new life into a dormant subgenre that doesn’t often receive the A-list prestige treatment. Crowley and Payne owe a considerable debt to Pugh and Garfield. But for their presence, the film might not have been able to rise above its borderline twee mundanity. As such, “We Live In Time” is genial mainstream entertainment that is away from your weekly sequel or IP dump. [B]
Get complete coverage from the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival on the Playlist here.
