Making Irresponsible Movies With Technology As Reducing Villain-Entertainment News, Firstpost
Before we talk about The Circle, we need to go back to 2010 and the release of The Social Network.
Before I can talk about The circle we have to go back to 2010 and the exit of Social network. This film is considered a modern classic not only because it is exquisitely directed, but also because it is one of the few films in the history of cinema to properly understand the technology and computer side in the world. Business.
Second, we have to look at the chart of Emma Watson’s career – she’s a person who has benefited from the Harry potter franchise, which, to be frank, succeeded despite her presence and not because of her. Every other movie she’s been in has shown her rather lackluster on-screen presence and limited acting lineup, including in the past month. The beauty and the Beast.
The reason I bring up these two topics is that these two elements are related to The circle parasitically, causing a potentially good movie to become a mostly boring, but sometimes unintentionally funny one. It’s one of those movies that is so bad you won’t believe it until you see it for yourself. It is all the more shocking since it is directed by James Ponsoldt, whose three previous films Smashed, the spectacular now and The end of the tour are extremely well done.
In The circle, we follow Mae (Watson), who gets a dream job at the incumbent Google-like company that follows a dystopian view of how humans should behave and how technology should force a hand on people. It also instills the belief that humans don’t really deserve privacy and that constant surveillance should be a cornerstone of modern life. Mae does her best to adapt to these axioms, but as she steps down the rabbit hole, she finds that the heads of her business (Tom Hanks, Patton Oswalt) may be going too far with the power of their technology.
On paper this is a really interesting story and given the current state of affairs with Facebook, Apple, Google and Uber being constantly in the news selling your private data to advertisers, this should have been the movie. to raise awareness and question your choices online. . Unfortunately, the paranoia of such technology is rendered in the most gruesome way in the movie, with tacky dramatic dialogue exchanges, stereotypical villainous motivations, and also a reduction of the material to the bare minimum – perhaps in an effort to meet the needs of the audience that the filmmakers think they are not very smart.
Unfortunately, Watson, whose role is primarily the eyes and ears of the audience, arouses no sense of curiosity, empathy, or fear. Her interaction with the shady character of Hanks is the film’s ultimate failure – moreover because she portrays a stupid little girl caught in a web of lies, despite trying to be a smart, progressive character. It’s a hilarious shift, and just one of the many things the movie goes wrong with the character dynamics.
But more than anything, it’s also an irresponsible movie because they portrayed technology as a reductive villain, and such a simplistic portrayal of the power of surveillance doesn’t bode well for humans living in 2017. If we are going to to have a discussion about ethical and moral choices in social media and drones, it’s better to have a balanced argument rather than a sensationalist argument, even if it’s a movie.