It may be merely semantics, but I prefer the term film reviewer over film critic.  The former more aligns with my desire to apply my Catholic analysis.  My desire is not necessarily to denigrate any production by being critical, even if in the moment I can have a negative reaction.  If it is merited, as in a motion picture might pose a threat to your mortal soul, I will be as firm in my warnings as possible.  In recent months, I have been trying to be cognizant of whether I am keeping with Christian charity when discussing anything I present to you.  Take today’s example, Somewhere in Time (1980).  More accurately, it should be called “Sometime in Time” since time and location are, at least outside of quantum physics, different concepts.  Yet, these are the types of remarks I have been trying to avoid because, while fun to write, are really me making fun of another person’s work.  I may find this movie silly, particularly at the end, but did you know it has developed such a cult following that they formed the International Network of Somewhere in Time Enthusiasts (INSITE).  It is a fan club dedicated to the film that has apparently been going strong for the past thirty-four years.  The Grand Hotel in Michigan, where much of this was filmed and set, has a weekend where they recreate scenes from the flick.  Read on and decide for yourself whether you want to join.

Despite my grammatical judgement, I will say that the Somewhere in Time we start with in 1972.  Up and coming playwright Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) has premiered his first work to a great deal of fanfare and praise.  At a reception, there is a mysterious elderly woman (Susan French) sitting in the back.  Eventually, she approaches Richard, hands him an old pocket watch, says “Come back to me,” and leaves.  Unfortunately, she is not the Virgin Mary appearing to a wayward Christian in order to get that person to repent.  Instead, the old woman returns to the Grand Hotel, sits down, puts on Sergei Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, and dies, I guess.  Eight years later, Richard is in his Chicago apartment listening to the same piece and trying to write his next play.  In frustration over his writer’s block, he decides to take a trip, getting in his car with no defined destination in mind.  His wanderings take him to the Grand Hotel where he stops for the night.  His choice seems random, but the bellhop, Arthur Biehl (Bill Erwin), claims to recognize Richard.  As he is waiting for dinner, he notices the “Hall of History,” which contains artifacts from the resort’s storied past.  On the wall hangs a picture of a beautiful woman that he stares at, mesmerized.  Later he asks Arthur who is the subject of the portrait and learns she is Elise McKenna (Jane Seymour), a famous actress from near the turn of the twentieth century who once performed at the Grand Hotel.  From this point on, she becomes an obsession for Richard.  To learn more about her, he goes to the library and researches all he can find.  This leads him to Laura Roberts (Teresa Wright), a former companion and housemaid for Elise.  Laura also wrote a biography about Elise, and the author is understandably shocked when she sees Richard’s pocket watch.  As they talk more, he spots among Laura’s books a tome by Dr. Gerard Finney (George Voskovec).  Richard picks it up because Dr. Finney had been a professor at his college, but it is its subject that draws his attention.  Dr. Finney’s work suggests the possibility of time travel, prompting Richard to make a visit to his alma mater.  Dr. Finney reveals his own attempts at going back in history, noting the need to free oneself of all modern distractions, but admitting that the process was not satisfactory.  Heedless of this warning, Richard finds himself a suit of clothes appropriate to 1912 as preparation for his own time jump.  However, his first attempt is not successful.  It is not until he looks up the exact date of when she was at the resort, and finds his own name in the register, that he knows what he is trying to do is possible.  Thus, he lays down in his empty room and convinces himself that it is June of 1912, waking up in that year.  Unsurprisingly, he immediately sets about finding Elise, meeting a young Arthur (Sean Hayden) along the way.  After being led all over the grounds, they finally meet by the lake, where she says the enigmatic words, “Is it you?”  Richard believes that it is some part of her somehow recognizing him, but it turns out to be a reminder of a prediction from her manager, William Fawcett Robinson (Christopher Plummer), who forecasted that a man would come to ruin her career.  As such, she tries to dismiss Richard, but he remains insistent that they see each other.  She takes this as politeness (which, maybe it was in 1912?) and agrees to spend the next day with him.  He continues despite warnings from William, who insists he will stop at nothing to see her become a star.  Their day together along Lake Michigan is idyllic, and they share a passionate kiss before they depart, she needing to get ready for her play.  So moved is she by the experience that she alters her monologue in the first scene to declare her love for him.  This is too much for William, who sends a note for Richard to meet the manager outside.  It turns into a kidnapping so that Elise and William can move on their next destination.  Richard manages to free himself from being tied up in the stable, but his subsequent search looks to be futile.  Yet, she had stayed behind, and that night they make love.  The next day, sitting together and talking about the future, he pulls a penny out of his pocket.  Seeing the year 1979 on it pulls him back to 1980 and into a slough of depression.  Indeed, he seemingly starves himself to death and the movie ends.

With apologies, but it is the moment at the end of Somewhere in Time when Richard looks at the penny that made the film gets silly for me.  Outside of this, his behavior is suspect on a number of levels.  I suppose those in INSITE would disagree with me, but his pursuit of Elise, in 1980 and 1912, is obsessive.  Is it really love that prompts someone to go to such extreme lengths as perfecting time travel in order to meet a person?  There may be some who would see it as a romantic gesture, but it brings to mind something that everyone should remember, and which is found in the Bible.  One may quibble and point out that in Revelation 1:8, God refers to Himself as was, is, and is to come.  This is God’s omnipresence.  However, an obvious fact must be understood: we are not God.  Time makes little difference to the Divine, but we live in a finite, linear existence that moves at the speed He proscribes.  We cannot make it go faster, or slow it down in such a way as to go backwards.  What I am trying to say here is that time travel is impossible.  God gives us everything we need to deal with the here and now, which is evidently far from Richard’s thoughts.  Still, let us give him the benefit of the doubt in somehow succeeding in bending the rules of time and space.  He errs the most when he gets back to 1980 and lets sadness take hold of him.  As he spiraled, the non-spiritual part of me wondered why he did not re-try the process of going back in time.  What he does instead is live in the past, something about which he can do nothing . . . supposedly.  I mean, the guy performed time travel, but now all of the sudden he is incapable?  Either way, since he cannot seem to return to 1912, he closes himself off from any kind of healing God wants to give him.  Often this comes in the form of a kind word from an acquaintance or friend, or maybe a beautiful nature scene?  The point is that God reaches us to us, but we can also deny Him, and that is what Richard does, sadly.

I got frustrated with Somewhere in Time by the end because I did not mind it until the last ten minutes or so.  I was curious to see how Elise and Richard were going to figure out their lives in 1912, only to have it all ruined by a rather innocuous act.  I am not sure if this is a recommendation, but you might be able to track down an INSITE member who would do a better job of convincing you than me.