The Social Network

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

The tide is changing... More will follow in the next days, weeks, years...

The Social Network is officially now the Gaddafi of movies (Moubarak is in the past now).
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Wow. That's as accurate a take on the film as I've read.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

When The Social Network opened, Manhole Dargis raved about it. Now her New York Times colleague A.O. Scott gives his opinion: "I found The Social Network to be an impressive piece of filmmaking and storytelling craft but not an epochal, mind-blowing, perception-altering or otherwise Top 10-worthy film. While it intrigued and provoked me, the film also — in its glib disdain for its characters, its disinclination to engage the nuances of its ostensible subject, and its reliance on caricature over precise characterization — disappointed me. "
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

(Sabin @ Oct. 01 2010,6:41)
The closest parallel that [The Social Network] draws to facebook is in approximating the sensation of becoming a part of it. It starts off relentlessly addictive, and it continues onward although eventually one gets the impression that it's not really going anywhere. It isn't. Perhaps the story itself just isn't that interesting. But the conviction with which it is told is tremendous. The Social Network is incredibly entertaining, and the crowd I was with ate it up. As did I. But, again, like facebook, it's something that you can spend a lot of time utterly immersed in, and then once removed you stop and ask where all that time went.

I saw The Social Network again. This is what I wrote a month ago. It's the second half of the last sentence is what's important. The Social Network is such a phenomenally produced film that it remains an entertaining film, but not a great one. It doesn't have any kind of third act to speak of. Eduardo enters the building, tells Mark to lawyer up, and then Sean Parker and Mark Zuckerberg both get busted by the cops and have to spend the night in jail. Mark starts freaking out and everyone realizes that the co-founder of facebook doesn't have Aspergers, isn't some kind punk genius billionaire...he's just a snot. He even asks to check his facebook account from the holding cell.

...oops! Sorry. Didn't happen. I mean, not just in the fact that it didn't actually happen, but what I just wrote would constitute a third act. You know it's a third act because A) the preceding act should constitute something that the protagonist strongly wants, and B) by the time he gets to the third act, he wants something else. This is one of the most basic roots of almost every film that's ever been made. After introducing among other things a character's innate want, he is off, wanting said thing, it becomes trickier along the way, and then his want shifts with his maturation. It doesn't have to be cookie-cutter. Whatever the third act of this film is, Mark Zuckerberg is absent from it. And Eduardo makes a brief appearance. Sean Parker doesn't even play the bigger role. It's like the film just...didn't have one. And that's a problem. The film feels like it's about nothing because it kinda is.

For a good long while, it's incredibly entertaining. It has the best score of the year. It's brilliantly shot by Jeff Cronenweth. The entire ensemble is fantastic, although I do believe that Jesse Eisenberg gives some kind of tour de force. I just wish it had the courage to actually shift focus back to Mark Zuckerberg near the end of the film.
"How's the despair?"
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

I so do wish I would have written Italiano's post...

Underwhelmed... that's the first word that comes to my mind when trying to express my feelings towards this film. Maybe it was I was wanting, really expecting to like this film...

I found so many good things about it: the stylized directing work; the smart script (it was actually very smart considering how uninvolving the core of the story is), very well acted by these young kids, the minimalistic score, the art direction (very rich for a contemporary film), the lavish cinematgraphy... and in the end I was wondering how come I can not believe this might be the "best" (with all that implies that powerful word) film of the year...

So well... the film is smaller than the sum of its parts, and that ain't a good thing. Yes, good and fit direction... but so distant. Fincher's signature is blurred or even inexistent at times. Sometimes, it was "generic" direction work. And this film needed, yes, some serious approach in order to be taken seriously, but while watching I expected a more "personal" approach.

Eisenberg created a not-so complex character... it was a shame to present Zuckerberg as a social cliché (the informatics genious without social skills that succeeds at making this social tool) and that was like underestimating the audiences at some points. But Eisenberg plays it very nice: the best of it is his economics in resources to convey emotions that seems "authentic" for this specific character. The problem with the part is that, for a main chacacter, is hard to find anything to relate with him and so... you are watching the story of a man you couldn't care less.

Timberlake also succeed, specially in achieving people at some point stops watching "Justin" without any make-up or obvious deglamourization or something (is "deglamourization" a word? jeje). In a very weak year he might have gotten a chance of a nomination. But Garfield gives the best performance of the bunch. I really hope he gets a nod. That's all I'm saying about him.

The film´s universality might be "explained" with it "dealing" with relationships in extreme situations... that it deals with the nature of bondings and the effects of success in them. But it actually ain't about those things. It is a specific portrait of a specific situation, smartly and elegantly painted. One of the things that I noted was the male-centerism. The girls in the film are written like in order to have a girl on the film... the only story is about the guys realtionships... like a bromance with a 3rd guy drama included (the betrayal, the tears, the close-ups, the "I was your only friend" line, etc). That was at some point very effective and an achievement in writing.

In the end, I couldn't complain but for some minor details. The overhype around this film is what bothers me the most. I can not call this a bad film, and very bad films have won the AA for Best Picture, so if it does it wouldn't be so bad. I just have faith that something better comes along the way.
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Damien wrote:
Okri wrote:Who cares: As Sonic states, the film's a comedy. There's not much remove from this film as compared to the rat-a-tat pace of something like His Girl Friday..... without Ralph Bellamy. It's stylized. I don't think it's meant to be all that realistic
The Social Network is a comedy? You could have fooled me.
I am pretty sure Sorkin was aiming for a comedy, but Fincher thought he was making a legal thriller.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Okri wrote:Who cares: As Sonic states, the film's a comedy. There's not much remove from this film as compared to the rat-a-tat pace of something like His Girl Friday..... without Ralph Bellamy. It's stylized. I don't think it's meant to be all that realistic
The Social Network is a comedy? You could have fooled me.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

I liked it less than you did, but thanks for explaining. I found the dialogue and its rhythm so phony and irritating, but at least now I know why.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Do university students talk like this? Yes/No.

Yes: There's a degree of stylization and erudition you find with university students in Canada/USA. Especially those in the liberal arts, but in general, the hyper articulate folks of Coward comedies have morphed into the pseudo-hipster ironic tones of today.

No: But Sorkin takes it a degree too far in terms of realistic depiction. The opening salvo is the obvious example, but the Hammers' (who don't so much engage in irony as much declaim) struggle with this.

Who cares: As Sonic states, the film's a comedy. There's not much remove from this film as compared to the rat-a-tat pace of something like His Girl Friday..... without Ralph Bellamy. It's stylized. I don't think it's meant to be all that realistic

But: This is Aaron Sorkin. He writes in one mode and one mode only. He has no sense of broad-based empathy/understanding of anything outside his view (to wit: The West Wing, Studio 60). As you said, it's a reasonably well-written sitcom. That's Sorkin's second weakness. He thinks presenting the situation that is fraught with complexity (the social dynamics of the set, the entire construction of Facebook and what it means, the fall out) is the same as probing said complexities (again, to wit - The West Wing).

I really think that the critics need to temper their enthusiasm, because this isn't a great/all time list film, but I'm fine with all those flaws: Sorkin is a genius at structuring and I've been saying "lawyer up, asshole" to random people.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Oh well... Thank God I hadn't read this thread before watching this movie - when so many people call something "a masterpiece", "the best film of the year", etc, one could easily believe them. My reaction would have been even worse - now I am more surprised than irritated.

American cinema loves stories of people - preferably young people - getting suddenly very rich. There have been, occasionaly, profound movies on this subject - and at least one masterpiece, Citizen Kane. But most movies of this kind stay on the surface - respect, admiration make them blind. Oh yes, they may imply that these men deep inside are a bit lonely, a bit greedy even, but there's nothing more, nothing deeper - not necessarily more negative, just more critical. And The Social Network isn't an exception - actually the fact that these particular people are real and still alive makes the movie even more careful, even less complex - and, as a result, even less involving.

It's true that it's not like internet - which of course I use - or the creation of a successful internet site are subjects that I find extremely interesting. I am, after all, a man in his 40s. But I swear that I was ready to like this movie. And I didn't even exactly disliked it - my reaction was more like, "So what?".

It will be nominated for Best Picture because any movie is nominated for Best Picture with the new ten-slots format, so that's not the point. And it's true that it could even win Best Adapted Screenplay - though I hated it. While I was watching it, I was wondering - do American university students really talk like this? Because honestly Italian students don't. But then I realized that ANYONE in this movie talk the same way and with the same rhythm - not only as if each character has a private screenwriter behind his or her back, but, and this is even worse, as if they all have the SAME screenwriter. No difference - all those same quick smart lines, same voices, same reactions. I mean, don't stupid people exist in America? Or I should say - don't REAL people exist in America? Even when the movie gets more dramatic, or would-be intense (the last five minutes) it never gets deeper than a reasonably well-written sit-com. But even just the first two pages of this script are like a "for your consideration" Oscar ad, and one that will prove effective.

Dont ask me the name of the actors - the one who plays Eduardo isn't bad probably, and reminded me a bit of the young Tony Perkins. If the movie does really well with the Academy he could be nominated.

The movie is officially directed by David Fincher, but it could be directed by any good director with some experience in tv commercials - a more sophisticated Tony Scott. It's certainly more a screenwriter's than a director's movie - unfortunately, in this case.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Greg wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:I think it is funny that a film about young people inventing a website first made popular by young people was written by someone over the age of fifty. Yet the college kids sounded and acted like real college kids. There was none of the awkward dialogue or false moments you sometimes find from older people writing young characters.
That is not a surprise to me. Nowadays you can get a good feel for the way college-age people "talk" buy lurking on message boards, etc., even if you never meet them in person.
I am assuming that is how Diablo Cody wrote all of her dialogue for JUNO.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

rolotomasi99 wrote:I think it is funny that a film about young people inventing a website first made popular by young people was written by someone over the age of fifty. Yet the college kids sounded and acted like real college kids. There was none of the awkward dialogue or false moments you sometimes find from older people writing young characters.

That is not a surprise to me. Nowadays you can get a good feel for the way college-age people "talk" buy lurking on message boards, etc., even if you never meet them in person.




Edited By Greg on 1289324124
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Ditto to what Okri said.

Saw it, liked it, the over praise this film is receiving is annoying.

The great parts:
Screenplay
Score
Andrew Garfield

The good parts:
Cinematography
Editing

The bad parts:
Directing
Jesse Eisenberg


I continue to believe Fincher was wrong for this material. He brought such darkness to this movie (both literally and figuratively) that I kept feeling like the film was going to collapse under its own weight. Aaron Sorkin’s writing needs a lighter touch. I think this great screenplay would have been better served by Mike Nichols or perhaps Peter Weir. ZODIAC is one of the greatest (and must underappreciated) films of the past decade, and most of it is thanks to Fincher. Fincher’s solemnity and visual style were perfect for that story. I just think comedies and romantic films are not his thing, although FIGHT CLUB’s perverse humor benefited from his dark touch.
Visually, the only memorable scene was the tilt-photography used in the regatta sequence. I did not expect the gorgeous visuals of THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, but I was hoping for the more subtle beauty of ZODIAC. Everyone else seems thoroughly impressed, but Fincher took what should have been a straight out comedy with some serious moments like CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR, WAG THE DOG, and THE TRUMAN SHOW and brought to it the dark paranoia of ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN.

Some times Sorkin can fall to in love with his own cleverness. His dialogue can often be very smart and funny, but sometimes it sounds like he is just trying too hard. Much like in CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR, Sorkin avoided the trap of making the characters sound too smart or too clever. All the jokes were quite funny but seemed like stuff these folks could actually say.
The structure seemed pretty standard. Sorkin is not reinventing the wheel here or anything. The depositions seemed to be a pretty lazy crutch for exposition, but they were handled as well as could be expected. The characters could have been a little deeper. Other than Eduardo, I never felt like I knew any of them very well. I could not tell you what any of their motivations or feelings were, again with the exception of Eduardo. I am not sure if this is what Sorkin wanted or was a mistake on his part.
I think it is funny that a film about young people inventing a website first made popular by young people was written by someone over the age of fifty. Yet the college kids sounded and acted like real college kids. There was none of the awkward dialogue or false moments you sometimes find from older people writing young characters. I was also quite impressed how well Sorkin handled the more tech-talk throughout the film. I am not sure if he had someone help him with that dialogue, but I never felt it weighed down the story.

I have enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg since I first saw him in RODGER DODGER. Much like Michael Cera, he basically plays the same nerdy character over and over again. However, unlike Cera, I do think he has the potential to go deeper. I just did not get that here. Was he trying to portray Zuckerberg as some sort of sociopath? Did he want us to think he was autistic? After watching the movie, I actually viewed Youtube videos of Zuckerberg interviews. The guy comes off as very dorky and strange, but not some emotionless automaton who cannot connect with people on a human level. I know he may be showing the public only a certain side of him, but if he is just “acting” normal in those interviews, then he is a better actor than Eisenberg.
Even if Eisenberg was not going for accuracy in his portrayal of Zuckerberg, it was still an odd choice. It seemed like Sorkin’s idea of Zuckerberg was very different from what Eisenberg was going with. In the scene with the Harvard disciplinary board, his lines asking for recognition from the board for his efforts should have been said with a certain naiveté. It would have been far funnier if he had played it like this guy is so computer obsessed that he does not realize how these adults do not appreciate being shown up by a kid. Instead, Eisenberg spits out the lines with such venom and contempt. You see a better approach to the character in the break-up scene. All his lines are read like someone who just does not understand where he is going wrong. After that scene, Eisenberg acts like he is playing a serial killer rather than a computer nerd.
I know the break-up is supposed to inspire the meanness of face-smash, but are we also supposed to believe he stopped having any compassion or empathy and started hating the entire world. It was not just how Eisenberg delivered his lines, but also his facial expressions. Zuckerberg has this wide eyed “surprised hamster” look that is pretty funny. It is almost like it takes his brain and extra beat or two to understand any question that is being asked of him that is not computer related. Eisenberg though when for this menacing, glowering look. Combined with the dark cinematography, his eyes perpetually had dark circles around them because of the way he squinted and narrowed his face. It just seemed like a total failure of a performance, though the blame should be shared with Fincher.

Jesse Garfield on the other hand gives not just the best performance of the movie, but one of the best performances I have seen all year. You feel Eduardo’s pain and shock from his friends betrayal. When he says to Zuckerberg, “I was your only friend,” you get how Facebook was more to him than just an avenue for fame (which he never seemed interested in) or money (which he really does not need). It was more about creating something, and how that act of creation links him to Mark. He is also the heart and soul of this otherwise dour and sad film. He is certainly the only person I cared about during the whole thing. He is also the character that seemed the most human. I hope Garfield is nominated, and I look forward to seeing him in NEVER LET ME GO and future films.

Clearly this movie has some good things about it, but the only way you can think this is Fincher’s best film is if you never saw ZODIAC. Also, if this is the best film of the year than we should just declare this one of the worst year for films since 2001. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, INCEPTION, SHUTTER ISLAND, and several other films from this year are just as strong dramatically and/or cinematically as THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I cannot imagine this will be a film that lives on for years for people to admire or deconstruct. It was a smart and fun little film about a stupid website and the (mostly) horrible people that created it.
I honestly cannot be sure what the Academy will think of it. I will not be upset if it wins Best Picture, but I will certainly not be rooting for it. The three other films I mentioned from this year, plus any number of the ones I have yet to see (particularly TRUE GRIT) would be as worthy or more worthy of Best Picture. At this point I see very little competition for Adapted Screenplay, so Sorkin is probably the only guaranteed win for this film (unless we have some sort of UP IN THE AIR/PRECIOUS upset again). Other than that, many other wins seem unlikely.
I will be interested to see if the critics remembering their rhapsodizing when it comes time for Critics’ Awards, or if they will move unto something else.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Post by anonymous1980 »

it could have been a cautionary tale about the conflicting enticements of material success and human relationships, a moral fable centering on the increasingly impersonal nature of people’s connections in the Internet/texting era, a character study of a hollow young man.


I think The Social Network is all of these, Damien.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Damien wrote:This guy Garfield is going to try to fill Tobey Maguire’s shoes in the next Spider-man picture? I think we’ve got our new Brandon Routh here – does anyon even remember Superman returns?
Garfield's performance in Boy A is so far ahead of what Maguire has accomplished in his entire career. He may not be right for Superman, but he's already given one of the decade's finest performances. He'll be fine.
Post Reply

Return to “2010”