The Social Network - movie review

[shadowkat]

First off, I don't put much store by Oscar nominations or winners. It's just a bit of fun. Stopped taking the whole thing seriously when that unmemorable bore-fest of a bio-pic Ghandi won. Titantic merely sealed the deal. The problem with the Oscars is you know that the people who do this for a living don't watch that many movies. Any more than the people who create tv shows watch many tv shows. Or people who do theater, necessarily see that many plays. Seriously - they don't have the time, and the free time they do have? Not spent on work-related things. Also, hello, biased, their friends and family members are up for these awards. The Oscars is more of a popularity contest than an actual awards show. The only awards that matter - are the ones given by people who watch all the movies (ie critics) and even then? It's subjective, so impossible to take that seriously. In other words - still fun.

That said, of the films that I've see so far, which have been nominated for Oscars - The Social Network is the one I liked the least and therefore find the nomination the most bewildering (it's probably for socio-political/pop culture reasons much like Ghandi and Titantic were, which means it will most likely win, even if it is deeply flawed and the least interesting, memorable and/or noteworthy of those nominated.). Granted I have yet to see The King's Speech or Inception or A Winter's Bone - so that could change.


Overall? I find myself more or less agreeing with ponygirl2000 and selenak's reviews of The Social Network.

The Social Network is a fictionalized account of the creation of Facebook, told via flashback during privileged testimony at the deposition of two civil cases for intellectual property theft/infringement. Fictionalized - since the parties at the deposition all signed non-disclosure agreements in return for hefty or non-disclosed settlements. The account is based on the "non-fiction" novel (non-fiction being a term that I use very loosely) - The Accidential Billionaires - in which the writer used statements provided by Eduardo - Zuckerberg's ex-best-friend and business partner, who got kicked out of the business and sued him. Zuckerberg along with Facebook was also sued by the Winklevoss Twins", whose case refuses to go away because like Eduardo they basically wanted credit for Zuckerberg's idea. Both parties come across as whiny in the film. The Winklevos Twins are upset because they believe Zuckerberg stole their idea and if he had done their web site ConnectU as promised, instead of creating his own deal Facebook - they'd be well billionaires and get credit. The only reason they got this idiotic case to court and can appeal it - is they have a lot of money to waste. Because folks - that's just an idea. Anyone could have done it. Their only claim is he nixed on a verbal contract to help do their site, where they'd be the big honchos, and he'd be kicked to the curb as the nerdy creator of no importance. These statements were provided before Eduardo and the Winklevoss' signed the non-disclosure agreement. In short, the main source of the information had a proven grudge - one which is examined in detail in the film, to the extent that it is difficult to feel much sympathy at all for Eduardo or the Twins - except perhaps a bit of pity and bewilderment at how incredibly stupid these so-called Harvard elite grads are.

Now, I do know a little about the people involved. Seth Parker - the creator of Napster - was notorious back in the 1990s, and I spent many a day explaining the landmark Napster copyright case to librarians and journal publishers. Zuckerberg as detailed in the film did get the idea for Facebook from well FaceMash - I remember people discussing it on lj back in 2003 - there was huge kerfuffle over it - that I watched from a distance, since not in school and no access (also I'd seen worse). But I vaguely remember four or five people on my flist chatting about it and chatting about the coolness of Facebook, which ironically sprouted from it back in 2003-2004. So that bit is more or less public record, as is Zuckerberg blogging about the girl who dissed him. Everything else? I'm not so sure about.

The problem with the film - is it is a bit too clever. And underlying all the cleverness is an unsettling level of misogyny and sexism that I attribute more to Hollywood and Aaron Sorkin, than to the real-life versions of the characters or the industry. If you read the Time Magazine article - it's clear that Zuckerberg's current fiancee was involved in the creation of Facebook and it was not solely a male enterprise. Maybe to start, but not for long. Granted, there's bits of the Time Magazine article that I am a bit skeptical of - Zuckerberg protests a bit too much at times. But I am also skeptical of the rather black and white portrayal that Sorkin provides, which feels at times a bit too Hollywood, and as such, ironically hypocritical in the extreme. I seriously doubt Zuckerberg is that much like Warren Mears in real life. Or that much of an asshole or even trying that hard to be one. If he was, he wouldn't have accomplished some of things he did - which required the aid of quite a few other people.

Outside of the female lawyers (who have minor roles and in one case, repeatedly insulted for not being all that bright), women in this film are shown as appendages, obstacles, insane clingy bitches, or trophies. In part because the writer chose as the through line or major emotional motivating factor for Zuckerberg - the desire to reunite/possess the girl (named Erica - whom Sorkin ironically admits in the commentary was in reality some random girl that Zuckerberg dated and did not care that much about and factored little in his life) who dumps Zuckerberg in the opening scene, the one he blogged about and allegedly did the Face-Mash bit in direct reaction to (while admittedly plastered). Demonstrating that Sorkin does not understand blogging or the internet that much or is over-reacting to it. And possibly has his own unresolved issues regarding women and romantic relationships. As most LJ users know - we all blog stupid things while in an emotional fit or platered, which we later regret and often delete. Sorkin, ironically, has done this too. I've lost count of the number, to be honest. I seriously doubt Zuckerberg cared all that much about the girl, assuming it happened the way it is shown, or focused on it. Life doesn't work that "neatly".

As is true with most creative works - they often tell us more about the writer or creator of them than the those the story is actually about. I learned more about David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin in this film than I did about Zuckerberg - and very little that I liked.

That's not to say the film is not an enjoyable one. It is. In some respects it reminds me a great deal of Orson Well's Citizen Kane (which is admittedly a far better film), a film that told us a great deal more about Wells than it did Hearst. Actually I think that film much like this one is more about the writer/creator than the subject. Which is the interesting thing about stories like this one - where you feel as if the writer is projecting his own unresolved issues on to the subject matter.

The rapid fire dialogue holds your attention from the first frame. There's at least 60 pages worth of dialogue in the first scene alone. Zuckerberg like all of Sorkin's characters talks a mile-a-minute. He's obsessed with class and the exclusivity of social-economic or "old wealth" status. In some respects this film attacks the classism in the US or the US caste system, which is based more on who can get into elite Harvard clubs such as The Phoenix than necessarily wealth - even if the Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg's of the world can buy and sell Harvard and its ilk for scrape, as Zuckerberg states in the deposition. The first scene which sets the film in motion, is a conversation regarding "finals clubs" at Harvard, and which is most impressive vs. which is easiest. The social network Zuckerberg creates - is in direct response to a request from the elitist Olympic hopefuls, the Wiklevoss twins - to create an exclusive social networking site for the male Harvard Elite to connect with women. Instead of creating the exclusive Harvard Connection where only those who meet the Wiklevoss cut get their profiles posted and get to "connect" - emphasis on "exclusive", Zuckerberg comes up with Facebook where everyone at the university, and then in every other university across the world - can connect with other students. The exclusivity if it exists is within that individuals control. They have the power to "punch" or rather "friend" someone else. It's strongly suggested that this is how Zuckerberg gives the finger to well the Harvard Elite which excludes him.

Zuckerberg's response, which is the only thing in the film that rang true, is also what may have resonated to a degree with the Sorkin, although this is unfortunately shadowed by the stereotypical bit about male nerd sexism and misogyny, that borders on cliche. Yes, I buy that Zuckerberg was and is to a degree socially awkward, most nerds are. But I don't buy that he was quite as misogynistic or sexist as the film paints him. This feels more like the writer speaking than the character.

Perhaps it is best to judge the film on its own merits and ignore the material upon which it is based?
Difficult to do, since we are told up-front that this is a fictionalized account of real events.
And the fact that the characters, except for three, have the same names as the actual people.
On its own merits - it is what I stated above a mixed blessing. At times sexist and misogynistic to such a degree that I cringed, and others a fun examination of the process of creating a highly popular, trend-setting, and world-changing interactive web database. What the film says about the internet is both laughable and on the mark. It's clear at times that the writer and director and those involved in the film spend little to no time on the net and don't understand it that well, yet at others - when focused on the source material it packs a punch. The scenes at Harvard work, feel pitch perfect, and Parker's discovery of Facebook as well as his interest in Zuckerberg rings true. As does for that matter the intriguing narrative device of the deposition hearings - which are gripping and provide more insight into the relationships between the characters then the actual flashbacks. It's when we move away from Facebook and into the girls, drug scene, and animal house style play that it feels more like the same old trite and true Hollywood cliche than well what may have actually happened. And I can't help but feel that the real story while mundane in places as is true of all real stories, is also at the same time far more interesting.

The narrative device of telling the tale through the pov's of the witnesses being deposed at the hearing, the Twins, Eduardo, and Zuckerberg himself - is rather fascinating and at times quite effective, but underutilized and poorly executed. There's a rather amusing sequence - where Eduardo accuses Zuckerberg of revealing the fact that he fed chicken to a chicken to first the Crimson times and then his attorneys, and in revenge, tells them how Zuckerberg used a Facebook account to cheat on an art history essay. Zuckerberg's lawyers reveal after he does so - that Zuckerberg had not revealed the chicken incident, they discovered it on their own and Zuckerberg had actually defended him. This device was used well, except, the pov flashbacks were not consistent. We skipped around a bit too much. When Eduardo gave testimony - we saw it both in Zuckerberg's perspective and Eduardos and the omniscent pov. To see the way this should have done - go watch The Farscape episode "The Ugly Truth" - where the pov is clear and we see the events skewed. (In the Farscape episode - five people are separately deposed/interrogated regarding the events they witnessed, each one's telling is inconsistent with everyone else's and often places them as the tried and true protagonist. The inconsistencies in their stories highlighted. This has been done on other television shows as well. Fincher - has also done it before - notably in The Fight Club and far better. )

I think Sorkin made the mistake most bio-pic writers make, in telling this tale a bit too straight, and not allowing for satire or even permitting himself to critique the tellers of the original tale, such as the writer of The Accidental Billionaires or for that matter Eduardo or the Twins. There are so many missed opportunities here in both the writing and the filmmaking - you have the brilliant device of the deposition flashbacks, why not use them to show how each character's account furthers their own interests and contradicts another's? They gave into the temptation to tell the tale in classic Hollywood bio-pic style - linear, as opposed to borrowing a page or two from the late great Orson Wells and telling it non-linear. It's not as if Fincher hasn't done it before - just see The Fight Club or Seven, where pov is literally everything.

Here, where pov should have been everything - because the tale is told within the context of the deposition, making it difficult to determine what is real and what isn't - an excellent way to tell this by the way - they tell it in straightforward flashbacks, often in povs that aren't even part of the deposition. Making me wonder why they bothered using the deposition at all or why they didn't just tell it in a straight line all the way through? If you are going to use this narrative device, go all the way. Otherwise it feels a bit jarring at times. Almost as if you are trying to be clever just for the sake of well being clever, a habit Mr. Sorkin keeps falling into unfortunately.

What I liked? The Beatles song at the end, Sorkin's trade-mark rapid fire dialogue, Jesse Eisenberg's emotionally stunted and socially awkward performance which is the only Oscar worthy bit in the film by the way, and the deposition sequences. The other performances, included Timberlake's, are quite good. Not as brilliant as the critics seem to think, but serviceable.

Everything else? Detracted from the above.

Overall? I was mainly disappointed by the film. While better than most bio-pics (which isn't saying much), it felt over-hyped and somewhat run-of-the-mill Hollywood fair, taking few risks with the material or the performances and basically catering to the status quo.

My rating? B-/C+.

Oscars? I still think of the one's nominated? The Black Swan and True Grit are the best of the bunch.
(Note that I have not seen The King's Speech, Blue Valentine, Inception or Winter's Bone.)