Europe thought it had control... but this movie had already told what was going to happen.
In The Circle, a 2017 film, total transparency becomes tyranny and anticipates the clash between digital sovereignty and corporate surveillance.
The Circle anticipated a debate that today dominates headlines: European digital sovereignty, corporate surveillance, and the illusion that more technology equals more freedom. The film proposes an uncomfortable reflection: it is not enough to expel American platforms to regain autonomy if we continue to desire to be constantly observed, evaluated, and validated. In other words, technology does not need to impose itself to control us; it is enough that we choose it voluntarily.
The movie, based on Dave Eggers' novel, presents a universe where absolute transparency is promoted as a public virtue, while privacy is portrayed as suspicious. Through the fictional corporation The Circle, the film exposes a digital panopticon that operates under the promise of security, efficiency, and total connection. However, its greatest strength lies in showing that surveillance does not work by obligation, but by desire.
The European Union is currently debating its technological independence, its data protection laws, and the reduction of dependence on American giants. But The Circle holds up a disturbing mirror: although infrastructures change, human impulses remain.
The hygienic utopia of total control
The Circle presents itself as a perfect technological ecosystem: bright, clean, harmonious. There is no darkness or visible threats. And precisely for that reason, surveillance seems harmless. The company promotes the idea that a world without secrets is a fairer world. “Transparency is honesty,” its leaders repeat. But the film dismantles that mantra by showing an inevitable consequence: when everything is observed, freedom ceases to exist.
For Europe, which is currently trying to regulate the use of data, artificial intelligence, and the power of digital monopolies, the message is clear: the architecture of control does not depend solely on laws, but on the psychology of users.
Transparency, taken to the extreme, becomes a form of soft domination, accepted because it is confused with progress.
Mae: the perfect citizen of the new digital order
The protagonist, Mae Holland, played by Emma Watson, is introduced to the world of The Circle as a talented young woman seeking a transformative job opportunity. Her initial enthusiasm is understandable: modern benefits, spectacular offices, welcoming corporate culture. The Circle not only provides employment; it offers identity.
As she progresses in her role, Mae becomes an example of the evolution that the film criticizes: she goes from being a curious intern to a fervent advocate of constant surveillance. When she agrees to live under constant monitoring, her popularity within the company skyrockets, making her a symbol of the new culture of transparency.
The film portrays her transformation with psychological precision: Mae is not manipulated in a classic sense, but seduced. Every gesture of recognition strengthens her dependence on the system.
Tom Hanks plays the charismatic leader of the company, a mix of technological visionary and kind preacher. His speech is always optimistic, always humanistic, always convincing. He represents the figure of the benevolent innovator who promises to change the world, even if his idea of change involves sacrificing individual autonomy.
A luminous aesthetic to cover a dark message
James Ponsoldt, the director, avoids the visual clichés of dystopian science fiction. Instead of gloomy environments, he opts for glass structures, open spaces, and uniform white light. Everything seems so perfect that it becomes unsettling. This aesthetic underscores the central concept: surveillance no longer needs to adopt aggressive forms; it can be pleasant, even aspirational.
The narrative design mixes elements of corporate drama with a deeper social critique. The story moves between technological enthusiasm and moral warning, exploring how a system envelops the individual without them noticing. Although the pace fluctuates in some sections, the film manages to maintain tension through a constant sense of false calm.
Europe and the illusion of technological sovereignty
While The Circle explores a near future where a company concentrates more power than any government, Europe is advancing with regulations on artificial intelligence, privacy, and digital platforms. However, here arises the contradiction that the film exposes clearly: digital sovereignty is not achieved merely by changing technology providers, but by transforming social practices and collective behaviors.
Europe can create alternatives to WhatsApp, ban infrastructures from foreign companies, or promote sovereign clouds. But if citizens continue to emotionally depend on systems that reward exposure, no regulation will be sufficient.
The battle is not only technological. It is also cultural and psychological.
The prison without bars: when the user locks themselves in
The film places special emphasis on the active participation of the user in their own loss of privacy. People are not passive victims of the system. Instead, they are eager to join a community where exposure brings immediate social rewards.
The digital panopticon described by The Circle does not work because it forces: it works because it seduces. Metrics, comments, live broadcasts, and collective recognition are stronger incentives than any threat.
When surveillance becomes entertainment, resistance disappears.
Clay, one of the key characters in the story, represents the reminder that freedom requires effort. The film suggests that digital submission does not arise from fear, but from convenience: we submit because it is comfortable for us.
The mirror that politics does not want to look into
Europe develops strategies for technological autonomy, but the film exposes the gap between what is regulated and what is desired. No law can replace the human need for approval, attention, and belonging, and therein lies the strength of large digital systems.
The Circle does not only question corporations. It questions citizens who, in their search for connection, voluntarily renounce privacy. The underlying question is simple yet profound:
how much control are we willing to give up in exchange for being seen?
Can a society that seeks likes resist a system that rewards exposure?
It is here that The Circle stops being entertainment and becomes a diagnosis. An uncomfortable diagnosis, because it points directly at the user, not the corporation. It is not enough to change technology providers if we continue to hand over our will to the highest emotional bidder.
Europe builds laws.
The Circle built a warning.