In Time is the more cynical of the two. The text works as a commentary on the capitalistic nature of the current economic system. Time is valued as wealth and life is an extension of that. The movie is not afraid to show immortality ending, as seen in the bodies of those who ran out of time, nor does it hold back the suspense of the immortal falling from grace, as seen in Borel’s death at the hand of a bottle. Borel’s death, with nine years still on his arm, was proof in the movie that, despite having endless years at one’s disposal, unnatural death is not ruled out. The lack of true immortality within the façade of immortality creates the dystopian commentary that even wealth and privilege can’t let you live forever. The comparison between the two makes a blatant statement about immortality, in the context of the text’s society, being only for the wealthy and not to be shared with the impoverished. This statement is further supported by the time cop’s motivation though out the movie. In idealistic world created in “San Junipero” opposes much of the cynicism contained with In Time. The most obvious difference in the presentation of immortality, is the blatant availability of the technology where being immortal is a choice not a luxury. The ambiance created by the open availability in comparison with In Time’s is that of hope and a carefree existence. The purity of the immortality is also something that sets “San Junipero” apart from In Time; once a person’s consciousness is uploaded they are forever in San Junipero. The technology’s ability to offer true immortality for users brings a more hopeful tone to the text, something that is purposely missing in In Time. San Junipero’s ability to reconnect loved ones, if they have bought in, is another factor that fuels the hopeful tone of the text. The plot’s focus on two almost star-crossed lovers being
In Time is the more cynical of the two. The text works as a commentary on the capitalistic nature of the current economic system. Time is valued as wealth and life is an extension of that. The movie is not afraid to show immortality ending, as seen in the bodies of those who ran out of time, nor does it hold back the suspense of the immortal falling from grace, as seen in Borel’s death at the hand of a bottle. Borel’s death, with nine years still on his arm, was proof in the movie that, despite having endless years at one’s disposal, unnatural death is not ruled out. The lack of true immortality within the façade of immortality creates the dystopian commentary that even wealth and privilege can’t let you live forever. The comparison between the two makes a blatant statement about immortality, in the context of the text’s society, being only for the wealthy and not to be shared with the impoverished. This statement is further supported by the time cop’s motivation though out the movie. In idealistic world created in “San Junipero” opposes much of the cynicism contained with In Time. The most obvious difference in the presentation of immortality, is the blatant availability of the technology where being immortal is a choice not a luxury. The ambiance created by the open availability in comparison with In Time’s is that of hope and a carefree existence. The purity of the immortality is also something that sets “San Junipero” apart from In Time; once a person’s consciousness is uploaded they are forever in San Junipero. The technology’s ability to offer true immortality for users brings a more hopeful tone to the text, something that is purposely missing in In Time. San Junipero’s ability to reconnect loved ones, if they have bought in, is another factor that fuels the hopeful tone of the text. The plot’s focus on two almost star-crossed lovers being