‘In Time’ – film review

.

After viewing the trailer for In Time, I just about got the gist of the genre and plot. I wanted to see it as the concept seemed interesting and I was intrigued by the parallels being made by some titling it an anti-capitalism film. As with most anti-capitalism films it can easily be denied or not recognised as it is all underlying subtext; however I feel this film isn’t even subtle about the point that they are (attempting) to make. It has become clear I am not the only one who feels as if they failed their capitalism critique, with Noah Berlatsky (The Atlantic – see bibliography) stating ‘the tagline should be “Occupy Wall Street … enjoy the luxury suites”’.

In the film, time has replaced money as the currency. So instead of paying £3 for a coffee, you’ll be paying with three minutes of your life. Instead of earning money from your job you’ll be earning your life. Instead of lending your friend money you’d be lending them life etc. You get the idea. This is an inspired notion as of course, money is life – without money to keep our basic Maslow Hierarchy needs fulfilled we would be poor and barely living. However, earning your life only begins at the age of 25 as then the people stop aging and automatically begin with a year on their life clock (the ridiculous futuristic green writing on their arm). This I feel is typical of Hollywood – in an ‘idyllic’ world where everyone would look younger than their years. I am not sure about this element; I found it extremely odd as Will Salas’s (Justin Timberlake’s character) mum looks the same age or to be honest even younger than him.

Salas meets a millionaire (with a century of life on his clock) who has had enough of living to the point of giving Will his century and essentially committing suicide. This causes suspicion among the system as suicide and a sudden increase of life (wealth) isn’t the norm. As with the culture of wanting to stay youthful, the concept of suicide and a willingness to die is unheard of – after all, why would you not want to live forever?! As the film progresses, it elaborates somewhat on how the ‘system’ is corrupt and how the poor are being kept poor so the rich can live. As you would when you come into a lot of money, Salas moves time zones (presumably an analogy to counties) to New Greenwich – the most affluent area. The citizens recognise he is a tourist to the area as where he has been used to living with barely any life left he rushed around as oppose to stroll like these people seem to do. Of course by this point we are due the Romeo and Juliet love interest, enter Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). The star-crossed lovers adhere to the cliché further by neither of them being happy with their life (poor or rich) and instead find happiness by running away together and attempting to bring down the system by becoming revolutionary Robin Hoods – stealing life from banks to give to the population of the poverty-stricken time zones. Oh, and all of this equates in the villain dying and them falling in love – but you knew that already.

Overall, that is the extent of what I remember about the film. The concept was and still is interesting, but they definitely could’ve done more with the plot to make it less predictable and less, well, banal. For this genre predictability should not be one of the features and I feel the director went a bit genre-happy as the film seemed too hybrid, somewhere between action, sci-fi, adventure, crime, political, chick-flick and (attempted) satire. As with most attempts for satirical takes on capitalism, its endeavours are mostly wasted as it ends up invariably supporting the system – it seems it’s a constant losing battle for these film producers that is, until, they sell out in the box office.

Bibliography

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/10/in-time-a-hollywood-get-rich-quick-tale-disguised-as-capitalist-critique/247515/