OCCUPY HOLLYWOOD: "In Time" film review

Jameson's picture
Submitted by Jameson on Sat, 2011-11-05 14:08

OCCUPY HOLLYWOOD brings us "In Time", making bank robbery a moral right. Writer/director Andrew Niccol (a kiwi, embarrassingly) takes time=money, eternal life, manifest destiny, and Darwian Capitalism to the nth. The new currency is life, measured in units of minutes. After turning 25 each human becomes a dwindling ATM. Keep earning, you keep living. The 1% control population by keeping inflation high enough so the lowest of the 99% "times out". Niccol (Gattaca, Truman Show) is a filmmaker with big 'high concept' ideas. The theme of his latest is, the virtue of wealth redistribution. "In Time" for the anti-capitalists' global tantrum, this is socialism wrapped up in a B-Grade sci-fi flick... made by a member of the hypocritical, self-serving 1%.


It's funny...

Marcus's picture

...the people in Singapore are not allowed to know about their own history of race riots, etc... They are not allowed to criticise Lee Kuan Yew.

That's how free they are.

It's supposed to be the same "asian" model of the free market that China has adopted. In other words, as long as you keep your head down and work, always agree with the Government - we will leave you alone (most of the time).

If you like it so much why don't you stay there?

Atlas

gregster's picture

DVD not in the letter box yet.

The producers might have been replacing the poorly mistaken sleeve.

Read some books describing it

seymourblogger's picture

in the 1960's. It was part of Malaysia until Malaysia kicked it out. Then they were on their own. Israel helped them as Israel knew how it felt.

I used to live there. Everyone says when you ask them how it was odne so fast:

"We have good government." That's what they say. And when we ranin the Botannical Gardens in the early am LKY ran there too with us. No bodyguards. No fear.

Death to drug smugglers though.

'The above is Singapore under

PhilipD's picture

'The above is Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, is that how his name goes. Took Singapore from a dirty seaport backwater to a first world Switzerland for Asia. In less than 30 years from 1965 to the 1980's''

Superficial nonsense. It's a myth that Singapore was some sort of backward swamp and its people were rescued by Lee Kuan Yew.

Hmmmmm.

seymourblogger's picture

such as be governed by a benevolent autocratic dictator. So long as property is private and individual rights "recognized", apparently she's indifferent to which political system is in place.

The above is Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, is that how his name goes. Took Singapore from a dirty seaport backwater to a first world Switzerland for Asia. In less than 30 years from 1965 to the 1980's

Good is not the opposite of evil.

seymourblogger's picture

Evil is defined by Toohey. Making the perception of the opposite poles invisible to the perceiver. BTW this is how Baudrillard also defines evil.

Correct when you say that the body that has not experienced pride cannot experience shame. That has got me thinking about Bettleheim's description of his time at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, one of the better known ones anyway, before Eleanor Roosevelt got him out. He said the ones who experienced the greatest difficulty and death were intellectuals, not the working class or peasants.

Solzhenitsyn says the same. He also says the ones who fared best were the Jehovah Witnesses.

Profound statement from you. Thanks.

Olivia

gregster's picture

Yes, outstanding idea. Let's see when it arrives.

Gregster!

Olivia's picture

Maybe an Atlas DVD night is in order at the Castle - Pete has one of those projector thingys. Smiling

Talking about real movies..

gregster's picture

Yesterday my Atlas Shrugged DVD shipped. With the US$13.95 shipping charge I expect to see it this weekend!
(It's OK if you then buy it)

Mandeville

Richard Goode's picture

The Reverse of Shame is Pride, yet no Body can be touch'd with the first, that never felt any thing of the latter; for that we have such an extraordinary Concern in what others think of us, can proceed from nothing but the vast Esteem we have for our selves.

Pride is that Natural Faculty by which every Mortal that has any Understanding over-values and imagines better Things of himself than any impartial Judge, thoroughly acquainted with all his Qualities and Circumstances, could allow him.

By Honour, in its proper and genuine Signification, we mean nothing else but the good Opinion of others, which is counted more or less Substantial, the more or less Noise or Bustle there is made about the demonstration of it...

The Reverse of Honour is Dishonour, or Ignominy, which consists in the bad Opinion and Contempt of others; and as the first is counted a Reward for good Actions, so this is esteem'd a Punishment for bad ones; and the more or less publick or heinous the manner is in which this Contempt of others is shewn, the more or less the Person so suffering is degraded by it. This Ignominy is likewise called Shame, from the Effect it produces; for tho' the Good and Evil of Honour and Dishonour are imaginary, yet there is a Reality in Shame, as it signifies a Passion, that has its proper Symptoms, over-rules our Reason, and requires as much Labour and Self-Denial to be subdued, as any of the rest; and since the most important Actions of Life often are regulated according to the Influence this Passion has upon us, a thorough Understanding of it must help to illustrate the Notions the World has of Honour and Ignominy. ...to define the Passion of Shame, I think it may be called a sorrowful Reflexion on our own Unworthiness, proceeding from an Apprehension that others either do, or might, if they knew all, deservedly despise us.

When a Man is overwhelm'd with Shame, he observes a sinking of the Spirits; the Heart feels cold and condensed, and the Blood flies from it to the Circumference of the Body; the Face glows, the Neck and Part of the Breast partake of the Fire: He is heavy as Lead; the Head is hung down, and the Eyes through a Mist of Confusion are fix'd on the Ground: No Injuries can move him; he is weary of his Being, and heartily wishes he could make himself invisible: But when, gratifying his Vanity, he exults in his Pride, he discovers quite contrary Symptoms; His Spirits swell and fan the Arterial Blood; a more than ordinary Warmth strengthens and dilates the Heart; the Extremities are cool; he feels light to himself, and imagines he could tread on Air; his Head is held up, his Eyes roll'd about with Sprightliness; he rejoices at his Being, is prone to Anger, and would be glad that all the World could take notice of him.

It is incredible how necessary an Ingredient Shame is to make us sociable; it is a Frailty in our Nature; all the World, whenever it affects them, submit to it with Regret, and would prevent it if they could; yet the Happiness of Conversation depends upon it, and no Society could be polish'd, if the Generality of Mankind were not subject to it. As therefore the Sense of Shame is troublesome, and all Creatures are ever labouring for their own Defence, it is probable, that Man striving to avoid this Uneasiness would in a great measure conquer his Shame by that he was grown up; but this would be detrimental to the Society, and therefore from his Infancy throughout his Education, we endeavour to increase instead of lessening or destroying this Sense of Shame; and the only Remedy prescrib'd, is a strict Observance of certain Rules to avoid those Things that might bring this troublesome Sense of Shame upon him. But as to rid or cure him of it, the Politician would sooner take away his Life.

Bernard Mandeville, The Fable Of The Bees, Volume I, 1714

Try leaving Galt's Gulch and living in the real world.

darren's picture

Capitalism as defined by Rand *is* perfect:

Communism as defined by Marx is *also* perfect. So much for definitions that turn out to be nothing but disguised tautologies from propagandists with agendas.

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

Funny that she doesn't say anything about the need for limited government: a court system, local police forces, and a military -- institutions whose property (buildings, firearms, ammunition, etc.) would certainly not be private; ergo, if she is not to count herself amongst the anarcho-capitalists she loathed, then she will have to withdraw her assertion that a social system called capitalism must have all property privately owned. Under the practical necessity of limited government, that's obviously untrue.

Are Rand's criteria both necessary and sufficient to make capitalism "perfect"? If she's saying that it is necessary for a "social system" to have those characteristics but not sufficient, then her definition isn't perfect and we have no idea what "perfect capitalism" is. If she's saying that it is sufficient for a "social system" to have those characteristics, then she implicitly admits it can have others -- such as be governed by a benevolent autocratic dictator. So long as property is private and individual rights "recognized", apparently she's indifferent to which political system is in place.

To see it in action refer to pre-16th Amendment America where free traders retained 100% of their exchanged values and as a consequence enjoyed a Gilded Age.

What you don't know about American history could fill a book . . . an American History book. There were taxes on personal income, and other kinds of income, even before 1913 and the 16th Amendment. See:

http://reason.com/archives/199...

One needn’t pour good money down the drain getting a ticket to In Time to contribute to this thread, Darren.

Judging by comments from you and seymourblogger, one needn't even be rational.

Peter Stuyvesant, Vermeer, Huygens, Leeuwenhoek, Spinoza and Philips founder Gerard were hardly mental slouches,

All had sloppy posture.

and as far as physical posture goes, the half-Dutch Audrey Hepburn carried herself like a goddess.

Audrey Hepburn was born in Belgium, not the Netherlands, but because of her father, had British citizenship. She learned to slouch from her Dutch mother, and to stand up straight from a British ballet company.

Dutch philosophers

Richard Goode's picture

There's a page of them here.

A couple of other names I recognised: Bas van Fraassen, Bernard (de) Mandeville.

Mandeville wrote The Fable of the Bees. It's a must read for SOLOists, surely.

Sorry most of them are not on DVD

seymourblogger's picture

too obscure. Many of the films are so damaged from poor storage they can't be.

At last someone besides me to slap him

seymourblogger's picture

darren that is.

Bollocks.

Jameson's picture

Capitalism as defined by Rand *is* perfect: “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” To see it in action refer to pre-16th Amendment America where free traders retained 100% of their exchanged values and as a consequence enjoyed a Gilded Age.

One needn’t pour good money down the drain getting a ticket to In Time to contribute to this thread, Darren. Nevertheless you seem determined to carry on your mierenneuker ways, defending this anally-retentive and wholly irrelevant B-Grade tangent.

”… one could always recognize the Dutch by their sloppy posture. That also appears to be true of their thinking.”

Peter Stuyvesant, Vermeer, Huygens, Leeuwenhoek, Spinoza and Philips founder Gerard were hardly mental slouches, pal, and neither is the inestimable Geert Wilders. Edison had Dutch roots as did Vanderbilt, and as far as physical posture goes, the half-Dutch Audrey Hepburn carried herself like a goddess. But if we could bring this stupid tangent back to the topic, then you’d have to recognize the significant role the early Dutch capitalists played in modern banking and commerce — deserving your thanks, not your derision.

... you didn't nail me for

darren's picture

... you didn't nail me for the literal: *Darwinian Capitalism.

Why? I've already posted that Binswanger's statement about there being only one kind of capitalism "and it's perfect" was nonsense. There can be many different kinds of economic systems each making use of private ownership of the means of production, a price system, relatively free markets, each calling itself capitalist, and each imperfect.

There are no "perfect" economic systems. There are only trade-offs.

Fine country, the Netherlands

darren's picture

By B-Grade I meant sub-A-Grade;

By B-Grade, seymourblogger thought you meant "coarse grained." I disabused her of the idea that film-grain size has anything to do with it.

while the production values are there, the acting is average, the set-pieces cliched, and the plot is thin, sensationalist, and utterly predictable

Those same criticisms could apply just as well to any number of A-Grade films: films with big budgets and name actors.

you seem intent on hijacking it with myopic nit-picking

Thanks! Given that I haven't seen the film, there's very little else I can do. Besides, seymourblogger's seymourblogging is entertainment enough -- like a real B-Grade movie script.

... they'd call you a mieren neuter

A Dutch scientist named Samuel A. Goudsmit once wrote that one could always recognize the Dutch by their sloppy posture. That also appears to be true of their thinking.

I'm surprised...

Jameson's picture

... you didn't nail me for the literal: *Darwinian Capitalism.

(Lindsay, what happened to the edit function?)

In the Netherlands, Darren...

Jameson's picture

... they'd call you a mieren neuker. Rather than *contribute* to the thrust of this thread, you seem intent on hijacking it with myopic nit-picking. By B-Grade I meant sub-A-Grade; while the production values are there, the acting is average, the set-pieces cliched, and the plot is thin, sensationalist, and utterly predictable. CinemaScore gave it a B-minus. Philosophically it's an epic F.

Try watching films before talking about them

darren's picture

I'm talking 1940's Was you there Charlie?

All them films still be available on DVD, sweet pea; anyone can study them. And unlike your postmodern mind, they ain't "coarse-grained."

I'm talking 1940's Was you there Charlie?

seymourblogger's picture

I didn't want to know that much about turtles.

You demonstrate what the dictionary means by moron

darren's picture

the original of B movie, was coarse grained,

"Coarse grained" film (which has a high Exposure Index rating and is therefore extremely sensitive to light) is no less expensive than "fine grained" film (which has a low EI rating and therefore requires far more light to get a correct exposure). In fact, high-speed film (=large grains of silver halide in the emulsion = "coarse" grained) is sometimes more expensive than slow or medium speed film.

Most B films from the old studio system were shot indoors on sound stages where they had complete control over lighting; coarse-grained, high-speed film became popular when shooting on location in low light situations.

See the noir and psychological thriller films of B-flick producer Val Lewton for a typical velvety fine-grained look typical of the studio system.

See you demonstrate what I mean by a simulacrum

seymourblogger's picture

A B movie used to be, the original of B movie, was coarse grained, low budget, limited distribution, of slightly more racy content, and shown in theatres at the outskirts of town or on a Saturday afternoon for the pedophiles.

Now a B movie is probably as you have said: low budget.

Saw Drive last night. Wow! I know you would like it. Low budget 15 mil and so far a net of 35 mil. Same as Abduction, Water For Elephants, Remember Me. The Scummit model is leading toward the abyss and implosion. Promote promote promote until the trailers have basically included the whole movie if one watches them all as the Rob fangirls have, and are now bemoaning that it's too much!

Drive is not a B movie. Neither is Another Earth. I could name more. Do you really want me to.

But the label B suggests the old connotation of inferior, or dirty somehow. Like Jane Frazee's Taxi Dancer (10 Cents a Dance?) for one, which I saw when a child and which I wanted to see desperately after seeing the trailer during National Velvet which was an OK film for me to see. I took my little sister. It was on a double feature with shit I forget and I'm not going to look it up. Girls in a reformatory prison getting waterhosed and some such violence. I loved it. Anne Francis was in it, a lovely teenager at the time. Catherine McLoud, Paul Henreid. That's all I remember. Two b/w grainy films I have never forgotten. And there are many of them in the film archives waiting to be discovered. A career for you. Or someone. Oh, there's an early Duvall on a Faulkner story about a boy that is sublime.

"B-movie" designates a budget

darren's picture

"B-movie" designates a budget category (low budget, no name stars, tighter shooting schedule), not a quality category.

Some of the best Hollywood films were B-flicks, especially in the gangster, thriller, and noir genres.

This movie, however, sounds like a "pass" because the story is quite simply moronic; not because it's in a certain budget category.

I believe you but you haven't

seymourblogger's picture

made me want to see it for myself. On purpose? Well done? Now I'm curious. You said Grade B so I guess not. Sell me. Pimp it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.