Time is Money

Andrew Niccol’s In Time (2011) presents a modern twist to classic philosophical, economic, and political themes. Without forewarning, the audience becomes part of an age-old debate; is there enough to go around for everyone, or must many suffer for the comfort of a few? Instead of the current-day paycheck to paycheck, the film’s protagonist, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), lives day to day in the futuristic ghetto of Dayton (zone 12). Time is the currency of the future, and “timing out” becomes the primary method of population control. Yet, despite needing time for himself and mother, we witness Will’s generous acts of kindness from the beginning of the film, as young Maya (Shyloh Oostwald) requests and is given a donation. Timberlake’s character also places himself in danger while lending aid to a wealthy visitor in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) has spent lifetimes profiting from the system he now knows to be wrong, and he has had enough of life. His involvement in Will’s fate is a key turning point, not only for the leading man, but for society; consequently, Hamilton can safety be deemed a supporting protagonist. Traveling to and partying in zone 12 is actually a suicide attempt. However, Salas intervenes before thuggish Minutemen, led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), one of the film’s numerous antagonists, can strong-arm the aristocrat’s time. Again displaying heroic qualities, Will Salas disregards his own safety to help a complete stranger in need. Once safe from Fortis’ nefarious intent, the wealthy 105 year old opens Will’s eyes to the inequity of the current system. He tells Salas, “For a few to be immortal, many must die.” When questioned, Hamilton elaborates, “Everyone can't live forever. Where would we put them? Why do you think there are time zones? Why do you think taxes and prices go up the same day in the ghetto? The cost of living keeps rising to make sure people keep dying. How else could there be men with a million years while most live day to day? But the truth is... there's more than enough. No one has to die before their time.” This Marxist innuendo plants a seed; however, Hamilton feels his time is long overdue, and he gifts all but five minutes of his fortune to the sleeping hero. “Don’t waste my time” is written in the grimy window’s accumulation of dust. A man on a mission, Will then races to save his mother, but she times out a fraction of a second to soon.

Niccol cross cuts to introduce the second of the film’s antagonists, as Time Keepers locate Hamilton’s body with black zeros tattooed on his arm. They initially inquire what he was doing in zone 12, but this rather important detail is disregarded once robbery and murder are suspected. As the hand and might of the establishment, these law keepers don’t keep the law; they keep the time, ensuring that the social order remains as it was designed - not to serve the masses, but to protect the elite’s property and right to empowerment. Political power for the established social institution has been assigned to the Time Keepers, and one of their ranks is a 50 year seasoned veteran of the job.

While Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) fills the definition of an antagonistic role (by providing conflict for the protagonist), his position and character are more complicated. Obvious internal conflict is apparent after Leon is gifted time by the fugitive he is chasing, but his entire existence is is very simply to uphold the law, to which he has dedicated his life. Yes, he does chase and fire shots at Will, and yes, he does erroneously arrest the protagonist in the first place, but his unwavering morals request respect. The officer is incorruptible (as Weis learns), and he is so dedicated to upholding the indoctrinated truth that he foregoes his own per diem time-allotment in order to fulfill his mission, purpose, and duty. Through a twist of fate, Leon is upholding the very system that results in his death. Had his back-story been different, one could imagine that he and Will may have been friends. With his unwavering ethics and dedication to principles, Leon would have made an excellent third man in the vigilante robberies to come.   

One must rewind to meet the second of the film’s vigilante heroes. Upon receiving the century of life from Hamilton, Will crosses time zones after being unable to save his mother. He checks into a swanky New Greenwich hotel, sleeps in for the first time since turning 25, eats a breakfast worth over two months of time, and sees the film’s leading lady for the first time. Meanwhile, the Time Keepers have located him in their database, and Will Salas is now the prime suspect in Hamilton’s murder. Nevertheless, it’s not too early for a little gambling, and Will heads to the casino where he meets the film’s ultimate villain; however, just like a James Bond film, the audience doesn’t know who the villain is yet, and a lovely leading lady is present. The lady is Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), soon to be the film’s second protagonist after she renounces privilege and security in order to assist Will and her fellow man. Much to her father’s dismay, it is not Stockholm syndrome but an awakening that causes his daughter to veer to the path less traveled. 

The antagonist extraordinaire is Sylvia’s father, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). Though snobbish and elitist, the millionaire initially seems like a fairly decent fellow – at least to those in his social class. It is not until the movie progresses (and the audience witnesses the level of his corruption and involvement within the established social structure) that his role as antagonist is confirmed in concrete. He might as well have quoted John Locke directly in a credo to Will, “You might upset the balance for a generation. Two. But don't fool yourself. In the end, nothing will change. Because everyone wants to live forever. They all think they have a chance at immortality even though all the evidence is against it. They all think they will be the exception. But the truth is: For a few to be immortal, many must die.” Weis’ comment is easy to make when standing amongst the immortal few.

If the old saying “time is money” is true, then “actions speak louder than words” may also be true. We are able to make judgments regarding the characters in the film based upon their actions; are they altruistic or antagonistic, compassionate or cruel, selfless or selfish? Good guys need not wear bright colors and change clothes in phone booths, and bad guys need not wear black and be hideously ugly. In fact, two of the film’s most malevolent characters (Fortis and Weis) break the Disney stereotypes of “handsome is good and ugly is bad.” Only their actions against mankind make them ugly, and the conflicts they cause the protagonist define them (by literary standards) as the film’s antagonists. Conversely, generosity, concern, charity, and simply - love override greed and selfishness, as Will and Sylvia place themselves in mortal danger to help others. They are “good people” helping all people, and are clearly classified as protagonists in the film.

Whether by coincidence or by design, Niccol aligns the antagonists with John Locke’s theories of capitalism and the protagonists with Karl Marx’s socialist ideals. The prevailing social institution (and emphasis of the film) is similar to today’s capitalist “free market” where each individual allegedly has the opportunity to succeed. Instead of money, time is the currency; instead of wealth, immortality is at stake, but the basic idea is the same. By revolting against the establishment, Will is revoking Locke’s tacit and voluntary consent, which is understandably questionable because of the genetic engineering and unauthorized arm implantation. Per Marx, “But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning.” Individuals in our off-screen society could technically live off the land, perhaps hiking the Appalachian Trail (or practicing what we see on the Discovery Channel’s subsistence living programs) without income or taxes, but there is no such option in the film. The clock counting down removes all but death or theft to opt out of the established social institution, and Will is the spark igniting Marx’s proletariat revolution.

Lethal force, sanctioned by political power, is used in response to Will and Sylvia’s disobedient theft when they forego conventions established by the social institution. Locke would deem such force as appropriate for the protection of property, even though he contradicts himself by stating, “Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.” Does the theft of time without bodily harm to another justify the death penalty? Who determines the severity of any punishment beyond those in power with wealth? As surmised by the father of capitalism in his Two Treatises of Government, "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws" (268). Therefore, the state and its appointed Time Keepers have the political power to kill in order to protect said property; property is therefore valued higher than life, and laws are created for the landowner’s benefit. Marx declares, “Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones?”

Marx would be disgusted with the entire situation, as there is no need for such lethal action when all work and all receive fairly. The inequality of the situation breeds contempt, and the labor force is not to be oppressed as a fleeting resource. Furthermore, the slave labor required to sustain life would be an abomination to Marx, as he relays, “the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of [time] the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.” No situation could illustrate the problem more effectively than a clock ticking down to the last seconds of life. Marx would also see each zone’s value in terms of the land and nature that their respective spaces occupy; nature is the resource, and the individuals providing labor are the well-valued tools. Further, Marx would argue that the time clock is obviously a source of life, which should not be owned by the likes of Philippe Weis and his anonymous time zone controlling peers.  If all men only have their own labor, then no man becomes a slave to another in order to survive. Working (and consequently surviving) only with the permission of a land owner (or capitalist) is like paying four minutes for a cup of coffee; one can manage for a time, but the system is not sustainable if the masses are educated.

One can imagine a hypothetical time machine by which Locke and Marx are joined beyond space and time (as written by the Transcendentalist Walt Whitman) for a viewing of In Time. Locke would see Philippe Weis as the protagonist; Marx would identify with Will Salas and Silvia Weis. Others yet unknown may relate with Raymond Leon for his unwavering dedication to honor, duty, and work ethic. Who is right? Who is morally just and seen in the eyes of an omnipotent creator as righteous? While we may not be able to ascertain God’s opinion, we can certainly state that John Locke’s views on labor and money have continued to influence the economy for centuries, and Karl Marx’s dream of utopia remains an unfulfilled hypothetical taught as the Antichrist version of democracy. Niccol’s In Time bring the philosophical, economic, and political themes into the realm of futuristic science fiction to break down preconceived boundaries and teach via a modernistic version of Jesus’ parables. Metaphor, synonym, allegory, and analogy are all employed to bring forth Marx’s taboo message of equality – for any with the time to watch and listen.