In Time (2011)
In Time (2011) is a political thriller set almost 200 years in the future, where people don’t age past their 25th year. In this new society, time literally equals money—people must work for more hours, which are recorded on their wrist and used as standard currency. As one might expect, a disparity develops between the rich and the poor, since lower class workers can only acquire enough hours to survive to the next day, while the upper classes build up enough to let them live for centuries. As a result, people in the ghetto drop dead every day when their work isn’t enough and their clocks time out.
The protagonist of the story is Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a lowly worker in the ghetto who lives with his mother. When her clock times out because of a simple mistake, he’s determined to wreak revenge. Luckily for Will, a rich man with a death wish gives him his hours, providing him a way out of the ghetto to New Greenwich, the district of the ultra-rich. As he learns more about the system of time currency, and cozies up to the daughter of a time-loan mogul, he decides to distribute time-wealth the way he sees fit, starting an all-out war with the time-police (or Timekeepers).
I have to say that I wasn’t holding out much hope for this movie. From what I’d seen in the trailer, the plot seemed like a convenient excuse to hire only young, attractive actors, and rather melodramatic as well. I came prepared to enjoy a guilty pleasure that wouldn’t require me to think. However, the movie actually ended up exceeding my expectations.
The best part of the movie is the basic premise itself—that a person has to work to literally be able to live. The fact that running out of time prompts immediate death makes wealth an even higher-stakes game. Lower class folks constantly watch their wrists, make sacrifices with their time, and pray they don’t make a misstep and die instantly, which is a hugely effective way of analogizing the tribulations of poverty. Life on the other end of the spectrum isn’t fabulous either, as Sylvia Weiss (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of the loan mogul, points out, since she has so much time to inherit that she’ll never have to work, and won’t age, and therefore will never experience real passion. It steadily becomes obvious that the prevention of aging, while initially desirable, removes most joys one would normally get from the evolving nature of life. This commentary seems especially appropriate at the moment, since the elongation of life expectancy has raised questions about quality of living. In Time realistically theorizes what improving the quality of life (namely, extending youth) would look like, which would probably have more downsides than benefits.
I also enjoyed some of the details included about time-money, like its transmission from person to person (achieved by placing a person’s wrist over the other’s), and that each person’s clock makes ticking sounds. It subtly implies a sense of the impermanence of time, which we don’t like to think about very often, and steadily makes the audience feel more anxious as the film wears on.
That being said, while the main idea of the movie was thoughtful, and certain details were fascinating, I don’t think the execution was quite up to par.
First of all, Timberlake is just not believable as a dude from the streets. His acting chops are getting better with each film he does, but it felt like his persona didn’t quite match what the role called for. He would be cast better as part of the rich elite. Seyfried was alright, but not particularly memorable, though that might have more to do with a lack of personality in her character than her acting skills. Cillian Murphy and Vincent Kartheiser were much more intriguing as the head Timekeeper and the time-loaner, respectively, probably because they were the villains, and seem to have more natural acting ability.
The dialogue, and some events of the narrative, were terrible as well. Several lines made me cringe in embarrassment, usually because Timerlake’s character talks about his oh-so-tough life in the cheesiest way possible, and it’s difficult to take Seyfried’s woeful recounting of her privileged life seriously. The plot doesn’t hold many surprises either, which I think is needed for a story like this, since it’s supposed to provide a fresh perspective on the unequal distribution of wealth and oppression of the masses.
Something about In Time though makes it compelling. Maybe it’s our Robin Hood-esque desire to see the poor lifted up and the rich taken down a peg. Or our obsession with dreaming up future societies where everything that makes us miserable is fixed magically (or scientifically). In any case, In Time is one of those movies that has so much potential, and succeeds in peaking my interest, but doesn’t push itself far enough. A little mystery and subtlety would’ve suited its mood a bit more, although ultimately, it’s genuinely entertaining.
