The (Scary) Circle

Some movies are supposed to be scary, some are unintentionally so. I haven't yet decided which best describes "The Circle", currently available via Netflix. We watched it last week, and it scared me! George Orwell's "1984" seemed to be coming to life, but in slightly different guise and flavour. Remember that famous quote attributed (possibly mistakenly) to Sinclair Lewis? "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" ? After watching "The Circle" I decided a re-phrase of that quote would be apt: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the internet and carrying a smartphone."

"The Circle" is a movie adaptation of Dave Egger's 2013 novel of the same name. It's a cautionary tale, the story of a young tech worker, Mae Holland, played by Emma Watson. She gets an entry-level job with The Circle, a powerful internet corporation based in The Bay Area, California.

The Circle stores data, unbelievably huge amounts of data: financial, medical, social, personal, about its account holders. The Circle's leaders convince account holders that collection of their data is for their own convenience and will bring about a better life experience. Open sharing is good, they are told constantly. There are no grim oppressors here, their role in this digital age is taken over by smarmy, insincere Machiavellian figures, played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt.

The Circle, the original 2013 novel, was set in what was then the near future - a near future so near now, in 2018, that you can taste it! Some elements of the story are already here.

I'll not outline the story in detail, in case any stray reader might want to read the book or see the movie. There are numerous reviews around the net for anyone curious to know more. Reviewers in general are not impressed with the movie adaptation, though most do say that the theme is a good one - the adaptation for screen could have been handled better. I agree. There was something missing, for me. I found The Circle scary and prescient though, because of what I've read about today's social network websites. The movie's worst failing, I thought, was that it felt flat, in tone. Tom Hanks played the part he was supposed to play well enough, yet it's not easy to erase his long-time chat show image: a genuinely nice, good guy. A different actor in that part could have added extra edge and a brisker tone. Let's see, who can play smarmy, charismatic, but basically manipulative and...well...bad, with no ingrained "good guy" background?
Bryan Cranston? James Spader?

HANKS & HOWARD - "filling crannies".

Tom Hanks and Ron Howard appeared together, chatting with Larry King on his TV show last week. Ron Howard has directed current release "Angels and Demons", as well as earlier movies with Tom Hanks in the leading role: "Splash", "Cocoon", "Apollo 13", & "The Da Vinci Code". I was tickled by a remark from Tom Hanks who, when asked by King why he thought that his actor/director collaboration with Ron Howard was so successful, responded with: "we fill each other's crannies". When someone with an interest in astrology hears such a remark, thoughts immediately fly to natal charts. Mine did.



Here are the two charts, with data from Astrodatabank.

Ron Howard born 1 March 1954 at 9.03 am - and in Duncan, Oklahoma not far from where I'm sitting - who knew?




Tom Hanks born on 9 July 1956 at 11.17 am in Concord, California.




Straight off, even without the benefit of seeing charts, there's the link of Suns in Water signs, Pisces and Cancer; and a generational similarity - 2 years between them. That doesn't speak to "filling each other's crannies" though. That speaks to a general compatibility.

Both men have Grand Trines in Water signs - more compatibility. Water emphasises emotionality, compassion, imagination, insight, and artistry.

Crannies?

Tom has the extra Leo input from Moon and Uranus. He's quite at home on the stage and in the limelight, in fact he revels in it. Ron has a more serious Capricorn Moon, though he does have experience of being in the limelight himself, in his younger years (he played Opie in "The Andy Griffiths Show", and The Fonz's friend in "Happy Days"). Apparently, in maturity, Ron prefers to be behind, instead of in front of the camera. His Capricorn Moon is conjunct North Node of the Moon as well as being close to midheaven, the career sector of the natal chart. This adds importance to the Moon's placement and to serious, business-savvy Capricorn in his public persona.

Tom has Venus in Gemini close to his midheaven, something which manifests clearly when he appears on chat shows. He's gregarious, funny, very chatty, always entertaining. Ron Howard comes over as much more subdued.

Ron's rising sign is Aries - the leader. To be a director in the cut-throat movie game one needs extreme confidence, energy and leadership skills - here they are.

Tom Hanks has directed movies too. His Leo planets are helpful for that aspect of his career, Leo is a leader also, as well as loving to ham it up in the limelight.



Tom's Virgo ascendant seems quiet, but not to forget that Virgo is ruled by Mercury the commuicator. Virgo is the more discerning and discriminating side of Mercury, while Tom's Gemini midheaven lets loose his wilder side. He has an ideal combination for an actor, I think: Leo, Virgo, Gemini prominent, in combination with sensitive Watery Cancer.

So can we see the crannies filling? You know, the crannies are not particularly wide - they certainly aren't canyons! Both men can do each other's jobs, and have done so. Tom the director, Ron the actor. I'd say the biggest small cranny there might be between them is filled by Tom Hanks' limelight-loving Leo bits.