James Ponsoldt
The Circle

The contents and ideas underpinning this film by James Ponsoldt (adapted from a work by writer Dave Eggers) are not particularly original. On the contrary, these themes have been extensively debated since the first half of the last century, with fundamental works of literature like '1984' and, in various aspects, Orson Welles' 'Citizen Kane', which have inevitably become increasingly central to our individual existences and private lives with the unstoppable development of technology.

This is to say that the fundamental aspect of 'The Circle' is not so much the unfolding of the plot itself as the thematic contents it explores, and practically how the story and the events concerning the various protagonists end is something that naturally interests the viewer (this is evident) but is not so interesting and important as to merit being recounted or argued about.

The story is essentially about a young woman named Mae Holland (played by Emma Watson, who for the writer and for whatever it may interest you, is one of the most beautiful women in the world) who starts working as an operator in an advanced form of social network called 'The Circle', eventually becoming its most important figure and a true symbol because she is chosen by the 'leaders' for an experimental project in which she virtually offers her entire existence to all the social network users, twenty-four hours a day.

Needless to say, a series of events will later make her aware of the hidden agendas of the social media, and that unwavering belief she had placed in visibility at any cost as the answer to the world's problems (one of the slogans used by the social media is: 'Every secret is a lie') is based on wrong premises. For this same reason, she finds herself reconsidering her point of view on a topic that is today as much debated as it is central, namely the use of social media and the media in general, particularly concerning privacy.

It must be said that the film, which is certainly a well-made work and with a good cast of actors (starting from a big name like Tom Hanks) who seem, moreover, tailor-made for the roles they play, does not disappoint, even if we can easily say that while on one hand, it strongly raises the issue, on the other it does not offer what could be considered a real solution. But the fact that comes to mind is that perhaps there is no total and definitive solution to this problem, that of privacy, the possibility or rather the concrete reality that all our data online may be archived and usable by great powers in the world of the internet and social media.

After all, when we share a phrase, a photo, a video on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram (a simple search on Google suffices), we do so more or less consciously, but nonetheless after having subscribed during the registration process to certain rules. In any case, it is evident that a data collection process (and therefore subsequent analysis and use) is a very simple operation to carry out, for which the intervention of specialized technicians is not even necessary.

The point is: should we be afraid of this? In which direction are we really heading?

I mentioned '1984', which narrated the concrete nightmare of a totalitarian regime in which private and personal freedom constitutes something impossible. I hinted at 'Citizen Kane', who himself declares in a phrase from Orson Welles' famous film to have the power to decide what people should think. The reality described in 'The Circle,' and the one we find ourselves having to consider in today's society, somehow encompasses both aspects.

From a certain point of view, a social network perfectly embodies the capitalist dream of mass control. Which provide, in a state of apparent freedom, the raw material and all the information to those who hold power to exercise it more and more effectively, in an obvious intermingling in this case between the main economic power groups and the world of mass media, which often coincide with one another and can also coincide with those who hold political power.

It's evident that these few lines cannot and do not intend to be a sociology treatise or an in-depth political and social analysis of our society and the world we live in, but in light of the film's contents and considering that these lines too will end up on the web and could thus constitute data for a hypothetical collection and consequent analysis (clearly speaking of a purely hypothetical case), this space is at the same time legitimate to pose and find an answer to these questions.

The thesis of 'The Circle' (I refer to the imaginary organization that gives the film its title) is that total information sharing means freedom. Is there a grain of truth in this? I know many may wrinkle their noses at my answer, but in my opinion, yes. Sharing information, facts, knowledge has been something that since primitive times has been at the base of human evolution. Technological development and knowledge in every field have experienced an impressive acceleration when developments in transportation and media facilitated what we can call an 'encounter'.

Simply, on a social network like Facebook, which I believe currently has roughly two billion users worldwide, billions of pieces of information circulate every day. There are people who meet and become friends even if they live on two different continents, there are 'couples' born on Facebook, and there are communities dedicated to particular themes that connect enthusiasts from all over the world and of all ages. And yes, all of this, in some way, is also part of a gigantic business and becomes part of a giant information archive that could, indeed can, be used to manipulate or simply direct people's thoughts, tastes, and preferences.

All of this should terrify me. Yet, I feel that I don't care, and I don't know why, I can't understand if this is my way of exorcising all of this or if I am simply acknowledging something that exists today. That is a reality. And to escape reality or distort it or somehow oppose it without delving into the substance of things, I believe, is slightly 'unscientific' and useless. If not even harmful and in the end, a form of indifference.

What I think is that perhaps, in the end, privacy isn't that important: what matters is always, today as yesterday, possessing an independent conscience and an analytical ability. And these are things that can be possessed regardless of social media use, watching television, listening to the radio, or reading the newspapers. On the contrary, all these things can do nothing but expand your knowledge base regardless of the contents because in this case, you are somehow 'vaccinated', and this is beyond any possible manipulation. The point is if we are as aware as we should be (and this is the most difficult aspect) and if we are prepared to consider a possible violation of our privacy as something we don't care about at all.

I think of the case of Tiziana Cantone, filmed in a video then spread online in which she was seen having sexual intercourse. Her end was tragic; it struck me deeply. I do not know the whole story’s development, but I imagine there is a trial underway and there will be culprits and possibly convictions. But think for a moment if we lived in a society where we were all more aware and able to give things their proper dimension. Tiziana Cantone would simply be what she was: a woman who had sex with a man and that would simply be a video like many others. If you think about it, it's something she shouldn't be ashamed of, and everyone else shouldn’t care about at all. So maybe the concept of 'privacy', as understood, is something whose development and conception must change and evolve (hopefully in a positive direction) hand in hand with technological development. After which, let them come into possession of all the information they want. Its usefulness would be akin to that of waste paper. Indeed. At least this could be recycled.