The main protagonist, Will Salas, represents the majority of the common people in this future,
being poor as they wake up with less time on their hands than the hours in a day, struggling
to thrive and survive in an economy controlled by the rich. On the other hand, Philippe Weiss
represents the rich who get to live ‘forever’ at the expense of the poor who have to die as “for
a few to be immortal, many must die” (In Time 2011). Contrarily, Henry Hamilton was a man
who “was worth thousands of years” and [has] “had enough” of living, unlike most of the rich
who exploits the poor in order to live for an eternity (In Time 2011).
In Time explores the juxtaposition between the rich and the poor through the aspects of
biotic epidermal modification and geographical separation in the form of “time zones” to
emphasise social strata of posthuman beings and the disparity of wealth. The ‘science’ of
the scene is presented in the form of a genetically-engineered “Darwinian capitalist” (In Time
2011) dystopia that resonates with the neoliberal
analogy: ‘for a few to be rich, many must be poor’ (Schmerheim 2018). This is evident in Henry
Hamilton’s speech regarding “time” in this future:
“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.” (In Time 2011)
This holds true of Marxism’s critiques of capitalism as a failed ideology whereby
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Marx 1897). As a result, not
everyone can be rich, or else everyone would all have the same amount of money
thus the definition of richness would be invalid. There is enough money so
everyone can have a decent life but that is not possible because it would put
the world out of order, which the rich will never let it happen. In a world
where everyone has the possibility of being immortal, the rich become richer
and more immortal whilst others cease to exist as the rich controls the economy
as “evolution is unfair” and that “it's always been survival of the fittest” (In
Time 2011). The poor are exploited working for more time in their lives while
the cost of living keeps on rising so they can’t break the cycle of poverty and
their limitations. In Time is a thinly-veiled version of the present, where
the poor toil and the rich hurtle about in expensive cars.
To say that the scene fits with the idea of treating human modifications with respect would be
arguable. In a future where everyone has no choice but to comply with the cyborg posthuman
technology in the form of epidermal clock that indicates the time left in one’s life as their biological
clock stops as they turn 25, it seems that the characters of the film has a conflicting feeling about
this. The rich like Weiss perhaps respect this modification as they see this as an opportunity to live
immortally and embodies the “Darwinian capitalism” where only “the strong [or the rich] survive”,
while there’s a “mass murder” of the poor in the ghetto as they are running out of time to live and
survive. When referring to getting more time, Salas questioned, “is it stealing if it's already stolen?”
(In Time 2011). This shows that perhaps the poor does not respect the rich and perhaps even the
way this future is designed as the removal of age, as immanent manifestation of time, from the
conditio humana has a price, which is metaphorically portrayed as time
itself.
An alternate version of the scene would be to portray or have everyone look normal and not a
reflection of the “Hollywood” appearance. In the real world, not everyone will look beautiful or
handsome despite them not ageing after the age 25. There will be deformities and flaws that ‘normal
people’ will have. This will make the scene to be portrayed in a less “sensationalistic way”.
Furthermore, if Salas had decided to distribute the time he won from Weiss or even the time he
received from Hamilton, perhaps there would be a change in the dynamic of the ghetto and in this
future as the poor has a little more time to spend and perhaps even disrupting the economy that
would in turn change the future of this future.