Could the Silent Guy have been Deaf ? - Circle (2015) Discussion

[–] transmentalist 9 years ago

Didn't seem like it, he seemed responsive

I think Eric was right; the guy was rebelling as a matter of principle, refusing to even play the game by choosing or even speaking

reply

[–] Tom_Rocks 9 years ago

"the guy was rebelling as a matter of principle, refusing to even play the game by choosing or even speaking"
------------------------------
Good Point!

reply

[–] fakeslashdash6 9 years ago

Or basically he was just playing smart?

I couldn't for the life of me understand why do these idiots keep talking? Almost anyone who tried talking became a target.

Let's take the lesbian vs lawyer part.

If the group is mostly homophobic, they'll vote to kill her instantly.
If they are gay friendly, they'll vote the homophobic guy out.

Either way, it's obvious ONLY one of those two would die.

Then why the heck would I put a target on my own back?

reply

[–] transmentalist 8 years ago

Let's take the lesbian vs lawyer part.

If the group is mostly homophobic, they'll vote to kill her instantly.
If they are gay friendly, they'll vote the homophobic guy out.

Either way, it's obvious ONLY one of those two would die.

Then why the heck would I put a target on my own back?

The lawyer was the one who initiated that exchange - he presumed (incorrectly) that most of the group thought like him.

I'll bet a lot of us are guilty of the same kind of thinking.

reply

[–] alech-80973 8 years ago

I think you're reading too much into nothing. He was obviously just refusing to play, or trying to keep the crosshairs off himself.

Do you think because you're deaf you'd just sit idle and expressionless with people dying in a weird room for an hour and a half?

lolol

reply

[–] targa9 8 years ago

I think he is symbolic of those in society who stay in the shadows and avoid decisions, to "stay safe", but eventually, as in real life, you can't hide forever.

reply

[–] MultiSanity 8 years ago

You've repeated this throughout thr board. He was the only morally upright one, I don't know why that's so hard to accept. If they were truly going by who deserved to live it would be between him and the unborn child since neither of them ever voted to kill another person.

It's not like they had much of a choice of not "being in the shadows"?whatever you're trying to say with that. It's not like they had power to do much else, and at least in Western society, committing suicide isn't considered morally righteous.

reply

[–] rainybear 8 years ago

Nothing "morally upright" about taking up space fooling all the others into thinking they've x number of voters each time, and ending up sacrificing others knowingly because of your silence. Self-sacrifice would of been morally upright in this situation, and nothing else. I agree with targa9 100%.

reply

[–] transmentalist 8 years ago

Nothing "morally upright" about taking up space fooling all the others into thinking they've x number of voters each time, and ending up sacrificing others knowingly because of your silence. Self-sacrifice would of been morally upright in this situation, and nothing else. I agree with targa9 100%.

Whether that's morally upright or not is subject to debate.But I don't think it's fair to say he "fooled" anyone.

The Charles-Manson-looking-guy (the resemblance was deliberate, BTW) just assumed silent-man was on his side. He fooled himself.

Later, Eric exploited that self-deception to kill off phony-wife (Julie Benz) and misdirected Manson-guy's wrath onto silent-man (so Eric & pregnant-lady could vote for Manson-guy)

Incidentally, anyone else notice that Eric & pregnant-lady both voted for Manson-guy (who thought they were all voting for silent-man), but no one told Katie - presumably, she'd have voted for silent-man & created a tie.

Self-sacrifice may have been morally upright (though some religions, like Christianity, view suicide as a sin; ironic that, the pastor killed himself). But silent-man's approach was not to play at all. Including committing suicide (which was a form of elimination).

It can be moral to refuse to play an unfair game with arbitrary rules that you've been forced to play against your will.

In fact, after I saw "Circle," Netflix linked me to a movie with a similar theme, "Would You Rather."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1999995/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Horrible movie, but it makes the same point.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 6 years ago

The pastor killed himself to save the child, it's no different from a soldier/cop going in the line of fire for others.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

pastor killed himself because he was having a moral crisis

The commentary track makes this explicit - he voted for the lesbian out of reflex and religious bias, and immediately regretted it. He killed himself out of guilt.

But even without the commentary track, he's clearly conflicted, unlike the Mexican guy and airline pilot, each of whom showed only calm resolve when they killed themselves.

reply

[–] MissFortuneCookie 8 years ago

Ugh the pregnant lady and child shouldn't have been there so they would all try to kill each other and when the time came, the silent man would be 1 on 1 with someone and he would win.

reply

[–] transmentalist 8 years ago

the silent man would be 1 on 1 with someone and he would win

How would he win?

The final player has to "win" via sacrifice. Two final players hostile to each other would both die

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

silent man couldn't win 1 on 1

You can't vote for yourself, so the other player would have to vote for him (and he loses) or refuse to vote (so it's 50/50)

The important thing though: silent man's not TRYING to win - he's REFUSING to play

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Icecutter (363) 2 years ago

Silent Guy was idiotic part of the plot, he would've been noticed/taken out wayyyy earlier

reply