IL ÉTAIT TEMPS (About Time)

Cycle Cinéma Européen 2014
Pour les lycées et 3èmes de collèges
Organisé par l’association Cin’Ecran
IL ÉTAIT TEMPS (About Time)
Richard Curtis - Grande-Bretagne - 2013
© Universal Pictures International France
1
SOMMAIRE
Fiche technique et synopsis (allocine.fr, commeaucinema.com)
3
Le réalisateur (commeaucinema.com)
4
Notes de production (commeaucinema.com)
6
Revue de presse (allocine.fr, commeaucinema.com, lexpress.fr,
critikat.com, ecranlarge.com, avoir-alire.com)
10
Overview and Plot (imdb.com)
14
Interviews
15
Reviews
22
2
Fiche détaillée
Fiche technique
Titre original : About Time
Date de sortie : 06 Novembre 2013
Genre : Romance
Durée : 2 h 03 min
Réalisateur : Richard Curtis
Producteurs : Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Nicky Kentish Barnes
Scénario : Richard Curtis
Décoration : John Paul Kelly
Directeur de la photographie : John Guleserian
Monteur : Mark Day
Compositeur : Nick Laird-Clowes
Directeurs artistiques : Sam Stokes, Emma MacDevitt, David Hindle
Costumière : Ellen Claridge
Distributeur : Universal Pictures International France
Fiche artistique
Tim
Mary
La Mère
Le père
Kit Kat
Charlotte
Domhnall Gleeson
Rachel McAdams
Lindsay Duncan
Bill Nighy
Lydia Wilson
Margot Robbie
Niveau
Collège et Lycée
© Universal Pictures International France
Synopsis
À l’âge de 21 ans, Tim Lake découvre qu’il a la capacité de voyager dans le temps... Lors
de la nuit d’un énième nouvel an particulièrement raté, le père de Tim apprend à son fils
que depuis des générations tous les hommes de la famille maîtrisent le voyage
intertemporel. Tim ne peut changer l’histoire, mais a le pouvoir d’interférer dans le cours de
sa propre existence, qu’elle soit passée ou à venir... Il décide donc de rendre sa vie
meilleure... en se trouvant une amoureuse. Malheureusement les choses s’avèrent plus
compliquées que prévu. Tim quitte les côtes de la Cornouailles pour faire un stage de droit
à Londres et rencontre la belle et fragile Mary. Alors qu’ils tombent amoureux l’un de l’autre,
un voyage temporel malencontreux va effacer cette rencontre. C’est ainsi qu’au fil de ses
innombrables voyages temporels il n’a de cesse de ruser avec le destin afin de la
rencontrer pour la première fois, encore et encore, jusqu’à ce qu’il arrive à gagner son
coeur. Tim se sert alors de son pouvoir afin de créer les conditions idéales pour la demande
en mariage parfaite, pour sauver la cérémonie à venir du discours catastrophique du pire
des garçons d’honneur imaginable mais aussi pour épargner à son meilleur ami un
désastre professionnel. Mais alors que le cours de sa vie inhabituelle se déroule, Tim
découvre que ce don exceptionnel ne lui épargne pas la peine et les chagrins qui sont
communs à n’importe quelle autre famille partout ailleurs.
3
Le réalisateur
Richard Curtis
Réalisateur, Scénariste, Producteur britannique
Né en 1956.
Né en Nouvelle-Zélande en 1956, Richard Curtis partage sa
jeunesse entre Manille, Stockholm, Folkestone et Warrington. Il
vit à Londres depuis plus de vingt ans. C’est après avoir étudié
à l’Université d’Oxford qu’il commence à écrire, en 1978. Il
entame alors sa collaboration avec Rowan Atkinson. Son
premier emploi pour la télévision est celui de scénariste pour les
quatre séries de "Not the Nine O’Clock News", programme
humoristique de la BBC axé sur l’actualité qui obtient plusieurs
prix. Il écrit ensuite sur la série "Blackadder/La Vipère noire",
une sitcom se déroulant à quatre périodes différentes de
l’histoire de la Grande-Bretagne, avec en vedette Rowan
Atkinson. Cette émission, dont il écrit les trois dernières saisons
avec Ben Elton, remporte elle aussi plusieurs distinctions.
À cette époque, Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson et Ben Elton écrivent et mettent en scène
deux spectacles comiques dans le West End, et Richard écrit son premier long métrage,
The Tall Guy, réalisé par Mel Smith et interprété par Jeff Goldblum, Emma Thompson dans
son premier rôle au cinéma, et Rowan Atkinson. Le film est produit par Working Title, avec
qui Richard n’a jamais cessé de travailler depuis. Richard et Rowan reviennent à la télévision pour travailler sur Mr. Bean, dont le héros devenu très populaire ne prononce quasiment aucune parole.
En 1993, Richard écrit le téléfilm Bernard And The Genie, un conte de Noël interprété par
Lenny Henry et Alan Cumming. En décembre 1993, Richard reçoit le Comedy Lifetime
Achievement Award de la Writers Guild of Great Britain. Son second film, Quatre Mariages Et Un Enterrement, sort en mars 1994, et connaît un immense succès, remportant un César, un Oscar australien et le BAFTA Award du Meilleur Film. Il est cité aux
Oscars du Meilleur Scénario original et du Meilleur Film.
La même année, Richard Curtis commence à écrire The Vicar Of Dibley, une sitcom pour la
BBC interprétée par Dawn French. Le film Mr Bean, Le Film, coécrit avec Robin Driscoll,
réalisé par Mel Smith et interprété par Rowan Atkinson, sort en Grande-Bretagne en août
1997 et connaît un solide succès. Richard Curtis écrit ensuite le scénario de la comédie romantique Coup De Foudre à Notting Hill qui est l’un des plus gros succès du cinéma britannique et rapportera plus de 360 millions de dollars dans le monde.
En 2001, Richard Curtis coécrit le scénario du film Le Journal De Bridget Jones, avec Renée Zellweger, Colin Firth et Hugh Grant. Deux ans plus tard, Love Actually est sa toute
première réalisation réunissant un si gros casting : Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Colin
Firth, Liam Neeson, Keira Knightley, Billy Bob Thornton ou encore Alan Rickman y sont réunis.
Six ans plus tard, il réitère l’expérience avec Good Morning England où il retrouve Bill Nighy
accompagné de Philip Seymour Hoffman embarqués sur un bateau qui diffuse clandestinement du rock dans les années 60.
Puis il revient vers le personnage de Mr. Bean pour l’écriture du scénario du film
Les Vacances De Mr Bean en 2007.
4
En 2009 il produit Lost For Words de la réalisatrice Susanne Bier. Deux ans plus tard, il est
engagé par Steven Spielberg pour écrire le scénario de Cheval De Guerre, d'après le roman éponyme de Michael Morpugo et qui suit la touchante histoire d'amitié entre un jeune
garçon et son cheval pendant la première guerre mondiale.
En 2013, Richard Curtis retourne à la comédie et écrit, réalise et produit Il était Temps pour
lequel il dirige Rachel McAdams, Domhnall Gleeson et une fois de plus Bill Nighy pour cette
histoire fantastique, romantique et humoristique.
Richard Curtis est cofondateur et vice-président de l’association caritative Comic Relief. Il a
coproduit les nuits live de Comic Relief depuis 1987. L’association a collecté plus de 325
millions de livres pour des œuvres en Afrique et en Grande-Bretagne. Il a été ordonné
Membre de l’Ordre de l’Empire Britannique en 1994 puis élevé au rang de Compagnon en
2000.
Filmographie
2013 - Il Était Temps
2011 - Cheval De Guerre (Scénariste) de Steven Spielberg
2009 - Good Morning England
2008 - L'Agence N°1 Des Dames Détectives (Producteur Exécutif) Série TV
2007 - Les Vacances De Mr Bean (Scénariste, Producteur Exécutif) de Steve Bendelack
2004 - Bridget Jones : L'âge De Raison (Scénariste) de Beeban Kidron
2003 - Love Actually
2001 - Le Journal De Bridget Jones (Scénariste) de Sharon Maguire
1999 - Robbie Le Renne (Scénariste) de Richard Goleszowski
Coup De Foudre À Notting Hill (Producteur, Scénariste) de Roger Michell
1994 - Quatre Mariages Et Un Enterrement (Scénariste, Coproducteur Exécutif) de Mike
Newell
1983 - Black Adder, La Vipère Noire
© Universal Pictures International France
5
Notes de production
Amour, famille et voyage dans le temps : du scénario à l'écran
L’idée d’Il était temps est née lors d’une conversation avec un ami dont le sujet était : que
ferions-nous s’il nous restait 24h à vivre ?
Curtis se souvient qu’ils sont alors tombés d’accord sur le fait qu’ils aimeraient passer une
journée normale à la maison, avec la famille, à faire des choses de tous les jours.
Cette réflexion l’incita à se demander comment construire un scénario intéressant qui amènerait son héros à cette conclusion. L’idée de quelqu’un qui aurait la possibilité d’influencer
le cours de son avenir ou de son passé commença à se dessiner et c’est alors qu’il en vint
au voyage dans le temps.
Pour Richard Curtis ce film se démarque de ses précédents, qui traitaient jusqu’alors de la
complexité des relations amicales.
Avec le temps son intérêt pour les motivations du comportement humain a bien sûr évolué,
notamment avec la mort de ses parents et son statut de père de famille. « Ce film traite autant des rapports familiaux que des rapports amoureux. Lorsque deux personnes tombent
amoureuses, elles sont aussi un père et une mère en puissance et c’est cette évolution que
j’ai voulu traiter dans le film », confie le réalisateur.
C’est la onzième fois que Richard Curtis travaille avec Tim Bevan et Eric Fellner au cours
de ces 25 dernières années, leur première collaboration remontant à The Tall Guy (Mel
Smith, 1989).
Si tous ses films sont dans la même veine en incitant le spectateur à rire, pleurer et réfléchir
tout à la fois, ils explorent à chaque fois de nouveaux horizons.
Il était temps traite du même genre de rapports de séduction que Love Actually, Coup De
Foudre A Notting Hill et Quatre Mariages Et Un Enterrement, mais d’une façon moins ingénue, plus mature.
Une réflexion sur les bons et les mauvais côtés de la vie afin de pouvoir apprécier ce qui
reste à venir.
Fellner, qui n’arrive toujours pas à concevoir qu’ils se connaissent depuis près d’un quart
de siècle, est d’autant plus impressionné par l’évolution professionnelle de son camarade
de toujours.
Il nous confie que Richard Curtis ne se pose jamais vraiment et essaye toujours de se surpasser, pour le plus grand plaisir du public.
« Ses films sont touchants et profonds mais il sait trouver l’humour capable de transcender
le pathos et l’humanité qui permet de s’identifier totalement aux personnages afin de créer
une mélodie très personnelle ».
L’aspect fantastique du voyage dans le temps a rajouté une dimension à ce film basé sur
l’amour et la famille. Les règles qu’impose ce dernier furent établies clairement afin qu’elles
transforment un sujet de science-fiction en véritable épreuve de la vie.
La première des règles est que les hommes ne peuvent voyager dans le temps avant 21
ans.
La seconde stipule que pour fonctionner il faut se trouver dans un endroit confiné et sombre, fermer ses poings et penser très fort à la date, l’adresse et l’endroit où vous voulez
vous rendre.
La troisième lui interdit de voyager dans le futur ou à travers l’histoire, il ne peut que visiter
des évènements dont il se souvient et auxquels il a participé.
La quatrième exige que la moindre de ses décisions influence son futur et soit sujette à
conséquences.
La productrice Nicky Kentish Barnes admet quant à elle avoir été ravie de la manière non
orthodoxe dont la narration est ici structurée, elle ajoute que si le film est très autobiographique par certains côtés il n’en est pas moins savamment imaginatif.
Elle a vu des gens pleurer rien qu’à la lecture du scénario, tant l’histoire est touchante.
« Cet univers emprunt de réalisme un peu magique ne fait que rajouter à la sensibilité du
film, sans jamais vous distraire des enjeux réels de l’histoire. »
6
Le scénario bouclé, il ne restait plus qu’à se mettre à la recherche du jeune couple qui
pourrait incarner ces idées, ainsi que de la famille et des amis qui peupleraient leur univers.
L’amour est dans l’air : la distribution d’Il était temps
Même si la productrice Fiona Weir avait depuis le début arrêté son choix sur Domhnall
Gleeson, le premier contact fut très surprenant. Alors en plein tournage d’Anna Karenine, il
s’est présenté aux auditions avec une barbe hirsute et les cheveux longs qui lui donnaient
l’air d’un ours orange et le rendaient impossible à caster, se rappelle Curtis en riant. « On
aurait dit un dictateur russe avec son énorme barbe rousse et on ne pouvait même pas deviner à quoi il ressemblait vraiment. Mais au final la décision a été évidente, car c’est un
comédien à la fois spirituel, emprunt de doutes et très drôle, des qualités qui servaient son
personnage à la perfection ».
Son apparence mise à part, les producteurs étaient ravis d’avoir en rôle principal un jeune
acteur si brillant aussi à l’aise dans le registre comique que dramatique.
« Le fait qu’il soit pratiquement inconnu du grand public, en dehors de son rôle dans Harry
Potter, amenait une note rafraîchissante au casting et apportait un réel plus à l’histoire »,
commente le producteur Tim Bevan.
Dès le début du film son personnage est très accessible et sympathique. Son air un peu à
côté de la plaque fait que l’on a envie qu’il s’en sorte et qu’il réussisse à conquérir l’amour
de sa vie.
Il avait beaucoup ri lors de la première lecture du script, ce qui était pour lui un bon signe.
L’histoire était pleine de sens et de très belles valeurs auxquelles il adhérait totalement, et
qu’il a essayé de faire transparaître dans son jeu.
Pour le rôle de Mary, la jeune américaine avec qui Tim va fonder une famille, le choix de
Rachel Mcadams restait incertain du fait de son emploi du temps surchargé, mais ceci était
avant de savoir à quel point elle avait adoré le script.
Richard Curtis ne tarit pas d’éloges à propos de la comédienne dont il avait toujours apprécié le travail et s’estime très chanceux d’avoir pu collaborer avec une actrice qui ajoute la
fraîcheur et l’intelligence au talent. « Elle possède le physique de la fille d’à côté avec cette
capacité de porter le jeu de ses partenaires à un niveau supérieur ».
Rachel Mcadams se souvient quant à elle que ce qui l’avait attiré était la beauté de cette
histoire simple, si touchante et si pleine de sens, et surtout les personnages qu’elle avait
adorés. Elle a signé les yeux fermés avec Richard Curtis, confiante quant à son talent, sa
générosité et son implication.
Elle apprécie beaucoup que son personnage d’expatriée soit aussi complexe, « un mélange
amusant d’aplomb et de fragilité, et qui va s’épanouir dès sa rencontre avec Tim, s’engageant dans la voie qui lui était destinée, jusqu’à ce que finalement les pièces du puzzle se
mettent en place », raconte l’actrice.
Elle fut enthousiasmée par son jeune partenaire, Domhnall Gleeson, et avoue avoir savouré sa transformation physique, autant que son énergie, sa profondeur et son sens de la comédie.
Ce dernier lui rend la pareille en ajoutant que travailler avec Rachel était un plaisir sans
cesse renouvelé grâce à son épatante honnêteté et son sens de l’humour qui ont apporté à
son personnage pureté et simplicité.
Pour le rôle du père de Tim, ils ont fait appel à un fidèle des films de Richard Curtis : l’inénarrable Bill Nighy, qu’on avait déjà pu voir en rocker sur le retour dans Love Actually. Ce
rôle était une sorte de synthèse de beaucoup de gens rencontrés par le réalisateur, en particulier son propre père, et le fait de caster un ami cher pour le rôle fut un réel plaisir.
Il s’agit de la quatrième collaboration de Nighy et Curtis notamment avec Good Morning England et The Girl In The Café. Le comédien nous confie qu’il a adoré incarner un
peu du père de Curtis et que la leçon que tire cet explorateur temporel de ses voyages, à
savoir rester le plus simple possible et savourer le moment présent était pour lui jubilatoire.
7
La tendresse et le respect d’autrui sont tout ce qui importe à ce personnage. Bien qu’étant
le vétéran de la bande, Nighy n’hésite pas à rendre à Cesar ce qui est à Cesar et ne tarit
pas d’éloges à l’égard de Rachel Mcadams et de Domhnall Gleeson aussi bien sur le plan
humain que professionnel.
Face à Nighy, Lindsay Ducan joue la mère, véritable point d’ancrage de la famille. Mis à
part son style vestimentaire très étrangement et systématiquement copié sur celui de la
reine, c’est une femme forte de ses choix avec une vision de la vie admirable et très rafraîchissante.
Elle avoue, elle aussi, avoir pleuré à la lecture du scénario, « aussi bien des joies que des
peines que rencontrent ces personnages qui vivent leur vie de tous les jours, en aimant, en
désirant ou encore en pleurant ceux qui leur sont chers ». Pour Domhnall Gleeson, ce furent les parents idéaux, il connaissait et respectait leur travail depuis toujours, et le fait de
tourner avec eux fut très stimulant et instructif mais aussi très agréable grâce à l’alchimie
savamment concoctée par le réalisateur.
Dans le rôle du propriétaire londonien acariâtre de Tim, la production a arrêté son choix sur
Tom Hollander, le recteur arrogant d’Orgueil Et Préjugés.
« Quand on quitte le nid familial, on se retrouve souvent en compagnie de gens assez atroces qu’on apprend par la suite à éviter, et j’ai donc pensé que ce serait amusant que Tim
aille vivre avec le plus déplaisant des hommes », dit Curtis. « Ce qui est formidable chez
Tom, c’est qu’il est parfait dans ce rôle-là tout en étant un homme formidable ».
L’acteur renchérit sur les qualités cachées de son personnage, et le fait que ce soit un
homme qui prend le temps de s’occuper des autres avec une véritable envie, en dépit d’une
vision de la vie et d’attentes un peu particulières.
La jeune Lydia Wilson qu’on a pu voir dans Never Let Me Go (2010 de Mark Romanek) ou
encore la série TV South Riding, joue ici la sœur chérie et seule confidente de Tim, Kit Kat,
qu’il essaie incessamment de sauver de ses milliers de mauvaises décisions qui ne cessent
d’interférer dans la vie de couple de son frère.
Pour boucler ce casting, il ne manquait plus que Margot Robbie, dans le rôle du premier
amour de Tim, sur qui il testera toutes les options offertes par le voyage temporel, sans jamais arriver à grand chose.
Richard Cordery fut choisi pour le rôle de l’oncle un peu simple d’esprit mais toujours à propos et Joshua Mcguire et Will Merrick dans les rôles des meilleurs amis de Tim, tandis que
Vanessa Kirby incarne celle de Mary, et Tom Hughes le petit ami bon à rien de Kit Kat. Richard E. Grant et feu Richard Griffiths figurent également au générique, et travailler entre
“Richard” se révéla aussi amusant que déroutant, car on ne savait jamais à qui on s’adressait ou de qui on parlait.
Créer sa place au soleil - Décors et plateaux
Ce tournage de 9 semaines durant l’été 2012 se déroula trois semaines en Cornouailles,
cinq semaines à Londres et une semaine aux studios de Ealing.
À l’origine c’est en Écosse que devaient se dérouler les scènes de vacances familiales au
bord de l’eau mais l’équipe n’y trouva pas la maison idéale. C’est finalement en Cornouailles qu’elle trouva son bonheur et put se mettre au travail afin de faire de leur rêve une réalité.
C’était la première collaboration de John Paul “JP” Kelly, le chef décorateur, avec Richard
Curtis, et il fut ravi de trouver des similitudes entre le réalisateur et ses films.
« Richard pense que le monde pourrait être meilleur et qu’il appartient à chacun d’envisager ses journées selon sa propre approche. C’est un homme doté d’un incroyable optimisme, passionné, et qui ne sépare pas sa famille de son travail, ce qui est très rare »,
confie Kelly.
8
Afin de servir cette vision très précise, il se mit à la recherche d’une maison crédible et qui
rajouterait du charme au côté magique de l’histoire. De plus Curtis avait des exigences, il
voulait pouvoir voir la mer depuis les fenêtres pour les scènes entre le père et le fils.
Le film commence dans cette maison familiale en Cornouailles, et n’a de cesse d’y revenir,
véritable symbole du temps qui passe, au gré des deuils, des mariages, des maladies, des
fiançailles, des naissances… on grandit, on perd des gens on en gagne d’autres… La maison choisie, située à Porthpean, date de 1850 et comprenait un jardin surplombant la mer
avec un accès privé y menant tout droit. L’endroit idéal.
Le port de pêche de Portloe fut largement exploité pour les scènes exterieures de mariage,
ou celles où toute la procession traverse la tempête.
L’église de Saint-Michael Penkevil servit quant à elle pour le mariage, et Vault Beach à
Gorran Haven pour les scènes de plage. « La Cornouailles est l’endroit le plus convivial de
la terre, s’enthousiasme le réalisateur, elle possède toutes les qualités que je recherchais,
que ce soit sur le plan humain ou sur le plan visuel, une extension de l’univers très particulier que je cherchais pour la maison».
Avant le tournage le réalisateur a emmené ses deux comédiens principaux dîner au restaurant “Dans le noir” à Londres puisque c’est là que devait se passer leur toute première rencontre. Une expérience à la découverte de ses sens puisque le restaurant, comme son nom
l’indique, est dans le noir complet... qui n’a pas été concluante pour tout le monde.
Rachel Mcadams avoue avoir été terrifiée, sans savoir où étaient l’entrée et la sortie, qui
étaient les gens autour d’elle, ce qu’ils y faisaient ou pire encore ce qui était dans son assiette.
Mais elle a bravement inclus cette expérience à la composition de son personnage qui se
raccroche littéralement à Tim, comme quelqu’un perdu dans le noir, trop heureuse de pouvoir compter et se reposer sur quelqu’un.
La tenue de rigueur intertemporelle - Comme on habille la comédie
La costumière Verity Hawkes fut chargée de la tâche improbable d’habiller les voyageurs
temporels sur toute la durée de leur vie. « Il fallait percevoir la maturation de Tim qui, de
jeune et inexpérimenté, devenait mûr et aguerri sans pour autant perdre la singularité qui
faisait son charme originel », se rappelle Hawkes.
Pour Mary ce fut le fruit d’une véritable collaboration entre la comédienne et la costumière.
Il était hors de question d’en faire une fashionista, c’est un personnage très ancré dans la
réalité et il a fallu trouver où pouvait résider sa fantaisie, ce qu’elles ont fait ensemble avec
la collaboration entière de la comédienne.
Pour la sœur de Tim, l’iconoclaste Kit Kat, il était spécifié dans le scénario que quoi qu’elle
porte, il faudrait qu’il y ait toujours au moins un élément violet. « Son personnage étant totalement déluré, chacune de ses tenues était amusante à assembler».
En revanche la costumière ne s’attendait pas à devoir un jour habiller la reine d’Angleterre,
et c’est pourtant ce qu’elle dut faire pour les costumes de la mère de Tim dont l’icône en
matière de mode est Elisabeth II d’Angleterre. « Évidemment physiquement Lyndsay n’avait
rien à voir avec la reine... il a donc fallu composer... »
© Universal Pictures International France
9
Revue de presse
Le Monde - Noémie Luciani
Richard Curtis épargne à cette comédie romantique les paradoxes temporels propres au
thème pour s'employer à faire rire et à parler d'amour.
Positif - Hubert Niogret
Richard Curtis est un très habile scénariste, soigneux et sensible. Depuis qu'il a choisi de
réaliser lui-même certains de ses scénarios, il a continué dans cette démarche très
consensuelle, où on éprouve toujours un sentiment agréable devant un film bien écrit, bien
réalisé et interprété par des comédiens britanniques dont on connaît la dextérité à jouer des
sentiments et des émotions de la vie.
Première - Stéphanie Lamone
A force de rembobiner le film avec tous ses personnages furieusement gentils, on a
l'impression de faire du surplace (...) malgré le savoir-faire évident de Richard Curtis. Le
scénario épuise un concept qui finit par virer au pur gimmick.
Les Fiches du cinéma - J.P
L'ensemble paraît déséquilibré, tout en restant sympathique (...), et que se déploie une
belle émotion dans les relations père-fils que le film laisse entrevoir. Mais peut-être est-ce là
le vrai sujet du film, ce qui en fait bien plus qu'une comédie romantique classique ou qu'un
film sur les voyages dans le temps.
Télérama - Frédéric Strauss
Le réalisateur Richard Curtis veut renouveler l'art de la comédie sentimentale, mais il
manque de fantaisie. Ce qui finit par affadir l'art du film d'anticipation.
Le Journal du Dimanche - Stéphanie Belpêche
Cette chronique résolument moderne et teintée de mélancolie s'émancipe pour développer
un véritable sujet : la relation père-fils et la transmission. Touchant.
TéléCinéObs - Nicolas Schaller
La générosité fleur bleue du scénariste-réalisateur est un peu étouffe-chrétien (...) Reste
qu’entre ses personnages attachants, ses situations bien vues et la vivacité de ses
dialogues, "Il était temps" représente ce qu’on trouve aujourd’hui de mieux dans le registre
de la comédie romantique qui fait chaud au cœur.
L'Ecran Fantastique - Yann Lebecque
CONTRE - Un scénario qui tourne à vide (...) On finit par avoir l'impression d'assister à une
soirée diapo chez des amis.
Maryline Sandra
POUR - Une pure merveille, servie par des dialogues brillants.
10
Un bonheur de comédie romantique à l'émotion jamais fabriquée
À chaque film, Richard Curtis remet en jeu son titre de roi britannique de la comédie
romantique. Le scénariste de Quatre mariages et un enterrement et Coup de foudre à
Notting Hill s'y emploie ici sur le terrain glissant du voyage dans le temps, source de
nombreux mélos sirupeux. Et, pourtant, une fois encore, il s'en tire par K.-O. en s'échappant
du carcan de la simple love story pour arpenter avec finesse le terrain des relations
familiales.
Car cette capacité à voyager dans le temps se révèle un héritage révélé à son héros par
son père (Bill Nighy, étincelant), le jour de ses 21 ans. Conscient de sa capacité à interférer
dans le cours de son existence en revisitant des événements auxquels il a participé, il va
forcément utiliser ses "pouvoirs" pour se trouver une fiancée. Et... forcément tout ne se
passera pas comme prévu. Car qui dit don exceptionnel ne signifie pas pour autant bouclier
antichagrin, lié à la perte de proches...
Émotion jamais fabriquée et éclats de rire sont au rendez-vous de cette comédie
romantique, qui révèle tout le potentiel d'un jeune comédien enthousiasmant : Domhnall
Gleeson. À lui seul, il fait oublier les coups de mou d'une intrigue qui aurait mérité d'être
resserrée et l'aspect scolaire de l'interprétation de Rachel McAdams.
Studio Cinélive - Thierry Chèze
http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/cinema/il-etait-temps-la-critique-de-studio-cine-live_1296790.html?
xtmc=richard_curtis&xtcr=6
Oublier la machine
Richard Curtis est un produit clairement défini. Avec Quatre mariages et un enterrements,
Coup de foudre à Notting Hill et Love Actually, le réalisateur-scénariste néo-zélandais s’est
fait un nom, irrémédiablement associé à la rom-com brillamment construite, aux dialogues
bien écrits, avec une capacité jamais démentie à percevoir et à intégrer l’air du temps. Tout
cela est très bien, et très divertissant, mais relève plus du talent mécanique d’un horloger
talentueux que de la personnalité d’un raconteur. Avec ce nouveau film, Curtis prend le
parti de l’intégrité de l’histoire, au détriment de son efficacité pure. Comme on dit : il était
temps, on repassera.
Dans la famille Lake, les hommes ont le pouvoir de remonter dans le temps : voilà le
cadeau d’entrée à l’âge adulte que son père (Bill Nighy) réserve à Tim (Domhnall Gleeson).
Comment ça marche ? Un endroit sombre, il se concentre, et c’est parti. Atterré par la
révélation, le jeune homme en convient avec son père : « ça va être une vie compliquée ».
Avec un argument tel que celui-ci, Richard Curtis se donne la possibilité d’orchestrer
plusieurs scènes « romantiques » bien dans le canon du genre, bien trouvées et bien
construites, comme à son habitude. Les premiers moments du film laissent pourtant percer
une étrange impression : au fil de toutes ces répétitions d’une même scène jusqu’à ce
qu’elle se déroule exactement comme Tim le désire, le réalisateur a-t-il mené son style
dans une impasse, pris une direction où le film va, très vite, tourner à vide ?
Avant toute chose, Richard Curtis a décidé de prendre son temps. Voilà qui change de
l’agencement millimétré de Quatre mariages... ou de Love Actually. Au fur et à mesure des
anecdotes typiquement rom-com, on distingue que le réalisateur a, tout simplement, envie
de parler d’autre chose. Il était temps s’épanouit, devient une chronique familiale plus
ample qu’une simple suite de scènes mémorables, plaisantes, mais sans réelle substance
– un récit dans lequel on prend le temps de construire des personnages, des liens entre
eux, des failles, plus de complexité que ce à quoi, jusque-là, s’était frotté Curtis.
11
Disons, donc, qu’il n’est pas très à l’aise dans cet exercice. Il s’éparpille, perd son auditoire,
insiste lourdement là où, le film eût-il été une « simple » rom-com, il s’en serait tiré avec le
panache qu’on lui connaît. Ce qui demeure intact, en revanche, c’est sa capacité à créer
des personnages vivants, pleins de chair et de sang. En réalisant ce qui est bien un conte
fantastique, Richard Curtis prend le risque de s’éloigner de son domaine d’élection : le
résultat est bancal, maladroit, pataud, mais profondément touchant – et c’est sans doute le
plus vivant de tous ses projets à ce jour.
Critikat.com - Vincent Avenel
http://www.critikat.com/Il-etait-temps.html
On ne le dit sûrement pas assez mais Richard Curtis est un bienfaiteur de l'humanité.
Véritable référence en matière de comédies romantiques pour avoir signé les scénarios
de 4 mariages et un enterrement ou encore de Coup de foudre à Notting Hill, l'homme n'a,
en fait, réalisé que 3 films à ce jour : l'incontournable et instantanément culte Love Actually,
l'hilarant « je veux changer de métier et d'époque depuis que j'ai vu ce film » Good Morning
England et Il était temps. Et avec ce dernier, le cinéaste signe et confirme : il est l'un des
meilleurs conteurs, si ce n'est le meilleur, de sa génération.
Il est ici question de Tim, grand rouquin gauche de 21 ans, qui découvre le jour de son
anniversaire que les hommes de sa famille possèdent un don étrange : ils peuvent voyager
dans le temps. Et que désire un grand jeune homme maladroit à la chevelure de feu ?
Trouver l'amour, bien sûr (oui, on se calme, on est chez Curtis, pas dans American Pie).
Avec un pitch qui ressemblerait à un mélange d'Un jour sans fin et d'Hors du temps
(d'autant plus qu'il y a Rachel McAdams), Curtis se permet pour la première fois
d'approcher le fantastique. Mais contrairement à un Retour vers le futur ou autre L'Effet
Papillon, les conséquences, les effets néfastes et le voyage dans le temps lui-même ne
sont pas au centre du récit. Il s'agit juste ici d'un gimmick, d'un outil pour finalement
raconter une histoire d'amour mais aussi de théoriser sur le temps qui passe.
Trouver l'amour, si c'est le but premier du personnage, n'est pas une fin en soi pour le film
qui va plutôt s'intéresser à l'amour au sens large du terme. Et c'est là que le long-métrage
gagne en puissance : quand il ne se contente pas seulement de nous raconter comment un
homme va tout faire pour rencontrer le femme de sa vie mais qu'il aborde les limites d'un tel
pouvoir et le sujet de la famille. Le personnage de Tim a ainsi le temps de vieillir, de
s'apaiser et de grandir afin de changer de perspective sur sa vie. Contrairement à Love
Actually et Good Morning England qui s'intéressaient à un instant T dans la vie de leurs
personnages divers et variés, Il était temps apparaît comme, malgré sa touche fantastique,
la comédie romantique la plus terre à terre qui soit. Dans le sens qu'elle laisse le temps au
personnage de faire ses erreurs, de les modifier, d'apprendre et d'évoluer sur le cours d'une
vie.
Mais, attention, il s'agit bien de Richard Curtis dont on parle ici, pas question donc de
s'ennuyer sur la théorisation d'une existence et l'inévitabilité du deuil. La présence de
personnages secondaires formidables comme Tom Hollander en écrivain acariâtre ou
Richard Cordery en oncle particulièrement perché apportent avec les personnages
principaux, pas niais pour un sou, leur lot de drôleries, en particulier dans la première
heure. Ensuite, l'humour laisse de plus en plus la part belle à l'émotion et à « la morale » où
12
le réalisateur british nous explique qu'il faut savoir apprécier la banalité et savourer les petites joies. Oui, ce n'est pas particulièrement original, ni révolutionnaire, non ça ne vous apprendra rien sur les grandes vérités de ce monde et ça ne vous fera pas philosopher sur la
société mais c'est dit avec une telle intensité et de façon si poignante qu'il vous sera difficile
de questionner le résultat. Grosse, très grosse quantité de mouchoirs à prévoir.
Ecranlarge.com - Perrine Quennesson
http://www.ecranlarge.com/movie_review-read-33125-197021.php
De quitter la salle après 2 heures ?
Science-fiction et romance pataude dans le nouveau film de Richard Curtis, réalisateur de
Good morning England et Love actually, avec Rachel McAdams.
Sorti en exclusivité au Royaume Uni en septembre dernier, Il était temps a réalisé un score
estimable mais loin des sommets commerciaux qu’ont été Love Actually et Good Morning
England, les deux premières réalisations de Richard Curtis. Il faut dire que le scénariste de
Mr. Bean ou Bridget Jones fait preuve dans sa nouvelle romcom d’un manque d’inspiration
patent qui l’a entraîné sur le chemin d’un scénario fantastique où le surnaturel est un prétexte, totalement sous-employé, et où l’on n’en comprend nullement l’intérêt dramatique ou
du moins comique.
Un jeune rouquin maladroit de 21 ans, les sens aiguisés, veut enfin trouver l’amour, mais
multiplie les aventures malheureuses et les maladresses qui blessent. Le jour de son anniversaire, son père l’emploie à une discussion d’homme à homme, l’informant que tous les
mâles de la lignée sont capables d’emprunter les couloirs du temps pour revivre le passé,
voire modifier leurs proches destinées. Ici, il n’est point question de l’effet papillon avec de
réelles conséquences sur l’avenir, mais plutôt d’enfantillages romantico-comiques, comme
réparer des quiproquos maladroits (une première rencontre catastrophique avec sa future
belle-famille, réitérer de façon plus juste l’acte amoureux de la première fois avec son coup
de foudre, jusqu’à l’épuisement...). Si le charme opère pendant 3/4 d’heures en raison d’un
casting British de bon aloi (notamment Bill Nighy en second rôle), avec les stéréotypes des
bonnes comédies britanniques (la sœur maniaco-dépressive a tout de l’excentrique propre
à ce type de feel-good movie), l’on glisse progressivement vers des intentions plus claires,
réitérer la sempiternelle initiation à l’âge adulte et asséner le public d’un fastidieux hymne à
la famille. Vivre, c’est apprendre à aller de l’avant et à accepter la mort des autres pour
mieux bâtir son propre foyer. La maladie qui s’abat sur la famille accouche de moments
moins mélodramatiques que naïfs sur les relations père-fils qui sont ici mises sur un piédestal hébété.
Ne s’assumant jamais en pur divertissement, la comédie de Richard Curtis utilise le point
de départ fantastique pour un glissement inéluctable vers une philosophie de salon de thé,
édulcorée comme il faut pour ne pas trop écœurer et saupoudrée de bons sentiments à
l’anglaise, sans point de vue, car jamais les protagonistes ne prennent le temps de l’autocritique. Dans cette famille bien trop proprette en laquelle on n’arrive pas à croire, un peu plus
de noirceur, d’humour sardonique ou tout simplement de burlesque aurait pu ragaillardir les
recettes rances. Il n’en est rien !
Avoir-alire.com - Frédéric Mignard
http://www.avoir-alire.com/il-etait-temps-la-bande-annonce
13
Overview and Plot
About Time
Overview
Opened: 4 September 2013 (U.K.)
Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill
Nighy, Lydia Wilson, Lindsay Duncan, Richard
Cordery, Joshua McGuire
Director: Richard Curtis
Screenwriter: Richard Curtis
Producers: Nicky Kentish Barnes, Tim Bevan, Eric
Fellner
Director of photography: John Guleserian
Production designer: John Paul Kelly
Music: Nick Laird-Clowes
Costume designer: Verity Hawkes
123 minutes
http://www.imdb.com/
Plot
The night after another unsatisfactory New Year party, Tim's (Domhnall Gleeson) father
(Bill Nighy) tells his son that the men in his family have always had the ability to travel
through time. Tim can't change history, but he can change what happens and has
happened in his own life - so he decides to make his world a better place...by getting a
girlfriend (Rachel McAdams). But as his unusual life progresses, Tim finds out that his
unique gift can't save him from the sorrows and ups and downs that affect all families,
everywhere. From filmmaker Richard Curtis (Love Actually, Notting Hill, Four Weddings
and a Funeral), About Time is a comedy about love and time travel, which discovers
that, in the end, making the most of life may not need time travel at all.
© Universal Pictures International France
14
Interviews
By Christina Radish
Director Richard Curtis Talks ABOUT TIME, Deleted Scenes, Retiring from Directing, Writing an Episode of DOCTOR WHO, and
More
From writer/director Richard Curtis (Love Actually), About Time is charming, endearing, heart-warming and, at times, a real tear-jerker. The story follows Tim Lake
(Domhnall Gleeson), whose father (Bill Nighy) tells him, at the age of 21, that the men
in their family have always had the ability to travel through time. He can’t change history, but he can make his world, and the life that he shares with his beautiful girlfriend
Mary (Rachel McAdams), a better place.
During this recent exclusive phone interview with Collider, Richard Curtis talked about
why he waited to make this film, editing it down from a three-hour cut, the casting process for the lead roles, how challenging it was to set a scene in a restaurant that serves
in complete darkness, and whether this will really be his last film as a director. He also
talked about the two projects he’s written since this – Esio Trot for the BBC, with Dustin Hoffman and Judi Dench, and Trash, directed by Stephen Daldry – and how he ended up writing the “Vincent and the Doctor” episode of Doctor Who. Check out what
he had to say after the jump.
Collider: You first thought of the idea for this film in 2005, but then decided to
wait until you were a bit older to write it. Why did you wait to wait to tackle
this story?
RICHARD CURTIS: In a funny way, it was the other way around. I still had some
youthful glee, so I thought I’d better write Pirate Radio while I was still feeling young
and perky, and before my knees went. I thought this was a film where I was bound to
get better qualified to write it, as time went by. I can’t remember quite what stage I
was at then, but I think I had both my mom and dad, and I don’t have them any longer. I knew it would be something where extra time would probably give me extra wisdom.
So many people mention Love Actually as their favorite romantic movies of all
time, and seem to really hold all other romantic movies up to it. Does that feel
daunting, at all, in putting out About Time, knowing that people will compare
the two films together?
CURTIS: I don’t think so. It’s such a big deal, doing a movie, that the question of its
comparison with another thing that you’ve done fades pretty fast. It’s such a big, long
relationship. That’s not really a thought you can hold in your head when you’re saying,
“I better have another go at that first scene,” and “What am I gonna do about that character?,” and “How can I make this thing funnier?” While you’re making a film, it’s very
hard to hold the idea that you’re in comparison to another one, in your head. Also, one
of the reasons I did Love Actually was because I didn’t want to do another film that
might resemble Notting Hill. In the same way, About Time is a way of dealing with
things in a different way because of the time travel. I would have only felt pressure on
Love Actually, if I had decided to go for another 10-story film, really. This one is a little
film, even though it’s got the big conceit in the middle of it. It hasn’t got that many
characters, and it deals with them over a long period of time. Love Actually had 20 or
30 characters, over two weeks.
15
One of the great things about the time travel aspect of this story is that you
don’t over-explain it, but instead just let things play out. Was it important for
you to show instead of verbally explain those time travel rules?
CURTIS: I think there would probably become a point, in the time travel rule telling,
where people would switch off, so it was better to do it by demonstration. There are so
many tricks to it and so many questions about time travel that it really did turn out to
be a very fruitful area to write in. I just tried to think of as many movie moments or
jokes connected to it as I could, rather than set up a whole thesis.
How tricky was the editing process for this film?
CURTIS: Actually, this wasn’t one of the hardest. Love Actually was an absolute impossibility. It actually took an extra three months because it was like three-dimensional
chess. Any scene from any character could go anywhere. With Pirate Radio, because
we’d done so much improvising and fooling around, I think the first cut was five
hours. That was a problem of its own. This one wasn’t too bad. I think the issue with
this one was that, in the second half of the film, which has a curious shape, it was a
question of sustaining the tension and drama of the movie, over the long tale. The first
half, in a way, tells itself. It’s got lots of qualities of a romantic comedy in it. It’s six
years and three children and lots of family dramas, but in some ways, this was easier
rather than more difficult.
How long was your first cut for About Time, and do you have a lot of deleted
scenes that could be on the DVD?
CURTIS: Yeah. The first cut was three hours. I had an hour to lose. And there are
some things cut that were very precious to me. There was a long sequence when she
was pregnant with the first child, which was very autobiographical. They get in the car
together once her water has broken, and he doesn’t know the way to the hospital,
which was exactly what happened to me with the birth of my second child. My girlfriend
shouted at me, “You only have one job!,” and Rachel did that so beautifully. Finally,
they got stuck on the crossing at Abbey Road, where there’s always a traffic jam because people are taking photographs, and he rushes out from the car and actually has
to pose as one of The Beatles. And then, he time traveled. In the end, we cut the
whole of that because the movie was changing its nature and going from the wedding
day to the birth of the child, and we were in a different kind of film.
Was Rachel McAdams your first choice for Mary?
CURTIS: The whole casting process is complicated. We thought she’d say no because
she’d done a time travel film. She was the perfect casting for it, but we sent it to her
without much hope. Fortunately, she was able to forgive or forget the fact that she had
done a time travel film before. There were other actresses who I could imagine getting
to the wedding, but going from first glance, all the way through being a mother of
three, with that innocence and sweetness, and an innocence and maturity, was quite a
combination.
Did you have ideas for actors to play Tim, or were you open to seeing different
people through the casting process?
CURTIS: That was genuine old-school casting. I’ve done it three times. I had an endless search for Hugh [Grant]. I did it with Tom Sturridge. For Pirate Radio, we saw
everyone of his generation. And with this, I did it again. I tried to see 20 or 30 young
actors. Domhnall [Gleeson] was the first one to make it funny. That’s always the tough
thing, finding someone who’s got a sense of humor. Then, it turned out that he’d done
sketch shows in Ireland and comedy was high on his priority list. He’s got no vanity to
him.
16
How did the scene in the restaurant in the dark come about, and was that something you had to fight to keep in and not have to trim down?
CURTIS: Look, it turned out to be the toughest thing in the film. We didn’t expect
it. It was something I had heard about, and I really loved this idea that you might have
fallen in love with the girl before you see her. You don’t have to do that zing moment
when you cut across a party, and you could actually get to know someone. But, it turned out to be very hard. Me, Rachel, the producer and Domhnall all went and did it,
and it was a spooky night. You can’t hear a smile, so you say something you think is
funny and it’s greeted with total silence. But, I thought we’d be able to shoot it in very,
very, very near darkness. Neither of the actors would be able to see each other and we
could re-enact it. That turned out to be impossible because any lighting meant they
could see each other completely, and we needed some light. So, we did a sound recording of it. We picked up a few glimpses, which you see in the movie, and then we did a
sound recording in the total dark, in a soundstage. Four actors sat in total darkness,
re-enacting the scene, over and over again. I think I wrote a three-minute scene, and
now it’s one-and-a-half minutes. Since it’s pitch black, it turned out to be the most
complicated piece of the process.
You’ve said that this is your last film, as a director, but are you personally
convinced that you’re really never going to direct another film? Would you
consider doing so, at some point, if you just couldn’t see someone else directing a script that you’ve written?
CURTIS: Well, that’s probably the thing. It is my intention, at the moment. I’m really
trying to pay attention to the message of the movie, and go on a walking holiday with
Bill [Nighy] instead of walking onto another set with him. At the moment, this movie
has gotten me to where I am, in terms of thinking about life. I suppose the truth of the
matter is that I’m very happy to write films for other, better directors, like Steven Spielberg or David Yates. But if I did eventually, at some point, write another one of these
personal, semi-autobiographical movies, I suppose I would have to direct again. I just
can’t foresee it, and I’m not encouraging myself.
Have you written anything since About Time, and are you currently writing
anything now?
CURTIS: Yeah, there are actually two projects that I’ve done that are both adaptations. One is an adaptation of a Roald Dahl story, called Esio Trot. Dustin Hoffman and
Judi Dench are meant to be doing that in the Spring. That’s a TV thing, actually. It’s a
delightful event TV thing for the BBC, for either Easter or Christmas. I’ve also written
an adaptation of a very interesting book called Trash, which is set in Rio de Janeiro. Stephen Daldry has directed it, and it’s mainly in Portuguese. It’s a Bourne Identity
for kids. It’s about three kids who find a wallet on a trash heap and get involved in a
great adventure.
I recently spoke to Chiwetel Ejiofor and, when I asked him if there was a genre
he’d love the chance to work in more, he said he’d love the opportunity to do
another romantic comedy because you’re the only one who’s given him a
chance to do so, by casting him in Love Actually. Even though you’ve said you
don’t want to direct anymore, could you see yourself writing another role for
him, at some point?
CURTIS: That’s a very good question. On the whole, I have to be honest, I try not to
write roles for people ‘cause you only get heartbroken when they actually go off and do
a Martin Scorsese movie instead. But, that’s a really interesting thought. I’m a great
fan of Drake Doremus. I’m sure there are people who, if they came to me and said,
“Would you like to work on something together?,” then it might be a temptation that I
couldn’t refuse. Who knows? At that very moment, I might be on a trip to a Scottish
island and just not free to work.
17
How did you end up writing the “Vincent and the Doctor” episode of Doctor
Who? Was that something you hoped to do and wanted to do for some time, or
was that a totally surprising thing that came up?
CURTIS: I know Steven Moffat, who produces it, and he had written me a couple of
times. I think it just reached a tipping point. My kids were so keen on the show, and
we were going away for the summer and I had an idea. It was this idea of traveling
with Vincent van Gogh, which does relate to the movie I finally wrote, in a lot of
ways. I thought it was just a lovely idea, so I would work it out with my kids on holiday, and then write it. I didn’t have to produce it or direct it. It wasn’t something I’d
intended to do, for years. I just had the right idea, at the right time. I was really thrilled with it. It was fun. It was lovely, being a servant to an established show, rather
than on a movie like this where you have to do everything yourself.
http://collider.com/richard-curtis-about-time-interview/
'About Time' Writer & Director Richard Curtis on Happiness
By Alex Billington, November 12, 2013
"This is the big one that I wanted to do." Now showing in theaters everywhere is the
film About Time, the third film (following Love Actually and Pirate Radio) directed by
screenwriter/filmmaker Richard Curtis who resides in England. I've thoroughly enjoyed
his past scripts and have immense appreciation for About Time, and was lucky enough
to catch up with Richard a few weeks ago for an interview about his latest film starring
Domhnall Gleeson & Rachel McAdams. While there is a time travel element to it, our
chat covered casting, writing & time travel as well as rumors that this is the last film
he'll be directing anyway. Read on!
Curtis' About Time began playing in US theaters on November 1st, and opened in the
UK on September 4th. The film is about a young man, played by the red-headed Domhnall Gleeson, who learns he can time travel and uses this to his advantage to better his
life by finding the perfect girl. It's not what most are expecting, but is nonetheless a
charming and very sweet film that tells a heartfelt story about finding happiness in life.
Curtis admits his intention was to make a film about exactly that - finding happiness.
Full transcript below.
So I was just reading about this online and I just want to confirm: is this really
the last film you are going to direct?
Richard Curtis: The movie is a movie saying that we should relish every normal day and
live it just for the day itself, not for what the day might achieve. And the problem with
directing movies is it's like three years of something where you are putting in quite
tough work every day on the off chance you make a good film at the end of it. So I
thought maybe I wouldn't take that gamble again. So my plan is to try and see if I can
live by my own rules.
Has anyone tried to stop you? Has anyone said, "I want to see you direct
more"?
Curtis: Literally you. It's just... [laughs] It's just you. Look. I don't know. We'll wait and
see what happens.
With About Time, how did this first come together? What were the origins of
the story? What pieces of it did you originally envision and then build around?
Curtis: It was... It was a slow growth. I had a lunch with a friend of mine called Simon,
who lives in New Mexico and I don't see him very often. He came over. And we tend to
talk properly. We were talking about whether or not we were happy. I slightly surprised
myself by saying, "Not really..."
18
Happy about...?
Curtis: Just happy, in life. Was life making you happy? And we then had a discussion
about what would constitute a perfect day. And he was saying what he would do. And I
was saying that I used to think a perfect day would be flying to Monte Carlo and having
a date with Grace Kelly and winning a million pounds and getting a text saying, "You've
been nominated for an Oscar." And now I hate all of that. It's too scary and strangers...
And, sort of, the day we were having was the perfect day. I was just having lunch with
my best friend. I had taken my kids to school. I was going to have dinner with the family. I thought then for the next week that would be a subject I should really write
about—how to be happy; how you achieve happiness in ordinary life rather than always
looking for extra, big things and achievements to make you happy.
And I thought that was a good thing to write about but quite sort of simple. I thought,
"How can I make that point in an amusing and entertaining way?" I thought, "Ah, I'll tell
you what I'll do. If I use time travel I can have somebody who can do anything, who
can pick any day, who can choose anything. If that guy then decides that a perfect day
would just be an ordinary day, then that might be a film worth watching." So, then I
started thinking about time travel and all the jokes, and then all the sad things, happy
things in my own life. And suddenly there was a film there.
I really love the messages in the film, what you're saying about finding happiness. It seems like a very personal story for you, about making something that
is almost your send-off, to say: "Look." Anyone can watch this and this is the
advice you would want to give them.
Curtis: That is absolutely it. I think that I've sort of realized that my old films, the romantic comedies, were half the story that... you leave your family, you find love, you
get married, as it were. And then, "Oh wait a minute." You have children. You have another family. You and your girlfriend take care of your old family. So I've realized that
romantic comedy leads to family drama leads to romantic comedy. And I'm so pleased
that I've made a film which gets me up to where I am now and takes into account—I've
lost three of the six members of my first family since I wrote Love Actually. So, things
have been sadder and I'm trying to find a way of finding happiness in that context and
to pass that on. And I do feel it's a film that is caught up with what I think about life,
rather than the old ones which were, in a way, a nostalgia for first love.
I also like that it doesn't spend too much time on the first meeting, which is
something some people get caught up in. Instead of going back and re-trying
the first meeting over and over, it focuses on the much longer side of the story.
Curtis: Yeah, it does, it does. One of the reasons I think that both the actors are so
extraordinary is that without changing their hairstyles much they do actually age 10
years in the course of the movie. Yeah, and I quite liked the idea that this was a movie
about two people who aren't very different and don't have huge fights. That, in fact,
they get on really well every time they meet. The problem is because of time travel they
keep on forgetting that they'd met and there are all sorts of tricks about it all.
Yeah, and it's a slightly strangely structured movie. I hope its got as many jokes as the
other ones did. It gets a bit sadder at the end, but maybe that's not unpleasant though.
I think it really needs that at the end, especially with all the characters have
gone through, the importance of where it ends up.
You carefully balance the inclusion of sci-fi and time travel but simply as a tool
to tell the story. Did you ever want to make it a bigger device or was there was
more to it while filming?
Curtis: Well, when we were making it, all the way through we assumed there would
come a moment when we added a bit of sci-fi sparkle. And when we finished the film,
you know, the time travel is just done by like 10 very quick cuts, or 16 short cuts. And
we gave those to four special effects houses and we said, "Do something fabulous."
Some of them put it backwards in slow motion. One of them did a rotoscope thing
where they cut out the characters and made it 3D, and we added some music. And then
19
when we looked at it we said this is just completely wrong. The trick of this movie is
that the sci-fi element very quickly seems ordinary. I think about 20 minutes in everyone just thinks, "Oh, this is a guy who can travel in time and that's just his quality,
like he wears glasses or stupid shoes." And I think that in the end it turns out to be a
kind of anti-time travel time travel movie. It uses all the time travel stuff but without it feeling like it's a science fiction thing particularly or without it feeling that time
travel can actually solve your life.
Exactly. How much research did you do to work out the complexities of time
travel?
Curtis: Well, I mean look—because we've all seen lots of science fiction stuff I didn't do
any research at all. I just tried to think it through. There are some real battles. And I
made up some rules of my own, this particular thing that you can't travel to before
when you had a child because you'll have a different child. I was very simplistic about
how you would time travel. My instinct is if you thought, "I'll time travel," you probably
just close your eyes and clench your fists and think back to yesterday.
And I didn't go back to other sci-fi movies. I thought that would be a dangerous thing,
other time travel movies. But in the end I remember that some of the films I most love
are time travel films. It's a Wonderful Life [Frank Capra, 1946], my favorite film, I suddenly realized, "It's a sort of time travel. He goes back in time and sees what would
happen in his world if he hadn't been there."
After seeing this, I must admit I love Domhnall Gleeson. He is just perfect in
About Time. Was there a story behind finding him and why did you think he
was going to be perfect for this?
Curtis: Domhnall was an amusing auditioning process. I wanted to audition lots of
young actors and just see if I could find the perfect guy like we did with Hugh Grant all
those years ago. But, unfortunately, Domhnall came in with an enormous orange beard
because he was in the middle of filming Anna Karenina. So he looked like one of the
guys who came out of the woods in Deliverance with a big knife. He looked really
wrong. He couldn't have been more wrong. And I had to really fight to see through the
beard. I auditioned him once and then twice, and then I put him on film. But he had this
key thing. He is a very good actor. I think he's a very sweet man, which I like. I like to
like the people I'm working with. And then he's got a real comic instinct. And that's always key for me. And it turned out he'd done sketch shows on TV in Ireland, and he
really did like the funny side of it. So that combination of acting, sweetness, silliness…
Which is what makes his performance so perfect. And I also heard that Zooey
Deschanel was originally cast before Rachel McAdams...?
Curtis: I don't know how I feel about that…
Really?
Curtis: [laughs] I don't know what I think about that.
Well, I was going to ask - how much of a different movie would it have been if
it were Zooey versus the one we now have with Rachel McAdams?
Curtis: It's such a weird thing. It's like a time travel issue, isn't it? Because everything
falls in such different ways. We actually cast a different actor [than Hugh Grant] in Four
Weddings [and a Funeral] and then we lost all our money. And then he wasn't available
when we came back. And I think you don't know. I mean, just every single stage of the
process would be different if you made a different decision at a different point.
20
Rachel McAdams is fantastic in it, too. At what point did she come in? Was this
after you had cast other parts?
Curtis: The thing about Rachel is I have tried to ask her to do things before and she
said no. I thought our chances were low because she had done Time Traveler's Wife.
So, when we did get 'round to asking her it was with low expectations but with high hopes. And I think... I mean she did turn out to be just—I really felt she was an extraordinary actress. This is the thing, it's such an odd part, her part, because there's not much
conflict in it apart from the mess-up with the time travel. And she's got to do this amazing thing of aging without aging and turning from basically a first date to the mother of
three.
The thing about Rachel is that every scene she's in she just sums up the emotional temperature. You know, if you want her to be joyful, if you want her to be doubtful, if you
want her to be normal, she just does it so beautifully it almost makes me think that my
lines are unnecessary. As long as she's portrayed that, it doesn't matter if she says
what I want, which she did.
How much improv do you allow on set?
Curtis: Well, there was... When I did the Pirate Radio movie there was quite a lot because there were nine big boys in a room, and I would say to them, "Mess around for
five minutes. Then do my stuff. And then you can fool around at the end as well." There
was much less of that in this. But on the other hand, we had lots of time together. I
mean there are some scenes where I am very aware that Rachel and Domhnall were...
the scene where they propose to each other, they weren't happy with what had been
there, and we spent an extra day rehearsing it and it came out very different from what
we thought it would be.
So I would say not too much but enough freedom to make my script noticeably better.
What I love about your scripts and the movies you've directed is how wonderfully eloquent the dialogue is and how natural it sounds. Where does that come
from? Is this just something that naturally flows out of you when you write?
Does it take many revisions to perfect?
Curtis: Well, I do write a lot. So I write 20 to 30 pages a day when I'm writing properly.
And I'm thrilled if one-third of one page turns out to be good. So, to some extent, you
know, it's like being a gold prospector. There's a lot of dirt and earth, and then sometimes I'll see, oh, I've got a particular rhythm here. And then I think I know because of
my sketch writing days if there's a little nugget there how to make it bigger and sort of
more solid.
I think that, to some extent, the magic, if magic occurs, is between my lines which are
very carefully written, and then performers who can make that scene natural and informal. In auditions I often find that people either make it dull or you can see the structure
behind it. In Rachel and Domhnall I found two people who could pull off that trick of it
feeling real, but you can tell it's kind of heightened.
Will you continue to at least write and produce even though you may not direct
anymore?
Curtis: Well, look. One of the reasons I say I'm not going to direct anymore is to create
some space in life in order to find out if there are new things that come into my head.
But I am actually already doing a Roald Dahl adaption with Dustin Hoffman and Judi
Dench, and then a film that Stephen Daldry is making down in Rio de Janeiro about
three trash kids called Trash, which is why at the end of the film the guys reading a
book called Trash. So this film is really just an ad for the next film [joking]. So I'm sure
I'll go on. I'm sure I'll go on writing. But it's not a bad idea when you make a film to say
this is the big one that I wanted to do, because that raises your ambitions.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/interview-about-time-writer-director-richard-curtis-onhappiness/
21
Reviews
For moviegoers who can't fathom any situation worth $10.50 to witness everlasting
love, steer clear of "About Time." But the drama offers something for almost everyone
else ...
San Francisco Chronicle - Peter Hartlaub
It likely won't top the box office of such previous Curtis enchantments as Love Actually
and Four Weddings and a Funeral, but like most soppy encounters, it'll do.
Toronto Star - Peter Howell
For all its glutinous cuteness, damn if "About Time" doesn't sneak up and sock you in
the tear ducts. I tried not to fall for it. I failed.
New York Post - Kyle Smith
Enjoy the love in your life, and don't squander it: That's all Curtis is selling here, really.
Chicago Tribune - Michael Phillips
The film left me feeling simultaneously amused and used. Could Richard Curtis go back
in time and make a slightly less strenuously adorable movie?
TIME Magazine - Richard Corliss
About Time is like a sermon that starts with a few good jokes and ends with tremulous
exhortations to live, live.
New York Magazine - David Edelstein
Some people will revel in this warm front of innocence; others will reach for their Voltaire.
New Yorker - Anthony Lane
By the time you get home from the multiplex, it will be as if the whole thing never happened.
New York Times - A.O. Scott
Curtis's purpose in the second hour of About Time is simple but serious: to show how
we should live our lives. It is a not-so-small miracle that he does so persuasively, and
without preaching.
Daily Mail [UK] - Christopher Tookey
Fails to properly exploit its premise and is ultimately let down by a misguided script,
mawkish sentimentality and an unsightly pile-up of plot holes and logic problems.
ViewLondon - Matthew Turner
Smart and sweet, funny and genuinely moving. Should probably come with a 'there's
something in my eye' warning.
Empire Magazine - Mark Dinning
You might feel you've seen it all before but you can always play spot the difference.
This is London - David Sexton
Curtis has managed to achieve the impossible. Specifically: he has gone back to 1993
and remade Groundhog Day with a ginger Hugh Grant.
Guardian [UK] - Catherine Shoard
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/about_time/
22
Guardian [UK] - By Tom Shone
Thursday 7 November 2013
© Universal Pictures International France
About time Richard Curtis went back to the future to avoid his
groundhog day
Stuck in a rut, the director has missed a chance to learn from the masters of timetravel comedy. Sometimes, it's about letting go
In the new Richard Curtis movie About Time – out Friday in American theatres – a
young British man named Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) is taken aside by his father (Bill
Nighy) and invited in on the family secret: the men in the family can travel back in
time.
They do this by going to nearest cupboard, clenching their fists tightly and thinking of
the time period in question. Only from their own life, mind — “I can’t kill Hitler, or shag
Helen of Troy,” sighs Nighy, with that wispy, bone-dry delivery that allows him to speak
without moving his mouth. But that New Year's Eve party where you didn't kiss the girl?
Back you pop and plant one on her.
Or that nice young American with a job in publishing and a fringe she keeps tugging
self-consciously, with whom you spent a delightful evening only to lose her number? Go
back and troll a few of her favourite hangouts, in this case a gallery of Kate Moss
photographs, which in Richard Curtis’s Britain’s is clearly the thing everyone simply
must have an opinion about (“the important thing is the sense of history”), the same
way everyone in Annie Hall had an opinion about modern art.
Admittedly, Mary (Rachel McAdams) doesn’t know Tim from Adam — and his attempts
to insert her own opinions into the conversation come across as even more deeply
creepy than a man offering opinions about Kate Moss might usually be — but McAdams
is probably used to it by now. This makes three time-travel movies for her, after The
Time Traveler’s Wife and Midnight in Paris. I’ve always been one of her staunchest
defenders — she’s a burst of mint in a cinematic landscape dominated by take-me-tothe-dark-side brooders and self-bruisers — although I’d be the first to admit that
nothing about the girl screams “rifts in the space-time continuum”. McAdams has had so
many time-travellers professing their undying love, she must be longing for someone
who never leaves her own historical period.
No such luck – she gets Tim. At first glance Gleeson, with his beanpole physique, mop
of red hair and self-esteem crawling around somewhere in the basement, seems like a
Hugh Grant manqué. But he grows on you. Gleeson’s face is an endearing battleground
of fretfulness and effrontery, and he has a fine way of following statements with a slight
wince, as if incredulous at whatever has just trotted out of his mouth.
This, after all, is the Curtis trick: to push a race of people – the British – to a place
beyond their natural reticence levels – the romcom – and watch them square up to the
bat. (In this sense, all of his movies are fish-out-of-water movies.) Now, after taking
time off to direct a couple of misfires, Love Actually and Pirate Radio (known in the UK
as The Boat That Rocked), Curtis has made a return to some sort of form, and even
found time for a little homework. In place of the tightly-wound farce of Four Weddings
and a Funeral, which came with Wet Wet Wet on the soundtrack, we get some NickHornby-inflected alt-rock tracks featuring tremulous males singing over wistfully out-oftune pianos. We even get handheld camerawork and beaches. Someone has been rewatching Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
23
The conceit runs out of gas at the halfway mark, as always seems the case with these
movies, but it’s fun while it lasts. Tim chats up Amy at the Kate Moss exhibition, only to
find she has recently acquired a boyfriend. So he goes back in time to gazump him.
Upon getting her into bed, he fumbles with her bra strap. So he nips back and smoothly
seduces her all over again. And so on. The appeal of this sort of clockmaker comedy
is the smooth plank it extends over the bubbling hotbed of “what ifs” and “if onlys” that
bedevil the average suitor, towards the dream of an endlessly perfectable reality.
It’s not so very far from the dramatist’s own plight. Time travel essentially turns characters into playwrights of their own lives, capable of feeding themselves the perfect comeback line or crafting the perfect exit, only to find themselves locked tight in a selfconstructed prison. The best such films — Back to the Future, Groundhog Day — are
parables about the tyranny of perfectionism. They demonstrate to control freaks the importance of letting go.
I’m not sure Curtis is quite there yet: anyone that intent on arranging the tendrils of
climbing rose that adorn his hero's parents' beach-front cottage evidently doesn't feel
ready to renounce perfectionism and all its discontents.
Curtis remains a little too obsessed with his characters’ goodness of heart. In About
Time, as courtship yields to marriage and marriage to babies, the movie drifts perilously
close to that most dreaded and undramatic of subjects, the happily married couple. One
is naturally pleased for Tim and Mary but around about the arrival of the third child, I
began to wonder: where, pray, is the time travel? Curtis’s conceit appeared to have
quietly made its excuses and left the building.
He brings it back to grapple with a couple of tragedies that befall the family, nudging
the film past the two-hour mark and into a sluggish custard of voiceover impressing on
us the importance of living each day as if it were our last, and how all life is time travel,
etc etc. True or not, one resents the effort not made to dramatise these truths, rather
than simply throwing them at us as we’re leaving, like a handful of fortune cookies.
Oh well. Next time.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/07/richard-curtis-back-future-groundhog-day
© Universal Pictures International France
24
The verge - By Bryan Bishop on November 7, 2013
‘About Time’: director Richard Curtis on the tradition of time travel comedies
They go back longer than you think
Bring up a time travel movie with a group of sci-fi or fantasy fans, and odds are you’ll
end up in an argument. It simply comes with the territory; whether it’s the chicken-andthe-egg conundrum of John Connor sending his dad back in The Terminator, or the
mind-melting temporal gymnastics of Primer, part of the fun of time travel flicks is tearing them apart to suss out their internal logic — and whether they play by their own
rules.
But there’s also a quiet dance partner to those sci-fi tales: the comedies and dramas
that use the conceit to mine laughs and explore feelings of love and regret. Call it time
travel for regular humans, but it’s a subgenre with its own playbook and conventions
that goes back to the trail Mark Twain blazed with A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s
Court. One of the latest films to carry that mantle forward is About Time. Starring Rachel McAdams and Domhnall Gleeson, it’s the story of a young man who learns he can
whip back and forth through time at will.
“There is a sort of tradition,” writer-director Richard Curtis (Love Actually, Notting Hill)
tells me, explaining that time travel lets storytellers — and audiences — take a step
back to focus on the human condition writ large. “Is Christmas Carol a time travel movie? I think it probably is. And It’s A Wonderful Life is a time travel movie, really,” he
says. ”Rather than being in the thick of it, you can stand back and say, ‘Oh this is how
we lead our lives. These are the kind of choices we make.’”
Curtis should know. While US audiences primarily associate him with his recent romantic comedies, he’s tackled time travel before in his British TV series Blackadder as well
as in the Doctor Who episode “Vincent and the Doctor.” But while Matt Smith’s Doctor
had the trusty TARDIS by his side, About Time follows one of the principle guidelines of
non-sci-fi time travel: it takes the machine out of time machine.
In About Time Domhnall Gleeson’s Tim is able to zap back simply by finding a dark,
quiet place and concentrating on the moment he wants to visit. It’s similar to the way
Christopher Reeve transported himself back in the 1980 romance Somewhere in Time,
and even brings to mind Ashton Kutcher’s leaps in The Butterfly Effect. It contrasts with
movies like Back to the Future or 12 Monkeys that focus on their time travel tech in lingering, loving detail.
“I think if I just said to you now, ‘Travel back to last year,’ your first instinct probably
would be to scrunch your fists and scrunch your eyes and try and remember it, and see
if when you opened your eyes you were back there,” Curtis says. It’s a simple, naturalistic approach that’s perfectly in tune with the kind of story Curtis is telling; it’s his characters that matter most, not the technological apparatus.
That focus on the emotional carries over to the way these films deal with one of the
most classic tropes of time travel — the existential paradox. You know the routine; Marty McFly stops his parents from meeting, and if he doesn’t fix things he’ll be wiped from
existence. It’s the cause and effect of time travel ratcheted up to life-and-death stakes,
but in films like The Time Traveler’s Wife or Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris the scenario
rarely surfaces. About Time actually dispenses with the notion of grand consequences
right off that bat, with Tim’s dad (Bill Nighy) telling him outright that he won’t be able
to do things like change the course of world history.
25
Instead, the focus is on intimate, personal ramifications. There’s a de facto rule in Curtis’ film, for example, that Tim can’t travel back before the birth of his own children —
but it’s not because he would endanger his life or destroy the space-time continuum.
It’s that doing so would create ripples in time that would actually alter who his children
end up becoming. It’s a line Tim’s not willing to cross as a father.
Coming up with the rule was an important breakthrough, Curtis says, and is a prime
example of the kind of big-picture perspective he was hoping to capture. “When you
start thinking about time travel, you do start thinking about how peculiar life is,” he
says. “It’s immensely peculiar that the people who you most love in the world, your
children, you have absolutely no choice about. And I think about that a lot. I could have
had four completely different people,” he laughs. “And that it’s weird you can’t pick your
own parents, which would seem the most basic human right. So you wouldn’t have to
get stuck with the people you got stuck with.”
The shift in emphasis doesn’t preclude the subgenre from having any time-travel-logic
problems, however. When Tim goes back in time he jumps into his younger self, Quantum Leap-style — but he arrives in the same dark closet he left from, rather than the
room Young Tim happened to be in. I ask Curtis about the behind-the-scenes thinking:
if he and I were in the same room talking, and his future self jumped back to this exact
moment, would he vanish before my eyes, rematerializing in a darkened room somewhere?
There’s a very long pause.
“That is a very, very interesting question,” he tells me. “Do I know the answer to that? I
think that… I don’t think I know the answer to that question. I think I just assumed that
the other person would simultaneously not be there.”
“But that would leave a perplexed person in the room, wouldn’t it?”
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/7/5075234/about-time-richard-curtis-interview-time-travelcomedies
Time By Richard Corliss
Oct. 31, 2013
About Time: Richard Curtis’ Love, Repeatedly
Everyone is loving and lovable in a romantic comedy that challenges an audience's
tolerance for glucose
You’re at a party where someone says something startling. You, poor you, are briefly
immobilized, and you don’t think of the perfect riposte until a bit later, when the moment has passed into eternity. The French call that l’esprit de l’escalier, or staircase wit
— the brilliant comeback that came to you as you walked downstairs in defeat. Turning
frustration into fulfillment is all in the timing. It’s all about time.
Writer-director Richard Curtis had the notion that our lives and loves could be so much
more satisfying if we all had a Take 2. Go back in time, up the staircase and into the
party, with the ideal words of wit or consolation, a quick kiss, a little adjustment that
fixes everything and makes Rachel McAdams your bride for life. Curtis, the unreconstructed sentimentalist who wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and Love,
Actually, turns this trope — a sort of Groundhog Day for lovers — into About Time, a
movie so mulishly agreeable, so brazenly soppy that, even as it charms, it challenges
the glucose tolerance of all who see it.
26
When he turns 21, Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) has the sci-fi equivalent of a birds-and-bees
chat with his sweetly eccentric father (Bill Nighy). Dad’s secret: all the men in the family are able to travel in time. Tim just needs to step into a closet, Narnia-style, clench his
fists and, presto, he’s where he wants to be. Mind you, the women in the family neither
share this gift nor know that it exists. And Tim can travel only to places he’s been before, to right little wrongs. “You can’t kill Hitler,” Dad says, “or shag Helen of Troy. Unfortunately.”
What about shagging Hitler? About Time is not that kind of movie. Other writers of modern comedy might push the premise to grand or satirical lengths. Not Curtis; he dwells
purely in domestic fantasy, and in the airier, fluffier cinema past, when rom-coms were
romantic comedies, and the idea of the One True Love was the rainbow that illuminated
each classic Hollywood film. Curtis is so anachronistically soft-centered, he nearly qualifies as a counterrevolutionary. Your attraction to About Time depends wholly on whether your feelings live Back Then too — or as far back as Love, Actually. This one is
Love, Repeatedly.
Even before he realizes he has the gift, Tim’s life is almost preposterously idyllic. His
mother (Lindsay Duncan) is flinty and doting, his sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson) a bundle
of affectionate energy, his Uncle D (Richard Cordery) an antique of the empire who’s
gone so endearingly vague that if he were to time-travel, he might get stranded in the
past or trapped in a wardrobe. The family is well-off but seems to have no vocation except for hugging one another. As David James writes in a cleverly vitriolic takedown of
the film, “Almost as soon as the opening credits roll, an incredible stink of privilege billows from the screen. Tim and his family [live] in a mansion perched on top of a Cornish
cliff complete [with] a breathtaking view of the ocean. To put a cherry on top of this,
they appear to have a f—ing private beach.”
You needn’t share James’ splenetic socialist view of Tim (“this vile, consuming, wibblingly bourgeois sub–Hugh Granty creature”) to wonder why the young man who has everything needs another gift. But placing Tim and his brood in genial comfort may be Curtis’ indication to audiences that this is a fairy tale, a parable about the capturing of missed opportunities. He posits Tim as a George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character in
Frank Capra‘s It’s a Wonderful Life, but with discomfort, not financial and emotional tragedy, nipping at his heels. If reality rarely intrudes in About Time, it’s because Curtis
recognizes that every story of unsullied love — including Tim’s for pretty Mary
(McAdams) — is a fantasy from which the dreamer never wants to wake.
Tim tries out his time-travel gift with modesty and generosity. He turns a perfunctory
New Year’s Eve handshake with a lonesome girl into a passionate midnight kiss. In London as a young lawyer, he shares rooms with a grouchy dramatist (Tom Hollander),
whose first play he transforms into a hit by prompting the actor whose forgotten speech
ruined the opening-night performance. (This engaging vignette reunites those wonderful
actors Richard E. Grant and the late Richard Griffiths a quarter-century after they starred in the immortal Withnall & I.)
McAdams’ Mary hardly needs a magic wand to propel her into Tim’s arms. The first
night he visits her flat, she announces, “I’m going to go into the bedroom and put on
my new pajamas, and in a minute you can come in and take them off.” But then McAdams has had plenty of practice playing a time traveler’s significant other: as Eric Bana’s inamorata in The Time Traveler’s Wife and Owen Wilson’s fiancée in the Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris. The simple flashing of her broad, canny smile, which applies a
cute question mark to every statement she or anyone else utters, pretty much justifies
Mary as Tim’s lifelong love. She also fills Curtis’ quota of giving a North American actress the leading female role in his very English movies, after Andie MacDowell in Four
Weddings, Julia Roberts in Notting Hill, Renée Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary and
Laura Linney in Love, Actually.
27
The movie is filled with appealing and attractive players. Nighy is always a delight, whether he is a beguiling inebriate as Davy Jones in two of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies or the loopy rock star in Love, Actually; here he plays the quirkiest, most loving
dad in movie history. Margot Robbie is a treat as the intimidatingly gorgeous blonde
who briefly seizes Tim’s attention. Holding the wisps of plot and mood together is Gleeson, who played Bill Weasley in the last two Harry Potter films and impressed as the hapless idealist Levin in Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina. He fills Tim — a Candide in Candyland — with that most elusive quality: innocence.
At two hours plus, this surfeit of good feeling can wear thin, as if carolers stood outside
your house on Christmas Eve and never stopped singing. And in case you somehow
missed the movie’s point — “We’re all traveling through time together, every day of our
lives; all we can do is do our best to relish this remarkable ride” — Curtis underscores
his theme with a half-dozen love songs. Mike Scott’s “How Long Will I Love You?” snakes through the film; “I Will Always Love You,” “When I Fall in Love” and “Where or
When” also dot the soundtrack. (What? No Air Supply ballads?)
The songs are plangent and irony-free, and so is the movie. I wouldn’t argue with
anyone who loves About Time; and yes, I mean you, Mary Corliss. I too responded to
this banquet of niceness, when not adhering to my professional skepticism. But as I left
the movie theater, I had my own little l’esprit de l’escalier. The film left me feeling simultaneously amused and used. Could Richard Curtis go back in time and make a slightly less strenuously adorable movie?
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/10/31/about-time-richard-curtis-love-repeatedly/
© Universal Pictures International France
Dossier composé par Maud Rossi - Atelier CANOPE Vannes
28