The Settman sisters live at an interesting intersection of privilege and disadvantage. Identical septuplets, the sisters live in a world with a strict one child policy. They survive by sharing an identity. Each sister is named after a day of the week, and on that day, they take on the identity of Karen Settman, going out into the world, going to work, and behaving as if they are “the one and only Karen Settman”.

The sisters’ position is thus precarious. If discovered, the Settman siblings believe they will be placed in cryogenic stasis, to be awoken at some indeterminate time in the future, if and when humanity recovers from the population crisis that prompted the institution of the one child policy. The individual Settman sisters are in a very vulnerable position, as they have no legal status and thus no rights or protections within their society.

Karen Settman, however, appears to exist in a position of relative privilege. Karen is employed in a bank – a traditionally lucrative position. As the events of the film unfold, we learn that she is up for a promotion.

The world of “What Happens to Monday” looks more similar to our own than I would have imagined, given that the film begins with an accounting of ecological collapse and an overpopulation crisis. The Settman sisters appear to exist in a capitalist society, capable of producing a variety of consumer and technological goods. It would also appear that class divisions have persisted, given that “Karen Settman” is employed as a banker.

It is clear that the citizens of the world of “What Happened to Monday” face authoritarian oppression. However, I could not help but wonder to what extent people were complicit in supporting the one child policy. As I imagine it, the one child policy, designed to curb humanity’s consumption of food and resources, seems to be what enables a modern, capitalist society to continue to exist. The world could probably support a few more people, but this would likely require that everyone else use and consume a little less. Society would probably look a little less familiar.

In exchange for maintaining the patterns of use and consumption, the standard of living and the society of past generations, the Settman sisters’ society has traded away the legal rights of siblings, and the legal right of individuals to have more than one child.

The one child policy is at least “fair” in the sense that it applies equally to all people in society. Near the end of the film, however, Nicolette Cayman gives a campaign speech for public office in which she proposes that all people wanting to have a child must prove financial stability and the ability to provide for the child’s physical and emotional wellbeing. Thus, we see the burden of reproductive restrictions being shifted towards the disadvantaged. I find this plot point quite interesting. To me, it underlines the way in which more privileged members of society are complicit in reproductive oppression, and how they seek to shift the burden away from themselves.

“What Happened to Monday” is not the most enjoyable film. It is something of a brutal slog. But watching the film does raise interesting questions about the ways people accept oppression if they feel the gain something from it – wealth, safety, etc – and the ways in which members of society attempt to shift the cost of oppressive policies from themselves to others.