The Circle
Premise - Think the power of Facebook + Google + Apple x
1,000. That’s the Circle. Absolute completion and maximization of the
information revolution and the digital age. It’s paradisaical, a forced utopia,
that becomes a tyrannical monopoly on technology. And at the center of it all
is an ordinary girl named Mae Holland who just wants to improve the world.
Review - I LOVED the book, and yet it gave me the
absolute creeps. The most frightening part of the book is how realistic it is. Actually, I take that back. That's the second most frightening part. What scares me most is how well-intentioned everything is, which is why society buys into the Circle so willingly. When these
ideas are put forth over time, spread out over hundreds of pages, it feels like a more natural progression. However, to put them side by side, it feels unrealistic and we as a society are a lot more
inclined to say, “Pshh, that would never happen” when really, it could. Therefore, the book reigns far superior to the movie mostly for issues of pacing and detail. That said, I enjoy both.
One
theme that really gets to me is this idea that if something isn't documented,
it didn’t happen. It was worthless. Therefore, if you don’t document your life
on social media, YOU are worthless, or you’re doing something wrong that you
want to hide. The philosophy behind this is straightforward - if everyone is entirely transparent, then the things we all do that we like to keep private won't matter anymore. Sex, nudity, embarrassment... we'll be so flooded with this data that no one will care, so there's no point in hiding unless someone is committing an act that is objectively wrong, such as a crime. Transparency is how to hold people accountable and keep record of their everyday human existence. Privacy is an unnecessary luxury.
There are endless problems with this utopian idea of a world that is rid of both privacy and crime, but there is a unique one that sticks out to me. The Circle constantly presents this idea that we do better when we think we are being watched - that we are our best selves when we are held accountable, and our worst selves when we are in private. That's not untrue, however, it rids society of inherent trust. Inherent goodness. It suggests that people only do good things because of the societal reward they receive, and not because it is human nature. Whether true altruism exists is already questioned, but social media is preventing even the chance for altruism to occur.
Our protagonist, if you can call her that, is Mae Holland. She is incredibly well-intentioned and likeable, but it is difficult to call her a protagonist because she kind of becomes her own little... dictator. Mae joins the Circle in Customer Service, and then quickly rises through the ranks to become the first “Transparent” civilian (watched by cameras at all times), which turns her into a revolutionary and powerful celebrity. She's unique in that her celebrity status comes from an intimacy she shares with the entire world. She's an "everyday gal" that everybody can relate to, and feel as though they are watching a friend. I've watched my fair share of daily vloggers on YouTube, and this is the kind of celebrity I compare her too. I love the feeling of closeness to daily vloggers, and though they are somewhat commodifying their life, they do so voluntarily. The main difference between Mae and a YouTube vlogger is that vloggers decide what they share online, and edit together maybe 10 minutes of their day to present something entertaining for their fans. They present their best selves. Mae has no boundaries, so therefore she has to be her "best self" every second of every day, which is far too taxing for any individual to handle. Emma Watson was a great choice for Mae (and I know I'm biased because Emma is my favorite actress, but this really is a better performance of hers). Mae is dynamic, introspective, and a little lost, but also holds up this facade of confidence… Emma's performance (and Tom Hanks’) to me is what makes the movie have a value of its own separate from the book. Emma knows what it's like to be forced to present her best self, having been one of the world's most famous celebrities since she was a kid. I feel her in Mae.
There are endless problems with this utopian idea of a world that is rid of both privacy and crime, but there is a unique one that sticks out to me. The Circle constantly presents this idea that we do better when we think we are being watched - that we are our best selves when we are held accountable, and our worst selves when we are in private. That's not untrue, however, it rids society of inherent trust. Inherent goodness. It suggests that people only do good things because of the societal reward they receive, and not because it is human nature. Whether true altruism exists is already questioned, but social media is preventing even the chance for altruism to occur.
Our protagonist, if you can call her that, is Mae Holland. She is incredibly well-intentioned and likeable, but it is difficult to call her a protagonist because she kind of becomes her own little... dictator. Mae joins the Circle in Customer Service, and then quickly rises through the ranks to become the first “Transparent” civilian (watched by cameras at all times), which turns her into a revolutionary and powerful celebrity. She's unique in that her celebrity status comes from an intimacy she shares with the entire world. She's an "everyday gal" that everybody can relate to, and feel as though they are watching a friend. I've watched my fair share of daily vloggers on YouTube, and this is the kind of celebrity I compare her too. I love the feeling of closeness to daily vloggers, and though they are somewhat commodifying their life, they do so voluntarily. The main difference between Mae and a YouTube vlogger is that vloggers decide what they share online, and edit together maybe 10 minutes of their day to present something entertaining for their fans. They present their best selves. Mae has no boundaries, so therefore she has to be her "best self" every second of every day, which is far too taxing for any individual to handle. Emma Watson was a great choice for Mae (and I know I'm biased because Emma is my favorite actress, but this really is a better performance of hers). Mae is dynamic, introspective, and a little lost, but also holds up this facade of confidence… Emma's performance (and Tom Hanks’) to me is what makes the movie have a value of its own separate from the book. Emma knows what it's like to be forced to present her best self, having been one of the world's most famous celebrities since she was a kid. I feel her in Mae.
As I have said, the book is of much higher quality than the film. There are some changes that I just cannot get over (What did they do with Ty??? He was barely in the movie, and his appearances didn't make sense?? Why did he just start admitting who he was to some random girl??) The ending was very strange because Mae’s actions are a complete 180 from her actions in the book, yet the outcome is exactly the same. In the book she never turns her back on anyone in the Circle, and stops Ty from taking anybody down. The Circle goes on. The movie is very different, because Mae does stand up to the Circle. She believes she’s fixed the problem by putting the blame on two individuals, who run the Circle, when really she’s still just making the problem worse all over again by increasing transparency. The Circle goes on, this time with accountable leaders. It's a much more enigmatic finale, that definitely confused audiences. Overall, the filmmakers did a very good job incorporating as many ideas from the book as possible. The book was incredibly rich, and to cram in what they did in 2 hours was still impressive. That said, it may have come at the expense of any time for cinematic sparkle. If the movie had nothing to add cinematically, you might as well just say “Just read the book.” (90/100 book, 70/100 movie, for an average of 80/100).
Quote - “It’s not that I’m not social. I’m social enough. But the tools you guys
create actually manufacture unnaturally extreme social needs. No one
needs the level of contact you’re purveying. It improves nothing. It’s
not nourishing. It’s like snack food. You know how they engineer this
food? They scientifically determine precisely how much salt and fat they
need to include to keep you eating. You’re not hungry, you don’t need
the food, it does nothing for you, but you keep eating these empty
calories. This is what you’re pushing. Same thing. Endless empty
calories, but the digital-social equivalent. And you calibrate it so
it’s equally addictive." - Mercer, in the book.
What to watch for - Here’s what I suggest… watch the ending of the film and try to come
up with your own interpretation, because people are often confused. Maybe
that’s the point, it tries to make you think for yourself, “So, did society
win… or lose…?” The book's ending is much more clear that society had lost.
If you liked this movie or book, I'd recommend Black Mirror!
If you liked this movie or book, I'd recommend Black Mirror!
Author: Dave Eggers
Director: James Ponsoldt
Publisher: Knopf
Distribution Company: STX Films, Europa Corp.
Comments
Post a Comment