THE SOCIAL NETWORK Post-Release - Page 7

I can't say ultimately what the film SAYS about its subjects (I saw it a couple days ago), but I CAN sit here and marvel at the storytelling skill. They took a movie that was largely people antagonistically reading emails to each other at a couple of depositions and made it not just compelling, but riveting. I'm still buzzing over that technical feat. Thing flew by.

But JuddL is criticizing the film for doing so little for all the liberties it took with the real life events. It's a little more complex than simply criticizing the film for factual inaccuracies. And as much as I love the film, it's an opinion I can't completely disagree with.

Yep. It's fiction, no doubt about it.

It does explore the meaning and usefulness of Facebook through Eisenberg's character, since it's an external materialization of his yearnings and shortcomings - which in itself is an explanation for its success. But it's definitely not the primary focus, so yep again.

I don't understand your reasoning here - seems to me that one doesn't have anything to do with the the other. But you're right again, its not about creative genius per se.

It's not about what was created, or the act of its creation; not even about the genius (as in mental capacity) it took to create it. It is about who created it, and why. It's a character study, and it's compellingly scripted, brilliantly acted, and compassionately presented. It's timeless, like the internal and interpersonal struggles it portrays, and truthful regardless of historical fact. Add to that the flawless technical execution, and it's more than enough for me to call it great.

Once you get over the fact that it's not a docu-drama but fiction, I think you'll appreciate the movie more. Think of it as a lost tragedy, written a hundred years from now by a time-travelling Bill Shakespeare.

And my point is, this whole arc of "he created Facebook because he couldn't connect with others" rings hallow. If the broad brush strokes Fincher and Sorkin paint Zuckerbergs arc don't reflect reality, then to me they're too broad and obvious to have an emotional impact. As a character study it's just not very deep or powerful, it's as much plot as it is character, and it doesn't speak to anything about the human condition generally the way great character studies do.

Take The Assassination of Jesse James... I actually haven't the slightest idea how close to fidelity of their real life counterparts those characters get. But, as a character study, it's brilliant. Not just because it has good dialogue and solid acting but because the creepy fanboyism of Ford is an archaic manifestation of the same forces that drive modern geeks. What we see in Ford, and James and their brothers are timeless because we see them in ourselves and the people around us. On top of being a brilliant character study, it's a thematically rich film, with themes that speak to issues larger than the basic plot.

To me, The Social Network lacks all of that. It's merely a well told story. That's all well and good, but "great"? I respectfully dissent.

This is exactly how I feel. Yeah, The Social Network told a good story really well, but what did it have to say?

Should it be a documentary? An academic biography in film form? Who cares what the real Zuckerberg is like? The movie one worked great.

I think Devin's review sums it up tidily with the sentiment of "a story about why we invent things", and Fincher and Sorkin's exploration of that theme is worthwhile, whether they ever really answer the question or not.

I also responded in a more personal way, for reasons I'd never get into on a message board, to the tale of how an idea takes shape, and how everyone who was even peripherally involved in the genesis of that thing feel it's "their" idea. And I like that the movie doesn't offer up easy solutions to that situation.

Yeah, I don't think we'll agree on this one, because I really think The Social Network does all the things you say it doesn't. Maybe I'll lay out some of the stuff I saw in it in more detail at a later date (probably not before the end of the year though).

There's the scene where he has to add something to the backbone design. The rush this guy is experiencing is mesmerizing.

About the their idea stuff I enjoyed a lot the scene at one the depositions sums up perfectly when mark has a brief burst saying something like you could never came up with something like this.

It's really cool that you got that out of this movie. But for me, other than the theme laying out how pettiness drives great people (an admittedly interesting one), I did not get that much thematic heft out of it. Talent and craft, definitely, but not some greater meaning. But here we're talking about the dividing line between what is great or simply very good, and what pushes someone to either side can sometimes be totally arbitrary.

In Fincher's own words: "I didn’t really agree with the critics’ praise. It interested me that Social Network was about friendships that dissolved through this thing that promised friendships, but I didn’t think we were ripping the lid off anything. The movie is true to a time and a kind of person, but I was never trying to turn a mirror on a generation.”

 

And yet it gets hailed as such, from people either reading too much into things or those who aren't a part of this generation.

Like he's gonna have any trouble getting a good engraver to buff that title off his Oscar and jot in "Fight Club"

 I pretty much agree with JuddL and I am glad the quote from Fincher was posted.  I think the movie is definitely a bit overhyped.  Sure, it was a culmination of great talent, and they made a good movie.  A great movie?  Eh maybe, but the best of the year?  Personally, I don't think so.  For me, a truly fantastic film must also be rewatchable, and I don't feel that way about this movie.  In the end, I ask myself which movies were not only amazing on the first watch, but would I be rewarded upon a second, third or fourth viewing?  I don't think I will be with Social Network especially when it feels like once was enough.  Yeah it was good.  It was even one of the best movies of the year, but I saw it when it came out and right now that's all I need.

 

I cannot believe I am saying this, but the three big names attached to the movie are all favorites of mine, and it still left me a bit cold.  That seems to be the theme of many flicks this year - cold and at arm's length.  It's the littler movies that are making a bigger impact (The American and The Town) because they let me in.  I felt a little more welcome and invested than I did for things like Social Network or Inception...

Casting aside Death of the Author and a generation usually not getting to decide what piece of art does or doesn't define it, to me the movie transcends all that "of the moment" shit and would make a fitting double bill will something like The Bad and The Beautiful. To me it's very much Fincher's take on that movie's themes.

See, to me the film didn't transcend anything and I have to wonder whether or not those who think it does are either reading things into the film that simply aren't there or allowing their opinions to be influenced by the hordes of critics who have done just that.

I don't want to do that thing where you post the dictionary definition of a word to make your point, so I won't. But to me the movie transcended its textual plot (the creation of Facebook) and became very overtly about something bigger and more universal. I'm not saying it was a transcendent experience, which would mean an entirely different thing; I'm saying it moved beyond the limits of its surface plot.  (Shit, I guess I did end up pasting the definition. As you were.)

 

And maybe some critics compared it to The Bad And The Beautiful, but if they did, I haven't read those critics.

 

I also think we're taking two different things away from Fincher's quote: he says it's not about ripping the lid off anything or holding a mirror up to a generation, which we both seem to agree with. But he's not saying the film isn't about anything.

Or we simply disagree about whether it's great.  Do you think that's possible?

You misunderstand, I'm saying just that:  the film doesn't transcend its plot, and it's not really about much of anything other than its plot.  I didn't need Fincher to tell me it's about a particular kind of person in a particular place and time, that's exactly how I felt walking out of the film.  It's a good movie, and a good story well told.  I didn't get anything out of it other than that, and I think you have to squeeze the narrative pretty hard to see it as being about something broad or universal.  It's not a perfect analogy, but this is nearly the same issue I had last year with The Hurt Locker.  A fine film, but one that many people were describing as a mirror into the mind of our soldiers in Iraq when really it was narrowly about a certain, not particularly numerous, kind of soldier (and it didn't really take us all that deep into his psyche).  I see the same thing happening with The Social Network where critical praise, and overly enthusiastic analysis is self-reinforcing.

It's possible, but you're probably wrong :D

I completely missed out watching this film in the theaters because of the fact that I don't particularly care about Facebook. Yeah, I was very dumb to dismiss this as "the Facebook movie." I'm completely regretting it now because this was definitely the BEST film of 2010.

I just saw it last night at a friend's house and I was completely blown away. I must watch it a few more times to fully express my love for it, but I immediately went to CHUD to read about people's opinions on it and I'm a bit disappointed that it doesn't have 100 pages at all. Anyway, I love the discussions here and I can understand Diva not being able to relate/care about Mark. So I have this type of viewing that I think might help...

I saw the film as an "Origin Story" of a "supervillain" of sorts.

The next scene, we see Mark walking around and the score starts off very relaxing then slowly builds up to an almost "horror-like" instrumental. It just shows how being called an "asshole" truly affected him. A "Frankenstein's monster" was borne through human speech, as it were...

Then the movie ends with another woman speaking to Mark:

Marylin sees through Mark that he's actually not as bad as others viewed him to be. I personally believe that Mark Zuckerberg of this film (not the real person) has a type of Asperger syndrome. Whether it is intentional or not, he is definitely socially retarded due to a type of "illness/mental symptom." And I applaud the movie for not focusing or even mentioning this. He's being treated as an equal: his disease does or does not excuse him from being an insensitive person.

So if folks are looking for the "motivation" that drove Mark from creating Facebook, it's all because of Erica telling him that he is an "asshole." Up to the end of the movie, he keeps that image (that he doesn't apologize to Erica when he sees her a few months after he had started TheFacebook). This is why the ending is so perfect to me. Here is a guy who has created a great equalizer for all types of folks to friend others they won't normally be friends with in real life but he still ends up being alone because he alienated the two people who ever cared for him. This is why he was enamored by Sean Parker because he spoke Mark's language; unfortunately, just like Mark, Sean suffers from his own psychological issues that eventually shatters his preconcieved notion that Sean was "perfect." To me, the ending was like Citizen Kane's "Rosebud" where Erica was Mark's "Rosebud." But because of the inherent speedy evolution of the Internet Age, this type of tragedy didn't take the whole lifespan of a person's life, but rather within just a few years or even months.

It's interesting that you say the Zuckerberg of the film appears to have Asperger's, voltes5, because the real Zuckerberg comes across as so socially uncomfortable and disconnected from the impressions other people get from him in interviews that I immediately thought Asperger's could be to blame. One quote that made it into the film -- the "is that a question?" line that the Eisenberg says in one of the deposition scenes -- was taken from one of the 60 Minutes appearances the real Zuckerberg made, and is particularly interesting in my opinion. In the movie, it's portrayed as a douchey, sarcastic response to a statement from Eduardo's lawyer, whereas in the 60 Minutes interview Zuckerberg seems genuinely confused as to whether he was being asked a question or not. He even stares at the interviewer for a few seconds as if waiting for her to continue. That kind of social disconnect strikes me as very Asperger's-like, and the interviewer's response, where she assumed Zuckerberg was offended and lashing out rather than just confused, is reflective of the kind of social prejudice that causes many to write off Asperger's-afflicted people as arrogant (I think).

 

I agree that Social Network was not intended to be a thematically dense film (although I think it could support some pretty deep readings, if someone felt like making them), and it seems a lot of people are confused by that -- for something to be considered a "great" film, doesn't it have to say something big about, like, humanity or capitalism or something? The Hurt Locker comparison is a really good one I think. Social Network isn't trying to be much more than a drama about smart, motivated young kids trying to make it big and succeeding in unexpected ways, but the combined effect of the writing, the performances, and Fincher's restrained but engrossing direction makes it more than that.

 

On a different note, I almost want this movie to lose Best Picture this year just so Fincher has a better chance of winning next year for Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Now that one feels like a perfect marriage of director to material if I ever heard one.

A friend and I saw this about a week apart. Me, I'm a woman who's pretty big into doing lots of nerdy internet things. I read comics, used to play WoW, used to bait fanboys; I've dealt with guys like the Zuckerberg of the film a LOT. My friend? She's a nice woman who's pretty artsy and has never really dealt with nerdy internet things...unless you count the time I put her on my headset while I played Halo. She hasn't had a lot of interaction with the type of guy like the Zuckerberg of the film.

 

So we're chatting and she mentions the movie and how she hated the absence of women in it and how she intensely disliked all the women who DID appear and how she felt the Zuckerberg of the film appeared to have Asperger's. I was absolutely blown away by her interpretation. I certainly didn't see that when I watched it. I saw a guy who purposely avoids people because he's an asshole with a bit of a God complex. You know, like an internet nerd. I saw a guy who avoids smart women and sees women as either sluts to be used, or as bitches. Again, like the real dregs of the internet. I thought the film was meant to be through his eyes, and so the way women are portrayed was absolutely in line with his opinion of women (though I still loved how the film was bookended by clever, well adjusted women telling Zuckerberg he was full of shit).

 

For me Sorkin absolutely nailed a specific type of guy in his writing and Eisenberg brought it all home with his portrayal. It's a kind of guy that most people who troll the internet at some point have come across.  Eisenberg's Zuckerberg definitely didn't have Asperger's; he just didn't care enough about other people to actively try to engage and relate to them.

I kind of assumed that the films Zuckerberg being an Aspie was obvious.

I only disliked at the end where the woman says, "You're not an asshole.  You just try so hard to be one."  Was that like trying to take the wind out of his sails?  Like take away his one social laurel.  

 

  EDIT:  I see voltes5  mentioned that scene now.  

Rashida Jones' last line felt right in the moment I saw the film, but felt meaningless soon after.  I actually think it kind of goes against what I read into Zuckerberg throughout the movie: the kind of guy whose brain is operating on a different level from his peers that their concerns and frustrations go over his head as annoyances.  Sure, it makes for great rapid-fire Sorkin dialog, but if a "friend" of mine talked to me in the way Zuckerberg did when Eduardo was worried about the cease & desist letter from the Winklevoss twins, I'd want to kick the shit out of him. 

 

So yeah, I definitely got an Asperger's vibe from Eisenberg's performance.  To me, that's just the way he was.  He IS an asshole  That's his natural state.  But according to the film, it also may have been what enabled him to make Facebook so successful.  To have that be the final spoken line of the film feels off to me.  Someone who would try hard to be an asshole would be an asshole in my eyes anyway.  But then again, I may be taking the line too literally.

 

Either way, it doesn't hurt the film too much for me.  Still love it.

 

EDIT:  I just realized that I sounded like I was painting anyone with Asperger's as an asshole.  That's not what I was going for.  I was really only talking about Eisenberg's performance along with my limited knowledge of Asperger's.  Sorry Spike!  Heheheh

Rashida Jones entire character felt unnecessary, and her final scene was worst part of the movie.  The "every creation myth" line was painful, the way they used her voir dire expertise as a metaphor was clunky, and the final line, again, was meaningless.

I love how Asperger's and Autism are so casually thrown around. What if an asshole is just a fucking asshole? Sometimes there is no medical explanation (or excuse, depending on your perspective), only a self-centered prick who's maladjusted.

C'mon Joey!  When assholery is combined with genius, it MUST have a medical explanation! 

 

If it's just some jerk who doesn't do anything... just an asshole.  Hahahahah

I will be quoting you from now one whenever someone tries to explain away assholishness with autism.

Also maybe folks should check out a show like Parenthood? It's been doing a pretty good job of handling Asperger's rather then doing the whole "smart asshole = Aspie. "