While the film In Time is a rather shallow contemporary film, (exemplified by the choice to cast Justin Timberlake as the lead role) it does in many ways mirror Marx's ideology regarding capitalism. Replacing money with time as a conceptual measure allows an exaggerated analogy to contemporary capitalism. In In Time, peoples right to live is literally based on economic standing.
The same principals apply in the film as they do in real life according to Marx, "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.” In time shows the alienation of laborers and disproportionate distribution of wealth between the rich and poor.
There's a degree of irony in a large feature film by a major studio which may, unwittingly or not, be critiquing the ills of capitalism.
A persons life should not be determined on how the economy is going. A persons life is more important than money. I don't like how the people had to basically fight and steal for every second they wanted to live.
ReplyDeleteI like that you commented on the irony of the production of this film. A large budget movie, filled with easily recognizable actors and actresses, produced by a major studio that grossed about 13 mil on its release weekend, trying to comment on the downfalls of american capitalism.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRight, Justin Timberlake worked (acted) for probably a couple of months for millions of dollars, while the woman in Malaysia is still churning out DVD packaging for the movie, not seeing ten thousand in her lifetime. Their personal value is no different; JT's right to live is no more significant because I can abbreviate his name and you still know who I'm referring to, but the economic value of these people are radically stratified.
ReplyDelete