# “Needle in a Timestack” assassinated by critics for its ideology
Date: 2022-11-24

---

---

### “Needle in a Timestack” assassinated by critics for its ideology

![Image](https://disrael.github.io/blogs/assets/needle-in-a-timestack-assassinated-by-critics-for-its-ideology-3354b3350a.png)

How does a superbly acted movie with an engaging take on time travel end up with a [35% on Rotten Tomatoes](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/needle_in_a_timestack)? Cause critics want to make sure that any movie touching on the topics I have been writing about is buried in a deep dark hole.

First up is [Roxana Hadadi](https://www.polygon.com/reviews/22726874/needle-in-a-timestack-review) who says

> If this is meant to be a commentary on the wealthy operating by different rules than everyone else, the film doesn’t make that clear — the lack of accountability feels more like a dropped plot point.

I don’t know how the film could have been any more clear on its commentary that ultra-rich people plus unregulated technology = bad. But Roxana continues with

> Who controls this technology? How is it regulated? How does this near-future version of the United States have easily accessible time-travel, but no clear way to protect memories, except by printing out photographs, then visiting a mall store to have an employee scan them and lock up the data in a vault in the cloud?

Wow we are living in a time of human caused climate change, [human created pandemics](https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2D3-JDmQ2dn2h2lSYelhVqWIbg5w0Tbqb1rk0L1SrfJWAZCI9s--QYgts), [a history of near nuclear extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov), and out of control social media but who can imagine a future about an unmitigated technology?

Slightly more with it is [Dayne Linford](https://battleshippretension.com/needle-in-a-timestack-lonely-are-the-pre-determined-by-dayne-linford/) who says

> A new technology utilized as a plaything by the wealthy with astounding consequences for everyone else is an extremely persuasive and provocative idea.

but also

> The different domiciles of each life are very different in look and feel, but not in luxury, and in the end, though everyone talks about how expensive time travelling is, several different characters make use of it.

No actually the not rich characters get one shot at time travel and the ultra-rich go as many times as they want. For the not rich its a desperation move to save a loved one’s life or preserve a marriage but for the ultra-rich its a lifestyle and way of exploring “what ifs”.

Then on race

> There’s something to the fact that Nick’s marriage to a black woman is threatened by her white former lover, but all anyone can talk about is Tommy’s money, which must be vast to stand out in this crowd.

Again the movie really could not have been any more clear that an ultra-rich, super entitled white man is a threat but these critics cannot come out and admit the ideological problems they have with the movie.

Are the ultra-rich the only threat? No unregulated technology, capitalism and lack of purpose are the real villains threatening marriage and children and that’s exactly what we see in real life as both marriage and birth rates fall.

Its not by accident that these characters are all well to do — they reflect the ennui that the upper class feels as humanity marches towards dystopia. We are on average materially wealthier but spiritually poorer.

Here Dayne’s review actually grasps the point

> Over and over again, editing and framing tell us that these people are all very alone, either not looking at each other in the center of a wide, empty frame, or isolated in close up, as if trapped behind compositional walls. As Nick’s apparent last possible chance at happiness plays out before us, it feels so insubstantial. If this is an argument for a teleological romantic universe, it’s a pretty flimsy one. But maybe a romance should only survive against literally all odds.

and at the same time dismisses it. Yes the argument for a “teleological romantic universe” is pretty flimsy but it’s also one that humanity has to make good.