MovieChat Forums > Time After Time (1979) Discussion > McDowell's performance

McDowell's performance

posted 19 years ago by Isleden-1
23 replies | jump to latest

Ordinarily, I am a great admirer of Mlacolm McDowell but I was left feeling disappointed by his turn as H. G. Wells. For a start, Wells was renown for the abnormally high pitch of his voice, which inhibited his attempts at broadcasting, but this wasn't reproduced by McDowell during the film. Furthermore, McDowell seems to portray Wells as being stereotypically upper class and pleasant almost to the point of naivety which is in contrast to Wells' real life background. I would preferred to have seen Wells depicted as a darker, more abrasive character which would given the performance greater authenticity.

[–] higavin 19 years ago

I don't think the movie going audience at large would want to see the movie if H.G. Wells was played as a high pitch voiced abrasive character (even if he was that way in real life). The audience probably wouldn't buy Amy Robbins falling in love with Wells if he had a high pitched voice and was abrasive.

[–] Isleden-1 19 years ago

Then I fail to see why they used the persona of H. G. Wells when they were not going to depict his character realistically. They ought to have created a fictional character from scratch.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] disposablesink 19 years ago

If you listen to the commentary, malcolm mcdowell addresses this. He says that he was given an old record of h.g. wells speaking, and that his voice was high pitched, and he had a rather annoying accent. He figured that if he went to hollywood sounding like that, no one would see the film, so he decided to forget about that.

The Durango 95 purred away real horrowshow. A nice warm vibraty feeling all through your guttiwuts

[–] Mex5150 16 years ago

Then I fail to see why they used the persona of H. G. Wells when they were not going to depict his character realistically. They ought to have created a fictional character from scratch.

You do realise it isn't a documentary don't you?

As others have said, listen to the commentary, it is covered in detail.

~Mex

--

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved?

[–] joonas1038 17 years ago

I HAVENT SEEN THIS FILM

[–] HikerBoy57 19 years ago

Really? I think this is some of McDowell's finest work, especially since he is for once not playing a sociopath, but a thoughtful, almost over-sensitive character. Perhaps he's not the exact replica of the real Wells, but the Jack the Ripper character has taken even more dramatic license.

All in all, a terrific film with great acting all around. This is one of the few where I can forgive and forget the plot holes.

[–] DBloodnok 18 years ago

I think the poster is missing the point of the film - this is not a biopic of the life of HG Wells, nor a retelling of the Ripper story - but a piece of fiction in its own right. McDowell's Wells is the perfect foil for the movie - quintessentially English, naive and yet intelligent. McDowell does a good, solid job and his voice work really does not detract - aside from the few who have listened to wax cylinders at the National Sound Archive, who really knows (or cares) about the precise pitch and tonality of the real HG Wells?

[–] pygmalion6 18 years ago

Normally, I too am a stickler for accuracy at any historical representation, which means I'm almost always disappointed. However, this is one movie where I'm glad they didn't do it. The scene in which Wells first confronts Stevenson in the hotel room is one of the best I've ever seen, the perfect marriage of brilliant dialogue and brilliant acting (by both MacDowell and Warner). I don't think it would have been so had MacDowell been at high pitch as you suggested.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] turtletommy 18 years ago

I agree with you completely.

Gee I guess they should redo Patton because George C. Scott's voice was much lower and gruffer than the high-pitched real Patton.

McDowell's performance was among his best and most engaging and likeable as well.

[–] Wulfstan10 18 years ago

I heartily agree with those who praise McDowell's performance here. I normally love watching him and this film is no exception. He and the typically wonderful David Warner are two of the main reasons why this film is still so enjoyable to watch. While perhaps the portrayal of Wells was not entirely accurate to his actual voice or personality, as others have said, this does not impact McDowell's performance and there are several points throughout the film where he added a wonderful quality in a way that only McDowell could. Moreover, there is no problem, from my viewpoint, in still having this be Wells since it's not Wells' actual personality or voice, appearance, etc., that is important, but the "idea" that this is H.G. Wells, the man who wrote War of the Worlds, the Time Machine, the When the Sleeper Wakes, etc.,and a man who in fact had socialist idealism in his views of the future. Those are the key traits for this film. Finally, they actually did a decent job, with moustache, etc., of making McDowell somewhat resemble Wells physically.

[–] Polaris01313-1 18 years ago

I thought Malcolm McDowell did an excellent job in portraying the British science fiction writer. The way he played him was very memorable. Honestly, I would like to see Malcolm in more heroic roles than villainous ones. He plays the heroic Englishman well.

This was also the movie that my twin sister first saw Malcolm in, and to this day, she still has the hots for him.

[–] turtletommy 18 years ago

He was heroic in a way but also sort of a milquetoast, fuddy-duddy Brit gentleman too. Don't get me wrong I loved him in it and thought that was his most likeable and engaging performance ever. He wasn't really supposed to be outwardly heroic at least in appearance I reckon, that was part of the charm of the character. He certainly wasn't as self-assured and masculine as say the Aussie Rod Taylor in the original The Time Machine.

Btw, he did a nice turn in his more typical baddie role in Blue Thunder- I enjoyed the movie when it first came out (I've always liked Roy Scheider too) but it wasn't that special in the end.

[–] Aldrius 17 years ago

I love Malcolm McDowell and I thought he gave a good performance.

But I found his character so horribly useless and overly sentimental. To the point of being annoying. A degree of naivety wouldn't hurt, but... the degree they took it to just made him annoying to me.

[–] indy_go_blue44 17 years ago

Gentlemen, gentlemen, there's a simple answer.

George Wells was an easy going idealistic man until he travelled to San Francisco 1979, all his delusions were shattered, and he returned to his own time knowing what the future held for his beloved Europe. He also realized he was going to have to write "all those books... fiction I hope" knowing that reality would be so much worse than anything his imagination could conjer up. Ergo, he began to drink and smoke heavily which damaged his vocal cords leading to his high pitched voice.

See, it's just fiction.

**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom

[–] invoking_janis 17 years ago

Here's the other thing I can say about it as a nonprofessional movie watcher.

That end scene where he's watching Jack the Ripper hold a knife to the throat of the love of his life.

Nine times out of ten when I'm watching some actor do a scene like that, I'm aware that he's just doing a scene.

Not so with Malcolm McDowell. That guy was completely convincing and the result it so poignant it takes my breath away. Seeing him plead for Amy's life is painful to watch because he makes it so very real.

---

"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

He and Steenburgen had fallen in love during the filming. I think this had something to do with the great chemistry between the actors onscreen too.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mrtanner 16 years ago

Malcom McDowell himself addresses one of these issues on the DVD commentary. When he got the part, he borrowed recordings of the real Wells speaking from the BBC. Upon hearing the high-pitched, South London accent, he felt it wouldn't work for the movie (and he does a good imitation of it on the commentary) and decided not to try to emulate it.
As for the character of Wells not being dark and abrasive: that was how the character was written for the film, and has nothing to do with McDowell. He played it as written and did a brilliant job, in my opinion.
It's funny, I first saw this film when it came out in theaters, and I was just a little kid. It was the first time I had ever seen Malcolm McDowell, and thus came away with the impression of him as this sweet man. It was only later that I realized he was mostly renowned for playing psychopaths. This was a great change of pace for him.
I loved the film when I was a kid and I still love it as an adult, having watched it many, many times. Kudos to the brilliant David Warner as well.

[–] Woodyanders 16 years ago

I thought Malcolm McDowell made for a wonderfully sweet, gentlemanly, and engaging H.G. Wells. He was flat-out terrific in this role.

"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"

[–] crabapple86 16 years ago

The first thing I would like to note is that the whole movie is pure fantasy in the first place.

So whether or not the portrayal is "realistic" is a matter of opinion, nothing more. It's an okay movie. I don't feel compelled to watch it over and over again as I am prone to doing with film that are not made as well as this one.

Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing is made on the Moon! My Uncle from Mars told me, so I know it's true!