The Circle is based on a 2013 novel of the same name, expanding on the premise of "What if Google got too powerful?" or something close to it. It begins with Mae (Emma Watson), an underemployed millennial, living at home with her parents. Her dad has multiple sclerosis and she tries to help with him as much as she can. She lucks into a job at a Google/Apple super-company called The Circle, thanks to a recommendation from her friend Annie (Karen Gillan), who is fairly high up in the company. She gets there and doesn't quite fit in at first. Everyone else worships their charismatic CEO, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks). She only meets one person (John Boyega) there who doesn't 100% buy into the culture of The Circle, and she doesn't get his name to keep in touch with him. The Circle introduces the idea of total surveillance everywhere on the theory that shared experience is shared knowledge is maximum knowledge, which is better for everyone. After an accident that Mae gets rescued from thanks to The Circle's surveillance, she become a full acolyte and films her entire life for the company as their main spokesperson to show the benefits of "full transparency". That is, until she's faced with some of the downsides to complete surveillance and must decide if the company is ultimately as good as it claims to be.
The film is blunt force social commentary that makes its point, makes it again, underlines it, puts in in bold, capitalizes it, doubles the text size, circles it - twice, types it into a Speak-and-Spell, maxes out the volume, then repeats it several times. That alone is not a bad thing. I can forgive a lack of subtlety (I loved Mad Men and that show was as thematically obvious as any movie most weeks). It doesn't have anything to say though. The pro-surveillance arguments it makes are not compelling, not in a way that intelligent people wouldn't see right through. And the anti-surveillance arguments are so obvious that they go without saying.
The argument you could make is that the movie is intended as a thriller more than a social commentary. That would be a poor argument, because the story is nonsense. It's been a long time since I believed a character's story arc as little as I did Mae's. At the beginning of the movie, she's the POV character and it's easy to read what her thoughts are. They're our thoughts. Then, she has one talk with Bailey and his COO, Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt) and is a fully convinced true believer. From then on, the film has a 3rd-person limited POV of her. This is all in service of one big fake-out at the end. Her friend Annie has the opposite arc, going from believer to cynic, also seemingly all at once. That's a problem because it invites the idea that someone could be soured on The Circle from within. To believe in Mae's transformation, you have to believe in an almost supernatural ability within the confines of The Circle to convert employees. When Annie is able to become disillusioned, not to mention John Boyega, who never seems to have bought in, that invites the possibility of dissent. In that respect, it sells out Mae, because her transformation is more of a plot device than earned development.
In short, I didn't believe the world or the characters. That is far too much to overcome, especially in a movie that doesn't have much else to offer. The performances are hampered by obvious story mechanics. For example, Tom Hanks isn't all that convincing as a charismatic leader when we first meet him. I forgave that, assuming he was intended to come off like that. Then, when the story needs him to be more convincing, he is and plays it well. Then, he's not , when the story turns again. His performances ends up looking bad because he has a character that has to change fundamentally based on what the story needs, not based on character choices. Emma Watson has a similar problem. Her character is what the story needs it to be. Gleene Headly and Bill Paxton (his final film performance) play her parents who probably have the most interesting story arc even though 99% of it happens off screen. Ellar Coltrance shows up essentially playing a continuation of where his character left off in Boyhood.I kept waiting for more to come from John Boyega's character and it never did.
I like John Ponsolt's work as a director/writer. I've seen almost every movie and TV shows listed in his IMDB page. His movies like Smashed, The End of The Tour, and The Spectacular Now were all much more personal films. The Circle is a big departure from that. The impulses that work well for him normally appear to be in direct conflict with what is needed for The Circle to work. You just can't make a personal character-driven story with the plotting the story demands.
I don't normally comment on the music in a movie. I'm a Luddite who doesn't typically notice the score the first time I see something. So, when I do notice the music, it's either a very good or very bad sign. In this case, it shouldn't surprise you that it's a bad sign. I like Danny Elfman's work most of the time. However, the music in this sounds like it was inspired by the incoming call sounds on Skype, then layered repeatedly until it was too loud.
This is a movie that I really want to here about from the people who do like it. I need to know if it's plain bad or if it simply hits all of the wrong buttons for me, like Money Monster last year. As far as I'm concerned, this is a dire movie that makes the Screenwriting 101 mistake or telling instead of showing over and over again. It seems to think that it's smarter than the audience. It takes an "ends justifies the means" stance on storytelling ("It's fine if this decision doesn't make sense, because it gets us to this other part we need to get to"). I'm overly-harsh on some movies, like Emma Watson's other Spring movie, Beauty and the Beast, because the small disappointments in it stick out from everything that is done right. That is not the case with The Circle. It isn't a couple changes away from being a good movie. In fact, I struggle to find anything about it worth recommending.
After the Credits:
(Some thoughts for if you've seen the movie)
I don't think I can express my issues with the movie in a proper way without giving some specifics that would lean too much into spoiler territory, so here I go, now that you've seen the movie or determined that you don't care.
-Why the hell did Emma Watson go rowing alone at night? That was completely manufactured to give her a reason to buy into The Circle doctrine. I get the impression that she would've known how dangerous that was, and when she was in the danger, you'd think she'd be experienced enough to know how to not be so dumb about all of it. That scene bothered me so much! If the subtitles were on, I assume it would've said things like "[Sound of splashing water and plot development happening]".
-The single biggest problem I had with the movie is when Mae decides to go transparent and film her whole life*. My issue boils down to this: So what? She is far from the first person to record her life for the internet. Attention-starved people have been doing it for years. The Circle is a company with 10,000+ employees and they act like she's the only one with the idea to do this. She becomes a rising star in the company for doing it too. This blows my mind. There is nothing special about what she is doing. Nothing! They never even bother to explain why anyone cares or why no one is imitating what she's doing. Or, if other people are doing it as well, what makes her special at all. Also, there's the matter of it being implausible for her to be so fine with this. Being on like that all the time is draining and she shows no signs of the wear. Not to mention all the commentary on the nature of celebrity which is just plain ignored.
*Except for the bathroom stuff.
-Ok, also regarding her "complete transparency". It's time for some real talk. Where are the perverts? I'm not trying to be glib. It's a legitimate question. In a way, the "bad element" of the internet is what prevents something like The Circle from becoming a reality. This film is showing us the sanitized version of the internet. Look at Instagram comments of a female celebrity for ten seconds and you'll see what I mean. The facts that I didn't see a single "Show me your tits" on all those reactions to Mae when she was being filmed told me that this is a fairy tale world and negated every bit of the social commentary the movie was trying to make. Guess what, if the internet was only filled with PG-rated comments, it would be super-easy for The Circle to take over privacy like it does. You can't just ignore that and expect to be taken seriously. That entire part of the movie felt like one big lie.
-I so thoroughly reject the ending that I'm wondering if I missed something. So, Mae shows up for a victim-blaming presentation in response to Mercer's death. We think that she's come up with a master plan to take down the company that is culpable in killing her friend. She shows up for this meeting and makes Bailey and Stenton go "fully transparent". They have all sorts of dirty laundry [because every corporate executive has to have a hooker and coke problem they keep hidden]. They are ruined and the company now belongs to...the people? In other words, she turns out to be even more of as true believer than before right as we expect her to reject The Circle. Then the movie ends with her canoeing and a drone shows up. Presumably, The Circle lives on.
Am I missing something? How does The Circle survive? Two of its three co-founders have just been ruined. Who in the public is trusting that company still? Couldn't Bailey and Stenton take the company down with them? Or am I missing the point entirely. Please, someone smart explain this to me, because all I'm seeing is holes in the story when I feel like I'm supposed to be seeing something clever.
-Needless to say, this fails my One Big Leap test.
I can buy that a company as all-encompassing as The Circle exists with relative ease and has the resources it apparently has.
Or, I can buy that Mae really did go from outsider to true believer, skyrocketing up the company ranks as quickly as she did.
Or, I can buy the idea of Mae's PG-rated life in front of a screen at all times.
Or, I can buy that a company as attentive and paranoid at this would allow one man, even a co-founder, to unearth all their dirty laundry to the public without the chief executives being at all aware of it.
Or, I can buy the convenience of Mae's canoeing accident and rescue to the plot.
Or, I can buy that Mae is somehow the only person in the company to not know who John Boyega really is.
I can but into any of these things, but I can't buy into all of them. At some point the writing has to do some of the work.
Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment