John Crowley Explains How Florence Pugh Prioritized ‘We Live in Time’ Over Marvel

by

As a seasoned film enthusiast with years of experience under my belt, I can’t help but marvel at the tales that unfold behind the silver screen. The anecdote about Andrew and Florence’s extended sex scene is a prime example of the unexpected twists and turns that often happen during production. It seems that even the director himself had a moment of forgetfulness!

In “We Live in Time,” director John Crowley anticipated the high-quality performance he’d receive from his valued past partner, Andrew Garfield. However, it was Florence Pugh‘s dedication to the complex, nonlinear indie drama that went beyond any prior expectations.

Stars often put their focus on high-budget studio films that offer financial rewards, but they must juggle these projects alongside their personal passion projects. However, in the case of Pugh and her role as Almut Brühl, she approached the Nick Payne-scripted romantic drama with equal importance. This meant she was willing to shave her head for the part of a chef who faces the challenge of ovarian cancer recurrence after starting a family with Tobias Durand (portrayed by Garfield).

The challenge with selecting actors like Pugh is that they’re often booked solid for other projects throughout the year. For instance, the spring 2023 production of A24’s “We Live in Time” was set to be followed by her lead role as Yelena Belova in Marvel Studios’ “Thunderbolts.” On the flip side, Austin Butler encountered an opposite scenario when the creators of “Dune: Part Two” insisted he shave his head for the villain Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen. Instead, he negotiated a wig so that Jeff Nichols’ upcoming film “The Bikeriders” wouldn’t jeopardize its funding due to the actor requiring a buzz cut or wig.

Undaunted, Pugh never hesitated about whether to go all the way with the haircut.

She didn’t share with anyone that she was planning to shave her head. It took me by surprise and I found it quite bold. I exclaimed something like, ‘Wow, that takes a lot of courage!'” Crowley shared with The Hollywood Reporter. “Initially, when I met her, I had expected her to discuss the matter of shaving her head with me first.

During the WGA strike, the production of Thunderbolts delayed its June 2023 release date as long as possible. However, by late May, they chose to suspend operations, making Pugh’s daring decision irrelevant in the end. Nonetheless, Crowley appreciates that the actor, similar to Butler, prioritized a lesser-known project over bigger opportunities. Interestingly enough, the two-month delay of Thunderbolts allowed Pugh to work on We Live in Time first.

Florence showed a bold reluctance, asserting emphatically, “Oh no, it would be disastrous. I abhor bald wigs. It’s not feasible. You can’t proceed with this,” Crowley recollects. The actor was determined in their choice, choosing the smaller, self-reliant production as the one they were willing to firmly commit to and resist creatively compromising on.

In their latest chat with THR, Crowley provides additional insight into Garfield’s recent recollection about a prolonged sex scene that occurred inappropriately.

Coming out of The Goldfinch, what were you looking for en route to We Live in Time?

Initially, I had no intention of tackling another literary adaptation. My primary concern was finding a script that would elicit a strong emotional response rather than being tied to a specific genre. However, when this particular script arrived, it piqued my interest for several reasons. Firstly, I was already familiar with the author’s work as I had directed a play by him over a decade ago, and we are friends. Secondly, the script was an original piece set in a contemporary London that I recognized well. Thirdly, it was distinct from anything I had previously worked on. It had a softer, gentler emotional tone compared to my previous works like Brooklyn and The Goldfinch, but it still felt unique and different. Lastly, it offered two exceptional roles for two talented actors, and fortunately, we were fortunate enough to secure those roles.

In terms of the type of films you’re creating, you stand out among many filmmakers as one who continues to produce dramas. Is it becoming increasingly challenging to bring these straight dramas to life without incorporating some sort of twist or deviation from the norm?

There’s no denying the sense of apprehension that surrounded this project. Remarkably, my investors managed to conceal their anxieties from me for the most part. Yet, I could perceive their unease, even with the presence of two talented actors. The success of this venture depended on a multitude of factors aligning perfectly, and hitting all those critical marks was essential for its release. It has only just started its journey, but the pressure was palpable for everyone involved. I personally remained unfazed because I aimed to create something that would captivate me. If it resonates with me, moves me, and entertains me, then perhaps others will feel the same if we can locate them. Unfortunately, such endeavors are more exceptions than the norm.

Would Florence Pugh’s Instagram cooking adventures have any impact on her being considered for the role, even though she was likely to be on the shortlist anyway?

It’s true that I hadn’t realized how deeply she loved cooking and eating because I don’t use Instagram. Yet, her enthusiasm for food is truly captivating and contagious. I was only aware of her acting abilities and how perfectly she fit the role. I found her to be strong and capable of conveying a broad range of emotions. If she could blend these qualities, she would make Almut an incredibly compelling character. The career-driven side of her character helped her hide her fear, but in the intense argument with Tobias in the kitchen, when she finally showed her vulnerability, I knew it would be heart-wrenching.

You worked with Andrew Garfield before he was smashing laptops for David Fincher. 

(Laughs.)

Is there a significant difference between the character Andrew from the 2006 movie Boy A and the character Andrew in the 2023 film We Live In Time?

Not night and day. He was very young then, and he was at the very start of his career. There was a huge amount of rather beautiful, almost puppy-like energy in him and a fear, a kind of anxiety, about whether he was going to get to do the things he clearly wanted to do with his career. Boy A was the first leading role he had played, and he was very anxious about that. There was a roiling anxiety about who he was in the world, and it fed straight into the character he was playing in a way that was heartbreaking. That was exactly the character’s dilemma in Boy A. Is that character going to get a second chance at life? Is he going to be allowed to see the horizon and see happiness coming towards him?

In the interim, it seems that Andrew has achieved everything he aspired for professionally. He started out as a stage actor, but he’s since performed some remarkable stage works, taking on significant roles both on Broadway and at the National Theatre in London. Over this period, he’s matured into a man, acquiring depth and wisdom. He brings all the nuances and complexities of his life to his work. Interestingly, the drive that propels him towards his work remains unchanged. There’s an underlying restlessness in him, a constant pursuit for the raw, authentic essence of the scenes he’s involved in. This hunger was evident in his early twenties, and it persists even now in his early forties.

I assume the screenplay wasn’t written in a linear fashion, but how closely does the final version adhere to this original sequence of events? Was it necessary to shuffle some scenes around?

You’ve nailed it instinctively! We made significant changes to the entire piece because it wasn’t flowing smoothly. The script had three distinct time periods, but the beginning, end, and middle were all quite different from what was originally written. When performed, it didn’t follow the script as expected, which happens frequently with scripts. Sometimes, the actors’ performances, camera work, or the way the story unfolds don’t align with the written version.

Initially, when we viewed the initial assembly, it wasn’t as smooth or seamless as intended. Consequently, we dismantled it almost entirely, finding ourselves at the brink of having to begin anew from scratch. We needed a fresh approach and a new strategy, focusing on the emotional authenticity of each scene and how it related to the specific stage in their relationship. These two exceptional performances offered a unique energy and potency that ignited one another.

Indeed, the editing process was rather lengthy and challenging, as we had to constantly adapt our perspective to maintain a clear understanding of the structure since it was quite elusive. We’d make progress only to find that things weren’t flowing smoothly anymore. So, while the end result is the same, we took a different approach, essentially starting from scratch to get it right.

I spoke to Austin Butler and Jeff Nichols earlier this year … 

I love Jeff Nichols. My God, I just revere him.

Similarly, we discussed how Dune: Part Two wanted Austin to shave his head, which could have posed a problem for Jeff’s movie, The Bikeriders, as Austin might have had to wear a wig instead. However, Austin found a solution and wore a bald cap instead, to help Jeff out. By the way, did Florence’s buzz cut necessitate any negotiations with Thunderbolts since that film was planned to follow yours, until the strike intervened?

Nope. She didn’t tell anybody. 

Wow. 

It was sort of terrifying to me. I was like, “Wow, that’s really ballsy.” The first time I met her was in a cafe to discuss this role, and we started chatting about the script and what she loved about it. And she said, “Oh, by the way, I want to shave my head.” And before I met her, I had assumed she would probably say to me, “What are we going to do about the shaving of the head?” 

Initially, when I first reached out, she wasn’t accessible due to her commitment to Marvel’s Thunderbolts project. We were about to give up hope, but our casting director, Fiona, suggested one more call. Just as we were ready to let her go, she double-checked and found a window of opportunity. It turned out that the film had been delayed by eight weeks, which happened to be the exact time frame we needed. It was uncanny! The day after we completed our shoot, she was supposed to depart for Georgia to work on Thunderbolts, but fortunately, this conversation occurred before the strike.

There’s this fearlessness in Florence, and she said, “No, it would be terrible. I hate bald wigs. It won’t work. You can’t do it.” We still did all the homework on how you could do it. I assumed any actor would bring the same thing to my doorstep and say, “Look, I would love to do it if I didn’t have to do another job, but I’m going straight onto a huge job.” So it was the same scenario in the sense that the smaller, more independent film was the one where the actor was saying, “This is the one I’m going to pitch my stake in the ground for and not creatively compromise on.”

We’ve come across the picture that has touched the emotions and fascinated people on the internet, particularly the initial snapshot featuring Pugh and Garfield’s characters beside a rather eerie-looking carousel horse.

(Laughs.)

It honestly bums me out that films need some kind of viral component these days to start a conversation or drive interest. Sometimes, these things are forced or premeditated, but in your case, it happened all on its own. So how do you feel about it all?

I don’t use social media, making me a bit old-fashioned in that sense. Yet, I found everything surrounding it intriguing. My first encounter was when one of the producers shared a clip of Stephen Colbert’s monologue about the carousel horse, which I found incredibly amusing. However, he ended by saying, “We Live in Time, in theaters in October. Go see it.” Such instances were unique and quite impactful. I didn’t mind this exposure at all. In fact, I found the memes and replacement posters that followed to be hilarious.

After a couple of days, I found myself thinking: “Oh dear, if this tune continues throughout the movie, that would truly be unfortunate, particularly at that crucial moment in the film. If this particular scene takes over that part of the film, it could be disastrous.” However, those things are now completely out of our hands. Who could have predicted such a thing? It was impossible to foresee. So, we can only shrug and say: “Well, it’s better to be involved in the cultural discussion, and hopefully it’s for the right reasons.” And fortunately, we managed to navigate through it successfully.

Was the virality of the video a factor in the way you edited the montage where the carousel horse is partially visible, or had the editing been finalized beforehand?

Indeed, it’s already secured [locked down]. I’ve had the privilege of screening it for audiences from Toronto, New York, all the way to London, and I’ve yet to sense a hint of restlessness in the crowd. It might be present elsewhere, but so far, it seems that the scene doesn’t transform into a spectacle or prompt laughter from the audience, nor does any additional element unexpectedly interrupt the movie.

Andrew shared an anecdote regarding the shooting of a specific intimate scene, explaining that he and Florence continued past the cue to stop due to a misunderstanding about when to wrap up.

Correct.

Is it possible for me to be invited again, even if talk show stories may not always provide extensive details?

In the cottage, we had a private shooting setup where no other monitors were present. Only my monitor and I were in separate rooms. A script supervisor and I watched the scene unfold together. An intimacy coordinator was also present, but she operated from a different room and could access the footage separately under special circumstances.

Typically, I wouldn’t physically signal a cut because there isn’t an assistant director or anyone else present to pass on my command verbally. Instead, they would hear me through the thick stone walls of the cottage. It’s an old cottage, and the walls are quite sturdy. I don’t shout out “action” or “cut” in a harsh manner; I always speak softly so as not to disrupt the actors’ performance. The scene was very delicate, and only my DP, Stuart Bentley, Murph, our talented boom operator, were present in the room with them.

After I called “cut”, there seemed to be a mix-up. The camera stopped recording and the screen went blank, along with any sound coming from the room. After several minutes, no one announced that they were ready to continue, so my script supervisor asked if they might have heard the cut command. I jokingly replied that they must be kidding. I had to repeat “cut” a second time, and then we heard laughter from within the room. The actors were quite amusing about the situation. They were extremely professional, and it showed how comfortable they were working together. There was nothing unusual about it except perhaps their assumption that everything was going smoothly because I would have told them to stop if there were any problems. It was one of the second or third times they had performed the scene.

On that fateful day on set, Stuart the cameraman-DP and Murph experienced a highly mortifying incident. The event left them somewhat shaken, as they found themselves accidentally locking eyes with each other. Neither would dare to yell “cut,” and instead, they stood there in confusion. Their deep respect for the actors and their work process prevented them from interrupting. Thus, it’s accurate to say that the day was indeed one of embarrassment for them. To break the silence, I had to call out “cut” a bit more forcefully during subsequent takes.

***
We Live in Time is now playing in movie theaters.

Read More

2024-10-24 23:26