Skip to main content

A Non-Entity


So this is what the aftermath of The Circle would look like. Only the circles are replaced with squares. And it’s no less absurd here.
Anon is a new Netflix science-fiction movie from Gattaca director Andrew Niccol set in a world without privacy that thinks it’s saying something prophetic about the technological age, but is actually just regurgitating a theme we all know thanks to common sense. Clothed in this unsubtle text is a neo-noir thriller plot borrowed from a variety of better sources.
It’s a future of total transparency in an attempt to eliminate crime. A vast network exists on which everyone is connected through eye-pieces that allow them access to the personal information of everyone they come in contact with. This also means Big Brother levels of surveillance. A cop, Sal Frieland (Clive Owen), is put in charge of an investigation into a serial killer who’s managed to hack into other peoples’ eyepieces to keep their murders a secret. In this capacity he’s led to an anonymous girl (Amanda Seyfried) who’s managed to escape the system and is a hacker herself.
A big reason for this movies’ failure is also a reason for the failure of The Circle, which is the idea that people would willingly submit to such extreme levels of surveillance over every moment of their lives. Anon tries to present this as a realistic or foreboding future, but it just doesn’t hold water as there are countless reasons it couldn’t happen. Forced or secretive government invasion of privacy is believable, but the notion that we’d all agree to this intense a level of public scrutiny based just on the internet and social media of today is preposterous. So with the premise as logically flawed as it is, the plot itself has to make up the creativity and intrigue. Unfortunately the plot is dull as a brick, and just as painful. The mystery is never compelling, the relationship between the two leads contrived, and even where it incorporates the central conceit of this world it just seems to rely on plot devices from other movies. For instance, the way the police stop crime feels very reminiscent of Minority Report, and just like that film it uses the manipulation of its technology as a plot point to potentially frame its protagonist. There’s a frequently recurring visual that’s a reference to Hitchcock’s Spellbound, despite being somewhat inauthentic. As a singular homage it would be fine, but it appears statically way too often throughout.
Another way the movie loses your interest is in its characters. Sal is unlikeable, detached, and boring -a gruff “bad cop” character like any other. He’s got a tragic backstory, with an estranged wife and a deceased son to explain this behaviour, but it too is clich├ęd and completely superfluous. And I think Clive Owen is getting to that Pierce Brosnan stage of his career of not caring in thriller movies, because he is really bad. He saunters through the movie completely disinterested almost for the whole run-time, and in the instances where he does emote, it’s really disingenuous. This is also the fault of bad characterization and bad direction, but Owen is clearly not putting much effort in. It’s disappointing too, because I know Owen can play the jaded cynic well -Children of Men is one of my favourite movies (also a film where he has a dead kid). Amanda Seyfried isn’t a whole lot better, her character intentionally being vague. Aside from her enigmatic existence and being the only character with the sense to realize the dystopia, she’s not played with any conviction or real sense of personality. To Seyfried too it may as well be just a pay cheque. The only actor giving a half-decent performance is Colm Feore as Sal’s superior. But he’s held back as well by being under-written.
“I can’t believe my eyes is not an expression” is an actual line of dialogue from this movie, which gives you a taste of how badly written it is. Not all the lines are laughable, many are just stupid. Exchanges between Sal and his ex-wife or between Sal and other minor characters are awkwardly structured, and, to top it, Anon has the audacity to open with a Robert Browning quote. One more thing is that with a story about constant surveillance, obviously there’s some non-consensual watching of nudity (women of course). However it doesn’t come off as a commentary on voyeurism, it just comes off as voyeurism.
Anon is a clumsy premise with a story almost as lazy as its cast. It’s attempt at making a statement on technology and the liberties we could conceivably give up for it is hollow and futile; and everything apart from that is recycled banality. There are much better cautionary fables to merit your time than this nonsense.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two Steps Forward, Ten Steps Back: The 91st Academy Awards

If all publicity is good publicity than the 91st Academy Awards should have been the highest rated yet. Because in their desperation to draw in more audiences they made some truly baffling decisions that have caught the attention of the public and garnered heavy controversy. There was the stupid and condescending “Best Popular Film” debacle, Kevin Hart stepping down from the hosting gig amidst controversy surrounding homophobic jokes, the subsequent decision to do away with a host entirely this year for the first time since 1989, and the decision to cut four categories (Cinematography, Editing, Makeup & Hairstyling, and Live-Action Short) from the broadcast, only to restore them after near universal criticism from the film community on this move. Each of these proposed changes backfired drastically, making the Academy look like they either don’t know what they’re doing, or more depressingly, don’t actually care about celebrating film any more as much as appealing to the desired de…

20 Years of the World of Tomorrow

Certain media, if it hits you at the right time, has a way of impacting you in lasting, even formative ways. Perhaps it can help shape your sensibilities and your understanding of the world. Or maybe it can just revitalize your interest in a genre in a completely new way by showing you how dynamic that genre really is. There have been a handful of such media in my life, and one of them has been Futurama. Since discovering it,  I have seen T.V. animation that has been more challenging, more artistically impressive, and more revolutionary, but Futurama remains my personal favourite animated series. That’s not to say the show is without its’ feats of quality. Indeed, Futurama is still one of the smartest comedy series I’ve ever seen and perhaps the most consistently creative. Its’ fans know just how quotable it is, and few sitcoms have earned their emotional peaks so well. Futurama was already set in the future when it first aired on March 28th 1999, nine months ahead of when its lead char…

Ten Essential Silent Films Millennial Movie Fans Must See

I hope that title doesn’t come across as condescending.  The thing is, most of us born into an era of sound film have seen few, if any, silent movies. The early days of cinema may have produced some films that don’t stand up today, but it was also an era of new possibilities, new stories, experimentation, and boldness unlike anything that would succeed it. To the general public though, and even some movie fans today, it’s defined more by its limitations than anything else: its’ lack of colour, lack of dialogue, difference in its style of acting, directing, and visual effects. And for this people avoid them or consider them inferior to the nine decades’ worth of talking pictures we’ve grown accustomed to. But silent cinema isn’t just an important part of the history of film; it offers profound insight into the art form itself. By watching the beginnings of narrative techniques, radical technical innovations and daring chances that couldn’t be taken today, it fosters a better appreciatio…