Time Traveller's Wife - creepiest film ever?

[Holdfast]

Seriously, how is this film not criticised for this?

I just saw the movie (it was on TV, so I figured why not), but never read the book, so don't know if this was addressed properly there. But the central relationship in the movie is one of the most downright disturbing I've ever seen in a film, given that the tone of the piece is that it's a wonderful thing.

Look at the plot from the wife's perspective, rather than the husband: A stranger turns up and starts talking to a little girl (for the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that he's naked), revisits her very regularly while she's growing up in the knowledge that he's going to have a sexual relationship with her (effectively grooming her with his unconscious behaviour towards her even though he doesn't mean it in that way) sleeps with her when she's a teenager (possibly underage? I wasn't paying proper attention to the film at that point), then eventually ends up marrying her when she grows up.

If the dude had any personal integrity whatsoever, he'd have broken things off as soon as he looked at her diary and saw just how irrationally obsessed the woman was with him. I appreciate he didn't realise what he had done to her growing up until then, but as soon as he looked at that diary, he should have realised, and backed the hell off.

The power dynamic between the two characters is so tilted in his favour that it's borderline abusive, and every single person in the movie just plays along with it as if it's a wonderful thing. Only for one brief moment does the woman question whether she had a choice at all, and that's immediately brushed aside as not worth exploring.

Icky doesn't begin to describe all this but it's the fact that the tone of the movie enthusiastically endorses this relationship that makes it unbearably creepy.

I can't be the only one who got this vibe, right?!

 

[Guy Gardener]

I agree.

However, "love" means never having to admit that you are psychotically infatuated to the point of fetishism.

If you look at "couples" who claim to be in love and do all the public touching and finishing each others sentences... It's vomitous, and then you wonder, what if one of them had decided against this relationship but the other had resided to do anything but steam up full speed ahead?

The less keen fellow described above would be tied up, hidden under the floorboards, and just brought out for special occasions.

How did you like the bit about how she got around his surprise vasectomy?

It was a horrible movie, but the wife could play the game too.

 

[Hound of UIster]

It's not serious science fiction. The only people who read it are either bored housewives or the same people who read trash like Twilight.

 

[JB2005]

My girlfriend recommended this book to me because she'd loved it and thought I would - and I did, and when we found out it was also a film we thought, sure why not?

The film is nothing like the book - I don't have it here with me and it's a while since I read it, but I think the order of the plot of the book is different to how it's presented in the film. In the book, we follow Claire's timeline, and occassionally flash forward and back with Henry, so we get Claire growing up...

I can't properly review it because it's so long since I read it, but suffice it to say the book is nothing like the film and shouldn't be compared!

 

[DWF]

I thought it was a beautiful and tragic love story on par with Somewhere in Time.

 

[Holdfast]

How did you like the bit about how she got around his surprise vasectomy?

... the wife could play the game too.

Yeah, I squirmed at that point too; how deviously manipulative can you get?

Fair point, though, they can both be pretty twisted in their behaviour. But he bears more responsibility in this as her character is so heavily formed by his.

It's not serious science fiction.

On the contrary, I thought the science fiction aspect of it was MUCH better than the abusive relationship "love story" aspect.

The time travel aspects are all perfectly consistent with each other, with no paradoxes/temporal headaches, and frankly make much more sense than most "serious" science fiction time travel movies. As long as you accept the basic premise that a genetic condition can cause time travel, everything else makes perfect sense from a deterministic perspective.

I thought it was a beautiful and tragic love story on par with Somewhere in Time.

Somewhere in Time is great, and I also like that other time travel romantic movie where they correspond by mail (can't remember the name right now). I even sort of liked Kate & Leopold (yeah, yeah, so sue me!). The power imbalance in all of these is far less prominent, making the relationships adult in nature.

I've no objection to the concept of a love story across time, but this specific storyline felt really abusive in how it played out. I'm most surprised that this wasn't felt by more people, to be honest.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Book is so much better. I couldn't make it through the movie. The book was half romance, half sci-fi with both complementing each aspect very well. The movie simply made it a romance where the sci-fi was almost non-existent, so that part of the context is lost and the fact that it focuses so much on the romance makes the issue stand out much more. It's one of my favourite books. Intricate plot and well-written.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Look at the plot from the wife's perspective, rather than the husband: A stranger turns up and starts talking to a little girl (for the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that he's naked), revisits her very regularly while she's growing up in the knowledge that he's going to have a sexual relationship with her (effectively grooming her with his unconscious behaviour towards her even though he doesn't mean it in that way) sleeps with her when she's a teenager (possibly underage? I wasn't paying proper attention to the film at that point), then eventually ends up marrying her when she grows up.

If the dude had any personal integrity whatsoever, he'd have broken things off as soon as he looked at her diary and saw just how irrationally obsessed the woman was with him. I appreciate he didn't realise what he had done to her growing up until then, but as soon as he looked at that diary, he should have realised, and backed the hell off.

I haven't seen the movie, I've only read the book, but it would have been out of (novel) Henry's character to not do what he does, so even if he wanted to back away he couldn't and wouldn't.

Henry's problem -- and it's a central problem in the book -- is that he has no agency. Henry is so caught up in his predestined life that he can't do anything -- and he can't conceive of doing anything. He wins the lottery because he knows that's what happens to him, but he can't do anything to stop 9-11 and won't do anything to save his own life.

So you're asking Henry to be someone that he's not, but he can't be that person that he's not because he knows his life is already determined and he can't imagine anything otherwise.

By the way, in the book, Henry doesn't have sex with Claire until her eighteenth birthday. In the book, it's clear that Claire's friends know that she has an unseen boyfriend that she's loyal to; they just don't know that the boyfriend is her husband from the future.

 

[Holdfast]

So you're asking Henry to be someone that he's not...

No, I'm really not, I promise you. I get the hard deterministic part of the story, and actually appreciate that a lot. It makes sense, and it's a really good way to do a time travel storyline that's logical.

My beef is that this guy (deterministically or not) is pretty sleazy in what he does, making the relationship with his wife-to-be very arguably abusive due to the power imbalance in their maturity/knowledge at various points esp. early on in her life, and most relevantly to your point, the tone of the movie enthusiastically endorses this relationship as A Good Thing.

If the movie actively questioned the healthiness of the relationship at some point - any point - in a significant way, I wouldn't complain. But it doesn't. Did the book?

I just don't feel it comes across as a benign love story at all, which is what the movie's tone would have you accept it as.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I haven't seen the movie, I've only read the book, but it would have been out of (novel) Henry's character to not do what he does, so even if he wanted to back away he couldn't and wouldn't.

Henry's problem -- and it's a central problem in the book -- is that he has no agency. Henry is so caught up in his predestined life that he can't do anything -- and he can't conceive of doing anything. He wins the lottery because he knows that's what happens to him, but he can't do anything to stop 9-11 and won't do anything to save his own life.

Yep, exactly. It should be of note that the reason why he's travelling is because he has an affliction he can't control and it's another reason why the sci-fi part of it is so important to the story. So even if he'd like to take a different path and back away, he can't.

And I do remember the book going into detail over the healthiness of the relationship. There's one part of the book I remember where she questions whether she should marry him and wondering if she can even not do that. So, there's quite a bit of depth to it that the movie doesn't come close to reflecting. It's not as blunt as what the movie makes it out to be.

 

[Starbreaker]

I don't see how their relationship is abusive. I don't remember the movie much, but I remember in the book that Henry only visits Clare a handful of times in her childhood and he refuses to tell her very much about her future life. He continues to visit her because it's the way she remembers things and he doesn't want to change anything and ruin his future with her.

I guess it kind of comes off as a little creepy that this 40 year old guy is hanging out in a field with a teenager, but it seemed much more romantic in the novel.

 

[Bisz]

This movie is on my now becoming not so short list of movies to see. Until I read this thread I had no idea what the movie was about other than what I gleamed from the trailers. I'm still looking forward to seeing it.

 

[Takeru]

My beef is that this guy (deterministically or not) is pretty sleazy in what he does, making the relationship with his wife-to-be very arguably abusive due to the power imbalance in their maturity/knowledge at various points ...

I haven't seen the movie, so maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't she do the same thing? Due to the time travel there has to be a point where he meets her for the first time, while she already knows him, probably loves him and wants to make sure he visits her as a child as she remembers it.
From his perspective he meets a woman who is obsessed with him, tells him about his future/her past and by doing so pretty much forces him to do what she remembers he did. They are both manipulating and are manipulated and neither did it first, it's really interesting, I think I want to read the book now.

 

[GalaxyX]

From skimming over the details of the story on Wiki (without actually seeing the movie or reading the book) it does in fact seem like the OP has a point in his criticism.

 

[Starkers]

Yeah it is somewhat disturbing, but I still quite like the film and it still gets me a bit at the end. At the end of the day I guess it isn't any less healthy than a lot of other relationships where one person is a lot older and meets the other as a child; take Celine Dion, or Anakin and Padme or where one person has an obsession about another and loves them from afar before the other one even knows they exist. I really must read the book one day though!

 

[Guy Gardener]

Or Helen Magnus and Will Zimmerman from Sanctuary.

Although, I think Helen, who met will first when he was 5 years old, is waiting till he's in his 40s till she makes a move.

A villain who pops up from time to time keeps calling Will her "Concubine".

Total foreshadowing.

However Doctor Magnus was driving without stick last year.

 

[Holdfast]

I'm still looking forward to seeing it.

You should. I don't like the way the movie endorses the relationship, but it's actually a good movie nonetheless, and the time travel aspect is done in a more logical fashion than lots of more typical sci-fi fare. I also found it very thought-provoking, though as you can tell, in a very very different way from how it's intended to be taken.

At the end of the day I guess it isn't any less healthy than a lot of other relationships where one person is a lot older and meets the other as a child; take Celine Dion, or Anakin and Padme

You're not helping the case by citing Anakin & Padme...

But seriously, yes, that's true, but I'm not convinced that it not being "any less healthy" is actually the same thing as "healthy".

I guess it kind of comes off as a little creepy that this 40 year old guy is hanging out in a field with a teenager...

The implication was that they slept together in the field too, with a further implication that it was her first time. Yeah, that's more than a little unusual...

I haven't seen the movie, so maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't she do the same thing? Due to the time travel there has to be a point where he meets her for the first time...

She does, and that scene has this this horrendous obsessive vibe from her. It's a good job the movie depicts a deterministic story where characters have basically no free will, because if they did, his alarm bells should be ringing wildly at that point!

From his perspective he meets a woman who is obsessed with him, tells him about his future/her past and by doing so pretty much forces him to do what she remembers he did. They are both manipulating and are manipulated and neither did it first, it's really interesting, I think I want to read the book now.

I'd say the difference is that when he meets her for the first time (from his perspective), they're both consenting adults, whereas when she meets him for the first time, he's about 40 and she's about 5, and he knows full well the girl is going to be his wife.

I suppose the way round my concerns is to acknowledge that in this universe, the age-old question of whether free will exists is basically answered with a resounding NO. You cannot act in any way other than you are destined to act.

This abolishes questions around consent, and also around morality or abuse as you cannot logically be held responsible for your actions if you cannot choose your actions. Creepiness is irrelevant where there is no moral context.

Of course, the corollary to that is that the story itself loses some emotional impact. Does their love really mean anything if they cannot choose any other path? Where is the sacrifice, where is the meaning? It's an incredibly nihilistic perspective, and completely contrary to the supposed message of love being able to overcome the most tragic of circumstances.

Great tragedy is tragic not because predeterminism, but because the characters choose to walk that path. Think of any Shakespeare play where there's an element of impending doom. For instance, the witches in Macbeth prophesy the circumstances of his doom, but he chooses to act that way regardless. Their prophecy is made true through a series of self-fulfilling actions. But if it were determined hardly, then all those brilliant self-questioning scenes get reduced to triviality.

 

[Ethros]

It's not serious science fiction. The only people who read it are either bored housewives or the same people who read trash like Twilight.

Well that's a load of horse shit for one, I'm certianly not a housewife, bored or otherwise, and can't abide stuff like Twilight.

I did however see the trailer for TTTW, thought it looked intersting so read the book which I'd a lot of praise for, loved it and literally couldn't put it down, and then enjoyed the movie a lot.
There's an awful lot left out in the movie, but it does capture the characters and tone fairly well. My one criticism would be that its too short and as such rushes along at a pretty fast pace, by missing elements out and not giving much breathing time. I'd compare it to American Psycho, in that the movies are basically a "greatest hits" of the books.


As for Henry, from his POV he doesn't meet child-Claire until well after he's been seeing adult-Claire for a while. I guess it'd be like going back in time and meeting your wife/girlfriend as a child. It's not sexual, but it would just be fun/interesting to know they were like at that point.

And then for "he should have done this..." the book always makes it clear that the past is the past and no matter what Henry does on his visits back he can never change things, no matter how he tries. Anyway the temporal mechanics of the whole thing are seriously not there to be analysed, or even the reason why he time travels at all (if you count "it's in his DNA" as an answer.) If that's what you're after you'd be reading the wrong book

 

[JB2005]

Her Fearful Symmetry is a pretty creepy book...

 

[Owain Taggart]

Of course, the corollary to that is that the story itself loses some emotional impact. Does their love really mean anything if they cannot choose any other path? Where is the sacrifice, where is the meaning? It's an incredibly nihilistic perspective, and completely contrary to the supposed message of love being able to overcome the most tragic of circumstances.

Oh, I can assure you that in terms of what happens in the book, the story doesn't lose any emotional impact at all. The last moments of the book are quite touching, in fact. I can only hope that this discussion has interested you in reading the book, because I have a feeling you'd like it more than the movie.

It's not serious science fiction. The only people who read it are either bored housewives or the same people who read trash like Twilight.

Well that's a load of horse shit for one, I'm certianly not a housewife, bored or otherwise, and can't abide stuff like Twilight.

Agreed. I think it's one of the few books with heavy romance that both males and females can enjoy. It's very well written with an intricate plot. The writer thinking up everything that happens to Henry in terms of a timeline is an accomplishment in itself. She really impressed me in that regard. The Sci-fi in the book is quite compelling as well. Both elements are very important to the book.

And then for "he should have done this..." the book always makes it clear that the past is the past and no matter what Henry does on his visits back he can never change things, no matter how he tries.

Yep, exactly. I think that even if Claire would have wanted to break things off that Henry would have found her and it would have happened anyway. He realizes he can't change anything and so he just does the best he can. I actually feel he's really patient with her.