Skip to main content

I can’t have you following me about eternity like the Flying Dutchman.

Time after Time
(1979)

(SPOILERS) It seems as if every even half-successful science-fiction movie has spawned at least a failed TV version at some point. I haven’t seen Time after Time’s spin-off, but I’m unsurprised its premise didn’t successfully lend itself to an ongoing series format. Indeed, by the time the credits roll on Nicholas Meyer’s directorial debut, I felt he’d run into the limits of his (Karl Alexander’s) idea.

Time after Time’s faux-Victoriana contrasted with late-twentieth century San Francisco provides the missing link between Meyer’s prior Sherlock Holmes pastiches and his later contributions to Star Trek. You can see his love for literature (Melville, Shakespeare) but more especially the fish-out-of-water qualities later exhibited by Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. For my money, that Trek outing is a more successful synthesis of the themes present here, even as it shuns some of Time after Time’s most essential features (the love story, a personified villain). The Voyage Home manages to deliver its excoriation of 1986 attitudes, lifestyles and values in a manner both pointed and humorous. In contrast, Time after Time is mostly just pointed.

I’ve tried to work out why the picture doesn’t quite work for me – this is my second go-round – and I think it’s cumulative. Partly, it’s simply that Meyer, a novice director, services his screenplay without much flair, very much learning the ropes as he goes. There’s little urgency engendered by his direction or the editing, which may assist the love story, but it does little for hunting the killer. Of whom, while David Warner is very good, there’s just too little of his John Leslie Stevenson, revealed as Jack the Ripper. It’s an attractively high-concept idea, and to be fair, is in another league to more recent genre mash-ups, but the most fascinating side of the equation – Jolly Jack loose in a modern metropolis – is largely left languishing.

Meyer himself said he wasn’t very interested in the Ripper side of the plot, or dwelling on his actions; he took the project on after Karl Alexander sent him pages from his unfinished novel, having been impressed with The Seven-Percent Solution. As a consequence, Stevenson is left stranded in terms of motivation; he loves 1979 because it’s so violent (“Ninety years ago, I was a freak. Today, I’m an amateur”), but when Wells, who in 1893 had confidently predicted “In three generations the social utopia will have come to pass”, decides to bring him to book and back to 1893, Stevenson seeks to escape the period (why not just off Wells, so stopping him “following me round eternity"?) Then he starts killing in 1979. And inevitably, Wells’ love interest is kidnapped. Stevenson’s fate also feels like a missed opportunity; something closer to a riff on Wells’ works, either past or future, might have been more fitting (“I sent him to where he belongs – infinity”).

Once he has set it up for all to be impressed by, Meyer fails to find anywhere interesting to take the premise. There’s some amusement seeing how well Stevenson responds to the fashions and forms of the era (disco especially), but this adjustment is mostly reserved for Wells. As played by McDowell, he’s a rather stuffy Englishman in a Holmes deerstalker – he even gives Doyle’s detective as his name at the police station, unaware that it’s known by all – the actor having elected not to play with him with a broad south-east London accent.

Meyer signposts the various areas where Wells was ahead of his time, most notably the emancipation movement, while also emphasising his emotional formality. But this is, to some degree, rather clunky in the playing. I didn’t find it especially sweet or charming, even knowing a real romance blossomed during filming between McDowell and Mary Steenburgen. It’s all amiable enough, but Steenburgen comes on like a Quaaluded Kate Bush and Amy seems to spring more from 60s liberation clichés than the cusp of the 80s (“My work is my life, just like you or any other man” she says, objecting to the idea of being transported, disenfranchised, to the nineteenth century – although, her bank job isn’t all that – and later she exclaims “My God, Herbert. I’m practically raping you!” when he expresses concern he might be taking advantage).

Wells’ scenes with the police were surely an influence on Kyle Rees’ interrogation in The Terminator, but elsewhere Meyer seems as flippant towards the mechanics of time travel as he is towards the motivation of the Ripper. At one point, Herbert and Amy travel three days into the future, where a newspaper headline announces her murder, which would assume that they return to the present, which they haven’t yet done (I know, it’s a regular time-travel conceit, but there isn’t even a discussion of the parameters here; I even wondered if the headline was intended to be a mistaken identification of the murder of Amy’s co-worker).

I have to admit too, that I’m not entirely sold on McDowell. Cast him as a character with an edge, and he’s riveting. As a buttoned-down hero, he’s perhaps too good at observing such strictures (perhaps if he’d been more like the actual Wells, especially with regard to the romance; this is a very romanticised portrait). Warner, in contrast, had been going through his bad guy paces in The Thirty-Nine Steps and would follow with a string of such villainous parts (The Island, Time Bandits, Tron) leaves you wanting more. Perhaps they should have swapped roles (the studio wanted Mick Jagger for Wells). Other notable incidentals are Corey Feldman in his second movie appearance (“Boy at Museum”) and Exorcist IV showing at a local cinema (what 1979 is this?)

Generally, I’d recommend Sherlock Holmes’ big screen attempts to bring the Ripper to justice (A Study in Terror, Murder by Decree) over HG’s; Pauline Kael may have been onto something that Meyer too inherently recognised in his attempts to shy away from the stark horrors of the Ripper’s acts: “The movie doesn’t full succeed… the Ripper… is too frighteningly sociopathic to fit into the film’s romantic framework”. Meyer had come on in leaps and bounds as a director by the time of his next effort, but Time after Time both sparks with its what-if conceit and then slightly underwhelms with how it pays if off.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…