Circle

Eric is a college student who emerges as a de facto leader, pushing for aggressive tactics to prolong the group’s survival. He views the game as a test and seeks to control outcomes by orchestrating votes and alliances. His pragmatic, sometimes ruthless approach exposes a willingness to sacrifice others to save himself and those he deems worthy.

The pregnant woman becomes the central moral anchor of the room, embodying vulnerability and worth. She becomes a focal point for debates about whether all lives should be equally protected or if certain lives warrant different considerations under extreme pressure. Her presence intensifies the stakes and ethical debates among the captives.

The little girl represents innocence and the potential future of humanity. Her life becomes a litmus test for the group’s humanity, with some arguing she must be spared while others prioritize the greater good. Her presence underscores the emotional weight of decisions that would otherwise be abstracted as numbers.

A bearded man is part of the cross-section of the captives who contributes to the factional debates. He represents a practical, cautious voice in contrast to more radical viewpoints. His role underscores how different personalities react to moral tests under extreme confinement.

The one-armed man is a symbolic figure within Eric’s faction, contributing to the tension between sacrifice and survival. His presence highlights how physical or symbolic disabilities influence perceptions of worth and leadership in crisis.

The husband is drawn into the group’s debates through a forced alliance with Eric’s bloc. His revelation about a false relationship with his wife exposes the manipulability of personal ties when survival is at stake. He ultimately faces a dire decision that tests loyalty and truth.

The wife character anchors the human costs of the voting game, illustrating how couples and close relationships complicate choices under pressure. Her presence emphasizes how love and loyalty influence decisions in life-and-death scenarios.

The doctor, connected to a past affair, embodies professional ethics colliding with raw survival instincts. Her perspective highlights how expertise is tested when rules break down and human lives hinge on split-second judgments.

The rich man represents wealth and power, whose opinions reflect elitist rationalizations of who deserves protection. His stance becomes a point of contention in the room, illustrating how privilege shapes ethical decisions under pressure.

The lesbian character becomes a target in a sequence that tests the group’s tolerance and prejudices. Her experience exposes how bigotry can be weaponized in the struggle for control and survival.

The African American man voices concerns about possible racism within the voting process. His stance brings a critical examination of fairness and equality to the group’s deliberations, challenging attempts to scapegoat or segregate.

The translator character functions as a bridge between people, interpreting fears, motives, and lies. Her presence underscores language as a tool of cohesion or manipulation in crisis.

The tattooed man is part of the cast who embodies a rough-and-ready realism. His candid admissions and reactions reveal how past violence and personal history color current decisions and judgments.

The old man in line embodies experience and a warning against rash elimination. His fatal decision makes a statement about age, wisdom, and vulnerability within the group’s deadly calculus.

Howard, labeled the liar, exposes deception and the dangers of false narratives within a closed system. His presence explores how truth and manipulation influence who is trusted and who is sacrificed.

An additional mention of a Black man in the group reinforces the film’s explicit attention to race dynamics as the voting process unfolds.