Monday, May 8, 2017

Blog #71 - In Time

"For a few immortals to live, many people must die."

Image result for In time movie

We are presented with a future world in the movie, In Time, in which time has become so precious that it has now become currency.  Somehow, our bodies are born (or implanted with a device) that begins ticking when we reach the age of 25 so that those who work get paid in time and have to buy their necessities like food and rent using the currency of time. 

There are also time zones (don't think like what we have -Eastern, Central, etc., but different parts of a larger city), segregated communities that you must pay time to get into.  Just think of gated cities within a much larger city - this is a way to keep the very poor out of (what can only be assumed to be) a middle class or upper class time zone, because the more Will pays as he heads towards the wealthiest part of town, the price continues to go up.  So, in essence, there still is free passage among the city, but only if you can afford it.  But since many can't afford it, the poor are stuck in their slums. 

The movie focuses most of its time on poor characters who are working day-to-day and struggling to survive.  When wages go up, the prices of goods go up, so there's no real way for the poor to get ahead.     And of course, in such a dog-eat-dog world, there are also gangsters who try to steal peoples' time - the Minutemen.  And when the clock runs out on someone, he/she is dead.  Even the timekeepers, the police of this dystopian society, are barely paid decent wages in order to stay alive.  Sadly ironic, the ones that are entrusted with enforcing the system don't get paid enough (sounds familiar).  



The rich, on the other hand, are trapped in a different kind of gilded prison.  With decades, even centuries on their clocks, they continue to look the same as they did when they were 25 even though they might be 107.  The one creepy Freudian thing is when Phillipe Weis introduced his mother, wife and daughter (Sylvia) who all looked very similar.  Sylvia and Will hit it off and that's when Sylvia said that all the wealthy needed to do was stay out of trouble and they could live forever.  Play it safe = live forever.  So, unlike Will who lives by the phrase, "Carpe Diem", Sylvia never took chances until she met Will. 

Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to 1. apply at least one philosopher or philosophic concept to any part or parts of this movie that you find apply to this movie.  2. Find a weakness in the movie, whether it be in the plot, concept, etc. and explain why. 

Due Friday, May 12 by the beginning of class.  Minimum of 300 words total.  

22 comments:

  1. The Philosopher that i see most related to the movie is is Spinoza. In Sophie’s world, Alberto used the example of the ree on pg.251 to explain Spinoza’s concept, saying “According to Spinoza, this tree us free. It has its full freedom to develop its inherent abilities. But if it is an apple tree it will not have the ability to bear pears or plums.” I saw this similarity for 2 reasons in the movie. First, the people who live in the poorer area are MADE to be there. There is a system in place keeping them poor, like prices for food or gas going up, consuming their money so they can not spend it on anything more luxurious. They, as Alberto says, have “inherent abilities,” and it’s very hard to change their status, just as it would be hard for an apple tree to bear plums. It was made to bear apples. The second reason I thought this movie applied to Spinoza’s theory is that the people are made to live only until a certain age. Past that age, which is 25, they don't age physically. This is what their bodies are programmed to do. They weren't built to continue aging. And also, there is a clock on their wrist, counting down to their death. This also, it just how they were made. They are genetically engineered to be this way, so if one of them didn't have the watch on their wrist, that would be considered strange, just as if an apple tree were to bear plums.
    I wasn't there in class to finish watching the movie, but I vaguely remember how it ended from a previous watching experience. I agree with Mr. Wickersham's criticism, that they never developed who Justin Timberlake’s dad was! I feel like they could have incorporated that into the plot better and really made it a more coherent aspect of the movie. He might as well have just said, “oh I remember that last name, his brother was in my frat.”


    Zaria Seabron

    ReplyDelete
  2. This movie appears to relate the most to Plato’s ideas of social structure. At the top, you have the guardians, or those with loads of time to spend and give, but who choose to keep it to themselves in order to maintain the social balance. They are the leaders and the elite, and their presence is more highly valued than those below them. Next you have the auxiliaries, who are responsible for “defending the state” and acting as soldiers and peacekeepers. In the movie, these individuals were the Timekeepers. They followed orders, tried to restore order, and were much more involved in civilian lives than the guardians were in order to do their jobs. These civilians, who were so heavily dependent in the movie on the scraps of time they were given, were the producers in Plato’s theoretical society. They provide jobs and products for the state and prize their safety and security above all. In this case, this would apply to their desperate desire for more time in order to maintain personal security and comfort. One weakness I noticed in the movie was that it failed to explain why the banks were so easily accessed. One news report said there were six break-ins in one week perpetrated by Will and Sylvia. In addition, the movie ended with the image of them walking up to a seemingly abandoned, security-free, absolutely massive bank. Where was security? Would it not be heightened due to the excess of robberies occurring? This seemed really implausible to me and almost spoiled the effect of them acting as Robin Hoods of time. Surely there would be some sort of heightened security or conflict besides Phillipe to contend with? Even the Sheriff of Nottingham had henchmen who caused issues for Robin and Maid Marian. It wasn’t all Sheriff, all the time. There needed to be more sub conflict and security to make this more feasible if at all.

    Olivia Reeves

    ReplyDelete
  3. The philosopher which I most connected to the movie was Kant. Kant’s philosophy was described as a perfect blending of empiricism and rationalism, with neither belief being independent of the other. The movie depicts two completely different lifestyles: one being of the citizens who had to worry about their time running day to day and one of the citizens who were comfortable in their excessive time (usually exceeding decades). Kant’s philosophy of reason and nature shaping human ideas and experiences applies to the movie because all of the citizens were faced with the same predicament, yet their perspectives were so vastly different. Every person in the story lived with a timer, but all of their perceptions of the timer situation were different. Sylvia’s father chose the path of searching for immortality, Sylvia chose taking risks and running from her former life, Will worked only to survive day by day, and the police officer (despite being born in the same situation as Will) chose to fight for a system that didn’t benefit him. A part of the movie that demonstrates the philosophy is when Will and Sylvia first got their timers and how their reactions were so different: Will started paying off the debts and Sylvia looks in the mirror slowly. Their different reactions to the same thing are because of their reason and their environments.
    The movie was weak in its lack of history. Considering the bizarre capitalist dystopia that the citizens were living in, the movie should have provided a form of explanation to how things managed to reach the point they were at. Was their history similar to the history of America, only with clocks? If that were the case, ancient American industrialists should have still been still alive in Will’s time. Had their been a fight between nations that used corporate control of time distribution and nations that equally distributed time between the people (communism)? What had previously been going on in the rest of the world? Also, the concept of extremely ancient Chinese emperors or Greek philosophers/anyone who wanted immortality long ago still being alive is intriguing and more interesting than the story that I was given. The idea behind the movie is really cool, but the execution fell a little flat, considering how much the writers had to work with based on the entire history of capitalism and the stretch for immortality throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The philosophical concepts that generally relate to the movie are the ideas formed behind the Romantic view. One of the major points of emphasis in Romanticism, as highlighted in Jean Jacques Rousseau’s book Emile, is that children should be praised and the focus of attention, since they have not yet been corrupted by the adult society. This is not directly expressed in the movie In Time, however, the movie sets up a world where the youth are pure and the adults are not. In the movie, people before the age of 25 are mostly carefree since they have no ability to use currency and don’t have to worry about their clock timing out yet. On the other hand, the adults are the ruthless ones who are going to do whatever it takes to have enough time. This parallels the Romantic view on children, considering how the movie portrays the children as having no real contribution to this corrupt society, whereas the adults have no morals and no self control over their timer. One particular conversation between Will and Sylvia that stood out to me was when they were each sharing their story of when their timer started. By the way they each began telling their story, it just seemed as though their lives hadn’t even started until their clock began running out. Everyone clearly turns 25 when their times begins, although the movie really made it seem like your whole life doesn’t even start until then. This contributes to the fact that the children seem to have no affect on this corrupt society, backing the Romantic argument that children are all that is good and pure in the world.

    One particular hole I found in the movie was the fact that there wasn’t any real emotional connection to the characters or the overall plot line. I do agree with the fact that there wasn’t any real backstory to the why the society was like that in the movie. Although, I do not believe that this was the real problem, considering many dystopian movies and novels do not give backstories and they end up working out, such as the movie Mad Max: Fury Road (I have never seen this, but I have heard from someone who’s seen it, who’s word I take, that there was no backstory whatsoever, and that is the reason that they particularly liked the movie. It also won many awards.). I think the character’s motivations, particularly Will’s, were what made the movie hard to take seriously. As someone had mentioned in class, it was how Will responded to the corruptness of society that made the movie comical in a way. For example, allowing everyone to steal from the time bank would only call for more chaos, not really help in the long run. The overall message in the movie didn’t come across as well as the screenwriter probably would have liked it to, mainly because Will’s and Sylvia’s actions done to try to better society.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The society presented in In Time reminds me of Plato’s Ideal Universe. This comes from the three different sets of people in society: rulers, auxiliaries, and workers. Though the descriptions don’t match up perfectly with the three types of people seen in the movie’s society, it draws enough parallels to be worth noting. The workers in this movie are the people in the poorer time zones, the ones who have reasons to fight for survival but no real ability to influence anyone else in the society. Auxiliaries would be the timekeepers, the people charged with protecting the city. It appeared they didn’t have many family ties, as Plato suggested in his description of their role. They protect the entire society, but still hold little power and influence. Even they live day to day with their time, similar to how people in Will’s time zones do. The rulers are where things don’t entirely line up. The wealthier time zones do have material possessions and family ties, but they are almost meaningless when they have the world at their fingertips, they hardly realize what they have. There is not a perfect balance in this world as Plato intended, though that could be because the different roles don’t lie up exactly with those presented in the movie.
    One thing about the movie, though there were a few, that bothered me was how forced Sylvia’s rebellion seemed. Although I understand that she would want to stand up to her father and take risks, the way her character was written didn’t sit well with me for some reason. It’s probably because there have been a million characters like her before, there was nothing unique about her role. They could’ve written her with at least something different about her, rather than a generic romantic interest for Will who had few unique qualities of her own.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In Time is rather similar to Plato’s City mostly because of the separation between and the isolation of the different social classes. In Plato’s city, a citizen could not change the class they were born to, or else the whole system would be undermined. Similarly, in In Time changing time zones is rare and undermines the classifications which are the basis of the fictional society. In addition, in both Plato’s City and the Time Zones in In Time, there is little if any interaction between classes. In Plato’s ideal city, the classes would interact only in passing – for example if the working class was to perform a service for one of the upper classes – but they would never be in close enough interactions to truly understand and recognize their ways of life. The separation in In Time is more direct, as there are physical barriers that separate the classes so that they can never experience the lives of classes above and below them. In both cases, a person’s understanding of the world beyond is limited to simple recognition of its existence, but never goes beyond into true understanding.
    One problem that I had with In Time was the character development or lack thereof. Some characters, like Sylvia, changed quite literally within a matter of minutes from a daddy’s girl who’s lost in a bad part of town to a bank robber without much explanation. Other Characters, like Will, Sylvia’s father, and the timekeeper, don’t change at all throughout the film. Since Will got all of that time, it had always been his goal to give at least some of it back to the people of Dayton. Sylvia’s father has always and continues to be the mean rich guy, and the timekeeper is a rule-stickler because?????
    Lightning round of things that also annoyed me: What’s up with Sylvia running in heels for the whole movie? How does the timekeeper know will’s father and how did he die? If those cameras were everywhere, wouldn’t it be easy to prove that that rich guy killed himself and gave will his time? If so, why couldn’t Will have just explained that instead of running?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The premise of the movie "In Time", specifically the actions of the man character, Will Salas, reflect the ideas of "Carpe Diem" or "Sieze the Day". In the film, Will lived his life day to day, literally. The clock on his forearm, which worked both as currency and as a countdown to death, was almost always at or below twenty four hours. To Will, this meant two things: he needed to live each day as if it may be his last, and he needed to ensure that it wasn't. He wasn't worried about taking risks or doing things that may seem wrong to some, because he never knew if he'd have another chance. He personified the idea of living everyday as if there is no tomorrow, by fulfilling what he saw as necessary, living every moment to the fullest, and by trying to better what was around him. He explains the passion that he has for living each day on multiple occasions, to Sylvia Weis, the wealthy women that he robbed at gun point, and more. When it comes to specifying an issue I have with this film, I am having some issues. Not because there is not an issue to find, but that there is such an abundance to choose from. If I had to pick just one, I would pick the scene where Will Salas somehow dukes Phillipe Weis by becoming a part of his private security team. Despite the fact that Salas' face is on wanted posters, news programs, etc. all over the nation, Weis and the rest of his guards don't notice that he has joined the group, and he is eventually able to take Weis hostage at gun point. This action is absolutely impossible, and there no explanation is ever even offered to how the stunt was pulled. All in all, I'd say the movie was an interesting idea wit lots of potential, but the course of the film was riddled with plot holes and acting errors (Justin Timberlake's crying scene after he his mother had ran out of time is hilarious. A classic moment of terrible acting.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. wallie

    Let me first start by saying that this movie was BEYOND frustrating, especially the ending. The whole concept to me sounds just like inflation on steroids but using time instead of money. It also reminds me of a twist on Bonnie and Clyde but in a Robbinhood way, where they are mass murderers who give the time they steal from the ones they killed to the poor. Will and Sylvia are a problematic couple to me because they just seem to get away with everything, and instead of dying in the mass car shooting like Bonnie and Clyde did, they somehow manage to make it out alive. I don’t know it all seems way to perfect for me, and they’re both gorgeous so it’s not fair. I want to connect this to the religious aspect of philosophy. If life is based on time and not nature and the living world then how could the idea of religion even exist? Throughout the whole movie I didn’t see any sign or characteristic of any sort of religious beliefs. I guess you could believe in a god, relying on him to help you get the time you need, but that just seems illogical in a world like this. Time is the true, and only, focus in that world and it doesn’t seem like anyone would spend their time (at least not in the ghetto) praying/worshipping because it could be conceived as a waste of time there (I am not saying that it is in real life, just how it could be in the movie). In the richer parts of the country they might have time for religion but they’re also only concerned with time and how to live forever and how to get more time and buy fancy stuff with their time and protecting it. So basically time is the best thing possible for every human in that future world. This in itself contradicts Anselm’s ontological argument. If the people in the future world believe that time is the best thing ever, and not god, then god can’t exist. This conclusion is how Guanilo disproved Anselm’s god argument. The movie also had to do with immortality and the question of whether or not it can be obtained. I don’t think this type of immortality has anything to do with religion but I think it definitely has to with desires, just like the teachings in the Hellenistic period (minus the religious aspect, how certain “rituals” can make you immortal, aka the whole save gamble save fight break into a bank ect).

    ReplyDelete
  9. This movie is quite similar to Plato’s ideal city, but with a few key distinctions. First, there are the rulers. Plato wanted Philosopher Kings, with no monetary possessions. In this movie, the upper class rules society, yet they have material possessions. Their entire goal is to gain more and more material wealth, even at the cost of others. This was exactly what Plato feared. Next, there is the police/military. Plato wanted a military who had few material possessions, and in this regard, the movie is spot on. The timekeepers have very little time themselves, and they are paid day-to-day. This is exactly what Plato intended, as the steadfast timekeeper proved. He worked tirelessly to track down Will Salas, and continued to do his job to the best of his ability. He was responsible for making sure that society was running smoothly. Finally, there are the masses. Plato wanted the masses to have no political power and most of the material wealth. The movie is correct in one of those two things. The masses do not have any political or economic power, as all the power is in the hands of the wealthy elite. The masses do not have much wealth however, as a majority of the time in existence is in the hands of the elite few.
    The society is a form of a cashless society, which I would like to explore. First, the benefits of a cashless society. No cash means illegal activities will decrease dramatically. You can no longer rob a store at gunpoint, since there is no money in the cash register. You can’t buy drugs or hire prostitutes, since the transaction would go through the government. Other petty crimes, mainly theft, would decrease, since there is nothing to steal. No cash in society would also make lives easier, as we would not need to worry about the penny from something that costs $9.99. We also wouldn’t need to worry about losing money or it taking up physical space. Instead of bags of loose change, we would have one government issued credit card. Now, the negatives. There is really only one real problem with a cashless society, and that is the fact that the government is running it. This means that the government will have access to everything that you buy everything you sell, and everything about your life. This is very scary to some people. Sadly, it would have to be the national government to run the cashless society, as that would be the only entity that could afford to give out credit cards with 0% interest and it would be the only entity that does not have a profit motive, so they won’t act against the interests of the public.

    Chance Stephenson

    ReplyDelete
  10. This movie is a conflict between the economic views of Social Darwinism of the late 19th and early 20th century versus Marxism. Social Darwinism is the idea that business is like natural selection, and thus only the fittest businesses will survive; this is how cut-throat tactics like monopolies, terrible working conditions, low wages, and other unethical practices came about in the Industrial Revolution. Marxism, on the other hand, aims for the economic goal of equality- trying to level the income distribution between the bourgeois (The Capitalists) and the proletariat masses (The working class). The immortals of this movie, especially the millionaire father of New Grenwich, exemplifies the philosophy of Social Darwinism with the motto of the movie: "For a few to be immortal, many must die". Will, in contrast, tries to cripple the system with his Robin Hood-like banditry, stealing from the immortals and giving to the fleeting population of Dayton (Thus exemplifying Marxist ideals).

    This movie has many flaws, but one of my main questions has to do with monetary policy. How on earth does that work? Can the value of time inflate or deflate? How does time enter the market? You can't just create time, for time is infinite (as far as we know), so is there theoretically infinite currency? Otherwise, there'd be no need to ration off time as it's a limitless resource. Also, when someone is killed/murdered but still had time, why does that time just dissipate? Time doesn't just evaporate into thin air. In addition, are other countries using this loony system of currency, or do they have other forms of currency like selling of children or something equally ludicrous? If there are different forms of currency, how do conversions and equivalencies work? I can easily understand why this movie's only review was from some person on MySpace.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thinking through everything we've covered in philosophy so far, I related In Time to a few concepts. First of all being Epicureans and the way they view life. They believe in keeping things simple and not overindulging, which reminds me of the “rich” people who kept to themselves and didn't “do anything stupid” in order to maintain their time. I don't grasp this concept quite well because I feel as though, just like Will said, with that much time on your hands, why keep watching it? Now I don't mean blow it willy nilly, but what's the point in having that much time if you don't spend it doing what you love! We also talked about the phrase “carpe diem” and how the people in Dayton--similar to Will--live by this in a way. Will says several times that he lives day to day, which is opposite of Sylvia and her family. But in opinion this should be switched because technically the “rich” people--I would think--would want to be out enjoying life versus staying to themselves and be conserved. Sylvia and her family also remind me of Stoics just a tad bit because they ignore what happens outside of them almost as if they're saying, “Poo happens,” or, “It is what it is,”. They're only concerned with themselves and what happens within their walls.

    One weakness I feel like I see is having only two ways to die: getting shot and running out of time. Do sicknesses not exist? Or are their any other means of death? We witnessed the accident where Will’s car flipped over off the road...but they were perfectly fine, even without seat belts. Now we know this isn't possible. In the real world there would have been death. No doubt about it. But here they were simply knocked out, and woke up a few minutes later. Another thing I question was if it's possible for them to die prior to getting their clock/timer? Are they technically immortal until they turn 25--well unless they're shot? We know that they don't get their timers until they turn 25, so does this mean for 24 years they're just living life carefree-like?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The idea that people can live forever if they just earn/have enough time(as long as someone doesn’t kill them) challenges the entire Baroque era idea of “memento mori.” The upper class people in the movie don’t have to remember that one-day they will die because they can live forever. On the other side of the economic range, people are constantly remembering they will die because they literally have a clock counting down to their death all the time, and for them the clock is always pretty close to zero. “Memento mori” has very different implications when you know exactly when you will (probably) die. This is shown in the drastic cultural differences of the classes. The rich have all the time in the world (no pun intended) to do whatever they want, while the poor frantically work to get just a little more time everyday.

    One weakness in the movie was the lack of back-story of the world it takes place in. I had so many unanswered questions by the end of the movie it was hard to appreciate the rest of the story. The biggest question I had was how the time countdown originates on their wrists. Did they evolve, or was it some type of system that was added by the government or businesses? Another underdeveloped idea was Will’s dad. Many characters, from the timekeepers to Sylvia’s father, all made references to how Will’s actions reminded them of his father. This idea never gets developed past the insinuation that his father didn’t actually die in a fight over time but instead after he tried to do what Will does. Finally, they never explained why Sylvia’s dad wouldn’t pay a relatively small amount of money to get his daughter back while she was being held captive by Will at the beginning of the movie. He previously spent lots of money on bodyguards and other safety precautions but once she seemed to be in extreme danger he refused to pay to get his only daughter back. On a smaller note: how did Sylvia keep her six inch heels on the entire time they were running away from men with guns through the ghetto and jumping across roofs in the night???
    -Natalia McIntyre

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see a little bit of Kant’s philosophy in the movie: Time and Space as innate concepts become our clock and our part of the city. Time starts the same for everyone but then changes quickly into currency, life, once we enter the adult world. Space defines who we are and what we can do. As Kant says, time and space do not exist beyond us, but they determine who, what, when, where we are, and how we live. On the other hand, Spinoza’s determinism also influences the plot. This is the idea of staying where you were born, working like you parents did or keeping away from trouble to survive like you were taught. Will and Sylvia defy both philosophers’ ideas, and the ending seems to let them win in their revolution. What I don't really understand about the movie is how they got to survive their own revolution. They drove a car through a cement building, leaving the car perfectly fine, but when the Timekeeper barely hits them from behind the car stops. About the absence of armed guards at the ghetto bank I agree with my classmates, in an environment where everyone is poor, the vault should not have been left open without any protection. However, the huge bank which also seemed unprotected makes a little more sense to me. The very rich would not try to steal time by actually robbing a bank, guns and all. They have an eternity to find a more subtle way to do it, assuming they even want to.

    Freddy

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kyle Beauregard

    The philosopher I feel In Time connects to is Plato, and his ideal city idea. The similarities are interesting, even beyond the obvious connections, although its not a perfect match. On the surface, there’s the similarity of three classes. The Guardians are the rich, in control of the regions and their wealth. They spend their days at a slow pace, never running or taking risks. As a difference, they are very material people, unlike the Guardians of Plato’s city. Next are the Soldiers, compared to the timekeepers. Like their Platonian counterparts, the timekeepers keep the city in order and are the fighters of the system. Another odd similarity is that despite their assumed power as lawkeepers, they don’t own much; working and earning their time on a day-to-day basis. Their lives can be as fleeting as those of the Workers – the poor people of In Time. They are, as stated, low on time. They own possessions, are the backbone of the city, and keep things moving, but are rather disposable as citizens.

    As for something I found wrong with the movie, I was disappointed by the lack of culture or world building. While the idea that the poor were constantly running and moving quickly compared to the rich was an interesting point, the world still felt hollow. Less like a full world than a county-wide experiment. Is this our Earth? If yes, did the clock phenomenon happen naturally or was it a scientific experiment? In that case, is it only in America, or has it spread to other countries? Are there still people without clocks, or is everyone like this? Or is this not our Earth, only something similar? Again, was this an evolutionary thing, or were the humans in this world just made this way? And in any case, how do you make more time? There’s obviously a lot of money circulation going on, but how do you make more, since people can still die from outside causes? The world is interesting, but would be much better presented as a TV show or book/book series, as those could go much farther into detail. A cool idea and famous actors will not save a movie form its own mediocrity, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ari Mattler

    One philosophical concept that is very relevant to the movie "In Time" is Carpe Diem. Carpe Diem is a Latin saying which means to seize the day and that is how many people live, such as Will Sallas and others in the ghetto in Dayton. Due to the limited amount of time that people have in this post apocalyptic future (literally haha) many try to get the most out of their time. Will mentions how he lives every day one day at a time and does just enough to get by. People like Sylvia on the other hand do not have to worry about the problem of time however. Due to their situation in their respective class, time is something that is not a concern. The rich have decades and centuries on their watches while people not too far away from them are less fortunate when it comes to time. One flaw which I felt effected the movie in a major way was the way it portrayed Will's father. The timekeeper played by the guy from Inception mentioned to Will how his father was very much like him with the same danger aspirations. He mentions how his father also wanted to spread time around and that he doesn't want to see the same thing happen to Will that happened to his father. And that is the end of that. Will tells Sylvia how his father died in a fight and his strategy for taking time but other then that the subject is never again tackled. If Will was to learn what was actually going on with his father it could have possibly created and interesting story arch where his dad is seen as some sort of martyr of freedom. Instead, we are left empty handed with a weak plot point. While I still enjoyed "In Time" I felt that if some aspects of the film where different it could have been much better.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The philosophical concept that I felt fit best in comparison to the movie was the idea of the Allegory of the Cave. All of Sylvia’s life she has been used to the luxury of being rich. She has never had to work for anything and she does not worry about running out of time. She even told Will that she was given around a century of time as a gift which is an amount of time that someone living in the poor time zone would never even see. When Sylvia leaves her time zone and Will shows her what it is like to live in his zone she is at a disbelief. It is hard for Sylvia to realize that it is even possible to live that way since she has been used to a perfect sheltered life. This reminded me of the Allegory of the Cave because of how what Sylvia thought was reality was turned upside down when another form of reality was introduced. Even though Sylvia was able to make sense of the poor time zone, she still had a mentality that the her version of the world was all there was. This is also a good comparison of the world today. Most rich people don’t do anything about the terrible living situations of the poor because they are not aware of it. When a child is born into a rich and fortunate family that is all they know and they go on with their life having only that one small perspective.
    I think one of the weakness in the movie is the relationship between Will and Sylvia. I understood the attraction that Sylvia had for Will when they first met because he was new and exciting, but after that the relationship seemed pointless for the plot. The romantic parts of the movie that surrounded the couple lacked meaning and if those scenes were cut there would be time in the movie to develop the character of Will’s father a little more. In my opinion, the movie would have been much better if Sylvia, once she left her time zone, saw how hard it was to live day to day on minimal time and wanted to create change on her own. If she would have become a strong female lead in the movie rather than just Will’s sidekick, then the movie would have had a stronger plot.

    ReplyDelete
  17. When analyzing the movie In Time, there are several philosophical groupings that apply to the characters in the movie. The first being the idea of a constant revolution found in Leon Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” were the worker continues the revolution between the proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. This is shown by having Will and Sylvia continuing to rob banks and giving the proceeds to the lowest class. Trotskyism is also shown by having one socialist state continuing to fund other communist organizations around the word. By having the time continuously being spread around to others the central funding state remains constant.
    The other side of the characters in In Time are the residences of New Grenage is both objectivism and Social Darwinism. The common idea behind both of these philosophical tales is the hierarchy of putting oneself over everyone else. The individual is the most evolved thing on Earth, and obviously the richest person with the most things to their name is the most evolved above all else. The movie does not even attempt hide the fact that this thought process is in place. Phillippe is extremely open about how natural the heigheracy is in the society. During the first poker game against Will, he calmly raised the pile up to two centuries and laughed it off as “Darwinian Capitalism”
    The biggest problem of In Time in my opinion was how the world was laid out. During the scene where Philippe is on the phone with people around the world it is shown that the country is broken down into four distinct time zones housing the different social classes. The poorest life in the far west and the richest live in the far east. The flaw that I found was the characters were about to drive cross country in about twenty minutes. I realize that maybe their are smaller sub-zones in each main zone around the country but it would be illogical of have two extremely high population centers directly next to each other that fall under wildly different steps in the social hierarchy latter. The reason that does not make sense is that no extremely rich city is the only wealthy city in an area, and if it is, the neighboring city are not as far down the social ladder.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The philosophical term i though fit a piece of the movie is Evil genius. Specifically this term fit Will in the scene where he arm wrestles a gangster for life or death and his girl. In this part of the movie it is not necessarily that Will is evil, but he becomes very sly with his motive to stay alive in this part of the movie made him this evil genius that Descartes uses to describe a sense of deception. In this piece of the movie as the two are arm wrestling Will let's his time run all the way to the seconds allowing his opponent to get off focused and Will on the other hand an easy win based off of distraction. During this glorious moment shoots three body guards in the head and free his hostage. Not only did all of that take planning but it takes an evil genius to pull that type of mood.Will does many deceiving and clever things throughout this movie, but that was one of the bigger scenes showing the concept. Lastly a "hole" that I found and something I found confusing overall is how time works in this land. Children have zero on their arm till 25 then they get a year but as we saw in a movie a little girl had been collecting time to take care of either her family or herself because she had no family. I think this was a backwards part of the movie since a child has zero on their arm everything should free (kind of like innocence). So for a child to be born with 0 (innocence) then to be worried about the ways and time of the world (non-innocence) It makes it hard for children like the little girl in the movie or even independent teens to stay in this innocent state till 25.

    ReplyDelete
  19. One philosophical concept I found related to the movie In Time, was Spinoza's tree concept. This concept made the most sense to me because in the book, according to Spinoza, a tree is born having its full freedom to develop its inherent abilities. So if the tree is an apple tree, it will eventually develop apples, but will not be able to develop plums. The tree was born an apple tree, so it was never meant to bear anything but apples. The same goes for the people in the movie. We are only able to do what our circumstances constrain us to. For example, the citizens who live in the ghetto were never free because they were not able to develop their inner potential due to their circumstances. On the other hand, it was Will's ambition to rob time that got him into a state where he constantly had to be on the run. This will in the long run prevent him from being able to achieve true harmony. 
    A major plot hole that I found in the movie in In Time, was the fact that Timberlake is able to steal a million years from Weis's vault. Timberlake is able to fool Philippe Weis by ''pretending'' to be one of his personal guards, and later take off his sunglasses, and pull out his gun gun. Especially in a dystopian universe, this would never realistically work. Never in the movie did I really see any guards or soldiers (only newscasters to standby and report on what's happening) to prevent time from being stolen or do anything about it if it was. If time was so valuable you would think that there would be at least a few well trained guards out there beside the one timekeeper. You would assume a group of guards hired by one of the richest men in LA would be competent enough to spot a guy who doesn't belong in their group – especially when his face and the word 'Wanted' are on all the posters in the city. This happened because Will kept him hostage during the whole operation, but if he was that abundant and rich of a person, how did someone so easily just hack into his home? Even with the help of his daughter, the fact that Will was able to kidnap Weis so easily basically implies that any person living in the ghetto could just go and kidnap the wealthiest man in the world with just the help of his daughter. Also, when he finally gets the stolen time, when all he does is just leave Weis and assumes he won't get shot on the spot by the few dozens guards who are somewhere waiting for him in the building. Of course nothing goes wrong for him, even when his close to 20 guards witnessed their boss' kidnapping without telling anyone or making an escape plan. 


    ReplyDelete
  20. I thought I uploaded yesterday but maybe my phone glitched sand when I checked mine wasn't on there so I don't know.
    A big weakness to me in the film was the realistic aspect of it. I say this because even though they are in a different world than we are I doubt that any girl is going to be able to run for days in heels because heels her your feet and your feet feel raw and it sucks. Also it seemed as though they never ran out of bullets ever and the guns didn't look like they were some fancy technology were they never needed to reload, like in inception when they didn't have to reload because they were in a dream and that isn't neccessary. I kind of would've liked the timekeepers story with Will's father to be more developed because maybe that would give more insight on why the timekeeper was so ambitious to capture Will and why he had such a thing against him.
    I feel as though this movie can be somewhat related to Plato because he believed in a caste system where each person was born to do a specific job and of that job wasn't done there wouldn't be a world that ran correctly. As soon as the ghetto got more time people stopped working and that's like if all garbage men stopped doing their jobs then the world would be a dirty place. No matter what society you are in you are always going to need people to do the "dirty" jobs that no one else wants because without those jobs getting done society won't work. The guardians were like the rich people because they controlled everything that happened basically and the way the world worked was in the palm of their hands. Then you had auxiliaries which were the time keepers that kept society in order but they just weren't really in charge.

    Skye

    ReplyDelete
  21. In the movie "In Time", we see Justin Timberlake's character, Will Salas, go on a crazy race against time along with his "newfound love" Sylvia Weis. Weis had been accustomed to being rich her entire life, while when we meet Justin Timberlake's character he is solely living with his mom, and does not have much time left on his clock. When his mother dies, a fire sparks inside of him, causing him to gain a yearning to break down the barriers and worries that come along with how much time people have left on their clocks. Sylvia joins him on this quest, as they race from town to town bearing time to everyone. We see a hint at Justin's giving nature and eventual purpose in life early in the movie when he gives the little girl some of his own time. The entire premise of this movie underlines the idea of carpe diem, which we have discussed and revisited many times throughout the course of this class. Timberlake's character literally has to spend each day to the fullest, not wasting a second, because every second counts. Although, this is not necessarily a good thing in the boundaries of this movie. The night where Will and Sylvia are in a hotel and decide to get a little romantic, they are quickly tracked down and chased by law enforcement. The way carpe diem is played in this movie is a little bit darker in the sense that Will and Sylvia were unable to let their guards down for even a second, because although they were doing the right thing and helping people, it was not something Cillian Murphy's character (timekeeper) was advocating for, Therefore they could not waste a second indulging in all the wonderful things in this life like love and happiness, because they had to seize every day in the aspect of bringing as many people freedom as they could. Two of the main plot holes that stuck out to me during the movie was the fact that it seemed not very many people were infected or victim to any diseases. Another thing that bothered me was how easily Will tricked the law enforcement when they almost stripped him of his time. Finally, can we talk about Sylvia running in heels throughout the entire movie?

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your message will appear as soon as Mr. W. approves it. Thanks.