love

Author Topic: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)  (Read 1809 times)

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« on: July 12, 2014, 05:35:06 PM »

I hate to be a curmudgeon (been feeling especially so after not liking About Time, recently) ...
Ha! I never had the heart to respond to any of the raves about About Time either. The way it treated the female characters really rubbed me the wrong way (especially because the film is so obviously unaware of it and appears so "nice"). But the ladies here liked the film as well, and I thought it would be bad form if an old guy like me comes along and plays feminist.
I'm glad you said this, goodguy; the portrayal of/treatment of female characters bothered me, too, but I wasn't sure if I was just being overly sensitive.

I certainly wouldn't mind hearing a feminist critique of About Time. I rarely think about movies in that light and I'd be interested in the arguments one would have about such a thing. Also, goodguy watches normal movies!
I'm not sure I can offer a feminist critique, and I'm not sure I can even define or characterize exactly what bugged me, but hmm, let me try to articulate something. It's something to do with the way the film centers around the men, around the men controlling events and other people because they have this extra information and can therefore manipulate events/people - most notably, manipulate the women characters, viz. Rachel McAdams's character, Mary, and the sister character. And yes, I get that part of the film's neat "lesson" is that you shouldn't try to manipulate anything - you need to just live in the moment - but there are scenes, nonetheless, in which it's played as if it's perfectly ok to control or try to control/shape something if it works out to the main character's advantage, no moral dubiousness whatsoever of such manipulation seems to be even hinted at. The first love scene, for example, is played, essentially, for laughs, and it just felt icky to me. Gleeson/Tim gets to have several tries - more memories, additional experience - in order to get it "right" (right for whom, btw? right for his sexual ego, as far as I could tell), and he's essentially using her body/person over and over to achieve that while she retains no memory of those past experiences. Ick.  The whole general aura of the men having this knowledge of events and people that these people themselves, again, specifically, women, do not have, that dynamic of power, is supposed to feel sweet because, I guess, Tim is a "good guy," but it just has this very paternalistic feel to me - in part because while Tim says, "it was always about love for [him]" (or something like that), in fact, it isn't really about love if the woman in such "love" relationship is such a pawn - merely a piece in his story - and ultimately, Mary is a very shallow, flat character whose motivations and desires are ignored/never developed (and many of her reactions are completely unbelievable, eg. her responses to Tim during the art exhibit scene - it would have made sense for her to respond to him as one would a stalker, but for some reason she's charmed?). Mary, really, is almost completely sidelined by the father-son relationship. And fine. I'm all for father-son relationship movies, but when, again, the female characters are merely there to serve that relationship and/or, more ickily, serve the male character's individual development, especially when it's supposed to be about "love," then, no, I really can't feel much for that father-son relationship (however much I love Bill Nighy).

And of course, there's the whole sister thing, too. Tim, essentially, "fixes" her by setting her up with a man (whom he chooses based on his apparently superior judgment - she, herself, on her own, had made the bad choice, poor dear). Bleh.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2014, 05:49:56 PM »
I buy the believability critique in that he'd be a creeper, not charming, but in terms of the first performance, I feel okay about that because she is consenting each time, but the goal is ultimately her pleasure (and I suppose his long term prospects). It is a male perspective, but not an anti-feminist one. Arguably women are trickier to cater to, and there is a lot of gender pressure on men to perform.

I hade a complicated appreciation of the film in part because it felt like it spoke from privilege in its appreciate what you have moral considering the character was well off with a proper family. A bitter message if you are economically insecure and alone. The qualms I have about the romantic aspects are largely mitigated in that it doesn't seem the central purpose ultimately.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2014, 09:11:05 PM »
Yes, she's consenting - I'm not implying there's a rape-y thing going on (although actually, when he came in and just ripped her bra off and pushed her down, that, for me, stretched the believability - from her perspective, it'd be a sudden shift from tentative and sweet outside on the pavement to ravenousness - can't imagine how that wouldn't be startling at best ) - but in the larger context of the film, where the story is about him and where he has knowledge, which gives him power, something feels very off about the dynamic there. And I simply don't believe his intent - in the repeated attempts - is just to give her pleasure; it definitely felt more to me about his need to feel ok about his performance. And sure, maybe that is just the male perspective - he's wrapped up, mostly, on the pressure to perform. (Btw, do you think it's women putting pressure on men to "perform"? - that's the gender pressure? My sense would be that it's mostly men's expectations for each other or for themselves, because, honestly, most women I know are less interested in perfect, powerful first time sex and more in being loved; sometimes, perhaps, even awkward first time sex can feed into a closeness women really want.) But again, from the perspective of the whole film and the power dynamic, I don't like it. In Groundhog Day, Phil gets wrapped up in getting Rita, and he tries over and over again to seduce her - and it's all about obtaining an object - it's not really about him caring for her. I love that series of slaps we get in that film - yay for Rita! The film shows us just how selfish his motives are whereas here, we're supposed to be ok with the motives, which, frankly, don't seem all that much different from Murray's initial motives in GhD.

The class and privilege thing bothered me, too, though I'm not sure I can articulate why; could you talk a little more about that? Maybe say more about this:
I hade a complicated appreciation of the film in part because it felt like it spoke from privilege in its appreciate what you have moral considering the character was well off with a proper family.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2014, 09:26:38 PM »
Here's the slightly expanded version from my review:

Quote
The one sour note, at least from my experience, was the film’s turn toward bright-sider logic about finding beauty in each day and the like. It is all well and good if you are someone who has used time travel to square away a wonderful family, but what of those who find themselves missing out on everything they wanted out of life? Sure, the basic logic of the film’s earnest message stands true, but it is a lot easier to go along with when things have largely gone right for you.

This message works because his life is pretty darn good, so the message works as "don't let the pursuit of perfection take away appreciation of what is very good." But if you are living in poverty or are desperately alone, it feels a lot more hollow. Maybe you could still be happier by finding beauty somewhere in that life but I don't know, sounds a bit opiate of the masses to me.

As to pressure to perform...it's hard to say. I have no specific evidence to suggest that women are actively punishing poor performers. I expect it is more a general internalized societal pressure via the media and all that...akin to body image. So as a man I could sympathize with his concerns, even if it does kind of abstract/objectify her in the moment.

ETA: Are you telling me that Jeff in Coupling is leading me astray? "Sex can be very stressful for men. You judge us on technique, sensitivity, stamina... We're just happy if you're naked... half naked... one breast."
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 11:10:53 PM by Bondo »

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2014, 03:21:12 AM »
(Btw, do you think it's women putting pressure on men to "perform"? - that's the gender pressure? My sense would be that it's mostly men's expectations for each other or for themselves, because, honestly, most women I know are less interested in perfect, powerful first time sex and more in being loved; sometimes, perhaps, even awkward first time sex can feed into a closeness women really want.) But again, from the perspective of the whole film and the power dynamic, I don't like it. In Groundhog Day, Phil gets wrapped up in getting Rita, and he tries over and over again to seduce her - and it's all about obtaining an object - it's not really about him caring for her. I love that series of slaps we get in that film - yay for Rita!

I'm enjoying reading you write on this subject (or any subject OAD).

1) Men put pressure on themselves to perform. It's all going on in the tiny cinema room in their heads. You only "perform" well in this particular arena (gosh I sound English don't I?) with practice and finding out what the other person (male or female) wants/ needs. It's just a question of whether the other person can ignore all the (excuse me) f*** ups, whilst you are practicing. In that sense the process of repitition in a film might work against it. If someone came on knowing everything you liked, it might freak you out rather than flick all your switches (talking about sex without being specific...now that is English).

2) The Phil situation resolves as the futility and stupidity of trying for perfection, when staying in the moment and listening to the other person is more important. Trying to remember all the right moves would somewhat distract from that purpose. Phil is self-regarding and also regards himself so much that he cannot pay attention to someone he purports to have fallen for. Once he unwraps himself from his own ego his life changes/ goes on. The greatness of Groundhog Day (why it becomes more than most of these repeated day films) is in the extension of the premise into existential areas so smoothly you can't see when it stopped being a comedy.

3) "Yay" for slapping someone? What did he do? Say something she didn't like? Does my objection to the idea that women can slap men count me as a masculinist? (Take this last one as pushing your comment to an extreme point, I'm sure you don't mean it that way- blimey my face would be permanently red  ;D)
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 04:27:31 AM by verbALs »
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2014, 05:47:19 PM »
Here's the slightly expanded version from my review:

Quote
The one sour note, at least from my experience, was the film’s turn toward bright-sider logic about finding beauty in each day and the like. It is all well and good if you are someone who has used time travel to square away a wonderful family, but what of those who find themselves missing out on everything they wanted out of life? Sure, the basic logic of the film’s earnest message stands true, but it is a lot easier to go along with when things have largely gone right for you.

This message works because his life is pretty darn good, so the message works as "don't let the pursuit of perfection take away appreciation of what is very good." But if you are living in poverty or are desperately alone, it feels a lot more hollow. Maybe you could still be happier by finding beauty somewhere in that life but I don't know, sounds a bit opiate of the masses to me.
Very well observed - completely agree.

I expect it is more a general internalized societal pressure via the media and all that...akin to body image. So as a man I could sympathize with his concerns, even if it does kind of abstract/objectify her in the moment.
Yes, I see - that makes sense.


ETA: Are you telling me that Jeff in Coupling is leading me astray? "Sex can be very stressful for men. You judge us on technique, sensitivity, stamina... We're just happy if you're naked... half naked... one breast."
:) I get what Jeff is saying, but as we are, I think, agreeing above, it's not really about specific women consistently judging the individual men in their relationships on those things - it's more about a generally felt societal or internal pressure. And while it may be true a man is happy with mere nakedness, no woman is getting that message from our culture. The message, rather, tells us we need to, among other things, have a very specific kind of impossible beauty in order to be accepted, loved. It's sad - both men, women feel these pressures inside a relationship that are usually false, constructed, impossible.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: About Time (Richard Curtis, 2013)
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2014, 06:21:17 PM »

I'm enjoying reading you write on this subject (or any subject OAD).
Hey, thanks! :) It's nice to have a little extra time in the summer for this sort of thing, viz. more conversation on the forum!


1) Men put pressure on themselves to perform. It's all going on in the tiny cinema room in their heads. You only "perform" well in this particular arena (gosh I sound English don't I?) with practice and finding out what the other person (male or female) wants/ needs. It's just a question of whether the other person can ignore all the (excuse me) f*** ups, whilst you are practicing. In that sense the process of repitition in a film might work against it. If someone came on knowing everything you liked, it might freak you out rather than flick all your switches (talking about sex without being specific...now that is English).
Yes, this makes sense - and I agree relative to how a sudden knowledge would work against the relationship in the film. Part of becoming close to someone in a relationship - sexually and in others broader ways - has to do with process, I think. F***ing up and then figuring things out as you go is part of the journey and the growth. And Mary, perhaps, missed out on that journey.  Perfection, whatever that means, has the potential to be a little creepy - a Stepford wives sort of thing maybe :) - and I think a couple who achieves genuine closeness achieves that closeness because they learn to work with and work through failures and awkwardness. I suppose if one wants no intimacy, just a one night stand, there isn't room for failure, but in a long term relationship, if we have that in view, maybe failures - and how we respond to them - are as vital as success. (I may have just out-Englished you in my reticence. ;D Did you hear that Alfred Molina interview on The Nerdist, btw? I love the discussion of the differences between Americaness and Britishness there. Fun, fascinating stuff.)


2) The Phil situation resolves as the futility and stupidity of trying for perfection, when staying in the moment and listening to the other person is more important. Trying to remember all the right moves would somewhat distract from that purpose. Phil is self-regarding and also regards himself so much that he cannot pay attention to someone he purports to have fallen for. Once he unwraps himself from his own ego his life changes/ goes on. The greatness of Groundhog Day (why it becomes more than most of these repeated day films) is in the extension of the premise into existential areas so smoothly you can't see when it stopped being a comedy.
Yes! Nicely described. And in the case of About Time, we don't really see a movement away from that ego, away from life being all about him and what he wants. Tim is, again, a "nice guy," not the ego-maniac Phil is, so he doesn't, the film implies, need to learn a lesson in humility and self-effacement. But that's a problem because I think his ego is still at the center of the film, nice guy or not.


3) "Yay" for slapping someone? What did he do? Say something she didn't like? Does my objection to the idea that women can slap men count me as a masculinist? (Take this last one as pushing your comment to an extreme point, I'm sure you don't mean it that way- blimey my face would be permanently red  ;D)
Yay for a woman slapping a guy who is "taking liberties" (more British reticence? ;) ), yes. But really, I just mean "yay" in the exaggerated, heightened context of the film, where such slaps make sense. I'm not advocating that women adopt a general stance of slapping men. ;) A "shove off," "no," or even a more passive aggressive "It would be lovely if you weren't here" (see the Molina interview) ought to do nicely. :)

 

love