The Social Network

Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Damien wrote:As my friend turned to me and said half-way through the movie, “I’d be enjoying myself more if I were on Facebook right now.”

3/10
I felt more or less the same. Didn't see what was the point of making this film.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Saw it tonight. Couldn't stand it.

What a dull, uninvolving and unnecessary film. The film is about nothing other than what it’s about – the founding of Facebook and the ensuing legal complications. This could have been an allegory about the Bush years, 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. But instead it’s a hollow movie, merely a tedious recapitulation of events involving unlikable people you couldn’t care less about spouting typically glib, meaningless Aaron Sorkin dialogue and portrayed by three uncharismatic actors giving dreary one-note performances (although Justin Timberlake is well-cast as a weasel). To propose that Eisenberg's prick character has Asperge's is an insult to those who actually has the affliction. Watch the documentary from a few years back, Billy The Kid.

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?

There's nothing below the surface in Social Network. And it never conveys any particular time or place, which should be of the essence for such a film. The movie this thing most reminds me of is “The Blind Side,” because even though it is based on real events, almost nothing in it rings true. The only worthwhile scenes are a couple involving Rooney Mara as Eisenberg’s put-upon B.U. ex-girlfriend. Fincher’s certainly a slick filmmaker but the end result here is completely lacking any thing approaching depth. It’s a movie almost completely devoid of interest, and what a bore. Not just a bore, a pointless bore. As my friend turned to me and said half-way through the movie, “I’d be enjoying myself more if I were on Facebook right now.”

3/10




Edited By Damien on 1289207792
"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
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Let me say that I don't know the film truly means to suggest Zuckerberg planted the chicken story -- merely, as the attorney says, it'd be easy to get a jury to believe it, because Zuckerberg comes off as a guy who might do such a thing -- which is why it's imperative for him to settle. It reminds me of a trial my wife followed on Court TV back in the early days (before they discovered celebrity trials). A kid had, despite good grades, not been voted into the National Honor Society, and his parents and he took the school to court. It was a short-sighted move, because the factor that had kept him out -- not being remotely likable -- was surely going to exist in any jury pool as well. There are advantages in this world to being likable and disadvantages to the opposite, and the divide between the two is not always based on a fair reading.

I'm not suggesting Zuckerberg is undeserving of great opprobrium The border between the way I've described his personality and the way I'd describe a pure sociopath s fairly thin. I'm just saying I think what makes him interesting as a character is his own unawareness of this effect he has on people. I think Uri rightly points out there are other, buried factors at work in Zuckererg's resentments (why is Eduardo so much more accepted than he? Because he's better looking? From a more fashionable minority group? Or just smoother in general?). But Zuckerberg's mental wiring keeps all this short of consciousness. He seems genuinely shocked when Eduardo says Tell me this isn't all about the Phoenix club -- though alot of us might feel that, deep down, it was.

Great point, Uri, about Zuckerberg having effectively remade the world in his own limited image.

One place I'm with you, Okri, is, that exit line from the attorney didn't work for me at all. I'm not even sure what she was trying to say, but, whatever it was, it didn't come across cleanly (unless the point was this attorney didn't understand him at all, because it seemed if anything the opposite of the truth).
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Post by Uri »

Focusing on whether Zuckerberg is shit or not is a rather constricting. Social-economic structure, racial and ethnic issues, the politics of physical appearance – all the stuff American society tends to avoid dealing with by canonizing and glorifying individualism is subtly addressed here and they are all part of what drives Zuckerberg, as well as his own personal shortcomings (and shortness).

And the Asperger point is a significant one – in creating Facebook Zuckerberg shapes the world in his own image, morphing it into a detached, controllable, emotionally "clean" surrounding. The friendship it offers is less demanding, the breakups less messy, popularity can be mathematically quantify. Human behavior is reduced to binary terms. Zuckerberg may be a shit, but the prospects his creation offers, as suggested here, are rather shitty too.




Edited By Uri on 1289108276
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

You know, I found the ending way too glib. Firstly, you get the last line: "You're not an asshole. You just try to be one." (or whatever). The groan in my theatre was audible. I buy that Zuckerburg doesn't pick up on social cues, and whether that's due to Asperger's lite or just someone who doesn't understand social cues is not really explored. And it should've been.

Indeed, if you agree with the film's suggestion that Zuckerberg planted that story (the chicken story) in the newsletter to take his friend down a notch, it doesn't really gibe with him not realizing what an act of disloyalty that is.

I agree with Sonic and Mrs. Tee on this one. He's depicted as a complete shit and the turnaround is more in keeping with Sorkin's worldview ("See... he's deep!") than anything else.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

My wife reacted the same as you to Zuckerberg's character -- she too felt he was a complete shit. I had a slightly different take, and it's tied into what I said about Asperger's. I don't see Zuckerberg as pure Sammy Glick, because, even though his actions are ruthless, his intentions aren't. Granted, some of this is what I intuit rather than what the film spells out (especially in the latter portions, because, as Sabin notes, Eisenberg's Zuckerberg recedes from the that part of the narrative). But I think his social failings make it difficult if not impossible for him to comprehend the real world effects of what he's doing. Yes, he appropriates the germ of the idea from the Winklevi (his referring to them that way, by the way, one of my favorite throwaways), but I think he sees it as just something that would have been the waste of a good idea in the form they suggest, and he views it as some sort of greater good to expand it. I'm not saying this doesn't amount to intellectual property theft; I'm just saying it doesn't register as such inside his Asperger's-lite brain.

Similarly with Eduardo. At a certain point, Eduardo stands in the way of what matters to Zuckerberg -- achieving some new height of coolness with his web-site -- and, given Zuckerberg's priorities, it's no surprise he tosses one aside in favor of the other. And, because of his particular social myopia, I don't think it even truly occurs to him that this is an act of profound disloyalty to a supposed friend. Because -- an irony the film makes, if anything, too obvious -- the man who created the place where people "friend" one another doesn't truly grasp the concept of friendship.

Let alone love -- thus the pathetic final moment. Erika (that was her name?) couldn't have made it more clear she loathed the guy, and, still, he thinks it's worth trying to make her his friend. (In that same moment making a statement about the era -- a film that began with two people having a lover's quarrel in person ends with the relationship being dealt with in a digitized world)

Someone at another site suggested the film has a bit of an Othello structure, with Zuckerberg as the Moor, Sean Parker as Iago, Eduardo as Cassio and Facebook itself as Desdemona. Way glib, I know, but interesting -- especially since this Desdemona was not killed but instead became a huge success. But in terms of what Zuckerberg wanted from it -- validation he wasn't a loser, but could actually be the creator of the coolest thing imaginable -- did he hold onto that? In any case, this version would be not the story of a Moor who loved not wisely but too well, but one for whom the concept of love was too foreign to ever truly grasp.

Now that I think on these things, maybe the film has more resonance than I initially thought.




Edited By Mister Tee on 1289088124
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

My problem with "The Social Network" - and it's a very big one - was that there was absolutely no examination on who Zuckerberg was. We see he's a shit. He clearly steals the inspiration of Facebook from the Vinklevoss twins, even if he may not be held legally accountable. And he blatantly screws over Andrew Garfield. And then towards the end, he has a change of heart seemingly out of nowhere. He feels bad about how he treated Garfield, he feels bad about how he treated Erica... why? There is no accounting for this personality U-turn other than the movie wants to redeem him, and it is entirely unearned. He is a piece of shit, and the film's attempts to make me respect and appreciate him fail. I thought the film was a crackling good comedy, but I guess it wanted to be something deeper and more significant than that. Oh, well.

But the funniest thing about "The Social Network" is how passionately it's been embraced by the wonky online youth. I sensed this movie did whatever it could to undermine that demo. It acknowledges that the young, horny, money-hungry, irresponsible little shits are changing the world, and the movie finds this prospect terrifying, not admirable.

Interesting point about Eisenberg playing Zuckerman as touched with Aspberger's. He is entirely unable to pick up any social cues, isn't he?




Edited By Sonic Youth on 1289020698
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

FINALLY got to it. A very good, maybe even excellent movie, but it doesn't have either the innovation or the taken-to-another-level emotional kick to make it a great one. Superb, witty dialogue (Sorkin had the screenplay awards clinched after the first scene). Tremendous pacing and structure. A wonderful central performance by Eisenberg (who plays Zuckerberg as a guy who maybe has a mild version of Asperger's). A very fine supporting one by Garfield (one I'd argue complicates the lines we so emphatically draw here between lead and support, as he has as much screen time as Eisenberg but is to me clearly the subsidiary character in the drama). Solid work by Timberlake, and, in fact, by everyone -- surely the early favorite for SAG ensemble.

There is something diminuendo about the way the story winds down -- much the same way there is to any legal proceeding that ends with a settlement rather than verdict. (And of course we get the news of this settlement second-hand, which distances the drama a second level) Maybe that accounts for my not-quite-great feeling, even though I'd been hugely engaged with the film right up through then. It's like a splendid symphony with a wimpy finale.

The last touch works for me, as a "let's bring it full circle" device, though it maybe underlines too crudely the film's already-made point about Zuckerberg's social failures.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Saw it. Liked it. It's not the deep-rich movie that some are proclaiming it to be and the critics REALLY need to simmer down (cue Mister Tee) but it is wonderfully entertaining.

That said, the entire theatre laughed derisvely at that climactic line. And I can't wait to laugh at AMPAS' music branch when they declare this score ineligible ("because we're not gonna nominate it anyway so we want to pretend we might have.")

So what BJ said though I think I was less impressed with the ending.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

The Original BJ wrote:I was a little caught off guard by how the film ended. When the "where they are now" title cards came up, I was stunned the movie was over, as it hadn't reached the narrative climax and/or emotional catharsis I'd expected it would hit. And I think that's maybe my only real disappointment with the film -- it hums along so nicely and so effortlessly that when it sort of stops suddenly...well...I wished it had built to something a tad stronger.
The ending actually worked for me. I think it is because I viewed it in context with the real world. Because both Facebook and Zuckerberg's notoriety are still so new, and their future so up in the air, that I thought a "life goes on," or even a "life is still just beginning," ending set just the right tone for me.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I really liked The Social Network, although I'm not sure I'm quite up to the level of the thunderous raves that have mostly accompanied the film. I'd usually expect a movie with that kind of praise to be either formally groundbreaking, or, at least, dazzling from a pure narrative, storytelling standpoint. And this film wasn't that, for me at least. But, on the whole, it's a highly enjoyable piece of drama, and the kind of film that I'd have no problem winning Oscars.

I've been hot and cold on Aaron Sorkin in the past (liked The American President and thought The West Wing at its best was pretty terrific, but found West Wing fairly uneven throughout its run and thought Studio 60 was pretty bad.) But I think his work here is very strong -- the dialogue in that opening sequence seems destined to become classic, and thought the conversations sparkled throughout. ("If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook" was hilarious in its bluntness.) And the structure is neat, thought, not as some have suggested, mind-blowing.

Sorkin's script is even further elevated by Fincher's directorial hand. I didn't think the film a photographic knockout on par with Benjamin Button or Seven -- it's more of a writers' movie -- but a number of visual flourishes (particularly the rowing sequences, but also some of the graceful moves within dialogue scenes) pop up from time to time to remind us of the auteur at the helm of this film. And the soundtrack was also crucial -- the music (and even the volume of the music) in that club scene felt perfect, conveying both the excitement and oppressiveness of the world Mark Zuckerberg had been sucked into.

The cast is strong too. Jesse Eisenberg is terrific as the real emotionally needy center of the film. It's fascinating the way that Zuckerberg doesn't really seem all that interested in generating money off his Internet successes, at least at first. His efforts are far more about gaining friends and popularity. At heart, Eisenberg's character is a sad, lonely boy who's stumbled on a truckload of cash and wishes it could only buy him a social circle. There's something very poignant about his story, and I think Eisenberg lets us see the pain lurking beneath the arrogant exterior.

The supporting cast is also effective. Garfield has the strongest role, and his emotional outburst at film's end feels like a classic Oscar clip. Timberlake was a lot of fun too -- he doesn't have as big a moment, but he's entertaining throughout, and not in a way that seems like he's trying to hog attention, which could have been a trip-up for this part. And Archie Hammer sure fit the part of the Northeast, WASP-y douchebag, didn't he?

I was a little caught off guard by how the film ended. When the "where they are now" title cards came up, I was stunned the movie was over, as it hadn't reached the narrative climax and/or emotional catharsis I'd expected it would hit. And I think that's maybe my only real disappointment with the film -- it hums along so nicely and so effortlessly that when it sort of stops suddenly...well...I wished it had built to something a tad stronger. The final shot, though, is terrific -- I recall reading one review that compared it to the "Rosebud" shot in Citizen Kane, and I think that parallel makes some sense. What Zuckerberg obsesses over in that final scene is both What Started It All as well as Small Potatoes That Had Nothing To Do With It. It's a smart -- and emotionally affecting -- moment.

An impressive movie, and one that I think has even more personal resonance for those of us who actually were in college when Facebook (or THE Facebook) hit and became a social phenomenon. Not quite movie of the decade, though, but it's nice to see a serious drama as enjoyable as this making a cultural mark.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I just haven't had time to write anything about Social Network -- hopefully tomorrow. And some day I'll get to Never Let Me Go, which I really feel is worth discussing.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

flipp525 wrote:Have people on the board just not seen the best movie of the year (so far) yet?
Yes, I've seen Marco Bellocchio's Vincere, but why do you bring it up in this thread?
"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
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

flipp525 wrote:Have people on the board just not seen the best movie of the year (so far) yet?
Saving it for my wife, and she won't be up to it till next week (we hope). Chomping at the bit.

Like you, I'd have expected more of the first-night crowd to have weighed in.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Have people on the board just not seen the best movie of the year (so far) yet?



Edited By flipp525 on 1286502844
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Post Reply

Return to “2010”