"There are so few science fiction films that are interested in dealing with actual futuristic science or the affects it has on future society, that I think it is important to support even the unsuccessful endeavors like In Time."
Science Fiction, Dystopian SF, Action
Starring - Justin Timberlake/Will Salas, Amanda
Seyfried/Sylvia Weis, Olivia Wilde/Rachel Salas, Cillian Murphy/Raymond Leon,
Timekeeper, Vincent Kartheiser/Philippe Weis and Matthew Bomer/Henry Hamilton
Director and Writer - Andrew Niccol
PG-13 - violence, some sexuality and partial nudity, and
strong language
1 hr. 49 min.
Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992), prolific author of both science
fiction and fact, wrote “science fiction is that branch of literature that
deals with human responses to the changes in the level of science and technology.” The reason he
deliberately referred to literature in his definition of science fiction is
that he held Film and Television science fiction in very low esteem. In fact,
when asked by reporters if the current [1978] boom in science fiction affected
him, he would reply, “Not at all.” In an essay entitled ‘The Boom in Science
Fiction’, in which Asimov differentiates literary science fiction from cinematic
science fiction by designating it “eye sci-fi”, Asimov wrote, “Eye sci-fi has
an audience that is fundamentally different from that of [literary] science
fiction. In order for eye sci-fi to be profitable it must be seen by tens of millions
of people; in order for science fiction to be profitable it must only be read
by tens of thousands of people.” *
I bring these observations of Asimov’s up; because a film
like In Time attempts to do in “eye sci-fi” what literary science fiction does
more frequently and more often to better affect. In Time uses an advance in
medical science technology to explore humanity’s response as a society to this
radical change in the human condition. In Time espouses in 2161, genetic
alteration has allowed humanity to stop aging at 25 and as a result people must
earn more time or die within a year. “Living Time” has become the currency of
the day and is displayed on people’s left forearm. People work to earn more “Living
Time”, but also must pay with this time for everything from rent to a cup of
coffee. The world has also been divided up into “Time Zones”, with the poor
living in ghettos like Dayton and the Time Rich living in luxurious cities like
New Greenwich. It is obvious that director and screenplay writer Andrew Niccol
is using “Living Time” as an allegory to our current world economic structure
and – at least in most of the world – is based on the uneven distribution of resources
of a society that is based on the fundamentally dysfunctional economic system Capitalism.
In Time attempts to use this allegory to more subtle effect than in previous
cinematic efforts. Unfortunately, its ambitions overreach its realization.
In Time is told from the point of view of Will Salas, who is
a factory worker living in the ghetto of Dayton and is a few years into his “living
time”. Every day, Will earns just enough at the factory to pay for his daily expenses
and for another day of life. While at a local bar, Will makes the acquaintance
of Henry Hamilton, a 105-year-old man. Will tries to warn Henry that he should
be careful of “time theft’, which is the involuntary act of transferring one’s
life time to another. Henry is assaulted by local gangster Fortis and his
middle-aged Minutemen, but Will manages to help Henry escape the bar with his
living time intact. Grateful, Henry gives all but five minutes of his living
time to Will while he is asleep, then proceeds to end his remaining time by
falling off an overpass.
Will calls his mother Rachel and asks her to meet him so he
can tell her of his good fortune. Unfortunately, Rachel does not have enough
living time to pay for her bus ride to meet Will and she “times out” just as
she rushes the last few yards to meet him. With over a century of time, Will
decides to go to the luxurious Time Zone city of New Greenwich and gamble his
living time to gain even more time. Will enters a casino and meets a
time-loaning millionaire Philippe Weis and his daughter Sylvia. Will beats
Philippe in a game of cards and wins over a thousand years. Sylvia, who acts
the pampered rich girl, invites Will to a party at her father’s mansion. Once
there, Philippe’s guards grab Will and take back all but two hours of his time
life. Will then takes Sylvia hostage, escapes back to Dayton, only to be
ambushed by Fortis, who steals most of Sylvia’s time. Will shares his remaining
hour of time with Sylvia and the two go on to rob time banks with the short-term
goal of extending their own lives.
Eventually Will and Sylvia expand the scale of their robberies, not only in
the hope of improving the lives of all the citizens of Dayton, but to disrupt
the unequal distribution of time throughout all the time zones.
While I like the concepts that In Time plays with, I never really
bought into them as being a viable reality. If medical science ever did create
immortality through genetic manipulation, I don’t think that it would be
equally distributed throughout the population as it is in this film. For the
very reason that it would create massive overpopulation and unemployment; a
situation our current society is dealing with even without near-deathlessness.
Given that this process is somehow transmitted to offspring and cannot be
controlled, how is the living time clock implemented to begin with? I just found
myself asking too many questions while watching In Time to become involved
enough in the problems of Will Silas to care about them.
Another thing that I find irritating about near-future
science fiction films is their lack of any kind of futuristic look. All the
vehicles, buildings and most of the tech in In Time are basically the same as
our current time. If a film wants us to believe it is taking place
one-hundred-and-fifty years in the future, it should give us some indication of
that by showing us better technology or at least different visual designs! This
lack of visual detail takes the viewer out of a film just as much as poor
acting or special effects.
Even with its theoretical and visual incongruities, In Time
might have been an exciting action film that at least touched on some
interesting themes. Regrettably, it also underwhelms in the action department
as well. The few car or foot chases that take place are staged fairly unimaginatively
and add little to the dramatic tone of the film. Andrew Niccol’s previous forays
into writing and directing have also been hit and miss. I thought Gattaca (1997)
was a flawed but affective sci-fi drama, but his other film S1m0ne (2002) was
nearly an unwatchable bit of melodramatic fluff. Hopefully, he will learn from
In Time’s failures and attempt to bring a little more depth and forethought
into his next film The Host, due out next year.
Despite all my criticisms, In Time is still worth the effort
to watch. There are so few science fiction films that are interested in dealing
with actual futuristic science or the affects it has on future society, that I think
it is important to support even the unsuccessful endeavors like In Time. It
would be impressive if a filmmaker could prove Asimov wrong and make an “eye
sci-fi” film that could be compared equally to some of the best of their
literary brethren.
TECHNICAL: Acting – 8 Directing – 8 Cinematography – 8
Script – 7 Special Effects – 8
VISCERAL: Visual – 7 Auditory – 8 Intellectual – 8 Emotional
– 7 Involvement – 8
TOTAL RATING - 77
*Isaac Asimov, “The Boom in Science Fiction” Asimov’s Science Fiction Adventure Magazine,
Fall 1979
No comments:
Post a Comment