Analyzing Andrew Niccol’s 2011 ‘In Time:’ Another Dystopia, this Time with Heavy-Handed Anti-Greed Themes

Andrew Niccol knows how to write dystopian films. And direct them. In his first, “GATTACA,” he examined the human spirit amidst a time where perfect humans were grown in a lab and ‘degene-erates’—lesser humans—were the product of natural birth. “The Truman Show” was sci-fi, the story of a man whose life was televised, primarily unbeknownst to him. And “Lord of War” might as well be dystopian, despite its reality. Niccol has always operated in the world of currency. In “GATTACA” that currency was genes and in “Lord of War” that currency was bullets. And in 2011’s “In Time,” that currency is just that. Time. 

In this latter, humans inhabit a world where they age naturally until 25, and then physical aging stops. They’re given from that point one year to live, measured on their forearm by a counting clock. It’s not hard to see where this will go. The poorer locales live day-to-day, bartering for minutes, hours, days. The richer cities bask in near immortality. During the film’s penultimate scene, fugitive Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) robs a vault and steals 1 million hours. There’s more than enough to go around—the rich just don’t want to share it. 

Time is Currency

“In Time” is the film where Niccol gets the most brazen. He’s flirted with justice before, but here weaponizes it. In “Lord of War” Nic Cage lectures an Interpol agent (Ethan Hawke) on the system—albeit corrupt—and why he’ll be released despite massive illegal arms trades. Yet in “GATTACA,” he’s more subtle. Jude Law’s character is a wheelchair-bound member of the elite whose genes predict he’ll live forever. Yet his partnering with, again, Ethan Hawke as a member of the underclass is Niccol’s most romantic: “I got the better end of the deal. I only gave you my body; you gave me your dream.” 

“In Time” takes that idea and runs with it. Time here is clearly money. And Niccol, Timberlake, and, later, Amanda Seyfried as the daughter of a super-rich power broker (Vincent Kartheiser), show the juxtaposition between the wealthy—who never have to worry about death—to the poor, who wake up each morning with a day or less on the clock. This is all visually shown: green, digital letters count down with SFX more believable than the film’s time period would have allowed. We see people die—their arm counts down to seconds. Yet in the film’s near opening, a man from a rich district with 110 years on his arm (Matt Bomer) gives Salas the secret to the formula: “for the few to be immortal, many must die.” Niccol’s script is a savage takedown of capitalism. “Wall Street” took its full run-time to say what Niccol does in seconds. 

A Takedown of Weaponized Capitalism

That’s not to say “In Time” is perfect. Its opening is strong, showing Will’s allegiance with his mother (a good Olivia Wilde) and his best friend (Johnny Galecki). The film’s premise takes some getting used to. No one in this film looks old. They all talk of “how many years past 25” they are. Some are three (like Will) and some are 85 (like Kartheiser’s Phillipe). But everyone looks the same. Niccol commits to this idea which leads, eventually, to a clever joke where Philippe must explain to Will which of the three beautiful women in his palatial home are his mother, wife, and daughter. 

The vehicle that Niccol uses to start his thriller—Bomer’s ‘Hamilton’ throwing around his time in a bar, buying drinks for everyone and later telling Salas he wants to die—is an interesting angle. He’s 105 (25+80 I suppose) and is sick of existing and not living. And despite him giving Will the secret to time (read: capitalism), it’s the first time in a movie I’ve seen a privileged character suggest that given enough time, even they’ll tire of the charade. Of course not all of them, as legions of rich folk gladly bet 100 years a hand at casinos while the poor trade minutes for scraps. Here Seyfried’s Sylvia Weiss is possibly the only member of the elite to question if never taking a chance just to live forever is really living. The script is smart and takes appropriate stabs at the upper class without ever becoming tiresome. 

Overlong, but Lots to Chew On

Yet sometimes “In Time” wanders into familiar stuff, especially with a timekeeper, (“In Time’s” police) who tracks Will for ‘stealing’ the time from Hamilton, even though Hamilton gave it to him. The timekeeper, Leon, played by Cillian Murphy, is semi-wasted here. He’s integral, just like Hawke’s Interpol agent from “Lord of War.” Yet when he realizes things are awry—and should, rightly, change—he’s so concerned with ‘the law’ that his character loses something. The film’s closing scenes prove this: Leon basically lets Will know he sees the inequity, doesn’t care because he gets his end, yet espouses to care about the law as if it’s separate from the system he’s protecting. Still, Murphy gives it his all, and a scene with Philippe and he toward the film’s middle (“it’s a scandal what they pay our timekeepers, really”) adds an indictment to how society abuses police officers to the mix. 

“In Time” is an insightful film and gives us lots to chew on. However, its detriment is its run-time of 1 hour and 49 minutes, which—especially towards the end—could have used a trim and some gumption when it starts meandering. Additionally, a few chase sequences try a little too hard to be “Minority Report” or the like when the film’s stiller moments are its best. Will starts off trying to avenge his mother and all the poor in the districts and ends up falling in love with Sylvia by the end, whom he initially kidnaps. It’s not that it’s handled poorly or isn’t believable. It’s just obvious that Niccol wanted to make a sci-fi blockbuster (the film’s budget was $40 million), where a little restraint might have gone a long way. 

Learning Not to Waste Time

But “In Time” is good. Timberlake is extremely likable, providing an everyman who seems desperate for the film’s run, despite the actor’s good looks and sex appeal. Seyfried is a good compatriot, although painted a bit thin. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is slick and futuristic, but never gets lost so much in the future we forget the film’s commentary. The film ends a little too conveniently, but it’s a small demerit. Along the way, Niccol, Timberlake, and company show us what time means, how we waste it, and how more isn’t always an indicator of better. And under it all, it’s the cleanest, sharpest criticism of power, wealth, and greed I’ve seen on film in some time. Not bad for a sci-fi actioner released 15 years ago.