The Circle - a review.

A young woman named Mae Holland (Emma Watson) gets her dreamjob at the tech-firm ‘The Circle’ a company based on connectivity between people. The company owners Bailey (Tom Hanks) and Stenton (Patton Oswald) take a liking to her as she moves up in the company. But, she soon discovers that human nature and technology don’t always mix.

Disclaimer: I haven’t read the book. I’m merely reviewing this movie.

It´s always a danger sign when there are multiple production company logos in the opening. Even a bigger sign when, for an American movie, none of these logos are American. And worse if none of them ring a bell to me.

So when I watched the Circle this was already the first big sign that something could be amiss. After all, you can ask the very simple question: why did the big studios pass on this one?

Having said that I must admit that I liked The Circle. It basically comes down to how much you are willing to give into. How much suspension of disbelief are you willing to give in favor of a philosophical tale about technology and humans.

But in the end you can’t help but wonder what Fincher or Stone would have done with the same material.

The acting

To be quite honest the technological ‘carrot’ wasn’t the reason why I watched this movie. And even though I admire how Emma Watson is crafting her career lately.

Some modeling, an university degree, outspoken on social issues and, of course, some daring acting choices.

But these choices unfortunately aren't daring enough for my taste. She tries, though. Colony and Regression were interesting picks, but no big winners. This has mainly to do with Watson choosing acting parts that are about common people (as in The Circle). Watson cannot play a common person if she looks as she looks. She’d have to go all out Theron in Monster to make a believable turn. But I have faith that the right movie will come along in the future.

It wasn't her I went to see this picture for. It is Tom Hank's turn as a villain that sold the seat for me. The most likeable man in Hollywood (next to Kurt Russell) playing a villain. I'm having a great year.

Now his opening speech in which he is chewing all kinds of scenery is an absolute blast to see. But...it's also the most James Bond-villain megalomaniac speech ever. How dangerous the stuff is this man is proclaiming. I’ll go into that later.

Hanks is having a blast as playing a nicer version of Steve Jobs. Watson meanwhile has a more challenging part that balances between naivety and strong will. I think her part fails every now and again but that has more to do with the character than her acting.

For instance, her character Mae is rather quickly taken in with the open/sharing culture that goes on at the circle. I think a bit too fast to make it believable.

Then there’s a nice role for Karen Gillian who gets a small arch from super-hippie to human person with all the human traits. And finally Jon Boyega’s character who suffered a massive rewrite. Since then he’s basically hanging out in the background somewhere sulking.

This movie also features one of the last performances of the late great actor Bill Paxton. A small emotional part in which he plays Mae’s father  that showcases the diverse talent this man had.

I think Boyega’s storyline highlight the main problem with this movie: it’s ideas first and story-that-allows-great-acting second. The possibilities and dangers of social media are interesting enough –but if you don’t focus on the aftermath for the characters it remains nothing more than a hundred minute exposition.

So the whole finale rolls out as expected. Big things happen but characters hardly give it a moment notice. And every scene between actors feels forced in a way that the movie can’t wait to spring the next big idea on the viewer.

The creepiness factor.

So let’s talk about the big ideas.

There’s a fun game to play if you’ve seen the TV-show Breaking Bad: At what episode in the show did your empathy shift from Walter White to one of the other characters (usually Jessie)? What evil action did Walt do that made you stop thinking of him as a nice man?

Mine is somewhere in season two that I thought was unforgivable.

The Circle plays the same game. At which point in the movie do you, the audience, feel like: ‘hell no. I’m not doing that?’.

For me it was the fabulous scene in which the (I call them) creepy twins bully Mae into joining with the rest of the circles and being more social. I wouldn't have been able to complete that conversation (due to the fact that I would probably have strangled one of them). It’s so silly and ‘killing with kindness aggressiveness’ (like crushing somebody under gummie bears), that I actually stared openmouthed at the silver screen. Creepy beyond believe and it gets even worse after that.

The circle is pretty much a religious cult (the movie is in on the joke). When a person honestly tells another person about chipping children it's brought with such a fanatical conviction of 'I'm right and everybody who disagrees is part of the enemy' that it becomes hard to disagree.

The same goes for people filming each and every conversation you have without any shame. Even willing to barge in on the conversation.

It takes quite a leap of fate to accept this fanatical behavior from some of the people.

Maybe I'm naive (I hope so).

But it does make you wonder, in the context of the movie, how much backbone a person needs to have to stand up to the constant pressure of peers.

The sci-fi elements.

This movie does include quite a few sci-fi elements. For starters little camera's with lifelong batteries? (Solar powered?) And then there's a whole lot of invasion of privacy going on. Letting people drink sensors without telling them what it is. Forcing people to be social. It takes quite a few grains of salt to accept these. But, once again, it are the ideas behind it that matter.

Every once in a while a new techno-thriller comes out that deals with secrecy. Sneakers ("too many secrets!"), The net, Anti-trust, a few episodes of Black mirror and now the Circle ("secrets are lies").

It's a brave choice of The Circle to take it a step further. That's what you want after all.
However, I feel that The Circle poses its questions rather harshly.And every time the movie tries for nuance it fails.

The story about Tom Hank's character’s son is one. Basically posing (nay forcing) the statement that holding a memory to one self is egocentric.

Let's get down to brass tacks here: I would very much like my sexual encounters to be private. If I’m one a first date I don’t want ‘sweet lovemaking tips’ from a guy in India who’s watching me while sipping his morning tea. And there are a whole lot of other things I would like to keep private.

Sharing everything automatically means hurting other people. In the same vein that overly social behavior becomes anti-social. It's like a circle.

So to me the attempt of this movie to sugar-coat it. To show the good intentions behind it fail because I cannot 'give in' to the different view the movie poses.

'we sent a 180000 frowns from the US alone' - how plastic do you want to be?

Coming full circle (ha!)

The directing and the acting are fine in this film. It might have done with a bit less ‘onscreen messages’ but that’s fine. What troubles me about The Circle is that it’s basically a constant buffet of philosophical questions concerning privacy and human nature. Yet that ‘buffet’ doesn’t allow a real movie to take place. Like Boyega’s character the actors don’t really get a whole lot to do.

A movie is always compressed for time. So in our digital ages where everything is flashy visual, I think, to truly appreciate the Circle I have to sit down with the book.