Is privacy becoming a whim? Privacy under the lens of the movie “The Circle”

I’ve read this post on “The Circle” with pleasure. The movie appears to express no position pro privacy. Mercer’s death is not elaborated. No one feels anything about Mercer. This unfeelingness is not due to some intelligently planned meaning. No! It’s evident that the screenwriters simply forgot about Mercer because they don’t know how to integrate it in the story. The authors of the story have no precise notion about privacy. They do not intend, in any way, to protect individuality and its significance for the continuation of a healthy social structure. Mae is empty, which is why she decided to go transparent. Only emptiness is compatible with a life where the person accepts being constantly watched. Emptiness or untruthfulness. Plus, even if Mae is empty or untruthful, we cannot know: it does not transpire. Again, the authors may have no idea about what they needed to say. They are simply void of arguments. People just watch the movie with all the vacuity and confusion it throws at them.

HOWEVER, wait a minute! By thinking the movie through, we can have better knowledge. Let us suppose that the authors knew what they were doing. They forget about Mercer because he refused to join The Circle, so he deserves to be forgotten.

  1. The authors (through Mae) say that people behave better when they are being watched, which appears to be a clear statement. Thus, a pro control idea is clearly put forward.
  2. Another unambiguously stated pro control idea is that by filming everything, disabled people can experience what they normally can’t.
  3. Finally, when Mae informs that all of the senior corporate officers’ communications will be made public, it should be understood that by revealing every piece of corporate communication, also secrets are divulged, which ultimately means that no enterprise could ever possibly exist, thus crippling free market.

Therefore, we have at least three clearly asserted positions pro control.

I can’t find any claim pro privacy in the movie.

Maybe the authors and producers of the feature did know what they were doing: they wanted to convey an anti-freedom message.

In conclusion, a viewer either receives a mess of superficial messages or is persuaded that control is the best policy.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.