Saturday, December 3, 2011

Thoughts on 'In Time'

I saw several weeks ago In Time, the new Timberlake + others movie. Time is the medium of exchange and unit of account, although the film is vague on its use as a store of value (can inflation exist in this world?)

The setup is interesting and absurd, and the film does not deliver on its early promise. It was the kind of movie I would love to grasp and tinker with - remove that sideplot, get rid of that idiot, abolish that plothole - but I still dont see how an economy like that could actually function.

The class war angle was there and screaming in cartoon bloomers. But even there the portrayal of the 'time poor' was more nuanced and debatable on further reflection, and even hooked back to Victorian stereotypes about the 'undeserving poor' - when Justin first inherets his century he does not save or strive, but blows it on expensive restaurants and a trip to the gilded district.

The banking overlord, who manages the system from his golden lair, was in character about as threatening as a friesian cow, and didnt seem to have any personal purpose in amassing his aeons of quasi infinite time. If I was that boring, why would I want to live in my own company forever? Shudder shudder.

Final thoughts

-why did the underarm timeclocks not have even the most rudimentary security system to prevent theft?
- did the scattered ending imply that everyone would live forever? A blink at transhumanist transcendentalism? Or its nightmare...
- pointless love story, get rid of it
- i would have liked a more mercurial obrienesque withcdoctor to step in as leader, rather than that boring banker, it would have made for a better climax

No comments:

Post a Comment