“Time Traveler’s Wife” a worthy adaptation

When the film version of a beloved book is released, it often goes one of two ways. Either the fans jump on board and overlook all of the film’s flaws (”Twilight”), or they become enraged by even the smallest of changes made (”Harry Potter”). First-time novelist Audrey Niffenegger released ”The Time Traveler’s Wife” in 2003, and with an intense marketing effort, the book debuted at number nine on the “New York Times” bestseller list. Soon after, Niffenegger acquired her own set of rabid fans– and we count ourselves among them.

The Davis Theater is in Chicago's Lincoln Square, one of the neighborhoods where Clare and Henry live in the book.

It’s a movie about time travel– if you couldn’t already tell from the title. But in this case, it’s a genetic malfunction of hero Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana). There is no time machine– not a phone booth or a DeLorean– there is only Henry. He leaps in and out of his own life, backwards and forwards, with no forewarning and no control over where he will land (naked– because you can’t take clothes with you when you time travel). The first time Henry travels, he is only six years old, sitting in the backseat of his mother’s car on Christmas Eve, just moments before the car is demolished by an oncoming tractor-trailer. Henry escapes the gruesome death that his mother is unable to, but he also begins a crazy life of traveling that few he will encounter over the years will understand.

One day when Henry is in his late 20’s and working at the Newberry Library right here in Chicago, he is practically accosted by a 20-year-old woman who he’s sure he’s never met before, although she claims to have known him her whole life. Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) is Henry’s future wife, and when he is older, Henry will repeatedly travel back to Clare’s childhood, getting to know her from when she is just a little girl. Present day Henry does not yet know this, of course, but their love story begins for him– and continues for her– nonetheless.

It’s a twisted and complicated affair, often filled with heartache; time-traveling fetuses result in miscarriage after miscarriage for Clare, and of course, her endless waiting for her husband to come home is overwhelming. But it’s an epic story as well, one that includes two of everything beautiful that true love thrives on: two first meetings, two first kisses– the book, in fact, even includes two weddings. As the plot builds, Henry and Clare worry about the future and Henry’s ultimate fate. Clare is already left behind so often, and with Henry unable to avoid trouble when he travels (out of the blue appearances to strangers while naked often leads to running and dodging punches or worse), she fears being left behind permanently.

Certainly the book is better, because books are almost always better than their movie adaptations. But mainly, the movie is just a little bit less complicated, and this makes sense and makes life easier on the moviegoer. Several notable parts of the book are left out– Mrs. Kim’s character, Clare’s affair with Gomez and the horrific beating of one of her ex-boyfriends– but they would be too much to go into in the movie, so their exclusions are fair. The biggest difference between the novel and the film, however, is the ending, something that some fans of the book may be quite happy about. The story’s ending is bound to be tragic no matter how you slice it, but the ending in the book is nothing short of devastating. The movie does it better.

Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana are true to their characters originally created by Niffenegger, and perhaps this is a credit to both the actors, as well as screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin. The chemistry between the two is real, and several heart-wrenching scenes of love and farewell show the audience why their story is so strong. Bana in particular soulfully portrays the woe of a man who is constantly saying goodbye, and a scene in which he travels as an adult to meet his long-deceased mother on an el train shows Henry’s sadness and depth. Viewers will also appreciate Bana’s flawless American accent, something that, if done poorly, could have otherwise alienated fans of the novel.

The other characters in the film are all supporting to the love story; but done right, they add up to a better primary storyline. Little Brooklyn Proulx as six-year-old Clare channels all the imagination and wonder of her character in the book. And all of the players in Henry’s life– his best friend Gomez (Ron Livingston), his parents (Arliss Howard and Michelle Nolden) and Dr. Kendrick (Stephen Tobolowsky), the geneticist who helps him understand his anomaly– all play small but impressive roles in the movie. Livingston perhaps surprises the most, playing Gomez well in the film, but better, even, if you know him from the book. His major plotline is left out of the film, yet Livingston seamlessly hints at intricacies from the novel perhaps lost on the average movie watcher.

So the question stands: Will Niffenegger’s fans like the movie? If they can accept that a movie will always be less complicated than a book, than yes. The parts that were included in the hour and 45 minute film were done true to form, and the actors portrayed their characters with passion and authenticity. Our recommendation is to see the movie– but always, always read the book as well.