The Social Network (Fincher, 2010)

[Derek]

I don't like how the whole world has turned against Benjamin Button all of a sudden. It's still a good film, dammit!

Did many people at MatchCut like it at the time? I thought most of us found it rather tedious.


Would someone mind telling me what happens at the end. My theater's projection broke right as he was refreshing her facebook status and it said on the screen he was the youngest billionaire.

She accepts his friend request and asks if he wants to meet her for coffee. He says yes and she's all "jk, mofo! ROFL!!"

[Qrazy]

It's scarily spot on. When I lived in Boston, I worked with two people who had brothers at Harvard. I went to campus with them a couple of times to hang out and was shocked at how accurate all the stereotypes were.

It was actually the first time I'd actually heard a literal scoff (yes, you read that people scoff, but to actually hear one?) when someone asked me where I'd gone to school and I answered them. Suddenly, not only wasn't I worthy of further conversation, it was as if I wasn't worthy of the campus anymore.

It was Harvard, dammit, and my non-ivy league self had no place there.

Oh, and that was only one PERSONAL experience. I will freely admit I overheard multiple conversations that made me glad I never decided to go to an Ivy League school when I had the chance.

And yes, I heard the "gentlemen of Harvard" phrase at least three times.

Well I have one close friend who went to Harvard and know four other acquaintances who went there as well. And only one of those people was a douchebag.

[EyesWideOpen]

That is the end.


Ok, thanks. Figured as much about that being the final shot but the sudden alarm noise coming from the projector room and the staff apologizing led me to believe something more had happened.

[Qrazy]

Hmm. It is a shame that the film is essentially a smear on real-life Zuckerberg, turning the story of his groundbreaking achievement into an excoriation of things instead of a celebration...

But I'm thinking the film isn't as hard on Zuckerberg as most people make it off to be... I was surprised how soft it was on Zuckerberg. I liked how much I liked Zuckerberg by the end of the film. I think the film aims for this gentler, complicated middle-ground.

Yeah I too think the film is aiming for a middle-ground but I do think it's a problem that so much of Zuckerberg's life in the film is pure fabrication (for instance the Erica character which is supposed to be his driving force here). Either make a film about someone and attempt to do the person justice or make a thinly veiled account of the person (with different names ala Kane) in order to get at issues which you as an artist find interesting. In my mind this film doesn't really do either, it doesn't get at the meat of it's issues (as Spinal mentioned) nor does it provide a valid account of the actual Zuckerberg.

[Spinal]

I don't like how the whole world has turned against Benjamin Button all of a sudden. It's still a good film, dammit!

I have never been on the side of Benjamin Button. I saw it and didn't like it.

[RoadtoPerdition]

Inception is superior to this film in every aspect, expect perhaps score.

And, according to Armond, Resident Evil: Afterlife is superior to Inception in every way. So here's the tally so far:

Resident Evil: Afterlife > Inception > The Social Network

Sorry, had to get the obligatory Armond post in.

[Spinal]

And, according to Armond, Resident Evil: Afterlife is superior to Inception in every way. So here's the tally so far:

Resident Evil: Afterlife > Inception > The Social Network

Sorry, had to get the obligatory Armond post in.

Why are you merging my opinion with Armond White's?

[RoadtoPerdition]

Why are you merging my opinion with Armond White's?

Well, I read Armond's review of Resident Evil: Afterlife a couple of days ago and was waiting for the opportune time to insert it into a MatchCut post. Sorry, yours happened to be the one. No hard feelings?

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I don't really know anyone in general that liked Benjamin Button. It just got nominations off the wazoo because it's a movie that was suppose to be good.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah I too think the film is aiming for a middle-ground but I do think it's a problem that so much of Zuckerberg's life in the film is pure fabrication (for instance the Erica character which is supposed to be his driving force here). Either make a film about someone and attempt to do the person justice or make a thinly veiled account of the person (with different names ala Kane) in order to get at issues which you as an artist find interesting. In my mind this film doesn't really do either, it doesn't get at the meat of it's issues (as Spinal mentioned) nor does it provide a valid account of the actual Zuckerberg. Yeah, I won't defend the disservice this film does to real-life Zuckerberg, taking so much liberties with creating a character and presenting it as so much the truth, and it does taint the film in my mind.

Still unsure of what this "meat of the issue" is, though (sorry, I'm a bit reluctant to go back and re-read). The legal drama is very relevantly the central drama and reflects the themes of the film.

[Derek]

Still unsure of what this "meat of the issue" is, though (sorry, I'm a bit reluctant to go back and re-read). The legal drama is very relevantly the central drama and reflects the themes of the film.

Privacy issues, the nature of social networking and how it changed because of Facebook, etc. At least that's what I'm assuming others are looking for from the film. Interesting issues, but I'm not so sure they really fit in this particular film.

[megladon8]

My initial rating was probably a little too harsh. **1/2 is more accurate I think. It's better than Benjamin Button after all.


A friend of mine recently saw Benjamin Button and I thought his one-line review was quite funny.

"!nottuB nimajneB em llac elpoeP !nottuB nimajneB s'eman yM !iH"

[Spinal]

Still unsure of what this "meat of the issue" is, though (sorry, I'm a bit reluctant to go back and re-read). The legal drama is very relevantly the central drama and reflects the themes of the film.

The story of how Facebook got put together and who sued who is not a particularly compelling story to me. It's something I could have read about in a Wikipedia article.

What I hoped the film would address in a more compelling way is how Facebook has transformed society, what implications it has for the future, what are the dangers, what are the benefits, etc. In brief, this is a fairly shallow portrait of Zuckerberg, and by all accounts, not terribly reliable. It is the story of how he made his money and who he was willing to throw under the bus to get there. I was hoping for something deeper. Not Zuckerberg's story. Our story. How does this impact us? What does all this mean for us? Where are we heading? I don't think the film approaches this with much conviction. It settles for something far more conventional.

[Spinal]

Interesting issues, but I'm not so sure they really fit in this particular film.

And that's a problem with the film. It has timid aspirations.

[Boner M]

Going to have to respectfully disagree, I suppose. I don't find a single minute of Inception to be boring.
Oh, me neither. I think it's a testament to the strength of the film's narrative treatment of its ideas that it overcomes the lack of imaginative/inspired direction and remains propulsive and compelling (and there's a neat parallel between 'invisible', strictly functional filmmaking and the film's conception of dreamscapes that aren't experienced by the dreamer as such... but back to the main thread).

[balmakboor]

I don't like how the whole world has turned against Benjamin Button all of a sudden. It's still a good film, dammit!

Damn straight. It held up exceptionally well on a second viewing too.

[balmakboor]

A friend of mine recently saw Benjamin Button and I thought his one-line review was quite funny.

"!nottuB nimajneB em llac elpoeP !nottuB nimajneB s'eman yM !iH"

That's hysterical. I like BB a lot more than FG btw.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I won't defend the disservice this film does to real-life Zuckerberg, taking so much liberties with creating a character and presenting it as so much the truth, and it does taint the film in my mind.

Still unsure of what this "meat of the issue" is, though (sorry, I'm a bit reluctant to go back and re-read). The legal drama is very relevantly the central drama and reflects the themes of the film.

To clarify (the meat of the issue) I don't feel the film delves with much depth into any of the relevant issues it explores... greed, privacy, friendship, relationships, social status, social networking, etc. Yes I would agree that it is a fairly compelling legal drama, cleanly directed and with some interesting stylistic flourishes (the boat race for instance). But personally I don't feel the script has much to say about what it's about. It's a slick film, but it left me with little. By the by I tend to like Fincher films so I'm not quite sure what it was about this one that rubbed me the wrong way. I'm guessing it's primarily the script.

[Qrazy]

Oh, me neither. I think it's a testament to the strength of the film's narrative treatment of its ideas that it overcomes the lack of imaginative/inspired direction and remains propulsive and compelling (and there's a neat parallel between 'invisible', strictly functional filmmaking and the film's conception of dreamscapes that aren't experienced by the dreamer as such... but back to the main thread).

Who's the other director Boner. Who's the other director?

[Derek]

Who's the other director Boner. Who's the other director?

Maurice Pialat.

[eternity]

What was in the boxes and who other than Mark was going to get one during the big Eduardo climax? There was only one more, I recall, and neither Eduardo or Sean was getting it...

Or I'm just confused.

[Bosco B Thug]

Privacy issues, the nature of social networking and how it changed because of Facebook, etc. At least that's what I'm assuming others are looking for from the film. Interesting issues, but I'm not so sure they really fit in this particular film. Agreed.


The story of how Facebook got put together and who sued who is not a particularly compelling story to me. It's something I could have read about in a Wikipedia article.

What I hoped the film would address in a more compelling way is how Facebook has transformed society, what implications it has for the future, what are the dangers, what are the benefits, etc. In brief, this is a fairly shallow portrait of Zuckerberg, and by all accounts, not terribly reliable. It is the story of how he made his money and who he was willing to throw under the bus to get there. I was hoping for something deeper. Not Zuckerberg's story. Our story. How does this impact us? What does all this mean for us? Where are we heading? I don't think the film approaches this with much conviction. It settles for something far more conventional. It may not be an outright meditation on social practices on the internet, but the film is about the "Why" he made it, and it attempts to make a connection between Zuckerberg's flaws/specialness and those needs Facebook, as an idea, satisfies or impacts.


To clarify (the meat of the issue) I don't feel the film delves with much depth into any of the relevant issues it explores... greed, privacy, friendship, relationships, social status, social networking, etc. Yes I would agree that it is a fairly compelling legal drama, cleanly directed and with some interesting stylistic flourishes (the boat race for instance). But personally I don't feel the script has much to say about what it's about. It's a slick film, but it left me with little. By the by I tend to like Fincher films so I'm not quite sure what it was about this one that rubbed me the wrong way. I'm guessing it's primarily the script. So what you're saying is, it would've been better if Maurice Pialat directed it? ;)

I'd [agree(?), and] say Fincher does much less impressive things here than in Zodiac and Fight Club, though. Those are definitely better films.

[Spinal]

It may not be an outright meditation on social practices on the internet, but the film is about the "Why" he made it, and it attempts to make a connection between Zuckerberg's flaws/specialness and those needs Facebook, as an idea, satisfies or impacts.


When the insight I get in the end is that Zuckerberg did what he did to impress a girl, I feel like my time has been wasted. Not good enough. I acknowledge that this stuff is there. I just don't think it's all that compelling.

[Derek]

When the insight I get in the end is that Zuckerberg did what he did to impress a girl, I feel like my time has been wasted.

Well that's not being reductive at all.

[Qrazy]

Agreed.

It may not be an outright meditation on social practices on the internet, but the film is about the "Why" he made it, and it attempts to make a connection between Zuckerberg's flaws/specialness and those needs Facebook, as an idea, satisfies or impacts.

Yeah but that's not why he actually made it (that is to say he had a long standing girlfriend in real life, there was no Erica, at least in the way the film wants us to believe). So then we're just left with this idea of why someone could have made it albeit not the actual Zuckerberg, and I'm left wondering why I should care.

It's like watching a film entitled The Harmonic Telegraph which focuses on the life and times of Alexander Graham Bell. The premise of the flick is Bell is in a race against time to invent a better method of communication. Why? In order to pop the question to his long distance girlfriend of course. For you see, she had headed out west seeking gold in dem hilltops. He wanted to show her he was the next big thing. That he had the right stuff.

Of course that's not actually how the telephone was invented, but damn if it wouldn't make some quality Hollywood cinema. Although I'm not sure if the comparison totally fits because the telephone was a major invention while Facebook is just another social networking site that happened to make some guy a lot of money.


So what you're saying is, it would've been better if Maurice Pialat directed it? ;)

I'd [agree(?), and] say Fincher does much less impressive things here than in Zodiac and Fight Club, though. Those are definitely better films.

Yeah, I also prefer Se7en. I guess I'd say The Social Network trumps Panic Room and maybe Button.

[Spinal]

Well that's not being reductive at all.

Reductive is the new substantive.

[Qrazy]

Also how do people feel about the ethical basis for this film? Is Zuckerberg's identity really public domain enough that it's completely legit to make a film about him without his blessing and which gets so many of the key facts wrong? He's not exactly a celebrity in the same vein as an actor or musician or politician.

Are Fincher and Sorkin in a sense saying 'I don't like what facebook has done to privacy' so I'm going to make public Mark Zuckerberg's private life? Plus we'll also shit on Sean Parker for saying fuck you to the record companies.

[Spinal]

Anyway, I think it's the film that's being reductive. The final scene cries out for us to boil down this whole thing to a simple need for a computer geek to gain the approval of a pretty girl.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah but that's not why he actually made it (that is to say he had a long standing girlfriend in real life, there was no Erica, at least in the way the film wants us to believe). So then we're just left with this idea of why someone could have made it albeit not the actual Zuckerberg, and I'm left wondering why I should care.

It's like watching a film entitled The Harmonic Telegraph which focuses on the life and times of Alexander Graham Bell. The premise of the flick is Bell is in a race against time to invent a better method of communication. Why? In order to pop the question to his long distance girlfriend of course. For you see, she had headed out west seeking gold in dem hilltops. He wanted to show her he was the next big thing. That he had the right stuff.

Of course that's not actually how the telephone was invented, but damn if it wouldn't make some quality Hollywood cinema. Although I'm not sure if the comparison totally fits because the telephone was a major invention while Facebook is just another social networking site that happened to make some guy a lot of money. Your romantic Alexander Graham Bell film would raise much less contention. It would be a mere fanciful alternative history and not a hostage case of someone's image.

But I still don't think Sorkin and co. have made anything near frivolous, whether mostly fantasy or not. Barring the ethical choice Sorkin and Fincher made in making the film at all, they do think they are to some extent instilling the genius and extraordinary personality of the real Mark Zuckerberg, and they have located the connection between it and his creation. Apparently the real Zuckerberg just got drunk one night and acted on his good, douchey idea of Facesmash. Taking that incident and existing accounts of Zuckerberg's personality, that material is substantial enough a jumping point for the screenplay they fabricate around it - improper or not toward Zuckerberg - to hold a lot of real-world insight.


Yeah, I also prefer Se7en. I guess I'd say The Social Network trumps Panic Room and maybe Button. Don't like Se7en. Think it's thoroughly uninteresting. Opinion.


Also how do people feel about the ethical basis for this film? Is Zuckerberg's identity really public domain enough that it's completely legit to make a film about him without his blessing and which gets so many of the key facts wrong? He's not exactly a celebrity in the same vein as an actor or musician or politician.

Are Fincher and Sorkin in a sense saying 'I don't like what facebook has done to privacy' so I'm going to make public Mark Zuckerberg's private life? Plus we'll also shit on Sean Parker for saying fuck you to the record companies. The only defense I can put down is, well, there was a lawsuit. If big enough scandalous shit goes down in someone's life, there's gonna be a film about it.

And yeah. Parker. Is his characterization at all valid?


Anyway, I think it's the film that's being reductive. The final scene cries out for us to boil down this whole thing to a simple need for a computer geek to gain the approval of a pretty girl. The pretty girl just encapsulates the host of other anxieties and ideas of himself he acts on.

[Pop Trash]

Also how do people feel about the ethical basis for this film? Is Zuckerberg's identity really public domain enough that it's completely legit to make a film about him without his blessing and which gets so many of the key facts wrong? He's not exactly a celebrity in the same vein as an actor or musician or politician.

Are Fincher and Sorkin in a sense saying 'I don't like what facebook has done to privacy' so I'm going to make public Mark Zuckerberg's private life? Plus we'll also shit on Sean Parker for saying fuck you to the record companies.

Has anybody read the book this was based on? I read the exgf never existed in real life. Was she a composite of multiple girls? Or did Sorkin just pull that out of his butt that Facebook was instigated by a girl? That seems a bit questionable to just conveniently add that element, but I suppose I would be alright with it if she was just a composite of multiple gals to save up storytelling time.

[Qrazy]

Has anybody read the book this was based on? I read the exgf never existed in real life. Was she a composite of multiple girls? Or did Sorkin just pull that out of his butt that Facebook was instigated by a girl? That seems a bit questionable to just conveniently add that element, but I suppose I would be alright with it if she was just a composite of multiple gals to save up storytelling time.

This (http://www.trendypress.com/who-is-erica-albright-identity-found-erica-bern-cohen-mark-zuckerberg/)is the closest I've found to anything resembling Erica Albright. Although as I mentioned earlier Zuckerberg met a girl named Priscilla in his sophomore year whom he has been dating continuously for 6+ years.

[B-side]

Who cares if it's realistic?

[Qrazy]

But I still don't think Sorkin and co. have made anything near frivolous, whether mostly fantasy or not. Barring the ethical choice Sorkin and Fincher made in making the film at all, they do think they are to some extent instilling the genius and extraordinary personality of the real Mark Zuckerberg, and they have located the connection between it and his creation. Apparently the real Zuckerberg just got drunk one night and acted on his good, douchey idea of Facesmash.

A genius which the film reduces to...

a) Him getting 1600 on his SATs (I know a deeply stupid individual from my former high school who managed this feat as well)
b) Answering a difficult question in a class in no time at all while heading out the door.
c) Hacking sessions.

I'd say c was probably the only one of those that worked for me and even then not entirely.


Taking that incident and existing accounts of Zuckerberg's personality, that material is substantial enough a jumping point for the screenplay they fabricate around it - improper or not toward Zuckerberg - to hold a lot of real-world insight.

Where's the insight?


The only defense I can put down is, well, there was a lawsuit. If big enough scandalous shit goes down in someone's life, there's gonna be a film about it.

I dunno, I think this kind of corporate backstabbing is relatively common place in any capitalist society. There aren't films about all of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals).

[Qrazy]

Who cares if it's realistic?

Can you read?

[B-side]

Can you read?

I can. I wasn't referring to the post of yours above mine. Just a general question. I see a lot of complaining about how it may or may not be true to life and/or realistic.

[Qrazy]

I can. I wasn't referring to the post of yours above mine. Just a general question. I see a lot of complaining about how it may or may not be true to life and/or realistic.

The argument is this: If it's going to be a film about a specific individual who founded a specific company than it ought to get the major points correct. As I see it one of the core features of the film (Zuckerberg's motivations in relation to Erica) is a complete fabrication. Essentially the 'character study' of Zuckerberg, is non-existent, because this character is not Zuckerberg. Now, if a film wanted to be about a larger issue (as is Kane, as is There Will be Blood) then it may as well outright fictionalize the character it's based upon. This film pretends to be interested in the minutiae (22,000 hits!) but gets the character's psychology incorrect. We're left with this sort of half-assed middle ground. A film which is not accurate about the characters it purports to be about nor is it wholly interesting or insightful as a work of pure fiction.

Realism is a non-issue. Cliche is the issue.

[Boner M]

Maurice Pialat.
O what could've been. :frustrated:

[Bosco B Thug]

A genius which the film reduces to...

a) Him getting 1600 on his SATs (I know a deeply stupid individual from my former high school who managed this feat as well)
b) Answering a difficult question in a class in no time at all while heading out the door.
c) Hacking sessions.

I'd say c was probably the only one of those that worked for me and even then not entirely. Yes, a computer genius with probably a genius IQ, who can throw back a stinging retort like no one's business, and is hand-in-hand burdened with a complex load of compulsions and neuroses. Who, high-functioning as he is, came up with a website that capitalizes and implicitly shoots arrows at everything people crave for and desire in social interaction and social validation, revealing the small personalities that lie at the center of the largest upward climbing.


Where's the insight? Real Zuckerberg may not have had an Erica, but he made the questionable Facesmash under the same moral considerations Fake Zuckerberg did, because that part the film gets right from reality. Contrary to what Armond White thinks, the film is not about letting the guy off the hook for what he did that night.


I dunno, I think this kind of corporate backstabbing is relatively common place in any capitalist society. There aren't films about all of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals). Well, this is Facebook, very high-profile, juicy, and interesting to the crowds. That's why they made a movie about it. I was just saying they found justification to making this movie, with all its embellishments, because shady business did go down. Just like a Fatty Arbuckle movie and a Bush Jr. movie probably aren't the pinnacle of truth, but they figure they're along the right lines because they both committed major screw ups at one point.


The argument is this: If it's going to be a film about a specific individual who founded a specific company than it ought to get the major points correct. As I see it one of the core features of the film (Zuckerberg's motivations in relation to Erica) is a complete fabrication. Essentially the 'character study' of Zuckerberg, is non-existent, because this character is not Zuckerberg. Now, if a film wanted to be about a larger issue (as is Kane, as is There Will be Blood) then it may as well outright fictionalize the character it's based upon. This film pretends to be interested in the minutiae (22,000 hits!) but gets the character's psychology incorrect. We're left with this sort of half-assed middle ground. A film which is not accurate about the characters it purports to be about nor is it wholly interesting or insightful as a work of pure fiction. I'm arguing movie Zuckerberg's psychology, dramatized as it is, still encapsulates the moral essence of the real-life Zuckerberg's push to invent Facebook, and the ensuing scandal of business partners.

As I said above, this is standard "dark biopic" fabricating. It gets the factoids and events right, but how it characterizes the characters and drama is the writers playing crapshoot with narrative filmmaking.

[Qrazy]

Yes, a computer genius with probably a genius IQ, who can throw back a stinging retort like no one's business, and is hand-in-hand burdened with a complex load of compulsions and neuroses. Who, high-functioning as he is, came up with a website that capitalizes and implicitly shoots arrows at everything people crave for and desire in social interaction and social validation, revealing the small personalities that lie at the center of the largest upward climbing.

Real Zuckerberg may not have had an Erica, but he made the questionable Facesmash under the same moral considerations Fake Zuckerberg did, because that part the film gets right from reality. Contrary to what Armond White thinks, the film is not about letting the guy off the hook for what he did that night.

Well, this is Facebook, very high-profile, juicy, and interesting to the crowds. That's why they made a movie about it. I was just saying they found justification to making this movie, with all its embellishments, because shady business did go down. Just like a Fatty Arbuckle movie and a Bush Jr. movie probably aren't the pinnacle of truth, but they figure they're along the right lines because they both committed major screw ups at one point.

I'm arguing movie Zuckerberg's psychology, dramatized as it is, still encapsulates the moral essence of the real-life Zuckerberg's push to invent Facebook, and the ensuing scandal of business partners.

As I said above, this is standard "dark biopic" fabricating. It gets the factoids and events right, but how it characterizes the characters and drama is the writers playing crapshoot with narrative filmmaking.

Fair enough. But based upon what I've read about Zuckerberg I just don't see that the psychologies of the character and the actual guy are all that similar.

[Izzy Black]

I dunno, I think this kind of corporate backstabbing is relatively common place in any capitalist society. There aren't films about all of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_scandals).

It's ironic to listen to you argue this point. I've been saying the exact same thing to all the people I've discussed this film with in person. It's all so very trivial.

[Izzy Black]

Also how do people feel about the ethical basis for this film? Is Zuckerberg's identity really public domain enough that it's completely legit to make a film about him without his blessing and which gets so many of the key facts wrong? He's not exactly a celebrity in the same vein as an actor or musician or politician.

Are Fincher and Sorkin in a sense saying 'I don't like what facebook has done to privacy' so I'm going to make public Mark Zuckerberg's private life? Plus we'll also shit on Sean Parker for saying fuck you to the record companies.

I agree. I think the film's motivated by dubious ethics (in attempt to make a moral point about an imaginary character!)

[Izzy Black]

I'm arguing movie Zuckerberg's psychology, dramatized as it is, still encapsulates the moral essence of the real-life Zuckerberg's push to invent Facebook, and the ensuing scandal of business partners.

Fairly non-empirical claim though. And it basically says much of the film's quality depends on the accuracy of its character psychology.

That aside, the psychology doesn't seem inherently interesting, and given the social/polticial/cultural implications of its topic, the film forgoes the juice to narrow in on a water-down version of the modernist alienated, self-interested male.

In other words, Zuckerberg is (maybe!) an opportunistic asshole. Yeah, well, so what? We got a bunch of those.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's ironic to listen to you argue this point. I've been saying the exact same thing to all the people I've discussed this film with in person. It's all so very trivial. How is this story inherently trivial, which is how you guys are making it out to be? You might as well be calling all those other corporate scandals inherently trivial, which you implicitly are.

If the film did change the names of everyone and everything, would you still be calling it trivial?


Fairly non-empirical claim though. And it basically says much of the film's quality depends on the accuracy of its character psychology. I know it's fairly non-empirical, it's moral analysis.

And that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the film's quality depends more on the accuracy of the events rather than the accuracy of the characters' psychology.


In other words, Zuckerberg is (maybe!) an opportunistic asshole. Yeah, well, so what? We got a bunch of those. Nope, not what I've been saying. Sorry.

[Mysterious Dude]

Also how do people feel about the ethical basis for this film? Is Zuckerberg's identity really public domain enough that it's completely legit to make a film about him without his blessing and which gets so many of the key facts wrong? He's not exactly a celebrity in the same vein as an actor or musician or politician.
I'm actually curious about this. Can I just make a movie about any real person, use their name, make up shit about them, and not get sued? Is anyone up for grabs like this?

[Qrazy]

I'm actually curious about this. Can I just make a movie about any real person, use their name, make up shit about them, and not get sued? Is anyone up for grabs like this?

I dunno but that would be funny if Zuckerberg sued Fincher and then some other dude made a film about that. I'm thinking Oliver Stone.

[Izzy Black]

How is this story inherently trivial, which is how you guys are making it out to be? You might as well be calling all those other corporate scandals inherently trivial, which you implicitly are.

If the film did change the names of everyone and everything, would you still be calling it trivial?

It's not inherently trivial, nor inherently interesting. The burden is on the film to show us why we should think it interesting. There's been plenty of documentaries and films about corporate scandals and corporate deceit. The topic itself isn't very interesting, I don't think, and this film does little to make itself rise beyond the value of mere topic (i.e. there are selfish opportunists involved in corporate scandals).


I know it's fairly non-empirical, it's moral analysis.

I am referring to the claim that the film reflects Zuckerberg's psychology. Either it does or it doesn't. It's either true or false. The claim itself is empirical, but it doesn't seem like something we can know unless some of you actually know the guy.


And that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the film's quality depends more on the accuracy of the events rather than the accuracy of the characters' psychology.

You said this:
I'm arguing movie Zuckerberg's psychology, dramatized as it is, still encapsulates the moral essence of the real-life Zuckerberg's push to invent Facebook, and the ensuing scandal of business partners.

How is this not an empirical claim about his psychology - and one without evidential basis? How exactly does the film represent Zuckerberg's moral essence (I'm assuming this to be something that can only be known via knowledge of his psychology)? Lastly, if the film fails to capture this, then what's its worth (though I don't think its worth much even if it does)?

[Qrazy]

I am referring to the claim that the film reflects Zuckerberg's psychology. Either it does or it doesn't. It's either true or false. The claim itself is empirical, but it doesn't seem like something we can know unless some of you actually know the guy.


I would even go so far as to argue that we can know it's false just based upon the changes the film makes to Zuckerberg's history. Where is Priscilla in the film? Where is Erica in real life? There's also the fact that Zuckerberg has said he didn't want to get into a Final club and was a member of Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity.

Also in regards to how the twins are presented and their 'intellectual property' (bleh) I read this... "Facebook eventually reached a settlement, reportedly worth sixty-five million dollars, with the Winklevosses and Narendra, but they are now appealing for more, claiming that Facebook misled them about the value of the stock they would receive."

These guys just can't let that shit go.

"“He’s the poorest rich person I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tyler Winklevoss said."

Yikes.

[Izzy Black]

I've re-read your post and I think I gather what you are trying to say. You mean to be saying something like, "Although the film dramatizes his psychology and character, we can still make moral judgments of his moral character based on his actions alone, which can be verified by external, empirical sources."

OK, but two points.

First, how does it escape my claim here:


In other words, Zuckerberg is (maybe!) an opportunistic asshole. Yeah, well, so what? We got a bunch of those.

Take out the maybe - since you're saying that he just is an opportunistic asshole (or something along the lines of someone who is "immoral" or did morally questionable acts.)

This alone strikes me as a trivial conclusion. That is to say, Zuckerberg is an immoral opportunist who took advantage of and/or deceived others in a corporate scandal. And my reply is, yeah so?

Second, I still think it's improper to make a moral judgment of someone without any knowledge of their psychology (that is, clear account of their intentions, motivations, emotions, desires, personal knowledge, and so on). This shifts the topic of the debate a bit, but it does explain my confusion with your initial response expressed in my last post.

In general, proper moral claims ought to rest on certain facts or truths about a person's psychology. If we aren't sure whether the psychology of Zuckerberg we are given is accurate, can we really pass moral judgment on his character? (Even if we can still say certain actions he performed were wrong independent of his psychology.) And if we can't pass moral judgment on his character, and merely make certain observations about actions he made that seem wrong, then we have a fairly shallow, outsider's perspective and ultimately a trivial conclusion.

[Izzy Black]

I would even go so far as to argue that we can know it's false just based upon the changes the film makes to Zuckerberg's history. Where is Priscilla in the film? Where is Erica in real life?

True. It's at least evidence against a characterization of his psychology that's clearly tied to certain events we know to be false. Point taken.

[Qrazy]

True. It's at least evidence against a characterization of his psychology that's clearly tied to certain events we know to be false. Point taken.

Ben Mezrich seems to like to write stories about college students making a name for themselves. Is he the Horatio Alger of our times? Where's my freakin' adaptation of Ragged Dick; or, Street Life in New York with the Bootblacks.

[Izzy Black]

Never seen a B+ film?

[Izzy Black]

You remind of a professor I had. Never handed out anything higher than a B.

[Qrazy]

Never seen a B+ film?

Hehe I have, that was just a way to placate those who wanted me to update my sig.

I'd probably give Uncle Boonmee a B. The last A film I've seen hrm it's been a while... I'd maybe give Ruiz's Three Lives and Only One Death an A-, but it's probably more of a B+.

[B-side]

Izzy's one of my fellow Ruiz lovers, so tread lightly, Qrazy.;)

[Qrazy]

Izzy's one of my fellow Ruiz lovers, so tread lightly, Qrazy.;)

Pffft a B+ to me is really liking but having a couple of complaints. An A- would be minor complaints, an A loving and an A+ is reserved for personal favorites.

[Izzy Black]

Hehe I have, that was just a way to placate those who wanted me to update my sig.

I'd probably give Uncle Boonmee a B. The last A film I've seen hrm it's been a while... I'd maybe give Ruiz's Three Lives and Only One Death an A-, but it's probably more of a B+.

Nice. I like the idea of no film ever attaining A status. That's interesting to me. I could live with saying only 6 films I've ever seen are worthy of an A status, but I'm not sure I could push it past that. Hmm - actually I could live with giving only two of those films A's (2001 and L'Avventura) and the rest A-. (The question being entertained here, I guess, is how strict could your standards be?)

[Izzy Black]

Oh, didn't think about A+

[B-side]

Pffft a B+ to me is really liking but having a couple of complaints. An A- would be minor complaints, an A loving and an A+ is reserved for personal favorites.

I have that one on my hard drive. I'll have to check it out soon. In the meantime, watch Time Regained and City of Pirates immediately.

[Qrazy]

I have that one on my hard drive. I'll have to check it out soon. In the meantime, watch Time Regained and City of Pirates immediately.

Time Regained I have so I'll probably watch that one sooner (which is to say after I've finished watching the 130 films I have left on 1001 films to see before you die). I'm definitely enticed by the title for City of Pirates though.

And to be honest I kind of wanted to read Remember of Things Past before seeing Time Regained. Although that does not bode well for me watching the film any time soon.

[B-side]

Time Regained I have so I'll probably watch that one sooner (which is to say after I've finished watching the 130 films I have left on 1001 films to see before you die). I'm definitely enticed by the title for City of Pirates though.

And to be honest I kind of wanted to read Remember of Things Past before seeing Time Regained. Although that does not bode well for me watching the film any time soon.

You crazy kids and your film lists.

[Izzy Black]

Time Regained

His best.


And to be honest I kind of wanted to read Remember of Things Past before seeing Time Regained. Although that does not bode well for me watching the film any time soon.

In a word - impractical. Good luck finishing the book(s) regardless of whether you get to Time Regained or not.

Besides, it's merits have little (if any) to do with adaptive fidelity.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's not inherently trivial, nor inherently interesting. The burden is on the film to show us why we should think it interesting. There's been plenty of documentaries and films about corporate scandals and corporate deceit. The topic itself isn't very interesting, I don't think, and this film does little to make itself rise beyond the value of mere topic (i.e. there are selfish opportunists involved in corporate scandals). Agree to disagree territory, I guess. And it's not like Fincher's the pinnacle of soulful art filmmaking, so a film's immediacy and resonance is definitely debatable.


I've re-read your post and I think I gather what you are trying to say. You mean to be saying something like, "Although the film dramatizes his psychology and character, we can still make moral judgments of his moral character based on his actions alone, which can be verified by external, empirical sources."

OK, but two points.

First, how does it escape my claim here:


In other words, Zuckerberg is (maybe!) an opportunistic asshole. Yeah, well, so what? We got a bunch of those.

Take out the maybe - since you're saying that he just is an opportunistic asshole (or something along the lines of someone who is "immoral" or did morally questionable acts.)

This alone strikes me as a trivial conclusion. That is to say, Zuckerberg is an immoral opportunist who took advantage of and/or deceived others in a corporate scandal. And my reply is, yeah so? First of all, thanks for taking in my argument.

So I just think the film offers a much more expansive and thematically full view of what Zuckerberg and his actions reflect in the world. He's made to embody what Facebook does, and what it provides to people. I thought he was a complex, enigmatic character.


Second, I still think it's improper to make a moral judgment of someone without any knowledge of their psychology (that is, clear account of their intentions, motivations, emotions, desires, personal knowledge, and so on). This shifts the topic of the debate a bit, but it does explain my confusion with your initial response expressed in my last post. I won't argue. Although to get back to my debate with Qrazy, it's Hollywood tradition that when scandal is involved, it's justification enough to assume a person who is not altogether benign.


In general, proper moral claims ought to rest on certain facts or truths about a person's psychology. If we aren't sure whether the psychology of Zuckerberg we are given is accurate, can we really pass moral judgment on his character? (Even if we can still say certain actions he performed were wrong independent of his psychology.) We can on the character in the film, if not on the real Zuckerberg. The argument you and others make, that this entails a frivolity on the part of the film, when it still makes great effort to internalize the verified events, their real-life occurrence, and their ultimate ethical quandaries and emotional intimations, is what I disagree with. The film's a supposition on Mark Zuckerberg, like I'm Not There.

[Qrazy]

His best.



In a word - impractical. Good luck finishing the book(s) regardless of whether you get to Time Regained or not.

Besides, it's merits have little (if any) to do with adaptive fidelity.

Fair, it's mostly that I don't like seeing film versions first because then I have those representations of the characters and locations in my head while I'm reading. I like coming into a novel with a blank slate in a certain sense.

[DavidSeven]

I'm actually curious about this. Can I just make a movie about any real person, use their name, make up shit about them, and not get sued? Is anyone up for grabs like this?

If that person is a "public figure" (famous or a politician) then pretty much. You can get away with a lot in the name of parody/satire. Think SNL or an Oliver Stone film. It helps that this film is framed as a dramatization. If Fincher was making a documentary or Sorkin was writing a profile in The New York Time, it might be a different story. Even then, it'd a be hard line to breach. I think Zuckerberg came out and said he wasn't going to sue early on anyway.

[Robby P]

Zuckerberg could certainly sue on the grounds of libel/slander or defamation of character or unlawful use of his image but there are a multitude of factors likely preventing that from happening. First, he would have to prove that his likeness was used without his expressed or implied consent and that he does not constitute a 'public figure' whose image is already widely known and disseminated. Second, he would have to prove that the film depicted his image in a purposefully fraudulent and more importantly a recklessly harmful way. In other words he would need to both prove the filmmakers' intent to willingly deceive and he would need to demonstrate some sort of tangible harm inflicted through the course of their actions. Third, he would have to demonstrate that the filmmakers' artistic license was used irresponsibly and that they did not sufficiently communicate that their account was a fictionalized dramatization.

Given that (a) Zuckerberg is universally recognizable (b) the film hardly constitutes meaningful character assassination and (c) the film comes with billions of disclaimers attached in the legal fine print, he would probably have no chance of hell of winning a civil suit worth the investment of his time and money.

[number8]

Fun fact: you can't legally defame the dead.

So if someone is dead, feel free to make a movie about how they're a pedophile alien cannibal.

The family of Max Baer tried to sue Cinderella Man for their depiction of him as a homicidal pervert, which, unlike Zuckerberg's portrayal in this movie, was undoubtedly character assassination. They couldn't. He was dead, so no defamation of character occurred.

[Qrazy]

Given that (a) Zuckerberg is universally recognizable (b) the film hardly constitutes meaningful character assassination and (c) the film comes with billions of disclaimers attached in the legal fine print, he would probably have no chance of hell of winning a civil suit worth the investment of his time and money.

Not really, I knew nothing about the guy before this film and I doubt most people did. Frankly I think he has a better case than the Winklevii. Based on criteria (b) I'd say Sean Parker has an even stronger case. I'd say the primary reason they're not suing is that they're worried about adding flames to the fire and they don't really need the money from the lawsuit. Suing would most likely just get more people to see the film and come across to many as petty from Zuckerberg. They have business interests to protect.

[number8]

I'd say he's pretty damn well known. Anyone who follows tech or business would know of him, and that's a very large crowd. People have been writing articles about him constantly for the past few years because of the various scandals he's accused of, and the fact that he's the world's youngest billionaire.

[Qrazy]

I'd say he's pretty damn well known. Anyone who follows tech or business would know of him, and that's a very large crowd. People have been writing articles about him constantly for the past few years because of the various scandals he's accused of, and the fact that he's the world's youngest billionaire.

Percentage-wise it's really not. And knowing someone's name is very different than knowing something about their life. If you polled the general population (let's say America) 2 years ago I'm guessing maybe a fraction of one percent of them would know anything about Zuckerberg. I mean yeah that's an arbitrary statistic but still I never heard him spoken about. Until this book and movie he wasn't exactly a Britney Spears or Nicholas Cage or even Bill Gates or Donald Trump when it comes to universal recognizability.

I mean who here (and bear in mind we're all internet savvy) can name the three founders of youtube without checking? Youtube is the third most visited website on the internet and when they sold to google those three made a pretty penny on the deal.

[Robby P]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

It's not necessarily notoriety that determines whether one is a considered a public figure in US law. Almost every single CEO of a publicly traded company would be considered a public figure, regardless of what percentage of the general population recognizes or knows of them.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's Winklevodes! Winklevodes, you assholes!

[Qrazy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

It's not necessarily notoriety that determines whether one is a considered a public figure in US law. Almost every single CEO of a publicly traded company would be considered a public figure, regardless of what percentage of the general population recognizes or knows of them.

Well you also said 'universally recognizable' so I was responding to that. In regards to the bolded portion, enough I suppose but can you link me somewhere that would substantiate that?

[number8]

Percentage-wise it's really not.

Percentage-wise, there's probably a high number of Americans who don't know who Jack Abramoff or Valerie Plame are or why they are famous. It doesn't really matter. They have movies, too. They are celebrities in their respected fields and their presence in the public space is irrefutable, just like Zuckerberg. They're well-known enough.


I mean who here (and bear in mind we're all internet savvy) can name the three founders of youtube without checking? Youtube is the third most visited website on the internet and when they sold to google those three made a pretty penny on the deal.

They're not notorious. They didn't publicly and callously dismiss internet privacy, endorse and celebrate hackers or have business cards that read "I'm CEO, bitch." Nor did they call internet users "dumb fucks." Zuckerberg is well-known in the tech world for his persona as much as his monetary accomplishments.

[Qrazy]

Percentage-wise, there's probably a high number of Americans who don't know who Jack Abramoff or Valerie Plame are or why they are famous. It doesn't really matter. They have movies, too. They are celebrities in their respected fields and their presence in the public space is irrefutable, just like Zuckerberg. They're well-known enough.

'Universally recognizable', 'pretty damn well known', 'a very large crowd', these are the remarks which you both made which I was responding to. And I stand by the fact that Zuckerberg wasn't. If you mean only they are well known by a small sub-sect of the population then okay, but to me that doesn't constitute well known. So chalk this one up as a definitional dispute.


They're not notorious. They didn't publicly and callously dismiss internet privacy, endorse and celebrate hackers or have business cards that read "I'm CEO, bitch." Nor did they call internet users "dumb fucks." Zuckerberg is well-known in the tech world for his persona as much as his monetary accomplishments.

I still don't really think any of that was widely known before the book/film publicized it.

[Ezee E]

'Universally recognizable', 'pretty damn well known', 'a very large crowd', these are the remarks which you both made which I was responding to. And I stand by the fact that Zuckerberg wasn't. If you mean only they are well known by a small sub-sect of the population then okay, but to me that doesn't constitute well known. So chalk this one up as a definitional dispute.



I still don't really think any of that was widely known before the book/film publicized it.
I'd say the percentage of people knowing Zuckerberg verses the youtube guys is drastic.

[Qrazy]

I'd say the percentage of people knowing Zuckerberg verses the youtube guys is drastic.

At this point certainly, as of 2008? I don't know I'd need some proof to that effect.

[number8]

I still don't really think any of that was widely known before the book/film publicized it.

Did you miss the whole privacy uproar over him or something? His internet notoriety predates the publishing of the book.

And in 2008, he was the talk of all the tech blogs because of his SXSW appearance.

[baby doll]

Pffft a B+ to me is really liking but having a couple of complaints. An A- would be minor complaints, an A loving and an A+ is reserved for personal favorites.Since I have absolutely nothing to say about The Social Network, I'll just grade every commercial release I've seen from this year:

A-
Greenberg (Noah Baumbach)
Vincere (Marco Bellocchio)

B+
Exit Through the Gift Shop (Banksy)
The Ghost Writer (Roman Polanski)
Last Train Home (Lixin Fan)
The Misfortunates (Felix van Groenineg)
Un prophète (Jacques Audiard)
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (Woody Allen)

B
Ajami (Scandar Copti / Yaron Shani)
Barbe bleue (Catherine Breillat)
Eccentricities of a Blonde-haired Girl (Manoel de Oliveira)
L'Enfer d'Henri-Georges Clouzot (Serge Bromberg / Ruxandra Medrea)
La Fille du RER (André Téchiné)
A Film Unfinished (Yael Hersonsky)
Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)
Howl (Rob Epstein / Jeffrey Friedman)
Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (Ricki Stern / Annie Sunberg)
Machete (Ethan Maniquis / Robert Rodriguez)
Mother (Bong Joon-ho)
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Edgar Wright)
The Secret in Their Eyes (Juan José Campanella)
The Shaft (Zhang Chi)
The Social Network (David Fincher)
The Trotsky (Jacob Tierney)
Winter's Bone (Debra Granik)
Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat)

B-
Cyrus (Jay and Mark Duplass)
Get Him to the Greek (Nicholas Stoller)
Inception (Christoper Nolan)
Please Give (Nicole Holofcener)
Reel Injun: On the Trail of the Hollywood Indian (Neil Diamond)
The Town (Ben Affleck)
Youth in Revolt (Miguel Arteta)

C+
The American (Anton Corbijn)
American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (David Ridgen / Nicolas Rossier)
Chloe (Atom Egoyan)
Holy Rollers (Kevin Asch)
Shutter Island (Martin Scorsese)
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (Oliver Stone)

C
The Kids Are All Right (Lisa Cholodenko)

C-
The Secret of Kells (Tomm Moore)
Tamara Drewe (Stephen Frears)

D [plus or minus, who really cares at this point? It's crap]
The Good, the Bad and the Weird (Kim Jee-woon)

[Qrazy]

Did you miss the whole privacy uproar over him or something? His internet notoriety predates the publishing of the book.

And in 2008, he was the talk of all the tech blogs because of his SXSW appearance.

I remember being nervous about facebook in a general sense in relation to what happens to the rights of artists who upload their work but no I never heard anyone mention his name or say anything about those text messages. I also don't follow tech blogs.

[eternity]

Zuckerberg could certainly sue on the grounds of libel/slander or defamation of character or unlawful use of his image but there are a multitude of factors likely preventing that from happening. First, he would have to prove that his likeness was used without his expressed or implied consent and that he does not constitute a 'public figure' whose image is already widely known and disseminated. Second, he would have to prove that the film depicted his image in a purposefully fraudulent and more importantly a recklessly harmful way. In other words he would need to both prove the filmmakers' intent to willingly deceive and he would need to demonstrate some sort of tangible harm inflicted through the course of their actions. Third, he would have to demonstrate that the filmmakers' artistic license was used irresponsibly and that they did not sufficiently communicate that their account was a fictionalized dramatization.

Given that (a) Zuckerberg is universally recognizable (b) the film hardly constitutes meaningful character assassination and (c) the film comes with billions of disclaimers attached in the legal fine print, he would probably have no chance of hell of winning a civil suit worth the investment of his time and money.
The ending of the film pretty much speaks to why Zuckerberg won't/wouldn't sue. It's better to just let these things go away, because he'd lose. He'll always be the loser of a game he didn't create.

[Robby P]

Well you also said 'universally recognizable' so I was responding to that. In regards to the bolded portion, enough I suppose but can you link me somewhere that would substantiate that?

Specifically, it's the phrase "a person pervasively involved in public affairs" that renders most high ranking executives at publicly traded companies and corporations susceptible to accusations of being a public figure. It's ultimately up to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not a person meets these qualifications, I suppose.

I, stupidly, did not realize Facebook was still a privately held company.

[Qrazy]

Specifically, it's the phrase "a person pervasively involved in public affairs" that renders most high ranking executives at publicly traded companies and corporations susceptible to accusations of being a public figure. It's ultimately up to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not a person meets these qualifications, I suppose.

I, stupidly, did not realize Facebook was still a privately held company.

Interesting to know that though, I'll watch my ass if I ever become CEO of a public company... which I most likely wouldn't... but if I did... then I would... yeah.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Saw it, really dug it, didn't love it. I liked how the late-film scenes of victory in the LA house (a dingy washed-out beige) carry the same sense of exclusivity and self-aggrandizement seen in the early Harvard scenes (warmly lit and set-dressed). I liked how Fincher mocked the Harvard row team by faking miniaturization during their rowing competition (everything becomes small and plasticine), which makes sense, since Zuckerberg has found a newer and better club to belong to. This sense of belonging is pervasive, and it's a thread that reminds me of Fight Club, which also focused on self-perceived misfits searching for solace in clubs where the exclusivity ("You do not talk about Fight Club") was the main hook.

I felt really, really bad for Rashida Jones getting stuck with the last line, which felt so unnecessary and cheap. Besides, I don't think it's right. The character of Zuckerberg isn't a fake asshole. He's a self-aware, self-justifying asshole.

[DavidSeven]

This was good. But stop with the thematic comparisons to Kane and There will be Blood. That's stupid. Let's be real: Fincher and Sorkin just made a love letter to capitalism. The Scarface analogy is more apt. Tony Montana may end up getting shot up and Mark Zuckerberg might end up with no friends, but that's not going to stop anyone from wishing they could come just short of that end. They glamorize the shit out of capitalism -- night clubs, loose women, cocaine, and notoriety. It's Scarface, just made a lot better. No one wants to be Daniel Plainview or Charles Foster Kane at the end of their movies or anywhere in between.

This was, however, an enthralling one time view. Storytelling is pretty exceptional both structurally (Sorkin) and as visually conveyed (Fincher). I'm almost certain it doesn't have the substance to hold up, but it was better than I expected on the first go around. This Andrew Garfield kid is quite good.

[Skitch]

Maaaaaan, this was good.

[Izzy Black]

Agree to disagree territory, I guess. And it's not like Fincher's the pinnacle of soulful art filmmaking, so a film's immediacy and resonance is definitely debatable.

OK.


First of all, thanks for taking in my argument.

Always! A true debate is framed in terms of a meaningful discussion, one that is fruitful to both parties and is not about scoring points. It would be a disservice to us both to mischaracterize your argument or to address a caricatured version of it.


So I just think the film offers a much more expansive and thematically full view of what Zuckerberg and his actions reflect in the world. He's made to embody what Facebook does, and what it provides to people. I thought he was a complex, enigmatic character.

I find it difficult to separate this character (aside from behavioral idiosyncrasies) at the thematic and/or moral level from those familiar to this genre or type of story-telling. The complexity was missing for me because the film did not seem very interested in the "Why" question, but only the "What"; that is, that he's an opportunistic, selfish asshole.


I won't argue. Although to get back to my debate with Qrazy, it's Hollywood tradition that when scandal is involved, it's justification enough to assume a person who is not altogether benign.

Justification perhaps for the bare assumption, not so much for fantastically recreating an entirely assumed psychology. At least, not that I can say. But again, I'm just drawing our grounds here.


We can on the character in the film, if not on the real Zuckerberg. The argument you and others make, that this entails a frivolity on the part of the film, when it still makes great effort to internalize the verified events, their real-life occurrence, and their ultimate ethical quandaries and emotional intimations, is what I disagree with. The film's a supposition on Mark Zuckerberg, like I'm Not There.

The difference is that I feel we have more to go on in I'm Not There - since Dylan's inner-life can reasonably said to be found in his work. Most artists, we might say, reveal their inner-life in their work, and this is much the interest and research of academics. This film strikes me as a shallow psychological reduction of Zuckerberg without evidential authority or personal authorization. He's far more mysterious and interesting in interviews.

[Izzy Black]

If that person is a "public figure" (famous or a politician) then pretty much. You can get away with a lot in the name of parody/satire. Think SNL or an Oliver Stone film. It helps that this film is framed as a dramatization. If Fincher was making a documentary or Sorkin was writing a profile in The New York Time, it might be a different story. Even then, it'd a be hard line to breach. I think Zuckerberg came out and said he wasn't going to sue early on anyway.

Legally, yes. But morally?

[Izzy Black]

Zuckerberg could certainly sue on the grounds of libel/slander or defamation of character or unlawful use of his image but there are a multitude of factors likely preventing that from happening. First, he would have to prove that his likeness was used without his expressed or implied consent and that he does not constitute a 'public figure' whose image is already widely known and disseminated. Second, he would have to prove that the film depicted his image in a purposefully fraudulent and more importantly a recklessly harmful way. In other words he would need to both prove the filmmakers' intent to willingly deceive and he would need to demonstrate some sort of tangible harm inflicted through the course of their actions. Third, he would have to demonstrate that the filmmakers' artistic license was used irresponsibly and that they did not sufficiently communicate that their account was a fictionalized dramatization.

Given that (a) Zuckerberg is universally recognizable (b) the film hardly constitutes meaningful character assassination and (c) the film comes with billions of disclaimers attached in the legal fine print, he would probably have no chance of hell of winning a civil suit worth the investment of his time and money.

This is useful information for a legal analysis. However, given a moral analysis, I'd say that, given (a), I still don't see we have a moral right to defame someone. I reject (b), and (c) strikes me as irrelevant to the moral question.

[Izzy Black]

Fun fact: you can't legally defame the dead.

So if someone is dead, feel free to make a movie about how they're a pedophile alien cannibal.

The family of Max Baer tried to sue Cinderella Man for their depiction of him as a homicidal pervert, which, unlike Zuckerberg's portrayal in this movie, was undoubtedly character assassination. They couldn't. He was dead, so no defamation of character occurred.

That's terrible, the family is still affected. Plus, if you have a spiritual view of death, then the dead is affected.

[Izzy Black]

Saw it, really dug it, didn't love it. I liked how the late-film scenes of victory in the LA house (a dingy washed-out beige) carry the same sense of exclusivity and self-aggrandizement seen in the early Harvard scenes (warmly lit and set-dressed). I liked how Fincher mocked the Harvard row team by faking miniaturization during their rowing competition (everything becomes small and plasticine), which makes sense, since Zuckerberg has found a newer and better club to belong to. This sense of belonging is pervasive, and it's a thread that reminds me of Fight Club, which also focused on self-perceived misfits searching for solace in clubs where the exclusivity ("You do not talk about Fight Club") was the main hook.

I felt really, really bad for Rashida Jones getting stuck with the last line, which felt so unnecessary and cheap. Besides, I don't think it's right. The character of Zuckerberg isn't a fake asshole. He's a self-aware, self-justifying asshole.

This is interesting and almost enough for me to reconsider this film in terms of such a way of framing it. As a semi-biographical character study, it otherwise fails on all accounts.

[Izzy Black]

This was good. But stop with the thematic comparisons to Kane and There will be Blood. That's stupid. Let's be real: Fincher and Sorkin just made a love letter to capitalism. The Scarface analogy is more apt. Tony Montana may end up getting shot up and Mark Zuckerberg might end up with no friends, but that's not going to stop anyone from wishing they could come just short of that end. They glamorize the shit out of capitalism -- night clubs, loose women, cocaine, and notoriety. It's Scarface, just made a lot better. No one wants to be Daniel Plainview or Charles Foster Kane at the end of their movies or anywhere in between.

Don't see this reading. The film seems pretty critical of Zuckerberg. He turns up morally bankrupt much like Kane and Plainview. Capitalism is shown glamor, but also it's hedonistic pitfalls (like crime-life in Goodfellas).

[Izzy Black]

Wow, I really just bombarded this thread.

Color me bored. Toodles!

[DavidSeven]

Legally, yes. But morally?

That's a different question. I was just responding to Isaac's inquiry regarding whether or not he would be able to do it. Whether he would be morally justified in doing it... well, that's more complicated. I probably lean more on your side on this issue generally, but you know, I'm not entirely sure Zuckerberg doesn't get a kick out of this whole thing or isn't at least slightly amused by it.

[Qrazy]

That's a different question. I was just responding to Isaac's inquiry regarding whether or not he would be able to do it. Whether he would be morally justified in doing it... well, that's more complicated. I probably lean more on your side on this issue generally, but you know, I'm not entirely sure Zuckerberg doesn't get a kick out of this whole thing or isn't at least slightly amused by it.

I don't think he's that amused. Granted it's not much to go on but he removed The West Wing from his favorite shows and he did the PR (probably) stunt by donating all that money.

[Derek]

but he removed The West Wing from his favorite shows

:lol:

Your move, Sorkin.

[DavidSeven]

Don't see this reading. The film seems pretty critical of Zuckerberg. He turns up morally bankrupt much like Kane and Plainview. Capitalism is shown glamor, but also it's hedonistic pitfalls (like crime-life in Goodfellas).

It's like how they say it's impossible to make an anti-war film because inevitably some aspect of it will end up romanticized for dramatic effect. I sort of feel the same way about films that have an overtly critical eye toward capitalism. That's why I appreciate the thematic ambition and execution of rare films like Kane and TWBB. They reach their goals without compromise, even if some emotional resonance is sacrificed along the way. I'm sure Fincher and Sorkin didn't consciously intend to make a pro-capitalism film, but it was inevitable because they didn't nail their thematic objectives and became victim to the same pitfalls of similar films. And I'm not convinced that Zuckerberg is portrayed as "morally bankrupt" in this film. In fact, I think he's a considerably more sympathetic figure than Kane or Plainview. I know I read Sorkin saying that he wanted him to feel like a sympathetic human being.

I also think it's kind of amusing that there was recently a debate on this forum about Ayn Rand virtues embedded in Fight Club. I mean, what is The Social Network but the story of an individual trying to protect his (intellectual) property from various groups of people who didn't do much to earn it? It's like The Fountainhead for coders. An over-simplification, I'm sure, but the fact that this conversation happened before this film came out makes that reading slightly more plausible.

[Barty]

David's reading of the film is the correct one.

Though the film is anti-IP, so Zuckerberg isn't defending his intellectual property but more the results of the entrepreneurship, aka the wealth and business he has earned which people are trying to unjustly take from him.

[DavidSeven]

Capitalism is shown glamor, but also it's hedonistic pitfalls (like crime-life in Goodfellas).

Also, I love Goodfellas for its narrative and technical merits (and I like The Social Network for similar reasons), but I don't consider thematic delicacy among its strengths. I think The Godfather is a better handled parable to American Capitalism. I mean, the only joy we see Michael experience are in scenes far removed from the gangster life (opening scene, Italian countryside, etc.).

[Derek]

I mean, what is The Social Network but the story of an individual trying to protect his (intellectual) property from various groups of people who didn't do much to earn it? It's like The Fountainhead for coders. An over-simplification, I'm sure, but the fact that this conversation happened before this film came out makes that reading slightly more plausible.

I don't remember the parts where Howard Roark deliberately misled his potential competition for weeks to get a leg up or betrayed his best friend who helped him out from the beginning because of petty disagreements. Equating Zuckerberg to Roark is almost as silly as suggesting the film presents an Objectivist POV of the world.

I do agree with you that Kane and Plainview are more effective characters for portraying the pitfalls of capitalism, but I don't agree Zuckerberg is portrayed in quite the positive light you do.

[Derek]

David's reading of the film is the correct one.

You are wrong.

[Barty]

You are wrong.

Well, I have a hard time believing Sorkin would praise capitalism, but alas, it's in there in the film.

Though, most people, especially Hollywood writers and directors, have no idea what capitalism really is and tend to attack a bunch of straw-mans, so maybe Sorkin did the opposite case here on accident.

[ledfloyd]

i think the film is pro-capitalist inasmuch as zuckerberg is clearly in the right in regards to the lawsuit. in larry lessig's piece he pointed out that the film seems to state that we have a legal system so broken that someone has to pay someone else millions of dollars to avoid a trial when they aren't even in the wrong. that said i still think it portrays zuckerberg as someone with questionable morals and no regard for the people around him (i.e. the people who's photographs he steals to make facemash, his best friend eduardo and several others along the way), and his character also seems prone to the type of casual misogyny that seems to be an intrinsic part of the facebook experience.

i can see some gray area in the case with eduardo as while zuckerberg was in the right legally, he still took advantage of his friend. but does anyone who thinks this film is a condemnation of capitalism think the winklevoss twins were ever painted as anything but clueless buffoons?

and despite that, i think narrowing the films aspirations to pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist is reductionist. i think it's view is a bit more nuanced than that.

[Robby P]

i think the film is pro-capitalist inasmuch as zuckerberg is clearly in the right in regards to the lawsuit.

Granted, my feelings on Intellectual Property laws are rather ambivalent but entering into a verbal contract with someone and then recklessly breaking the terms of that agreement sure seems to me like sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.

According to the evidence presented in the film, the Harvard twins had much stronger grounds to file suit than Eduardo (who, as Zuckerberg notes, "made a bad business decision with himself") and yet the latter made untold billions while the former made a fraction of what they were probably truly owed.

[Qrazy]

I think it's problematic to claim that the final clubs are primarily viewed through a critical eye. The argument seems to be the club is somewhat glamorized initially to then reject that perspective further down the road. But is it really ever strongly rejected stylistically? In the opening scene we have a bunch of hot chicks going (frequently in slow motion) to an 'elite' party. As far as I could tell from the scene it seemed like that party was made to 'look cool'. There might be some debauchery on display but it's not presented in a negative light. Keep in mind that Zuckerberg isn't even at this party so we're not seeing this glamorized perspective through his eyes as we were with Fight Club. Then we're given the 'fun' blowjob in the bathroom scene which again is presented as a funny, enjoyable act. Later we have the coding drinking session again presented as purely humorous and fun. The closest we really come to rejecting la dolce vita at all is the single scene where Sean Parker is arrested and demonstrates his paranoiac tendencies. Too little too late imo.

[Qrazy]

Granted, my feelings on Intellectual Property laws are rather ambivalent but entering into a verbal contract with someone and then recklessly breaking the terms of that agreement sure seems to me like sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.

According to the evidence presented in the film, the Harvard twins had much stronger grounds to file suit than Eduardo (who, as Zuckerberg notes, "made a bad business decision with himself") and yet the latter made untold billions while the former made a fraction of what they were probably truly owed.

Why were they owed anything? There idea was basically 'an elite myspace for Harvard' which ultimately is not what he even created. He just created another myspace with a better layout and slightly different features. He didn't use their code and I"m going to assume he didn't use their layout or visual design. I could see the latter two things being grounds for a suit but the film certainly didn't touch upon that at all.

[Robby P]

Well, at the bare minimum, they were clearly owed restitution for the services Zuckerberg agreed to render and then did not perform. I'm assuming the Harvard twins paid him in advance and I thought it was implied in the film that Zuckerberg used some of those finances to fund his initial enterprises.

And while I agree in principle with Zuckerberg that he doesn't owe "the guy who made the chair" anything, IP infringement is a bit more complicated than that. Even if he avoided using their code, layout, etc. it's still quite possible that he incorporated other details into his project that were not explicitly his own.

And wasn't the beta version of The Facebook exactly an "elite Myspace for Harvard", hence the .edu restrictions? Weren't the twins the one who came up with the idea of the attractiveness of this exclusivity and proposed to market it as such?

I'm not sure, the film was pretty vague on a lot of these details for rather obvious reasons (if the filmmakers' negligently made false claims about Zuckerberg's "theft" then they would REALLY be likely to face a legitimate lawsuit). My point was simply that (1) if you're looking at the two lawsuits and arguing that one was more legitimate than the other, you have to consider the IP infringement allegation more warranted than the guy who chose not to read the contract he was signing and (2) it doesn't seem like anyone was "clearly in the right" at all.

[Qrazy]

Well, at the bare minimum, they were clearly owed restitution for the services Zuckerberg agreed to render and then did not perform. I'm assuming the Harvard twins paid him in advance and I thought it was implied in the film that Zuckerberg used some of those finances to fund his initial enterprises.

And while I agree in principle with Zuckerberg that he doesn't owe "the guy who made the chair" anything, IP infringement is a bit more complicated than that. Even if he avoided using their code, layout, etc. it's still quite possible that he incorporated other details into his project that were not explicitly his own.

And wasn't the beta version of The Facebook exactly an "elite Myspace for Harvard", hence the .edu restrictions? Weren't the twins the one who came up with the idea of the attractiveness of this exclusivity and proposed to market it as such?

I'm not sure, the film was pretty vague on a lot of these details for rather obvious reasons (if the filmmakers' negligently made false claims about Zuckerberg's "theft" then they would REALLY be likely to face a legitimate lawsuit). My point was simply that (1) if you're looking at the two lawsuits and arguing that one was more legitimate than the other, you have to consider the IP infringement allegation more warranted than the guy who chose not to read the contract he was signing and (2) it doesn't seem like anyone was "clearly in the right" at all.

From the conversations it didn't seem like the twins were planning to expand the website world-wide and had a totally different idea for the end goal of the site. There position was that girls like to hook up with guys from Harvard. Zuckerberg's roll out procedure was similar to the twins in terms of how the site began to develop interest but again I don't really see that an 'initially exclusive social networking site' is a really copyrightable idea. Assuming he signed a contract with the twins (at least in the film it didn't sound like he did) he owes them for breach of contract, not the millions for what he made of his social networking site.

It seemed to me like Eduardo was being misled in relation to the nature of the contract he was signing. That's grounds for a suit I would think. I agree with your point (2) though and think the film does try to demonstrate this although personally I think Zuckerberg is cast in a more negative light than the parties doing the suing.

[Robby P]

From what I recall, Zuckerberg's attorneys told Eduardo that the principal investors' shares would diminish as new investors joined. He agreed to these terms and signed the contract. Had he read the contract, presumably, he would've discovered that his shares would diminish disproportionately. Those are definitely some shady business ethics and probably deserving of litigation but again, didn't the guy ultimately just make "a bad business deal with himself"? Is there more merit to his suit because he's a more sympathetic character?

I definitely think that Eduardo was depicted more favorably than Zuckerberg or the Harvard Twins, which bothered me a bit. The film seemed to be claiming impartiality but its presentation suggested otherwise.

[Qrazy]

From what I recall, Zuckerberg's attorneys told Eduardo that the principal investors' shares would diminish as new investors joined. He agreed to these terms and signed the contract. Had he read the contract, presumably, he would've discovered that his shares would diminish disproportionately. Those are definitely some shady business ethics and probably deserving of litigation but again, didn't the guy ultimately just make "a bad business deal with himself"? Is there more merit to his suit because he's a more sympathetic character?

I definitely think that Eduardo was depicted more favorably than Zuckerberg or the Harvard Twins, which bothered me a bit. The film seemed to be claiming impartiality but its presentation suggested otherwise.

I think he read the contract but didn't have his lawyers look over the contract so he didn't understand (and wasn't told by those he was signing with) that only his shares would be diluted. And yeah very much agreed that Eduardo came off as the wronged party in the film.

[number8]

I definitely think that Eduardo was depicted more favorably than Zuckerberg or the Harvard Twins, which bothered me a bit. The film seemed to be claiming impartiality but its presentation suggested otherwise.

It's because it's based on a book that Eduardo essentially helped write.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think it's problematic to claim that the final clubs are primarily viewed through a critical eye. The argument seems to be the club is somewhat glamorized initially to then reject that perspective further down the road. But is it really ever strongly rejected stylistically? In the opening scene we have a bunch of hot chicks going (frequently in slow motion) to an 'elite' party. As far as I could tell from the scene it seemed like that party was made to 'look cool'. There might be some debauchery on display but it's not presented in a negative light. Keep in mind that Zuckerberg isn't even at this party so we're not seeing this glamorized perspective through his eyes as we were with Fight Club. Then we're given the 'fun' blowjob in the bathroom scene which again is presented as a funny, enjoyable act. Later we have the coding drinking session again presented as purely humorous and fun. The closest we really come to rejecting la dolce vita at all is the single scene where Sean Parker is arrested and demonstrates his paranoiac tendencies. Too little too late imo.

To be fair, most of those scenes are bookended by the trial narration, implying that some perspective is present. Wasn't the bathroom blowjob presented through Eduardo's testimony?

Anyway, I was immediately skeptical of the glorification of such activities, probably because of my own perspective, and probably because of my own interpretation of the film, which is that the only thing that differentiates the Harvard parties from the Los Angeles parties is the level of exclusivity. They're both full of young entitled jagoffs basking in the hedonistic glories of drugs, alcohol, and sex. But the former is painted lovingly because, of course, you're not allowed.

[Izzy Black]

It's like how they say it's impossible to make an anti-war film because inevitably some aspect of it will end up romanticized for dramatic effect.

I didn't say the film was anti-capitalist. I said it was pretty critical of Zuckerberg and capitalism at large. A film can be critical enough of capitalism that it's not an obvious endorsement of capitalism. It's neutral at the least and slightly more critical than favorable at the most. In other words, I'm arguing for the weaker stance here (that it isn't pro-capitalist) rather than the stronger (that it's either pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist wholesale).


I sort of feel the same way about films that have an overtly critical eye toward capitalism. That's why I appreciate the thematic ambition and execution of rare films like Kane and TWBB. They reach their goals without compromise, even if some emotional resonance is sacrificed along the way.

How does Kane and TWBB not run the danger of romanticizing in a positive sense?


I'm sure Fincher and Sorkin didn't consciously intend to make a pro-capitalism film, but it was inevitable because they didn't nail their thematic objectives and became victim to the same pitfalls of similar films. And I'm not convinced that Zuckerberg is portrayed as "morally bankrupt" in this film. In fact, I think he's a considerably more sympathetic figure than Kane or Plainview. I know I read Sorkin saying that he wanted him to feel like a sympathetic human being.

Plainview and Kane are both sympathetic human beings to me. They're also, mostly speaking, morally bankrupt, but not so without some qualification. Plainview quite clearly shows us affection and love for his son. He is ultimately defeated by his own pride, however.


I also think it's kind of amusing that there was recently a debate on this forum about Ayn Rand virtues embedded in Fight Club. I mean, what is The Social Network but the story of an individual trying to protect his (intellectual) property from various groups of people who didn't do much to earn it? It's like The Fountainhead for coders. An over-simplification, I'm sure, but the fact that this conversation happened before this film came out makes that reading slightly more plausible.

A debate isn't evidence for plausibility. I can have a debate about whether or not Fight Club reflects socialist principles, but that doesn't mean, ipso facto of the occurrence of a debate, that such a reading is rendered plausible.

Now, what is The Social Network but a story about a man trying to protect his property? Well, it's a lot of things besides that. It's a story about deception, opportunism, greed, genius, hedonism, spiteful competition, success with a price, and as we eventually see, a story about alienation. How does this amount to an inevitable consequence of pro-capitalism? At the very least, it's a sociological study into the social dimensions of capitalism mechanisms, but if it's that, it's a very shallow one by this particular viewer's lens.

In any case, the point is that if the filmmaker's wanted to tell a pro-capitalist story, they would've told another one. You know, like one about Walt Disney - not Zuckerberg and corporate scandal. This seems pretty obvious to me. I doubt very many people walked out of the theater and said, "Wow, this film just proves the beauty and rightness of capitalism."

[Izzy Black]

Also, I love Goodfellas for its narrative and technical merits (and I like The Social Network for similar reasons), but I don't consider thematic delicacy among its strengths.

I don't think the GoodFellas is a particularly great film, but the fact that the film is about capturing the allure and glamor of the gangster lifestyle but also its evils is pretty straightforward, uncontroversial, and to me, rather obvious.


I think The Godfather is a better handled parable to American Capitalism. I mean, the only joy we see Michael experience are in scenes far removed from the gangster life (opening scene, Italian countryside, etc.).

In what way? In a negative way or a positive way? A critique or endorsement? Or somewhere in the middle?

[DavidSeven]

I don't remember the parts where Howard Roark deliberately misled his potential competition for weeks to get a leg up or betrayed his best friend who helped him out from the beginning because of petty disagreements. Equating Zuckerberg to Roark is almost as silly as suggesting the film presents an Objectivist POV of the world.

I do agree with you that Kane and Plainview are more effective characters for portraying the pitfalls of capitalism, but I don't agree Zuckerberg is portrayed in quite the positive light you do.

I mentioned that it was probably an over-simplification. My original, original point was that the themes of this film don't rise to the level of Citizen Kane and TWBB, as seems to be the popular contention, which I'm glad you agree with.

And I don't know, Zuckerberg is presented as an asshole for sure, but what about exactly is portrayed as petty in regards to Zuckerberg's business dealings with Eduardo? To me, the moment Eduardo closes the bank account is painted as a crucial moment in the film. I mean, it doesn't even need to be visualized to move the story forward. The mere fact that they filmed the physical moment he closed the account puts a lot of weight on it, and it only serves to justify Zuckerberg's later action. If anything, the only petty business action might have been Eduardo closing the bank account. If this was all about capitalist greed then why wasn't Moskowitz's share reduced? Presumably, it's because he wasn't actively interfering with the growth of the company while Eduardo was, and I think you can infer this from the film. Ruthless? Yes. Unjustified? I don't know... I think some people will walk away from the film thinking Eduardo will be alright and that the twins got more than they deserved. I think the filmmaker's gave Zuckerberg a lot more outs than people actually realize.

[DavidSeven]

I didn't say the film was anti-capitalist. I said it was pretty critical of Zuckerberg and capitalism at large. A film can be critical enough of capitalism that it's not an obvious endorsement of capitalism. It's neutral at the least and slightly more critical than favorable at the most. In other words, I'm arguing for the weaker stance here (that it isn't pro-capitalist) rather than the stronger (that it's either pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist wholesale).

Fair enough.



How does Kane and TWBB not run the danger of romanticizing in a positive sense?

I guess it's very possible that these films do romanticize capitalism in some subtle sense and that some might even identify with Kane and Plainview in some way or the other. The more obvious point is that those films don't feature slow-mos of girls dancing provocatively at house parties, Stanford girls with cute butts, BJs in bathrooms, and coke lines off body parts.



Plainview and Kane are both sympathetic human beings to me. They're also, mostly speaking, morally bankrupt, but not so without some qualification. Plainview quite clearly shows us affection and love for his son. He is ultimately defeated by his own pride, however.

But he rejects and demeans his son at the end of the film thereby losing his last redeeming human quality. I think the filmmakers of The Social Network go to much greater lengths to humanize Zuckerberg. Yeah, he's a jerk, but a lot of his actions (but not all) can be rationalized in some way. I don't think it's as easy to rational Plainview's actions. I guess that's the difference.



A debate isn't evidence for plausibility. I can have a debate about whether or not Fight Club reflects socialist principles, but that doesn't mean, ipso facto of the occurrence of a debate, that such a reading is rendered plausible.

Plausible wasn't the right word, but we're venturing toward semantics here. What I meant was that the Rand interpretation had greater effect for me because there was discussion of those qualities in Fincher's prior work before this film came out. It's like if we saw such qualities in a Brad Bird film after The Incredibles. I do think a direct comparison to The Fountainhead is too great a leap (and I should have been more clear about that earlier), but the similarities are there in at least a superficial way.



Now, what is The Social Network but a story about a man trying to protect his property? Well, it's a lot of things besides that. It's a story about deception, opportunism, greed, genius, hedonism, spiteful competition, success with a price, and as we eventually see, a story about alienation. How does this amount to an inevitable consequence of pro-capitalism? At the very least, it's a sociological study into the social dimensions of capitalism mechanisms, but if it's that, it's a very shallow one by this particular viewer's lens.

I kind of feel this film is anti-asshole, not anti-capitalism or even critical of capitalism. If Zuckerberg ends up isolated at the end of the film, it's because he's an asshole (or at least "trying to hard to be one" har), not because he wanted more money. I guess I'm not seeing where the anti-capitalism comes into play. Is Zuckerberg characterized as greedy? I don't think so -- the character even says something to the effect of "you know the money isn't important to me." Does becoming rich and powerful make him an asshole or was he an asshole while sitting in that bar with his girlfriend before he even thought of Facebook? If anything, it's only after he wins the Capitalism lottery that he gains some perspective on his own personality and becomes more human because he realizes he can't enjoy the full extent of his great rewards without his friends.

[DavidSeven]

In any case, the point is that if the filmmaker's wanted to tell a pro-capitalist story, they would've told another one. You know, like one about Walt Disney - not Zuckerberg and corporate scandal. This seems pretty obvious to me. I doubt very many people walked out of the theater and said, "Wow, this film just proves the beauty and rightness of capitalism."

This doesn't make sense to me. What does the real life Mark Zuckerberg represent, if not the American dream? He's the youngest obscenely rich person in the world. Who cares about Walt Disney? If you want to connect with the movie-going demographic, it seems obvious that you would tell the story of the guy at the forefront of a high-tech industry that is permeating every aspect of their existence, not the story of an alleged racist who copyrighted a cartoon mouse 100 years ago.

And I honestly think a lot of people will see the film, consider Zuckerberg a bit of an ass, but ultimately justified in his corporate dealings. They will consider him brilliant, shrewd, and in at least some way, deserving of his ungodly fortune. I saw the film with someone I consider very intelligent and perceptive about film, and she walked away from it with great admiration for Zuckerberg's talent and even affection for his ruthlessness. She also thought the twins were paid too much for their half baked idea, and that Zuckerberg was the one with the talent and vision to create Facebook. She thought he deserved to keep his money and deserved the recognition for being the primary creator of Facebook. I don't think this is reading too deep. This is what the film presents. So yeah, people won't walk away saying "go capitalism" but a lot of the ideals that they carry from living in a capitalist society are going to be reinforced by it.

And this all presumes that I think Sorkin and Fincher intentionally created a pro-capitalism piece, which I don't. Just like I don't think Brad Bird is necessarily consciously making Objectivist pieces. It's a world view that can subconsciously find its way into the work when the artist is either careless or not really concerned about fleshing out that topic. I'm guessing it's the latter, but I'm not faulting the film for that. I like the film, but generally, it lacks some substance and complexity. They could have made up for that in any number of ways.

[number8]

Here's the crucial moment for me that says the most about what's important to Zuckerberg: in the middle of a deposition that might cost him hundreds of millions of dollars, he's not paying attention and instead checks his laptop for not his shares, not his bank accounts, but the website traffic in Bosnia. That's the currency he cares about. It's a point of great pride for him when Rasheeda Jones says, "They don't have roads, but they have Facebook."

It seems to me that the only reason he was even fighting the lawsuits was not because he didn't want to part with the money, but because he didn't want to give those people any claim to the invention of his baby. That's why accepting the settlement is really more than just him taking the financial loss for the good of the company, it's also him personally re-evaluating himself.

[Spinal]

What I hoped the film would address in a more compelling way is how Facebook has transformed society, what implications it has for the future, what are the dangers, what are the benefits, etc. In brief, this is a fairly shallow portrait of Zuckerberg, and by all accounts, not terribly reliable. It is the story of how he made his money and who he was willing to throw under the bus to get there. I was hoping for something deeper. Not Zuckerberg's story. Our story. How does this impact us? What does all this mean for us? Where are we heading? I don't think the film approaches this with much conviction. It settles for something far more conventional.

Wow. Little did I know, this film already exists. It's called Catfish.

[ledfloyd]

Now, what is The Social Network but a story about a man trying to protect his property? Well, it's a lot of things besides that. It's a story about deception, opportunism, greed, genius, hedonism, spiteful competition, success with a price, and as we eventually see, a story about alienation.
which, y'know, sounds like a pretty awesome film to me.

[Izzy Black]

I guess it's very possible that these films do romanticize capitalism in some subtle sense and that some might even identify with Kane and Plainview in some way or the other. The more obvious point is that those films don't feature slow-mos of girls dancing provocatively at house parties, Stanford girls with cute butts, BJs in bathrooms, and coke lines off body parts.

Films with different ambitions, but in Plainview's case, Anderson is much less committed to the socioeconomic criticism found in the novel. There's no glamor, but there's myth-making, yet like The Social Network, the film, and Kane is well, is much more interested in its characters than politics.


But he rejects and demeans his son at the end of the film thereby losing his last redeeming human quality. I think the filmmakers of The Social Network go to much greater lengths to humanize Zuckerberg. Yeah, he's a jerk, but a lot of his actions (but not all) can be rationalized in some way. I don't think it's as easy to rational Plainview's actions. I guess that's the difference.

I don't really agree. Plainview is a far more human, complex, and interesting character to me than Zuckerberg. The latter is an opportunist asshole for unbeknownst reasons who feels a little guilty he pissed off his friends. Anderson's film is much more interested in the philosophical implications of Plainview's, and those like Plainview's, psychology. Second, Anderson captures some kind of, even if minimal, psychological decline; we get no real character progression with Zuckerberg.


Plausible wasn't the right word, but we're venturing toward semantics here. What I meant was that the Rand interpretation had greater effect for me because there was discussion of those qualities in Fincher's prior work before this film came out. It's like if we saw such qualities in a Brad Bird film after The Incredibles. I do think a direct comparison to The Fountainhead is too great a leap (and I should have been more clear about that earlier), but the similarities are there in at least a superficial way.

I'm not really addressing the reading. I only wanted to make the point that what yields plausibility is the content of the discussion not the mere fact of the discussion. It's moot.


I kind of feel this film is anti-asshole, not anti-capitalism or even critical of capitalism.

Then we have no disagreement!


If Zuckerberg ends up isolated at the end of the film, it's because he's an asshole (or at least "trying to hard to be one" har), not because he wanted more money. I guess I'm not seeing where the anti-capitalism comes into play.

Where was I ever arguing for anti-capitalism?


Is Zuckerberg characterized as greedy? I don't think so -- the character even says something to the effect of "you know the money isn't important to me." Does becoming rich and powerful make him an asshole or was he an asshole while sitting in that bar with his girlfriend before he even thought of Facebook? If anything, it's only after he wins the Capitalism lottery that he gains some perspective on his own personality and becomes more human because he realizes he can't enjoy the full extent of his great rewards without his friends.

In short, the film has very little to say about capitalism, thus it's no surprise to me that it fails as a commentary with any decided leanings.

[Izzy Black]

This doesn't make sense to me. What does the real life Mark Zuckerberg represent, if not the American dream? He's the youngest obscenely rich person in the world. Who cares about Walt Disney? If you want to connect with the movie-going demographic, it seems obvious that you would tell the story of the guy at the forefront of a high-tech industry that is permeating every aspect of their existence, not the story of an alleged racist who copyrighted a cartoon mouse 100 years ago.

Well, no, you wouldn't tell the story of an alleged racist. That's exactly my point. You would tell a clean story of success, of an individual overcoming struggles and difficulties (likely socioeconomic ones) through hard-work, diligence, persistence, passion, ingenuity, and all in the pursuit of achieving that everso intrinsically priceless goal of happiness. What is the American Dream? The pursuit of happiness, available to us, at least according to one theory, by way of free-markets, hard-work, and competition. We have a story of unhappiness of the privileged, guided by a protagonist whose self-perceived lower status is an engine for spite and greed rather than a good American desire to overcome adversity and achieve prosperity. It gives lie to the notion that money breeds happiness, and to make matters worse, captures a competitive, capitalist motivation as ultimately spiteful. This is hardly the utopian state of collective self-interestedness that a true tale of pro-capitalism would show. In short, according to your argument, any film about a successful American business is a pro-capitalist tale, but this simply just doesn't follow. It's a common trend in American cinema to show the defects of capitalism through irony (i.e. the unfulfilled wealthy classes; this is a decidedly European tradition) rather than a pedantic sobfest showing the pitiful, poor proletariat suffering and getting screwed over by big business.


And I honestly think a lot of people will see the film, consider Zuckerberg a bit of an ass, but ultimately justified in his corporate dealings. They will consider him brilliant, shrewd, and in at least some way, deserving of his ungodly fortune. I saw the film with someone I consider very intelligent and perceptive about film, and she walked away from it with great admiration for Zuckerberg's talent and even affection for his ruthlessness. She also thought the twins were paid too much for their half baked idea, and that Zuckerberg was the one with the talent and vision to create Facebook. She thought he deserved to keep his money and deserved the recognition for being the primary creator of Facebook. I don't think this is reading too deep. This is what the film presents. So yeah, people won't walk away saying "go capitalism" but a lot of the ideals that they carry from living in a capitalist society are going to be reinforced by it.

Again, I'm arguing for the weaker stance that, at the very least, the film is neutral rather than an endorsement of capitalism. If parties walk away with their opinions unchanged on the merits of capitalism, this is hardly a problem for my argument or the film's proceedings.

Second, that Zuckerberg was ultimately to some extent "right" in legal terms doesn't necessarily say anything about whether there is commentary on capitalism.


And this all presumes that I think Sorkin and Fincher intentionally created a pro-capitalism piece, which I don't. Just like I don't think Brad Bird is necessarily consciously making Objectivist pieces. It's a world view that can subconsciously find its way into the work when the artist is either careless or not really concerned about fleshing out that topic. I'm guessing it's the latter, but I'm not faulting the film for that. I like the film, but generally, it lacks some substance and complexity. They could have made up for that in any number of ways.

This is odd. The fact that deep down we might all be self-interested opportunists, who in the end, may pride his ingenuity and individual autonomy from the legal machine above all else despite his assholishness and whatever else, and thus confirming our own values in reaction to the events, shouldn't be to say that the film, as consequence, is an endorsement of those values. We should be able to separate our own values from the film's content. It is only the unknowing and unreflective viewer that would assume that, since one's personal values are not in any way swayed by the film, that the film's themes are therefore one in the same with those values. We can separate the film's meaning or intended meaning with our own opinion on the matter, and we not only can, be we ought to.

You might be saying, however, that the crime of indifference or neutrality is that it runs the danger of reinforcing our own views in its lack of a positive statement to the contrary. This would be like saying the filmmakers have an aesthetic obligation to criticize capitalism else their neutrality will only allow those with pro-capitalist assumptions to reinforce those views. But this is flawed because someone might be anti-capitalist, and just as equally as the pro-capitalist, find their views reinforced by its neutrality. The neutrality, by my lights, and by necessity, speaks in no one's favor.

Alternatively, you might be saying that they intended neutrality but ended up with a endorsement. Your stance here isn't clear since you've made some seemingly conflicting statements on this score, but if this is your argument, then we'll have to discuss what exactly in the film speaks to such an endorsement (some of which that has already been suggested I've addressed above).

[Chac Mool]

Late-to-the-party opinion:

I'll echo the critical and (for the most part) public opinion: this is by far one of the best films of the year. Along with Inception, it stands in a different league from most American movies released in 2010.

Most of the individual elements have been repeatedly lauded.

Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is not only insightful and witty, but it does a remarkable job of getting into the characters' heads while remaining subtle about their motivations; we get an idea of who Zuckerberg is (or might be) without necessarily being told why he did this, or that.

The acting is uniformly terrific, with Eisenberg and Garfield particularly good at playing off each other. Timberlake is excellent in his role, though I wonder how much of that is due to the larger-than-life character.

The production -- from cinematography to nano-sharp editing to the perfect score by Trent Reznor -- is flawless.

But I think the person most deserving of praise is getting the least: David Fincher. The Social Network is a directorial tour-de-force, all the more so because it doesn't feel like one. Fincher weaves (at least) three time-lines together with both absolute clarity and a sense for the dramatic reveal. He strikes a tone that's equal parts excited, funny and tragic, and that remains wholly human. Perhaps most impressively, he uses every technique in the book to make a talky movie about computers feel thrilling without ever showing off.

Sorkin's screenplay would probably have overcome pedestrian execution. Thankfully, and lucky for us, it doesn't have to.

[baby doll]

Along with Inception, it stands in a different league from most American movies released in 2010.Sigh.

[Qrazy]

Sigh.

I believe you mean le sigh. :)

[baby doll]

I believe you mean le sigh. :)I guess I'm not in any position to talk since my favorite American film of the year is also about a douchey Jew who alienates his best friend. I guess it comes down to whether you prefer dowdy WASP hipster girls or preppy Asian-American bitches.

[Chac Mool]

Sigh.

Sounds like a dangerous medical condition.

[MadMan]

I wrote a review about this movie. Eventually it'll get posted, although I don't think it says anything new about it, really, after reading through the thread. Regardless this is still my #1 movie of the year, and a second viewing only re-affirmed that stance. I'm curious about Catfish, although I know very little about that one.

[DavidSeven]

Israfel:

Don't much feel like getting any further into the nitty gritty of this. My original point was that The Social Network is not in the same thematic category as Citizen Kane/TWBB. The latter films aim to be critical -- or at least non-celebratory -- of capitalism; The Social Network doesn't. I agree that Kane and The Social Network aren't as political as TWBB, but I still think Kane contains an overall less glamorous view of individuals "succeeding" in a capitalist system than Fincher's film.

As to everything else you said, well I guess I have to invoke Barty's line of thinking on this (as much as it pains me). The only way to say The Social Network doesn't contain pro-capitalist sentiment is to misunderstand that concept and amount it to a Gordon Gekko reading of "greed is good." If you think capitalism is, at minimum, about smart and talented people deserving to keep the product of their work then I don't see how you can say the filmmakers created a world that doesn't completely support that ideal. I guess it's plausible that the film might just present this idea and remain neutral on it, but the facts were fudged and situations were invented to make Zuckerberg (the creator) look like an intellectual superstar and the twins look like entitled jocks with a half-baked idea. If you didn't walk away from the film thinking those were the characterizations that the filmmakers were shooting for then I don't believe you watched the film. And if you're familiar with the background of this story, you know that other versions of the facts exist that don't paint the two parties in exactly that way -- the characterizations were an artistic choice by the filmmakers. Don't see how you can say they are neutral.

[baby doll]

Israfel:

Don't much feel like getting any further into the nitty gritty of this. My original point was that The Social Network is not in the same thematic category as Citizen Kane/TWBB. The latter films aim to be critical -- or at least non-celebratory -- of capitalism; The Social Network doesn't.There are lots of reasons why Citizen Kane is a better movie than The Social Network (I trust an uncontroversial position), but it ain't the damn theme, which is no more profound than, "Money can't buy you happiness."

[DavidSeven]

Fincher definitely deserves a lot of credit. Sorkin is getting a bunch of credit because people remember the zingers, but Fincher really propels this thing with his craft work.

I watched a completely forgettable movie called 21 recently (based on source material by the author of the Facebook book). I think it was directed by a pseudonym for a studio committee. A sort-of-similar story to The Social Network about a really smart kid who makes a lot of money and some questionable personal choices along the way -- except it's about gambling and trips to Vegas, not computer coding. Should be more exciting, right? Nope. What a lifeless piece of crap film. Really helped me to appreciate some of Fincher's work here and in general.

[DavidSeven]

There are lots of reasons why Citizen Kane is a better movie than The Social Network (I trust an uncontroversial position), but it ain't the damn theme, which is no more profound than, "Money can't buy you happiness."

Not arguing that Citizen Kane has better themes. Just that they are different.

And me thinks you're selling Kane short. But whatever, definitely don't feel like going into that.

[Qrazy]

There are lots of reasons why Citizen Kane is a better movie than The Social Network (I trust an uncontroversial position), but it ain't the damn theme, which is no more profound than, "Money can't buy you happiness."

That isn't the theme of Citizen Kane. If we have to reduce it to anything (and I don't think we should reduce complex themes to their most basic form) it's that every man is simultaneously an island and not an island and that no man can ever truly be known in full.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Don't they spell out the theme of Citizen Kane just before the sled reveal?

[Chac Mool]

Fincher definitely deserves a lot of credit. Sorkin is getting a bunch of credit because people remember the zingers, but Fincher really propels this thing with his craft work.

I watched a completely forgettable movie called 21 recently (based on source material by the author of the Facebook book). I think it was directed by a pseudonym for a studio committee. A sort-of-similar story to The Social Network about a really smart kid who makes a lot of money and some questionable personal choices along the way -- except it's about gambling and trips to Vegas, not computer coding. Should be more exciting, right? Nope. What a lifeless piece of crap film. Really helped me to appreciate some of Fincher's work here and in general.

Veritas.

There are individual scenes in TSN that are just marvelous -- the opening date; the Hacking of Harvard; the first meeting with Sean Parker; the nightclub in LA.... Little razzle-dazzle, but a whole lot of confident, focused, sleek filmmaking.

[number8]

Man, why do so many people keep saying they were in LA? They were in San Francisco. :sad:

[MadMan]

Man, why do so many people keep saying they were in LA? They were in San Francisco. :sad:I thought I recognized that one famous pyramid building (the name escapes me at the moment) when they showed off the skyline turning from dusk into night shortly before it cut to Shawn and Mark at some trendy nightclub.

[Derek]

Man, why do so many people keep saying they were in LA? They were in San Francisco. :sad:

I wasn't sure myself until Sean mentioned the Victoria's Secret guy jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. And didn't they show the bridge at night in one of the montages?

[number8]

I thought I recognized that one famous pyramid building (the name escapes me at the moment) when they showed off the skyline turning from dusk into night shortly before it cut to Shawn and Mark at some trendy nightclub.

Transamerica.

[number8]

Silicon Valley and Palo Alto (where they rented the house, and where Facebook HQ is) are in the Bay Area.

[MadMan]

Transamerica.Ah, thanks. That building is really freakin' cool, although I've never been to it. Or San Francisco. Maybe one of these days I'll get out to Cali.

[Barty]

Review from my favorite economic institution. Hits on all the pro-market themes.

http://mises.org/daily/4806

[DavidSeven]

From that review:


There are a few choice lines in the movie. Zuckerberg is outraged at the idea that he had stolen anything. The Winklevoss twins still had their idea; it's just that they didn't do anything with it. And what if Zuckerberg had indeed relied in part on someone else's notion? As Zuckerberg is quoted as saying, does "a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?"

Another way to put it is a line Zuckerberg uses in the depositions after the lawsuit. He tells one of the twins, "if you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook."

. . . .

I have no idea about the real-life details of the case, but it is possible that the film underplays the extent to which Zuckerberg actually did gain valuable influence from the competitive effort to create the Harvard Connection.

OK, I don't share that review's apparent fanboyism for the political undertones of the film, and the rant at the end was unnecessary, but the objective analysis is pretty correct (though it's difficult to parse from the reviewer's subjective commentary). The excerpts above highlight moments where the film really isn't being that neutral on the matter. The film portrays Zuckerberg's failings as being completely about his personality (playing up his need to build a virtual social network because he is socially inept in real life) and not about his activities or decisions as an entrepreneur. The political commentary (conscious or not) may not be central to the film, but it's there. This film is no way aiming to be anti-capitalist and may even be incredibly pro-capitalist in, I'm guessing, an unintended way.

I'd also point out the Bosnia conversation that number8 referenced earlier as further evidence of this.

[Boner M]

Kept thinking of potential business ventures while watching this film. Guess that means Fincher failed.

[B-side]

Still the best part of the film:

zatmdqTYivI

[Spinal]

I thought the scene felt weirdly out of place within the context of the film. I mean, it's kind of fun I suppose, but mostly because of Grieg, not Fincher.

[TripZone]

I thought the scene felt weirdly out of place within the context of the film. I mean, it's kind of fun I suppose, but mostly because of Grieg, not Fincher.

That sequence perfectly illustrates Fincher's background in music videos: a precise, self-contained display of rapid images synchronised to its musical piece.

I particularly like the shots at the tailends of the boats, the rowers leaning into the camera and pushing backwards slightly out of focus, and that of Max Minghella turning away from the failure accompanied by the climax of Grieg's piece -it's perfect.

I don't see how it's out of place, really. The main plot entails Zuckerberg "beating them to the finish line" with Facebook, their loss here ironically another blow. I mean, that's why Max Minghella is featured in the sequence, right? The film is about the male ego, success. It's nice to see that reinforced in "pure cinema" terms, and in relation to the rest of the picture I think it breaks up the constant dialogue back and forth nicely, without actually altering the film's pace.

[Qrazy]

I don't see how it's out of place, really. The main plot entails Zuckerberg "beating them to the finish line" with Facebook, their loss here ironically another blow. I mean, that's why Max Minghella is featured in the sequence, right? The film is about the male ego, success. It's nice to see that reinforced in "pure cinema" terms, and in relation to the rest of the picture I think it breaks up the constant dialogue back and forth nicely, without actually altering the film's pace.

All the more so it is the turning point which pushes them to begin litigation.

[TripZone]

All the more so it is the turning point which pushes them to begin litigation.

Of course.
Even though we could simply have learned of their losing the race in the following scene, it's far more cinematic, dramatic, to witness the actual losing.

[Spinal]

I understand how it fits into the plot. I meant that it was out of tune with the rest of the film stylistically. It exposed just how dreadfully talky the rest of the film was.

And the metaphor is painful, just painful. Especially since Sorkin spends the better part of the following scene making sure we got it.

[Qrazy]

I understand how it fits into the plot. I meant that it was out of tune with the rest of the film stylistically. It exposed just how dreadfully talky the rest of the film was.

And the metaphor is painful, just painful. Especially since Sorkin spends the better part of the following scene making sure we got it.

This part I definitely agree with.

[eternity]

Isn't it a necessary part of every Fincher film to have that one sequence in the middle of the movie that is needlessly but obviously 'cool'? Button had it; Fight Club had it (though it could be argued that Fight Club had many); Social Network had it.

[Qrazy]

Isn't it a necessary part of every Fincher film to have that one sequence in the middle of the movie that is needlessly but obviously 'cool'? Button had it; Fight Club had it (though it could be argued that Fight Club had many); Social Network had it.

Which scenes are you thinking of?

[eternity]

Which scenes are you thinking of?The sequence in Benjamin Button about the series of circumstances that lead to Daisy being hit by a car. is an obvious stand-out in the middle of the film that goes for the wow factor. It's timing with the rowing sequence in The Social Network seems almost congruent.

I seem to remember one in particular in Fight Club, but then again, maybe not, since the entire film is particularly stylistic compared to his other works.

[Boner M]

It's nice to see that reinforced in "pure cinema" terms, and in relation to the rest of the picture I think it breaks up the constant dialogue back and forth nicely, without actually altering the film's pace.
Well put. I think a lot of the film's success is on a 'pure cinema' level; Kent Jones has a nice piece in this month's Sight and Sound that likens the staccato dialogue to reading a flame war. Similarly I think what the film lacks in prosaic insights about the effects of social networking on a broader scale, it makes up for in something less tangible but still powerful, which is appropriating Zuckerberg's frantic POV and letting it play out as a prolonged metaphor for the effects of this new technology on our thought process(es).


And the metaphor is painful, just painful. Especially since Sorkin spends the better part of the following scene making sure we got it.
Isn't the obviousness of the metaphor what makes the twins' loss so funny, though? Sorkin (and Fincher) isn't hammering it home for us so much as for them, I think.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I understand how it fits into the plot. I meant that it was out of tune with the rest of the film stylistically. It exposed just how dreadfully talky the rest of the film was.

And the metaphor is painful, just painful. Especially since Sorkin spends the better part of the following scene making sure we got it.

I was more fascinated by how the use of focus rendered the whole scene plasticine and fake. The whole scene felt to me like Zuckerberg saying, "Awww, look at how quaint and cute this is - they think such things matter."

[Spinal]

The Social Network pure cinema? Either I'm hopelessly out of touch or you guys are way too easily impressed.

[Qrazy]

The Social Network pure cinema? Either I'm hopelessly out of touch or you guys are way too easily impressed.

I vote people stop using the term pure cinema in any capacity.

[baby doll]

I vote people stop using the term pure cinema in any capacity.Indeed!

[eternity]

I was more fascinated by how the use of focus rendered the whole scene plasticine and fake. The whole scene felt to me like Zuckerberg saying, "Awww, look at how quaint and cute this is - they think such things matter."
Tilt-shift photography is always awesome and always will be.

[TripZone]

Isn't the obviousness of the metaphor what makes the twins' loss so funny, though? Sorkin (and Fincher) isn't hammering it home for us so much as for them, I think.
That's how I see it. The scene screams the point for comedy. Neither its briefness or music choice denote depth or reverence of metaphor.


The Social Network pure cinema? Either I'm hopelessly out of touch or you guys are way too easily impressed.
I think The Social Network is anything but "pure cinema". If we take pure cinema to mean that which cannot be the same, have the same effect, in another medium. Generally this means a sublime combination of images and sound/music and no "noise"...namely dialogue. But so much of cinema is defined by this. I always felt pure cinema is mainly felt in cold openings (Rio Bravo, Vertigo, Wild Grass), because there's that initial anticipation of delving in, and dialogue, expositon, mar it somehow. And it's precisely because all of The Social Network is made up of rapid-fire dialogue that this centrepiece becomes a pure cinema of sorts in comparison.

As for complaining about the term itself, I'm sure you're sick of hearing people use it with every new film (as with "masterpiece"), assigning it to just anything, but it's fairly useful a term when used to point out a scene/sequence's particular effect. Thus, I'm not sure I'd label any whole film pure cinema.

[Qrazy]

That's how I see it. The scene screams the point for comedy. Neither its briefness or music choice denote depth or reverence of metaphor.


I think The Social Network is anything but "pure cinema". If we take pure cinema to mean that which cannot be the same, have the same effect, in another medium. Generally this means a sublime combination of images and sound/music and no "noise"...namely dialogue. But so much of cinema is defined by this. I always felt pure cinema is mainly felt in cold openings (Rio Bravo, Vertigo, Wild Grass), because there's that initial anticipation of delving in, and dialogue, expositon, mar it somehow. And it's precisely because all of The Social Network is made up of rapid-fire dialogue that this centrepiece becomes a pure cinema of sorts in comparison.

As for complaining about the term itself, I'm sure you're sick of hearing people use it with every new film (as with "masterpiece"), assigning it to just anything, but it's fairly useful a term when used to point out a scene/sequence's particular effect. Thus, I'm not sure I'd label any whole film pure cinema.

Well really I dislike the term because I think it's an overly general term with absurd ramifications. Better to use another term which expresses the idea of a combination of sound and moving image in the absence of dialogue. The words that combine to form the term 'pure cinema' suggests that this type of cinema is the essence of or the best/absolute form of cinema, which I think is utter nonsense personally.

[TripZone]

Well really I dislike the term because I think it's an overly general term with absurd ramifications. Better to use another term which expresses the idea of a combination of sound and moving image in the absence of dialogue. The words that combine to form the term 'pure cinema' suggests that this type of cinema is the essence of or the best/absolute form of cinema, which I think is utter nonsense personally.

Oh, for sure. I forgot about that definition of the term. It's closer to saying "[film's title] is cinema", as people are wont to do.

[Boner M]

Sorry guys. I just like meaningless buzzterms.

But I do think one of the film's strengths is the film is that it's cinematic against all odds. Even with all the verbal pyrotechnics there's still a great deal of care put into the mise-en-scene and making sure every frame in ripe with visual interest. I have reservations about the content in that the 'lucrativity porn' aspects threatens to overwhelm the character dynamics much of the time, but I immediately want to see the film again to revel in the craft.

[TripZone]

Sorry guys. I just like meaningless buzzterms.

But I do think one of the film's strengths is the film is that it's cinematic against all odds. Even with all the verbal pyrotechnics there's still a great deal of care put into the mise-en-scene and making sure every frame in ripe with visual interest. I have reservations about the content in that the 'lucrativity porn' aspects threatens to overwhelm the character dynamics much of the time, but I immediately want to see the film again to revel in the craft.

I agree with this.

[baby doll]

Well really I dislike the term because I think it's an overly general term with absurd ramifications. Better to use another term which expresses the idea of a combination of sound and moving image in the absence of dialogue. The words that combine to form the term 'pure cinema' suggests that this type of cinema is the essence of or the best/absolute form of cinema, which I think is utter nonsense personally.See, this is what I don't like about the term "pure cinema"--it's biased against words. And considering what a filmmaker like Godard does with onscreen text and offscreen dialogue, I don't know how anyone can contend that words (spoken or written) are somehow uncinematic.

[number8]

I just always saw "pure cinema" as a phrase with no qualifiers or real meaning, just a declaration of superiority, like "true honor" or "slice of fried gold."

[TripZone]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_cinema).


Pure Cinema is the film theory and practice whereby movie makers attempt to create a more emotionally intense experience using autonomous film techniques, as opposed to using stories, characters, or actors.

Unlike nearly all other fare offered via celluloid, pure cinema rejects the link and the character traits of artistic predecessors such as literature or theatre. It declares cinema to be its own independent art form that should not borrow from any other. As such, "pure cinema" is made up of nonstory, noncharacter films that convey abstract emotional experiences through unique cinematic devices such as montage (the Kuleshov Effect), camera movement and camera angles, sound-visual relationships, super-impositions and other optical effects, and visual composition.

So this definition has nothing to do with what you guys thought, and it's closer to what I thought, but for the whole of a film.

[number8]

Then I prefer diluted cinema.

[Qrazy]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_cinema).



So this definition has nothing to do with what you guys thought, and it's closer to what I thought, but for the whole of a film.

I would argue that it does have to do with what we thought because the issue is raised in the phrasing of the term itself. The term 'pure cinema' immediately expresses the notion that non-narrative, abstract films are somehow more pure than some other form of cinema. I suggest the problem is not with what the term denotes but with the term itself.

[Derek]

I would argue that it does have to do with what we thought because the issue is raised in the phrasing of the term itself. The term 'pure cinema' immediately expresses the notion that non-narrative, abstract films are somehow more pure than some other form of cinema. I suggest the problem is not with what the term denotes but with the term itself.

Haven't read the wiki page, but I don't think "pure cinema" necessarily has to abandon narrative and personally, I hate it when people refer to silent films as "more pure" than sound films. I think the term is meant to refer to films that use cinematic techniques not founded in theatrical or literary traditions. The term "pure" is misleading and WAY too often abused and really, calling something "cinematic" essentially gives the same meaning without suggesting that aura of untouchability that pisses some people off. I'm with baby doll in the silliness of "pure cinema" being biased against words - heavy dialogue scenes and films can certainly be shot in a way that is more cinematic rather than simply, to use Spinal's favorite phrase, filmed theater.

[Mysterious Dude]

Is there such a thing as "pure literature" or "pure theater"? If something intended for the stage can easily be reinterpreted for cinema, does it cease to be pure?

[Rowland]

Wild Grass is probably the most "pure cinema" release I've seen this year. It's also still my favorite.

[Derek]

Is there such a thing as "pure literature" or "pure theater"? If something intended for the stage can easily be reinterpreted for cinema, does it cease to be pure?

I've never heard those terms used, but to your second question, I guess I would answer yes, at least in terms of how people talk about "pure" art. Pure literature, if one were to bother using the term, would refer to those books that are impossible to adapt to another format. For example, I'm currently reading JR by William Gaddis, which is 700+ pages consisting almost entirely of dialogue. There is no way it could be made into a film or stage production without losing the essence of what makes it unique and great. A little more difficult with theater, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable about it could help out, but I imagine there are plays written for the stage that wouldn't work as well, or at all, on film.

[Spinal]

I think the issue is that we have an obnoxious, haughty term to refer to something that is a fairly innocuous concept.

[Derek]

I think the issue is that we have an obnoxious, haughty term to refer to something that is a fairly innocuous concept.

Calling something cinematic conveys the same meaning without the pretension, but I don't think it's really that big of a deal either way.

[Boner M]

I suck. :sad:

[Derek]

I suck. :sad:

Nah, I've used the term and I don't see it as anything to get worked up about. You have to watch out for those theater folk though. They take things personally. :)

[TripZone]

I would argue that it does have to do with what we thought because the issue is raised in the phrasing of the term itself. The term 'pure cinema' immediately expresses the notion that non-narrative, abstract films are somehow more pure than some other form of cinema. I suggest the problem is not with what the term denotes but with the term itself.

Well...I've never taken the term with that pretension in tact. I don't know how many have used it intentionally with that bias you understandably reject, but I do see how the term itself carries connotations of a superiority over what is not "pure". As others said, "More cinematic" doesn't fix it either, but it's better.

[DavidSeven]

I thought the crew sequence operated pretty nicely as an intermission of sorts. That effect probably isn't there without the stylistic contrast, so the choice seemed functional in that sense.

And I agree with the bone man that Fincher's craftsmanship is the most impressive aspect of the film. Perhaps his best direction ever considering level of difficulty and what he executed. Not as obviously stylized as his earlier work, but every scene seems to have a palpable cinematic quality to it.

[Boner M]

FWIW, I feel Enter the Void is both the most purely cinematic film of the year and I almost want to see it again, although I actively dislike it overall. Conversely I also think Inception is one of the best films of the year, though I felt perfectly fine waiting for DVD for a second viewing. So it's not like I'm putting formally 'purer' films on an automatic pedestal, if it seems like I am/did.

[Qrazy]

FWIW, I feel Enter the Void is both the most purely cinematic film of the year and I almost want to see it again, although I actively dislike it overall. Conversely I also think Inception is one of the best films of the year, though I felt perfectly fine waiting for DVD for a second viewing. So it's not like I'm putting formally 'purer' films on an automatic pedestal, if it seems like I am/did.

Fair, but no need for either of you guys to defend yourselves. I think many of us are just taking exception to the term itself, not how you and Tripzone meant it here and Trip also used the term first.

[TripZone]

I think I used the term well enough to make a point.

Let's move on.

[Qrazy]

I think I used the term well enough to make a point.

Let's move on.

I said don't defend yourself!

*smack*

[Boner M]

Saw this again, liked it more this time - partly because I realised that on first viewing I'd made a bathroom break during the pivotal second meeting between Erica and Mark. :eek:

[ledfloyd]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/

one of the better pieces i've read on the film and the problem? of facebook. by novelist zadie smith.

[Sxottlan]

If other directors did The Social Network. (http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/11/if-other-directors-made-the-social-network/#comments-wrap)

It's cute.

[eternity]

If other directors did The Social Network. (http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/11/if-other-directors-made-the-social-network/#comments-wrap)

It's cute.
The Wes Anderson one is the only one that actually works, and the Capra one is funny too.

[number8]

I hate it when people try to emulate a director's work and all they do is parody one specific film.

[Henry Gale]

UIP3xKsTt2Q

[TripZone]

But how do they doooo iiiit?

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was.... dull. It was limp. It was a really shallow experience. Every time I thought the film was poised to make a significant comment on privacy or capitalism or compulsive behavior or monetary wealth vs. moral wealth, it pulled back, instead choosing to move on to the next slick, polished monologue that glorified rather than vilified. And frankly, the story wasn't all that interesting to begin with. I'm walking away from this one scratching my head. I'm stunned that it has received this much praise. Just stunned. It's not a bad film, but it certainly isn't a good one either. I doubt I'll remember much of anything about it tomorrow morning.

[Mysterious Dude]

I like the "two of me" line, but it's soured by the reference to The Sopranos. Did they just throw that in there because it was a TV show that happened to be on the air at the time? Don't the characters know that the Sopranos are fictional, and that you can't hire them to beat someone up? It would have been much less distracting if he had just said "the mafia."

[Spinal]

This was.... dull. It was limp. It was a really shallow experience. Every time I thought the film was poised to make a significant comment on privacy or capitalism or compulsive behavior or monetary wealth vs. moral wealth, it pulled back, instead choosing to move on to the next slick, polished monologue that glorified rather than vilified. And frankly, the story wasn't all that interesting to begin with. I'm walking away from this one scratching my head. I'm stunned that it has received this much praise. Just stunned. It's not a bad film, but it certainly isn't a good one either. I doubt I'll remember much of anything about it tomorrow morning.

You are my hero.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You are my hero.

Glad someone felt the same. I saw from the 2010 Consensus thread that you and a couple others also "nay"-ed it, but I tried to avoid this thread until I saw it once the unanimous praise started to roll in.

[Kurosawa Fan]

By the way, I think my favorite part was when Zuckerberg checked Eduardo's lawyer's math when she was adding 18,000 plus 1,000. That got a pretty big laugh out of me.

[Raiders]

What was the cut-off date for liking this film?

[Spinal]

I saw it in the first week of release.

[baby doll]

What was the cut-off date for liking this film?Before it started winning every award in sight?

[Melville]

Before it started winning every award in sight?
I don't know about elsewhere, but the people on this site who have disliked it don't seem the type to care about awards or critical consensus. I certainly don't.

[Raiders]

I'm hoping that it was understood I was being facetious.

[Melville]

I'm hoping that it was understood I was being facetious.
...I'm going to pretend I understood it perfectly.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I know Raiders was being facetious (although, I may have needed him to clear it up for me had I read the initial comment on its own) but in my defense, I had very high expectations for this and was extremely excited by every trailer I saw. I was fully prepared for this to be near the top of my own year-end list. This was a HUGE disappointment for me.

[Spinal]

What if he was being facetious about being facetious?

qykzFSF0q14

[Kurosawa Fan]

What if he was being facetious about being facetious?

qykzFSF0q14

Wrong thread. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1869)

[Spinal]

It took me about half a minute to get that joke. But once I did, it was worth it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It took me about half a minute to get that joke. But once I did, it was worth it.

:lol:

Yeah, I almost didn't post it for that very reason.

[Skitch]

While I enjoyed this and found it to be one of the better films of the year...I don't think its award worthy. Not for any big ones anyway. More of a reflection on the year, I suppose.

[Melville]

Extended versions of my thoughts from the consensus thread, now with more rambling and repetition for your reading satisfaction: expertly constructed but pretty dull. The style was definitely extremely polished (slightly too polished for my liking—polished until you can barely see what's beneath the sheen) and it imbued every event with extreme dramatic importance, but those events never seemed worthy of the import, and the characters were barely there, good performances aside. Every little thing was emphatically made dramatic or clever (in a sometimes annoying way—e.g. '22000'), but the overall arc was never made compelling. It's like it tried to make a very boring story (boring for someone who doesn't care about facebook or its invention, at least) dramatic just by throwing dramatic style at it and inserting some 'human interest' elements into it. But those elements—primarily Zuckerberg's obsession with the fraternities and his lingering Rosebudian infatuation with the girl—were only half-developed and only vaguely related to the subject of facebook (and fictitious, according to Qrazy), and all the drama seemed silly considering how innocuous the events were. All of this is what I had expected when I first heard about the movie, but it got enough praise on here for me to think I might like it more.

[Qrazy]

Extended versions of my thoughts from the consensus thread, now with more rambling and repetition for your reading satisfaction: expertly constructed but pretty dull. The style was definitely extremely polished (slightly too polished for my liking—polished until you can barely see what's beneath the sheen) and it imbued every event with extreme dramatic importance, but those events never seemed worthy of the import, and the characters were barely there, good performances aside. Every little thing was emphatically made dramatic or clever (in a sometimes annoying way—e.g. '22000'), but the overall arc was never made compelling. It's like it tried to make a very boring story (boring for someone who doesn't care about facebook or its invention, at least) dramatic just by throwing dramatic style at it and inserting some 'human interest' elements into it. But those elements—primarily Zuckerberg's obsession with the fraternities and his lingering Rosebudian infatuation with the girl—were only half-developed and only vaguely related to the subject of facebook (and fictitious, according to Qrazy), and all the drama seemed silly considering how innocuous the events were. All of this is what I had expected when I first heard about the movie, but it got enough praise on here for me to think I might like it more.

Should've just listened to me. :P :lol:

But yeah I agree with all of the above.

[Ezee E]

I like the "two of me" line, but it's soured by the reference to The Sopranos. Did they just throw that in there because it was a TV show that happened to be on the air at the time? Don't the characters know that the Sopranos are fictional, and that you can't hire them to beat someone up? It would have been much less distracting if he had just said "the mafia."
Meh. People use fictional people in reference all the time.

[Bosco B Thug]

The style was definitely extremely polished (slightly too polished for my liking—polished until you can barely see what's beneath the sheen) I actually agree with this. Really really, not just trying to be fashionably moderate. What with the techno score pounding away beneath so much of it and large chunks of the film playing out over way-too-sharpened shot-reverse shots just rolling with the machine gun dialogue, I thought to myself, "Where's the out-of-the-box thinking of Zodiac and Fight Club?"

But Fincher on autopilot is still good enough, though.


and all the drama seemed silly considering how innocuous the events were The innocuousness of everything is a major part of the film's commentary. Doesn't fix the dullness, I guess, but I'm gonna start throwing out the idea that Sorkin's script is a bit underrated round here.

[DavidSeven]

I like what Sorkin did structurally and his zingers were fine, but it's still a bit of shallow writing, isn't it? This is a film, well-made as it is, that seemed to compromise political/moral acuity in favor of dramatic effect at every single turn. The writing is full of politically dubious content, missed opportunities, and borderline sexism. Sorkin wrote a nice yarn, but this isn't a script for the ages (as it's poised to go down as now).

[Watashi]

I like what Sorkin did structurally and his zingers were fine, but it's still a bit of shallow writing, isn't it? This is a film, well-made as it is, that seemed to compromise political/moral acuity in favor of dramatic effect at every single turn. The writing is full of politically dubious content, missed opportunities, and borderline sexism. Sorkin wrote a nice yarn, but this isn't a script for the ages (as it's poised to go down as now).
If you were the writer of The Social Network, you'd have written The Social Network.

[DavidSeven]

If you were the writer of The Social Network, you'd have wrote The Social Network.

I would have written that line with a lot more irony and much less earnestness; that's for damn sure.

[Derek]

If you were the writer of The Social Network, you'd have wrote The Social Network.

He would also have a grasp of the past perfect tense, particularly in his jokes and insults. ;)

[Bosco B Thug]

I like what Sorkin did structurally and his zingers were fine, but it's still a bit of shallow writing, isn't it? This is a film, well-made as it is, that seemed to compromise political/moral acuity in favor of dramatic effect at every single turn. The writing is full of politically dubious content, missed opportunities, and borderline sexism. Sorkin wrote a nice yarn, but this isn't a script for the ages (as it's poised to go down as now).
I would have written that line with a lot more irony and much less earnestness; that's for damn sure. I don't see what's so not ironic about that line. I've said enough on it probably, but I think the film deserves more benefit of the doubt about its motives than it's getting.

Everyone's convinced the film's an unblinking plaudit to Zuckerberg, then everyone else is convinced it's a questionable image smearing; half want it to applaud technological achievement, the other half to expose the petty nature of the Facebook story - what they seek ends up what they see (or don't see), and I don't agree that the film deserves such unequivocalness about its supposed unequivocalness. Apparently its snappiness becomes it.

[Melville]

Should've just listened to me. :P :lol:
That doesn't sound like something I'd do. :P


The innocuousness of everything is a major part of the film's commentary. Doesn't fix the dullness, I guess, but I'm gonna start throwing out the idea that Sorkin's script is a bit underrated round here.
Then why make everything seem so important? Why treat things like the creation of facemash and crashing of the university's network as such momentous events, while playing things like the paranoid girlfriend for comedy? I can sort of see how the ending turns everything around, like all the drama and betrayal and Zuckerberg's general compulsion to 'win' has been a veneer over what's been festering inside it the whole time: his obsession with the girl who left him. But that aspect seems buried under the glossy drama, rather than immanent in it.

EDIT: I don't think the movie's an unblinking plaudit or a questionable smear.

[Bosco B Thug]

Why treat things like the creation of facemash and crashing of the university's network as such momentous events...? Is it treated like that? A flashy (or boisterous) montage sequence with Trent Reznor's electronic-age (cool, but perhaps essentially in a transparent, ironic way?) surging beneath it means we won't see through it, and just see the hurt nerd working programming magic?

Or maybe I should've asked, isn't it a momentous event? Both in that it's something to be in awe at and it's the basis of the entire story.

[DavidSeven]

Everyone's convinced the film's an unblinking plaudit to Zuckerberg, then everyone else is convinced it's a questionable image smearing;

My problem is that it's precisely neither of these things. It's placed murkily somewhere in the middle, trying to have its cake and eat it too. More concerned with being a crowd pleaser than having anything distinctive or specific to say.

[Bosco B Thug]

My problem is that it's precisely neither of these things. It's placed murkily somewhere in the middle, trying to have its cake and eat it too. More concerned with being a crowd pleaser than having anything distinctive or specific to say. That seems the best way to go about it.

But then I guess it also has to go in context with all the other places you think the film failed and I think the film succeeded.

[Melville]

Is it treated like that? A flashy (or boisterous) montage sequence with Trent Reznor's electronic-age (cool, but perhaps essentially in a transparent, ironic way?) surging beneath it means we won't see through it, and just see the hurt nerd working programming magic?
The hurt nerd is right there up front; I don't think there's any danger of missing him or his hurt. But that doesn't negate the import lent to his creation via the flashy montage and music. However, I didn't see the transparent irony, so maybe I was just completely out of tune with the movie.


Or maybe I should've asked, isn't it a momentous event? Both in that it's something to be in awe at and it's the basis of the entire story.
Doesn't seem momentous or awe-inspiring to me. The digital judging of people's appearance seems a pretty trivial thing, as does the revenge-inspired creation of the apparatus to do so and its immediate popularity. Also, doesn't this contradict the ironic interpretation of the scene?

[DavidSeven]

That seems the best way to go about it.

But then I guess it also has to go in context with all the other places you think the film failed and I think the film succeeded.

Well, I do think the film succeeded narratively and in terms of technical accomplishment. I just think it's kind of shallow. Better made than almost everything that comes out of the studio machine, but the film of our times? Come on. That's where I diverge from consensus.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know how you guys could get the idea that the film is in any way appreciative of Zuckerberg - he's painted, pretty clearly, as a "pretentious douche-bag" the entire way through the film, and if there is any sympathy given toward his end of the story, it's in a pitiable, Daniel Plainview/C.F. Kane sort of light rather than anything empathic.

[DavidSeven]

I don't know how you guys could get the idea that the film is in any way appreciative of Zuckerberg - he's painted, pretty clearly, as a "pretentious douche-bag" the entire way through the film, and if there is any sympathy given toward his end of the story, it's in a pitiable, Daniel Plainview/C.F. Kane sort of light rather than anything empathic.

Already wrote extensively of how the portrayal of Zuckerberg doesn't even come close to being similar to the portrayal of those exact two characters. He's painted as a socially awkward jerk, yes. But also sharp witted, brilliant jerk with human vulnerabilities who is on the verge of creating the most "significant" piece of social technology of our time. Protecting it from the villainous Neanderthals who would steal it from him. No where near as singularly monstrous as Plainview or as distant and unknowable as Kane.

[Qrazy]

Well, I do think the film succeeded narratively and in terms of technical accomplishment. I just think it's kind of shallow. Better made than almost everything that comes out of the studio machine, but the film of our times? Come on. That's where I diverge from consensus.

For sure. The film is chock full of many superficial (perhaps transiently enjoyable to a point) but ultimately cliche moments... such as getting a cheap laugh when Eduardo goes to fake punch Parker, demonstrating Zuckerberg's supposed brilliance when he answers a difficult question off the cuff while leaving the classroom, turning Eduardo's girlfriend into a horror film character, etc. People are exclaiming 'Wow they managed to make a film about the creation of facebook interesting!' Maybe there's just a fundamental disconnect between myself and people who are in awe of and enthusiastic about how many hits a new site got (re: the line in the film to that effect). I could post an arthouse labor love or I could post a video of my new kitten and it wouldn't take much to guess which video would receive more attention. The ability to generate interest seems to have become it's own end. Doesn't it matter at all what we're paying attention to?

[Qrazy]

Already wrote extensively of how the portrayal of Zuckerberg doesn't even come close to being similar to the portrayal of those exact two characters. He's painted as a socially awkward jerk, yes. But also sharp witted, brilliant jerk with human vulnerabilities who is on the verge of creating the most "significant" piece of social technology of our time. Protecting it from the villainous Neanderthals who would steal it from him. No where near as singularly monstrous as Plainview or as distant and unknowable as Kane.

I somewhat agree with the bolded but not the sentence following. I think the twins are shown in a fairly positive light and that if we were to say have a scale of moral integrity for the film's characters it would go something like... from best to worst.

1. Eduardo
2. Twins
3. Zuckerberg
4. Parker

[DavidSeven]

I somewhat agree with the bolded but not the sentence following. I think the twins are shown in a fairly positive light and that if we were to say have a scale of moral integrity for the film's characters it would go something like... from best to worst.

1. Eduardo
2. Twins
3. Zuckerberg
4. Parker

I agree they’re not really painted as moral villains, but there’s a feeling constructed in the film that they didn’t deserve much by virtue of being less saavy, less intelligent than Zuckerberg. In that sense, I think it’s less flattering. And I do wonder if your own knowledge of the real facts makes you more sympathetic to them as characters here. It does for me.

[BuffaloWilder]

Already wrote extensively of how the portrayal of Zuckerberg doesn't even come close to being similar to the portrayal of those exact two characters. He's painted as a socially awkward jerk, yes. But also sharp witted, brilliant jerk with human vulnerabilities who is on the verge of creating the most "significant" piece of social technology of our time. Protecting it from the villainous Neanderthals who would steal it from him. No where near as singularly monstrous as Plainview or as distant and unknowable as Kane.

Well, I don't know if I'd say any of the other characters in the film were - villainous, like at all. What movie did you even watch?

[BuffaloWilder]

I agree they’re not really painted as moral villains, but there’s a feeling constructed in the film that they didn’t deserve much by virtue of being less saavy, less intelligent than Zuckerberg. In that sense, I think it’s less flattering. And I do wonder if your own knowledge of the real facts makes you more sympathetic to them as characters here. It does for me.

I didn't get this feeling at all - they're basically all being had and manipulated by Zuckerberg, and I don't know how that makes them in any way villainous.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Qrazy, you really thought the Twins were painted in a positive light? I mean, I'm not sure anyone outside of Eduardo was painted "positively," so it's not as though they were any more slimy than Zuckerberg or Parker, but I certainly didn't find much "positive" about their character or behavior. They were smarmy, entitled douche bags.

[DavidSeven]

Well, I don't know if I'd say any of the other characters in the film were - villainous, like at all. What movie did you even watch?

The one called The Social Network. I just paid attention.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled by the idea that you could think the Winklevoss twins were shown in a good light.

[DavidSeven]

Seriously, there's more to antagonism than bad motives and twirly mustaches. "The Winklevii" are portrayed as a joke in this film. Never mind that the real twins actually spent years developing their site and went through two coders working full time before handing the project over to Zuckerberg. Never mind that Zuckerberg said in a disclosed AIM chat that he was going to "fuck them." Never mind that Zuckerberg stole their "campus by campus" roll out and "exclusivity" model. If you think most people are going to walk away from the film viewing the twins as exploited and manipulated rather than "entitled and douchey" as KF would put it, then I simply and respectfully disagree. Zuckerberg is portrayed as a wunderkind and an intellectual hero by comparison.

[Winston*]

I thought it was interesting how the real twins viewed their portrayal in the movie.

ugI_gRR6rB8

[DavidSeven]

Definitely think it's in their interest to promote the film and "spin" it the way they want. Especially if they're still in litigation. Saverin already got his payday and got portrayed heroically and Zuckerberg is a bazillionaire and just got immortalized as the digital genius of our time. No reason for either of them to stay involved and talk up their side.

[Qrazy]

I agree they’re not really painted as moral villains, but there’s a feeling constructed in the film that they didn’t deserve much by virtue of being less saavy, less intelligent than Zuckerberg. In that sense, I think it’s less flattering. And I do wonder if your own knowledge of the real facts makes you more sympathetic to them as characters here. It does for me.

Well just speaking for myselves my knowledge of the real facts makes me less sympathetic to them because I think they're dicks in real life. They've chosen to sue Mark again to get even more money even though they're filthy rich anyway! The film makes me more sympathetic to them.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy, you really thought the Twins were painted in a positive light? I mean, I'm not sure anyone outside of Eduardo was painted "positively," so it's not as though they were any more slimy than Zuckerberg or Parker, but I certainly didn't find much "positive" about their character or behavior. They were smarmy, entitled douche bags.

They weren't painted as positive per se I just think they were painted as more positive than Zuckerberg was personally.

[Melville]

They weren't painted as positive per se I just think they were painted as more positive than Zuckerberg was personally.
Agreed. They were portrayed as basically affable, honorable buffoons, even if smarmy ones who feel entitled, while Zuckerberg was portrayed as conniving, spiteful, egomaniacal, and possessed by a raging inferiority complex, even if he was also portrayed as smarter than everybody around him. If Zuckerberg comes off as more sympathetic, I think it's largely because he's not a caricature, while the Winklevoss twins are.

[Kurosawa Fan]

They weren't painted as positive per se I just think they were painted as more positive than Zuckerberg was personally.

Ah. Okay, I can see that. Not sure I agree, but that's more reasonable than asserting that they were shown in a positive manner. I was thrown by your "the twins were shown in a fairly positive light" comment.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled by the idea that you could think the Winklevoss twins were shown in a good light.

They are shown as obviously being 'betrayed' by Mark and then waiting a long time to take legal action against him because of their 'code' and after having tried every other option available to them. Sure they're portrayed as upper crust smarm in the way they carry themselves but their actions are portrayed in the film as fairly legitimate.

[Qrazy]

Seriously, there's more to antagonism than bad motives and twirly mustaches. "The Winklevii" are portrayed as a joke in this film. Never mind that the real twins actually spent years developing their site and went through two coders working full time before handing the project over to Zuckerberg. Never mind that Zuckerberg said in a disclosed AIM chat that he was going to "fuck them." Never mind that Zuckerberg stole their "campus by campus" roll out and "exclusivity" model. If you think most people are going to walk away from the film viewing the twins as exploited and manipulated rather than "entitled and douchey" as KF would put it, then I simply and respectfully disagree. Zuckerberg is portrayed as a wunderkind and an intellectual hero by comparison.

They were making an exclusive myspace. Big woop. They are entitled douchebags.

[Qrazy]

Ah. Okay, I can see that. Not sure I agree, but that's more reasonable than asserting that they were shown in a positive manner. I was thrown by your "the twins were shown in a fairly positive light" comment.

In relation to how I perceive them in real life also.

[DavidSeven]

They were making an exclusive myspace. Big woop. They are entitled douchebags.

This is the portrayal in the film. Maybe it's true in real life, too. But it's definitely the portrayal in the film, and I don't think many people were feeling sorry for them at any point. People were saying exactly what you just posted. I don't think the twins were ever perceived as being on higher ground than Zuck.

Also, Facebook didn't have its genesis as a exclusive Myspace? You think it was more?

[Qrazy]

This is the portrayal in the film. Maybe it's true in real life, too. But it's definitely the portrayal in the film, and I don't think many people were feeling sorry for them at any point. People were saying exactly what you just posted. I don't think the twins were ever perceived as being on higher ground than Zuck.

Also, Facebook didn't have its genesis as a exclusive Myspace? You think it was more?

No I don't think it was more. I think it's the same thing. All I'm saying is if he didn't steal the code and he didn't steal the design layout than all he took was a) the idea of an exclusive myspace (except not really because there site was more of a dating website) and b) misled them while working for them. I just don't see that either of those things entitles them to the amount they've got or the amount they're still suing for.

Can't say I agree that that's the portrayal in the film. They are as Melville and I have described... "They were portrayed as basically affable, honorable buffoons, even if smarmy ones who feel entitled".

Anyway who cares. We both didn't like the film much, why not unite under that tree instead.

[DavidSeven]

Also, the "code" you speak of was their "Gentlemen of Harvard" code -- a result of desire to uphold their laughable nobility, not their personal morals.

Edit: And not saying these guys were outright villains. But I challenge the notion that anyone thought they came out looking like the "good guys" of the film and Zuckerberg the outright villain.

[Qrazy]

Also, the "code" you speak of was their "Gentlemen of Harvard" code -- a result of desire to uphold their laughable nobility, not their personal morals.

Um what? If you choose to uphold any code of honor that reflects your personal morality.

[DavidSeven]

Um what? If you choose to uphold any code of honor that reflects your personal morality.

Even if its based on elitism? Or a code of radical religion? Gotta disagree with you there. Sorry.

[Qrazy]

Also, the "code" you speak of was their "Gentlemen of Harvard" code -- a result of desire to uphold their laughable nobility, not their personal morals.

Edit: And not saying these guys were outright villains. But I challenge the notion that anyone thought they came out looking like the "good guys" of the film and Zuckerberg the villain.

Zuckerberg betrayed his 'best friend'. They were betrayed by him also. Personally everything in the film to me suggests that they are less worthy of disdain than Zuckerberg.

[Qrazy]

Even if its based on elitism? Gotta disagree with you there. Sorry.

Not sure we're on the same page as to what personal morality means. Personal morality means whatever it is they believe in which guides their behavior. They believe in and uphold a code, this is reflective of their personal beliefs. It's not really up for debate.

Maybe you're saying that you don't agree with the moral implications of that code?

[DavidSeven]

They say something to the effect of "we're not going to sue him ... because we're Gentlemen of Harvard." The latter part of that statement is loaded with elitism and selfish concern for how they're perceived. I'm not seeing the great morality or honorableness in upholding that code. Just a touch of douchiness.