The Social Network (Fincher, 2010)

[DavidSeven]

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?

Of course I mean that (second thing). That's what we've been talking about this whole time, isn't it? No one said these guys were robotically devoid of morality. I'm simply stating their decision to honor that code wasn't so moral in the doing good vs. doing bad sense, but more out of a concern for how they wanted to be perceived by others.

[Qrazy]

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.

Well I don't think anyone said either of these things, particularly because eventually they cave and sue him. We said they are portrayed as honorable to some degree and I would stand by that because in the film they contract Mark in good faith and then when they discover they're betrayed they only gradually take negative action and they do so in fairly legitimate ways. They don't beat him up. They try going to their dean. They're repeatedly rebuffed and eventually they end up suing him. And tangentially in regards to not suing someone I would probably argue that in the majority of cases one should not sue.

[Qrazy]

Of course I mean that (second thing). That's what we've been talking about this whole time, isn't it? No one said these guys were robotically devoid of morality. I'm simply stating their decision to honor that code wasn't so moral in the doing good vs. doing bad sense, but more out of a concern for how they wanted to be perceived by others.

Meh I think it's probably both. Anyway much of morality has to do with how one is perceived and how it makes the doer feel. The fact is that in the film they didn't sue him initially or kick his ass or ruin his life and there is some honor in that after having just been wronged by him.

[DavidSeven]

Anyway much of morality has to do with how one is perceived and how it makes the doer feel.

That is if you presume actions resulting from such selfish feelings are indeed moral. I've read it argued both ways. But that's for a different thread (maybe a different forum), and I don't even think we're far apart on this film, or even those characters, so no use getting into the nitty gritty.

[Melville]

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.
I don't see how the 'Gentlemen of Harvard' line implies that they're only concerned with how they're perceived. Thinking that one's social role requires certain behavior doesn't imply that one is only (or at all) concerned with how one is perceived.

[DavidSeven]

I don't see how the 'Gentlemen of Harvard' line implies that they're only concerned with how they're perceived. Thinking that one's social role requires certain behavior doesn't imply that one is only (or at all) concerned with how one is perceived.

I just think it comes across as douchey because "Gentlemen of Harvard" is a pretty loaded phrase. Nothing more to it than that. If other people perceive it differently, then that's fair.

[DavidSeven]

I mean, I guess the way I hear that line is "we don't sue because we're more sophisticated than the plebeians." I think it's fair to interpret that line as showing a concern for maintaining their status in these elitist hierarchies by maintaining how they are perceived within them. But I concede I could be adding a lot more to that reading than others would.

[Melville]

I mean, I guess the way I hear that line is "we don't sue because we're more sophisticated than the plebeians." I think it's fair to interpret that line as showing a concern for maintaining their status in these elitist hierarchies by maintaining how they are perceived within them.
I took it to mean that the Winklevoss thinks that as members of the elite they should, as a matter of principle, act according to the code of honor/dignity of the elite. (That might be because my anti-consequentialist bias makes me immediately assume that others aren't concerned with consequences when they discuss oughts.) I guess either inference is really beyond what the movie gives us, since the characters are not developed with any depth.

[Kurosawa Fan]

They do profess a desire to beat him up, and then slip to the president of the university that one of them chased Zuckerberg across the campus, giving the impression that had they caught him some sort of assault was likely to ensue. So, in the mind of the Winklevoss brothers, it could be said that physically harming someone is more acceptable than filing a lawsuit. That's fairly morally dubious, at least in my mind.

[DavidSeven]

I took it to mean that the Winklevoss thinks that as members of the elite they should act according to the code of honor/dignity of the elite. (That might be because my anti-consequentialist bias makes me immediately assume that others aren't concerned with consequences when they discuss oughts.) I guess either inference is really beyond what the movie gives us, since the characters are not developed with any depth.

Well, I consider myself anti-consequentialist (or pro in a sense?) in the sense that I think a lot of behavior is driven by self-interested concerns, like self-preservation and what not, as opposed to a desire to create generally good consequences for society. So, I guess that would partially explain my thinking on that. But yeah, we're definitely talking at a level higher than that line, or those characters, warrant.

[Melville]

Well, I consider myself anti-consequentialist (or pro in a sense?) in the sense that I think a lot of behavior is driven by self-interested concerns, like self-preservation and what not, as opposed to a desire to create generally good consequences for society. So, I guess that would partially explain my thinking on that. But yeah, we're definitely talking at a level higher than that line, or those characters, warrant.
Ah, I'm anti-consequentialist in the sense that I'm violently opposed to the idea that the consequences of an action determine its morality. I do agree that many actions are amoral, primarily driven by desires (not necessarily self-interested desires, but just desires that don't take morality into account at all), but I also think that moral codes can be immensely strong influences on behavior, independent of their consequences.

Movies about ethics > The Social Network

[DavidSeven]

Ah, I'm anti-consequentialist in the sense that I'm violently opposed to the idea that the consequences of an action determine its morality.

Yes, I think our outlooks are pretty similar in this regard. I also agree with the last line of your post (though I still like the film a lot at a superficial level, to be clear).

[Bosco B Thug]

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. That's my point, actually: what we're seeing is right there - the hurt nerd, in all its non-import. Thus, the import you say Fincher's approach imposes takes on an automatic irony.


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? Awe-inspiring in that he's really good at programming. Momentous as in literally. I mean, why deny it its momentousness? It's the basis of the film. I guess Fincher could have not made it a cool, flashy montage, but then we're back to disagreeing whether his approach is egregious and empty, or ironic and boisterously aware.


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. And this is why it's a good film.

I wouldn't disagree perhaps that Fincher and Sorkin fail to make it resonate, or to dampen the "coolness" and snappiness in order to compensate for a story that's never driven by sentiment or sensitivity, but I think this would be another case of judging a film for what's not there rather than what is, and what is there I think resonates more than it doesn't.

To disclaim, though, I don't think the film is some profound masterpiece. It's a technically snazzy - and layered - above average movie.


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. I can give or take these moments, and I'm not disagreeing you or saying you're doing the following, but I think these are hardly things with which to damn the movie. Why is portraying the moment in which Parker cringes from a inflamed Eduardo necessarily cheap? If it provokes simple-minded snickers from the audience, then that's the audience's fault. Why can't Eduardo's girlfriend be a harpy? Why is a cliche like Zuckerberg knowing an answer to a question so improbable as to be worthlessly contrived? These moments aren't brilliant in invention, but in my feeling the film has a lot on its mind, they're fine by me, so much as they do speak of the characters, inform the situations they are involved in, and don't box the film into simplicities.

It's seeming to me that the film's snappiness reputation is preceding it. I won't say that's off base, because the film is effortfully, transparently snappy, but I just disagree that it runs the film into complete superficiality.


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. And simultaneously unfulfilled, stunted by his being those things. As all the other guys in the film are portrayed. Good at some things, digging holes for themselves in others.

The film sticks to its guns and aims to neither please everyone, nor please a certain one. This isn't a lack of acuity, or lack of moral stance, but an undiscriminating, considerate portrayal of a story.

[transmogrifier]

One of the things I like about the film is that there is no clear good guy or bad guy, but simply a very human mix of contradictory emotion fueled by self-image.

But I was right earlier to doubt just how much could be done with the story of Facebook. Fincher did his best, and it is an easy watch, but there is not much there.

[Qrazy]

I can give or take these moments, and I'm not disagreeing you or saying you're doing the following, but I think these are hardly things with which to damn the movie. Why is portraying the moment in which Parker cringes from a inflamed Eduardo necessarily cheap? If it provokes simple-minded snickers from the audience, then that's the audience's fault. Why can't Eduardo's girlfriend be a harpy? Why is a cliche like Zuckerberg knowing an answer to a question so improbable as to be worthlessly contrived? These moments aren't brilliant in invention, but in my feeling the film has a lot on its mind, they're fine by me, so much as they do speak of the characters, inform the situations they are involved in, and don't box the film into simplicities.


Because all those moments and many others turn the characters into stereotypes rather than fleshed out individuals. Parker is reduced to the egomaniacal sniveling coward. The girlfriend becomes a figure from a horror film (given the way the scene is played when she answers the door and sets the bed on fire). And moments like Zuckerberg answering the question are about as complex and thoughtful as a protagonist rapidly solving a rubik's cube. Whether he knows the answer is not the issue, it's the way in which this scene is expressed that's worthlessly contrived.

1. Authority figure doubts his capabilities/intelligence.
2. He must prove them wrong while simultaneously eschewing the system (answering question while leaving classroom).

Anyway those above types of scenes litter the film I just gave a few examples rather than compile a laundry list because I don't have the energy to do so.

[Bosco B Thug]

Because all those moments and many others turn the characters into stereotypes rather than fleshed out individuals. Parker is reduced to the egomaniacal sniveling coward. The girlfriend becomes a figure from a horror film (given the way the scene is played when she answers the door and sets the bed on fire). I see where you're coming from, but thought I'd throw in my .02 for the record, that these moments don't necessarily have to be seen in this way. They're perfectly reasonable plot elements to me, and if any reduction is happening, it's from viewers knee-jerking to the chosen tone of the film, which I find objective and proliferate where you find flippant and superficial. Same goes for the film in its whole, apparently.

[Qrazy]

I see where you're coming from, but thought I'd throw in my .02 for the record, that these moments don't necessarily have to be seen in this way. They're perfectly reasonable plot elements to me, and if any reduction is happening, it's from viewers knee-jerking to the chosen tone of the film, which I find objective and proliferate where you find flippant and superficial. Same goes for the film in its whole, apparently.

Meh. I just think it's bad writing personally but fair enough.

[Ezee E]

A very different type of DVD cover. I like it a lot.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/the-social-network-blu-ray.jpg

[DavidSeven]

A very different type of DVD cover. I like it a lot.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/the-social-network-blu-ray.jpg

Link doesn't seem to work.

[DavidSeven]

Is it this?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81DYS5SQ4LL._AA1500_.jpg

I think it's interesting that Aaron Sorkin is getting billed over Fincher. Can't remember something like that happening before.

[eternity]

Why is a two-disc collector's edition covered in quotes?

[Ezee E]

Yeah, that one.

The screenplay is maybe the most notable screenplay that I can think of in several years. Maybe the decade?

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, that one.

The screenplay is maybe the most notable screenplay that I can think of in several years. Maybe the decade?

Must be since Fincher isn't exactly a no-name studio cog or a first timer. It's a shame since most of what's good about the movie is what he contributed to it.

[Ezee E]

Must be since Fincher isn't exactly a no-name studio cog or a first timer. It's a shame since most of what's good about the movie is what he contributed to it.
Sure, you may think it's all about Fincher, and I won't completely disagree with you, but the movie is being lauded for its dialog. Can't deny that.

[[ETM]]

Why is a two-disc collector's edition covered in quotes?

Looks like Facebook wall posts.

[TripZone]

;310807']Looks like Facebook wall posts.

It doesn't, but that would have been better.

[eternity]

If you've ever looked on a movie poster, the writer always comes before the director. I think you guys are reading too much into the ordering here.

[DavidSeven]

If you've ever looked on a movie poster, the writer always comes before the director. I think you guys are reading too much into the ordering here.

You're going to have to show me an example outside of a standard credit block at the bottom of some posters. There's a ton of text there, so it makes sense for the director's name to be last in that instance.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I downloaded the soundtrack two days ago. Sounds like the album Ghosts I-IV wanted to be. Great stuff standalone.

[baby doll]

The screenplay is maybe the most notable screenplay that I can think of in several years. Maybe the decade?I wonder if--in the same way that the most acting is often confused with best acting (for instance, Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest versus his less show-offy roles in Chinatown and The Passenger)--we're not doing the same thing with writing in regards to this film and Inception, which it could be argued are both over-written in different ways.

With the latter, Nolan uses the heist movie genre as a sturdy framework for what is, essentially, a series of stories within stories. But the execution is so clunky and mechanical that the experience of watching the movie often resembles the discussions it tends to inspire afterward, with a bunch of people attempting to explain the plot while laboring valiantly to keep a straight face because it's just so fucking deep and meaningful.

In the case of The Social Network, Sorkin's verbal pyrotechnics function in much the same way as Fincher's rapid editing and Trent Reznor's music, artificially jacking up the energy of every single sequence. Mike Leigh does the same thing in some of his films, like Happy-Go-Lucky (particularly, the scenes with Eddie Marsan's deranged driving instructor), but I find that Leigh is better at this sort of thing, (a) because not every single character talks like David Thewlis in Naked, and not all the time, and (b) in a Leigh film, there's always something left unsaid (the driving instructor's sexual attraction to the heroine, for instance), while with Sorkin's dialogue, my impression after only one viewing is that there's less here than meets the ear.

[number8]

I love that cover. I hope it's not going to have the blue Blu-ray strip at the top for the Blu-ray version, though. That would make the design awkward.

[MacGuffin]

You're going to have to show me an example outside of a standard credit block at the bottom of some posters. There's a ton of text there, so it makes sense for the director's name to be last in that instance.

I see where eternity is coming from. A writing credit (except in the rare case of select foreign films) always comes before a director's credit.

[DavidSeven]

I see where eternity is coming from. A writing credit (except in the rare case of select foreign films) always comes before a director's credit.

Yeah, in a credit block as I said in the post you responded to. I can't think of an example where the writer was billed on top of the director when those two credits were specifically set out and highlighted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't recall any other instances of it.

[Adam]

I have some reservations, but this was good. Don't get the criticism that it has nothing to say about social media's larger effect on society. The first scene has Zuckerberg speaking face to face with his girlfriend in a warmly-lit bar full of people. The final scene has Zuckerberg sitting alone in a darkened law office, 3000 miles away from that girl, periodically refreshing a page to see if she'll accept his request to become his virtual friend. Those bookends are so great. Before facebook even became facebook, its founder's life is used as a metaphor for all its social implications. Or at least the fictionalized version of its founder's life. Rashida Jones' character's little speech at the end sold it completely for me. It softens our opinion of Zuckerberg by showing us how we were predisposed to dislike the guy, anyway, as well as admitting we just watched a greatly exaggerated account of what really happened. "You're not an asshole, Mark...myths need a devil." But ultimately it doesn't undercut Fincher & Sorkin's thesis one bit. Biggest complaints are that, yeah, some of the more artificial dialogue was grating and there were moments that definitely felt too greatest hits biopic-y. Also agree the narrative doesn't always hold water, especially when considered against present day facts. Still super entertaining filmmaking with wonderful performances all around (particularly Timberlake). If this wins best picture, it will be my favorite best picture since Schindler's List and probably even before that, too

"We lived on farms, we lived in cities and now we're gonna live on the internet!"

/gets busted for doing coke with interns

[Henry Gale]

The packaging for this is kind of bizarre, but definitely cool. The image you've seen of the cover with Eisenberg and the blur of unknown extras behind him paired with the critics quotes is simply a cardboard attachment that goes over the top of the main box. Once that falls off, it's a completely black cardboard casing with the "You Don't Get To 500 Million Friends..." slogan embossed into it. Then inside that there's a cover that's basically a re-do of the poster image with the punk, genius, etc. names over Eisenberg's face with assorted colourful photos of locations and characters on the other side of that. It's a strange but undoubtedly unique design, also for the fact that it's probably one of the few Blu-rays I've seen without big banners or plastic blue plastic cases anywhere to be found. Only the height of the package really tells you what format it is aside from a small Blu-ray logo or two on the back.

Oh, and the discs are really impressive as well. The main documentary being 92 minutes long and thoroughly entertaining. The doc never feels afraid to shy away from presenting some negative aspects of certain aspects along the way and really giving a lot of time to simply show Fincher and Sorkin at work with the actors. Plus there's at least 20 minutes of stuff dedicated just to Reznor and Ross' score, spread over a few featurettes.

[Ezee E]

Wonder if this disc is the one Netflix will give.

[number8]

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

[number8]

Fincher divides his work between “movies” and “films”—by his definition, a movie is overtly commercial, engineered for the sole pleasure of the audience. A film is conceived for the public and filmmakers: It is more audacious, more daring. By his reckoning, Fight Club and, especially, Zodiac (neither of which were box office successes) are films, while The Social Network (which is a box office smash—close to $100 million in America alone) is simply a movie.

“It’s a little glib to be a film,” Fincher maintained. “Let’s hope we strove to get at something interesting, but Social Network is not earth-shattering. Zodiac was about murders that changed America. After the Zodiac killings in California, the Summer of Love was over. Suddenly, there was no more weed or pussy. People were hog-tied and died. No one died during the creation of Facebook. By my estimation, the person who made out the worst in the creation of Facebook still made more than 30 million dollars. And no one was killed.”

Man, I hate that distinction.

[elixir]

Man, I hate that distinction.

Same. :pritch: (I chose the correct emoticon, right?)

[megladon8]

The packaging for this is kind of bizarre, but definitely cool. The image you've seen of the cover with Eisenberg and the blur of unknown extras behind him paired with the critics quotes is simply a cardboard attachment that goes over the top of the main box. Once that falls off, it's a completely black cardboard casing with the "You Don't Get To 500 Million Friends..." slogan embossed into it. Then inside that there's a cover that's basically a re-do of the poster image with the punk, genius, etc. names over Eisenberg's face with assorted colourful photos of locations and characters on the other side of that. It's a strange but undoubtedly unique design, also for the fact that it's probably one of the few Blu-rays I've seen without big banners or plastic blue plastic cases anywhere to be found. Only the height of the package really tells you what format it is aside from a small Blu-ray logo or two on the back.

Oh, and the discs are really impressive as well. The main documentary being 92 minutes long and thoroughly entertaining. The doc never feels afraid to shy away from presenting some negative aspects of certain aspects along the way and really giving a lot of time to simply show Fincher and Sorkin at work with the actors. Plus there's at least 20 minutes of stuff dedicated just to Reznor and Ross' score, spread over a few featurettes.


I think that cardboard sleeve with all the critics' quotes - you know, the one you're going to see when you go to the store - is fucking atrocious.

Absolutely terrible design.

[DavidSeven]

Fincher's self-assessment is pretty spot on, I think. Good for him.

[Bosco B Thug]

“It’s a little glib to be a film"? In other words, David Fincher: "Suck it, Aaron Sorkin!"

[DavidSeven]

Good to know Fincher backs my assertion that the writing is pretty superficial. Take that, every critic in the known universe!

[elixir]

I don't put much stock in director's self-assessments. If you look at Woody Allen's favorite films of his own, I think he's very far off. Just to give one example.

[DavidSeven]

Well, I'm going to trust it this time since he correctly points to Zodiac as a far more ambitious and significant effort.

[elixir]

Well, I'm going to trust it this time since he correctly points to Zodiac as a far more ambitious and significant effort.

I haven't seen Zodiac, so maybe I shouldn't have said anything.

[megladon8]

"Films", "movies", "flicks", "pictures"...they're all the same thing to me.

[baby doll]

"Films", "movies", "flicks", "pictures"...they're all the same thing to me.Terminology aside, my impression from reading his statement is that the subject matter of Zodiac was more interesting to him than the origins of Facebook, and that the driving creative force behind the film was Aaron Sorkin.

[Winston*]

"Films", "movies", "flicks", "pictures"...they're all the same thing to me.

I like "talkie".

[Qrazy]

I don't put much stock in director's self-assessments. If you look at Woody Allen's favorite films of his own, I think he's very far off. Just to give one example.

True regarding Woody Allen but in this case Fincher is correct.

[Derek]

True regarding Woody Allen but in this case Fincher is correct.

I agree with Fincher as well, but Zodiac was clearly more of a passion project that he spent several more years working on, so of course he's going to consider that the more important film.

[D_Davis]

I downloaded the soundtrack two days ago. Sounds like the album Ghosts I-IV wanted to be. Great stuff standalone.

I agree. Ghosts I-IV was too-sprawling a project. The soundtrack for this film is pretty damn amazing.

[Qrazy]

I agree with Fincher as well, but Zodiac was clearly more of a passion project that he spent several more years working on, so of course he's going to consider that the more important film.

Well for sure, the film's a director is passionate about making will most likely be better than those he is not.

He's also right that The Social Network is glib though.

[D_Davis]

I don't think we should judge the social importance of something on whether or not someone was killed. Like it or not, Facebook has become a major part of modern culture. I'd say it's cultural impact will be more far reaching than the Zodiac killer.



“It’s a little glib to be a film,” Fincher maintained. “Let’s hope we strove to get at something interesting, but Social Network is not earth-shattering. Zodiac was about murders that changed America. After the Zodiac killings in California, the Summer of Love was over. Suddenly, there was no more weed or pussy. People were hog-tied and died. No one died during the creation of Facebook. By my estimation, the person who made out the worst in the creation of Facebook still made more than 30 million dollars. And no one was killed.” Facebook's impact is also more worldwide than the Zodiac killings were. The Summer of Love was mainly a US thing, and more precisely mainly a California thing. Sure, it spread throughout pop-culture in general, but I think that Facebook has had more of a worldwide cultural impact.

Also, the whole Summer of Love thing never really amounted to anything. All of those ideas and hopes for change have all been lost as that generation (the boomers) grew up and fucked up the world. They've left us with debt and wars. The whole thing was just a facade for their selfish desires, rebelling against the generation before that was all about giving.

I think we'll see more beneficial things come from Facebook's impact.

[Duncan]

I don't think we should judge the social importance of something on whether or not someone was killed. Like it or not, Facebook has become a major part of modern culture. I'd say it's cultural impact will be more far reaching than the Zodiac killer.


Facebook's impact is also more worldwide than the Zodiac killings were. The Summer of Love was mainly a US thing, and more precisely mainly a California thing. Sure, it spread throughout pop-culture in general, but I think that Facebook has had more of a worldwide cultural impact.

Also, the whole Summer of Love thing never really amounted to anything. All of those ideas and hopes for change have all been lost as that generation (the boomers) grew up and fucked up the world. They've left us with debt and wars. The whole thing was just a facade for their selfish desires, rebelling against the generation before that was all about giving.

I think we'll see more beneficial things come from Facebook's impact.

Agree, but those things are never really dealt with in the movie.

[megladon8]

Is the soundtrack something that can be listened to and enjoyed on its own? Or is it purely an accompaniment to the film?

[D_Davis]

Is the soundtrack something that can be listened to and enjoyed on its own? Or is it purely an accompaniment to the film?

I haven't seen the film and I like the soundtrack.

[Bosco B Thug]

Agree, but those things are never really dealt with in the movie. Honestly, this imaginary Facebook movie everyone wants that zeroes in on Facebook's "cultural impact" sounds at least equally as trifling as the one we got. Really, Facebook's biggest impact is that it's one of the biggest businesses of this day and age, and that's what the movie we got was about.

[baby doll]

Honestly, this imaginary Facebook movie everyone wants that zeroes in on Facebook's "cultural impact" sounds at least equally as trifling as the one we got. Really, Facebook's biggest impact is that it's one of the biggest businesses of this day and age, and that's what the movie we got was about.My feeling is that, in the mad rush to proclaim it the artistic achievement of the millennium, some reviewers are making claims for the film/movie/whatever that it doesn't even make for itself (namely, that it has something urgent to say about the zeitgeist). Remember a few years ago when reviewers were saying that Rachel Getting Married signaled the birth of a "post-racial" America?

[Boner M]

My feeling is that, in the mad rush to proclaim it the artistic achievement of the millennium, some reviewers are making claims for the film/movie/whatever that it doesn't even make for itself (namely, that it has something urgent to say about the zeitgeist).
Pretty much. Remember Up in the Air? LOL, didn't think so.

[B-side]

Remember Up in the Air? LOL, didn't think so.

Don't remind me. What a piece of shit.

[Sxottlan]

Got the blu ray. Again very enjoyable. Loved the Henley-on-the-Thames scene.


Pretty much. Remember Up in the Air? LOL, didn't think so.

Wasn't it a sequel to this or something?

http://i1.iofferphoto.com/img/item/439/431/11/o_AIR_UP_THERE_front.jpg

[Duncan]

Honestly, this imaginary Facebook movie everyone wants that zeroes in on Facebook's "cultural impact" sounds at least equally as trifling as the one we got. Really, Facebook's biggest impact is that it's one of the biggest businesses of this day and age, and that's what the movie we got was about.

I don't really want that movie. I just want one--about any subject--that isn't, as Fincher says, kind of glib.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Is the soundtrack something that can be listened to and enjoyed on its own? Or is it purely an accompaniment to the film?

You can listen to it by itself, and I encourage such behavior.

[elixir]

I think it's in between glib and deep.

If this won Best Pic, how do you guys think it would compare to winners from this century?

[Fezzik]

I think it's in between glib and deep.

If this won Best Pic, how do you guys think it would compare to winners from this century?

Well, in my (not so credible) opinion, they'd be ranked as such (counting only 2001 - 2010):


No Country for Old Men
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
The Social Network <=== Probably about here
The Hurt Locker
The Departed
Chicago
A Beautiful Mind
Million Dollar Baby
Slumdog Millionaire
Crash


And thats not because it's so great. Its because, in my opinion, the Academy usually has their head up their collective asses when picking Best Picture.

[elixir]

I agree with what you say about the Academy, and yet I love the Oscars.

I do seem to like this movie more than most people here, well, at least from the last page. I don't think something needs to be "earth-shattering" to be good. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but I think it's a solid and well-made film I can see myself happily watching again.

[Fezzik]

I agree with what you say about the Academy, and yet I love the Oscars.

I do seem to like this movie more than most people here, well, at least from the last page. I don't think something needs to be "earth-shattering" to be good. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but I think it's a solid and well-made film I can see myself happily watching again.

I think the reaction on the last two or so pages is due to the overreaction in the media and amongst film critics when praising the film.

I agree that a film doesn't need to be earthshattering to be good, but its annoying when everyone seems to jump on a bandwagon to declare something 'earthshattering' or a 'masterpiece' when its really just a decently made, well acted movie.

[Qrazy]

I think it's in between glib and deep.

If this won Best Pic, how do you guys think it would compare to winners from this century?

I think it's the very definition of glib.

glib (glb)
adj. glib·ber, glib·best
1. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: was fascinated by his unfailingly glib conversation.
2. Characterized by fluency of speech or writing that often suggests insincerity, superficiality, or a lack of concern.

The film is excessively slick and 'well made' in that sense. It's also overly infatuated with capitalistic and superficial concerns and never really cuts to the core of any of it's characters psychologies or the issues it's examining.

[Scar]

Don't remind me. What a piece of shit.

Boo.

[elixir]

I think it's the very definition of glib.

glib (glb)
adj. glib·ber, glib·best
1. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: was fascinated by his unfailingly glib conversation.
2. Characterized by fluency of speech or writing that often suggests insincerity, superficiality, or a lack of concern.

The film is excessively slick and 'well made' in that sense. It's also overly infatuated with capitalistic and superficial concerns and never really cuts to the core of any of it's characters psychologies or the issues it's examining.

Ok, yes, it's performed with "natural, offhand ease," but I think it's done without the negative connotations of the word "glib."

How is it insincere anyways? I do agree that it treats some issues superficially, yet at the same time I don't find it totally devoid of depth.

[Adam]

See I feel this is such the greater "movie of its time" than something like Up In the Air was. Setting aside the greatest hits biopic-ish strokes of the narrative, it's really quite a clever job of positioning the story of the founding of facebook as a metaphor for Sorkin's take on the greater implications of social media. Like I said before - The first scene has Zuckerberg speaking face to face with his girlfriend in a warmly-lit bar full of people. The final scene has Zuckerberg sitting alone in a darkened law office, 3000 miles away from that girl, periodically refreshing a page to see if she'll accept his request to become his virtual friend

[Pop Trash]

I think it's in between glib and deep.

If this won Best Pic, how do you guys think it would compare to winners from this century?

Hmmm...

No Country for Old Men
LOTR: Return of the King
The Social Network
The Departed
Million Dollar Baby
The Hurt Locker
Gladiator
Slumdog Millionaire
A Beautiful Mind
Crash

I haven't seen Chicago. At least not the movie, the musical is great.

[eternity]

Up in the Air being "a movie of its time" was purely a marketing thing, I like to believe. Other than being vaguely topical, it was just a middlebrow George Clooney vehicle.

[Pop Trash]

Up in the Air being "a movie of its time" was purely a marketing thing, I like to believe. Other than being vaguely topical, it was just a middlebrow George Clooney vehicle.

I still don't get the hate. It's a perfectly fine adult comedy in the vein of 50s/60s Hollywood comedies.

[Skitch]

Don't remind me. What a piece of shit.

*high five*

[Scar]

I still don't get the hate. It's a perfectly fine adult comedy in the vein of 50s/60s Hollywood.

I quite enjoy it myself.

[Watashi]

Up in the Air is perfectly harmless. You can't fault the film from whatever Traveresque adjectives are thrown at it.

[Morris Schæffer]

I mildly appeciated Up in the Air. Call it the George factor.

[baby doll]

Pretty much. Remember Up in the Air? LOL, didn't think so.I never saw it, but I do remember The Air Up There, if only for the scene where Kevin Bacon stands on a hill and throws away his ring, symbolizing his finding himself in Africa. Or Something. I don't remember it that well.

[Henry Gale]

One thing that did confuse me in the long documentary for this was that there's behind the scenes footage of Fincher and the actors working on an outdoor set for the scene where Zuckerberg and Saverin are talking outside in the cold while Eduardo shivers in his party sumbrero. From what I remember, that was the scene where the CG breath was most noticable, but in the B-roll footage, you can see when they're filming that there was actual (but much fainter) cold air coming out of their mouths almost the entire time they were talking in the exact spots they were later filmed in.

I'm now thinking that it was either the way they shot it that made it look fake or it really is as unnecessary a use of computer graphics I can think of that isn't something like animated clunky Crispin Glover and Johnny Depp bodies in Alice In Wonderland or any other really expensive CG endeavours in other films that are probably too expensive to second guess after a certain point.

[elixir]

Am I the only one who didn't even notice this (now infamous) CGI breath? Or at least, I might have noticed it at the time, but didn't care enough to remember it...

[Ezee E]

Am I the only one who didn't even notice this (now infamous) CGI breath? Or at least, I might have noticed it at the time, but didn't care enough to remember it...
I didn't make anything of it when I saw it the first time. Now that I know it's CGI, I notice it a little more, but it's still good. Not an issue to me.

[megladon8]

Could they just have added a little bit of CGI to make the cold breath more noticeable?

Or could there have been some bright light on which the breath was being caught?


Either way...is it really a detractor? Does it damage the overall experience of the movie?

[DavidSeven]

Didn't notice at all.

[Henry Gale]

I'm not saying that it changes the overall movie for me in any way. It just looked odd to me when I first saw it and I instantly started to assume it was fake as I saw it come and go throughout the film. Then others seemed to notice it as well, then it seemed become a bit of a known thing, and now when looking at footage of them filming in actual winter it just seems like it wasn't even a necessary thing to have in the first place.

If these are the things that are there to nitpick, then there's likely much more to be said there of it as a whole. (At least in a technical sense.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

...animated clunky Crispin Glover...

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

[Henry Gale]

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Maybe he Skyped in his performance from the neck up or something and they just CG'd the rest! They always talk about a lot of crazy new technology being done for these movies, maybe that was what they secretly had with Alice! I don't know! I'm not a doctor!

[baby doll]

If this won Best Pic, how do you guys think it would compare to winners from this century?Gladiator: Piece of shit.

A Beautiful Mind: Watchable but mediocre.

Chicago: Watchable but mediocre.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: Watchable but mediocre.

Million Dollar Baby: Piece of shit.

Crash: Watchable but mediocre.

The Departed: Watchable but mediocre.

No Country for Old Men: A very solid western-thriller (despite its bogus elements), but far from the Coens best work.

Slumdog Millionaire: Piece of shit.

The Hurt Locker: A very solid war movie.

The Social Network: A very solid biopic.

Of course, I haven't seen any of those since they came out, so I could be over/under-estimating some of them.

[Morris Schæffer]

Gladiator: Perhaps not deserving of best pic, but a formidable blockbuster

A Beautiful Mind: Watchable, but absolutely not deserving of best picture

Chicago: Ain't seen it. Don't care to.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: legendary, unforgettable, totally deserving of every fucking accolade and prize it has gotten

Million Dollar Baby: Powerful, very much so. I think best pic was kinda deserved

Crash: Terrible. Just flatout terrible

The Departed: A good one, but best pic?

No Country for Old Men: Totally deserved, great movie.

Slumdog Millionaire: Nice concept, solid movie, but I wasn't blown away

The Hurt Locker: I was blown away, right through the back of the theater wall. How awesome that a full blown, unsentimental war/action movie wins best pic. I rooted and rooted, and then I cheered. It was a great night.

The Social Network: One of the year's best movies, but somehow I wasn't floored. Perhaps I'm being overly positive because I never expected a movie about a site to be this engaging.

[baby doll]

Gladiator: Perhaps not deserving of best pic, but a formidable blockbuster

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: legendary, unforgettable, totally deserving of every fucking accolade and prize it has gotten

Million Dollar Baby: Powerful, very much so. I think best pic was kinda deserved

The Departed: A good one, but best pic?

No Country for Old Men: Totally deserved, great movie.

Slumdog Millionaire: Nice concept, solid movie, but I wasn't blown away

The Hurt Locker: I was blown away, right through the back of the theater wall. How awesome that a full blown, unsentimental war/action movie wins best pic. I rooted and rooted, and then I cheered. It was a great night.

The Social Network: One of the year's best movies, but somehow I wasn't floored. Perhaps I'm being overly positive because I never expected a movie about a site to be this engaging.You're too generous. Even by the standards of a big tent summer blockbuster, Gladiator is pretty lousy. Undistinguished on every level: form, content, everything. There's just nothing to recommend here. Similarly, though The Return of the King is a more enjoyable blockbuster, stylistically it's nothing special.

Whatever power Million Dollar Baby might've had is undercut by the lazy screenwriting and direction that hammers the viewer over the head with every single point. There are too many examples to cite all of them, but the first that comes to mind is the way that the script produces a silent German villainess to cripple the heroine for no reason whatsoever--a development that Eastwood subtly foreshadows by having her and her trainer exchange conspiratorial glances at one another just before it happens. I prefer White Hunter, Black Heart, A Perfect World, Gran Torino, and Hereafter.

If we describe The Departed as good, how are we then to describe Infernal Affairs? Brilliant? I mean, let's not go nuts. Infernal Affairs is a solidly crafted genre piece, but it's more noteworthy for its historic importance than its intrinsic value. And Scorsese's remake is even less distinguished, both on the levels of form and storytelling.

Similarly, I think No Country for Old Men is a good movie, but to call it great seems excessive. If this movie is great, then how are we to describe the Coens' subsequent Burn After Reading and A Serious Man, which are both vastly superior? Sure, it was deserving enough of an Oscar, but if this were the best that world cinema had to offer in 2007 (the year that gave us I'm Not There., In the City of Sylvia, and Silent Light among others), I wouldn't be a cinephile.

Slumdog Millionaire is not by any means a solid movie. For the record, I sort of like Danny Boyle (especially Millions), but this is not one of his better films. The neo-colonialist assumptions underlying a movie by a pair of Brits claiming to represent "the real India" are a lot more interesting to talk about than the actual experience of watching the movie, which moves from an exoticized third world horror show (much of it utterly phony, from the hero literally covered in shit as a child to him being beaten by the cops as an adult over a game show) to a bland "feel good" finale, in which we're supposed to be thrilled that one guy and his girlfriend got to keep their eyes and hit the jackpot. And the musical number at the end was just awful.

The Hurt Locker is exciting and suspenseful, but I don't have any desire to see it a second time. Again, deserving enough of an Oscar, but far from the best that world cinema had to offer in 2009, or even Hollywood cinema for that matter (The Bad Lieutenant, Fantastic Mr. Fox, A Serious Man).

And The Social Network is, like you say, surprisingly engaging given the subject matter, but calling it one of the year's best seems ridiculously excessive, unless we're confining ourselves to wide-release English-language films (i.e., the sort of films that win Oscars). Sure, it's a hell of a lot better than the likes of Black Swan, The Kids Are All Right, and True Grit, but I wouldn't put it in the same company as Film socialisme, The Ghost Writer, and Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives.

[elixir]

HOW HAVE YOU SEEN FILM SOCIALISME AND UNCLE BOONMEE? I CANNOT FIND THEM ANYWHERE.

Also, I thought I was alone on my A Serious Man >>>>>>>> NCFOM opinion. It might actually be my favorite of theirs.

I still say The Social Network is the best choice out of the Oscar contenders, which obviously doesn't mean it's the best of the year or anything, though I do like it more than some of you here.

[baby doll]

HOW HAVE YOU SEEN FILM SOCIALISME AND UNCLE BOONMEE? I CANNOT FIND THEM ANYWHERE.I saw Uncle Boonmee at a film festival (you can get it off KG, but it's a movie that should be seen on a big screen), and I downloaded Film socialisme (if memory serves, from Pirate Bay).

[elixir]

I saw Uncle Boonmee at a film festival (you can get it off KG, but it's a movie that should be seen on a big screen), and I downloaded Film socialisme (if memory serves, from Pirate Bay).


Is Uncle Boonmee worth jumping through some hoops to see on the big screen? Because it's coming near me in February...Should I see this director's other films first--and if so, where should I start (Tropical Malady?)?

[baby doll]

Is Uncle Boonmee worth jumping through some hoops to see on the big screen? Because it's coming near me in February...Should I see this director's other films first--and if so, where should I start (Tropical Malady?)?Yes, and you should see his other films because they're good (after Uncle Boonmee, my other favorites are Blissfully Yours, Tropical Malady, A Letter to Uncle Boonmee, and Phantoms of Nabua), but I don't think they're a prerequisite for this one.

[elixir]

Okay, thanks! Sorry for veering off topic.

[Chac Mool]

Cause this is fun:

]Gladiator: Excellent, quality entertainment, buoyed by a meaty lead performance and a director who's very good at spectacle.

A Beautiful Mind: Absolutely forgettable -- the second-worst winner of the decade.

Chicago: Worst of the decade. Does anyone talk about or even remember this film?

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: An excellent film, though the award was obviously (and deservedly) given for the trilogy.

Million Dollar Baby: Wonderful, and wonderfully dark old-school drama. Both the Picture and Actress wins were deserved.

Crash: A perfectly adequate, middle-of-the-lane film that inexplicably garnered accolades and won.

The Departed: An excellent thriller, a great mix of entertainment and depth.

No Country for Old Men: Technically flawless, though I find it harder to love than to admire.

Slumdog Millionaire: It's hard not to like it, though I would have given Benjamin Button the statue.

The Hurt Locker: See NCFOM.

The Social Network: assuming it wins, it will certainly be one of the best selections of the decade.

[Henry Gale]

Basically, the only ones of that list of Best Picture winners that I would really bother to stick up for and defend are Return of the King, No Country, and to a lesser extent The Hurt Locker. I also don't dislike A Beautiful Mind or Slumdog Millionaire, but have seen them both only once when they were released and definitely wouldn't have them anywhere near my top ten lists of either year. The rest I don't care about at all.

The Social Network, if it wins, would surprisingly jump right into the most positive of those categories for me. I really like it, but have trouble looking at it being constantly put in a position of "The Best Film Of 2010", though I think that has a bit to do with the way all the characters and the general arc of the story kind of leaves me cold emotionally (outside of Garfield's character and his performance).

I feel like there's always at least one BP nominee I'm really happy about being included (or even three or four last year when it went up to ten), but it just seems like they're hardly ever the ones that win.

[Ezee E]

I felt like this one would be a year where we'd have no idea what would win. Seems like it's all but a sure thing now. Can't see voters getting behind King's Speech or Black Swan enough to warrant an upset.

[Boner M]

Definitely agree that A Beautiful Mind and Chicago are worse than Crash.

[eternity]

I felt like this one would be a year where we'd have no idea what would win. Seems like it's all but a sure thing now. Can't see voters getting behind King's Speech or Black Swan enough to warrant an upset.

It's The Social Network vs. The King's Speech / The Fighter / Black Swan / Inception / Toy Story 3. Anyone who wants to jump off the bandwagon has a bunch of choices fighting for second place; too many for anyone to make a run at it.

[Ezee E]

Is Toy Story 3 honestly in the mix though? It'll win Animated Film, and just be happy that it was nominated for Best Picture for its DVD cover.

And Inception has definitely petered out, so it'll clean up a few techs, and call it good.

[Sven]

Slumdog Millionaire is easily the worst film to win best picture, I think ever. From frame one to minute omega, that movie sucks so hard.

[transmogrifier]

Slumdog Millionaire is easily the worst film to win best picture, I think ever. From frame one to minute omega, that movie sucks so hard.

In a world where Crash has won Best Picture, this opinion is invalid.

[DavidSeven]

What really differentiates The Social Network from Slumdog Millionaire anyway?

Both are pretty decent examples of pop filmmaking from a couple very visual directors. Both are conceived purely for broad audiences. Both are light as heck, but entertaining enough. And both rode a wave of over-analysis straight to year-end award dominance. I enjoyed both films, but just because something is set in India doesn't mean it has anything significant to say about squalor in developing nations and just because a movie is about Facebook doesn't mean it's a generation-defining event. Let's start calling spades what they are already.

[baby doll]

What really differentiates The Social Network from Slumdog Millionaire anyway?One is a movie about privileged white people by other privileged white people. (If I didn't hate Harvard frat boys going into the movie, I certainly did coming out.) The other is a movie about poor brown people by privileged white people, but which (as I noted early) rather boldly claims to represent "the real India."

[Ezee E]

One is a movie about privileged white people by other privileged white people. (If I didn't hate Harvard frat boys going into the movie, I certainly did coming out.) The other is a movie about poor brown people by privileged white people, but which (as I noted early) rather boldly claims to represent "the real India."
Slumdog was based on a book by an Indian writer though.

[DavidSeven]

One is a movie about privileged white people by other privileged white people. (If I didn't hate Harvard frat boys going into the movie, I certainly did coming out.) The other is a movie about poor brown people by privileged white people, but which (as I noted early) rather boldly claims to represent "the real India."

Well, that might be a reason to hate on Boyle and his crew, but that doesn't distinguish one film in itself from the other.

[Watashi]

Zuckerberg is a frat boy?

[elixir]

What really differentiates The Social Network from Slumdog Millionaire anyway?

Both are pretty decent examples of pop filmmaking from a couple very visual directors. Both are conceived purely for broad audiences. Both are light as heck, but entertaining enough. And both rode a wave of over-analysis straight to year-end award dominance. I enjoyed both films, but just because something is set in India doesn't mean it has anything significant to say about squalor in developing nations and just because a movie is about Facebook doesn't mean it's a generation-defining event. Let's start calling spades what they are already.

Are you saying this is a bad thing?

And once again, a movie doesn't have to be heavy or generation-defining to be good. I find The Social Network to be much better than Slumdog MIllionaire, though I don't hate the latter like many do.

[elixir]

Zuckerberg is a frat boy?

No, but there are frat boys throughout the film (the twins, etc.). That's what he/she is referring to probably.

[DavidSeven]

Are you saying this is a bad thing?

And once again, a movie doesn't have to be heavy or generation-defining to be good. I find The Social Network to be much better than Slumdog MIllionaire, though I don't hate the latter like many do.

No, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Like I said, I liked both films. I just think it's time people recognized them for what they are: superficial crowd-pleasers that were read too deeply because of their subject matter. We seem to have got there with Slumdog. Waiting on the Fincher flick.

[Watashi]

I don't see The Social Network as crowd-pleasing at all. The ending is pretty damn depressing.

[DavidSeven]

I'm not saying "crowd-pleaser" as in having a happy ending. I'm saying a movie that was designed to appeal to the masses more than anything else. The Social Network is a total fast-paced crowd pleaser. This is not a challenging film in the same way that No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood were. General audiences didn't respond to those films. A 14 year old can go into The Social Network and enjoy it and take as much away from it as me and you.

[baby doll]

I'm not saying "crowd-pleaser" as in having a happy ending. I'm saying a movie that was designed to appeal to the masses more than anything else. The Social Network is a total fast-paced crowd pleaser. This is not a challenging film in the same way that No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood were. General audiences didn't respond to those films. A 14 year old can go into The Social Network and enjoy it and take as much away from it as me and you.I dunno, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood seem as much movies for teenage boys as The Social Network. They may not be feel-good crowd-pleasers (and I don't think Fincher's film is either, at least not in the same sense as a film like My Big Fat Greek Wedding), but the fact that this is what's considered challenging is, well, kinda depressing to me.

[Ezee E]

I'm not saying "crowd-pleaser" as in having a happy ending. I'm saying a movie that was designed to appeal to the masses more than anything else. The Social Network is a total fast-paced crowd pleaser. This is not a challenging film in the same way that No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood were. General audiences didn't respond to those films. A 14 year old can go into The Social Network and enjoy it and take as much away from it as me and you.
I don't know. No Country has some tense, violent scenes, whereas Social Network is talk, talk, talk. I figured both would have the same appeal.

[baby doll]

I don't see The Social Network as crowd-pleasing at all. The ending is pretty damn depressing.It's been a few months, but I recall it ending with Rashida Jones magnanimously absolving Jesse Eisenberg of his sins (which to me felt sorta tacked on).

[elixir]

I'm not saying "crowd-pleaser" as in having a happy ending. I'm saying a movie that was designed to appeal to the masses more than anything else. The Social Network is a total fast-paced crowd pleaser. This is not a challenging film in the same way that No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood were. General audiences didn't respond to those films. A 14 year old can go into The Social Network and enjoy it and take as much away from it as me and you.

I don't like attacks on age. 14 year-olds are smarter than you think, anyways.

I don't really find No Country For Old Men challenging, but TWBB is a better example of that. Hm. I'm kind of tired of arguing about this film...it doesn't need to have this grand message or amazing revelation to be a good and well-crafted film. And it's the best choice of the Best Picture contenders

[baby doll]

I don't know. No Country has some tense, violent scenes, whereas Social Network is talk, talk, talk. I figured both would have the same appeal.A lot of the tense scenes in No Country for Old Men are no less talky (the sequence in the gas station, for instance), and the violence is either over very quickly or not shown at all.

[DavidSeven]

I dunno, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood seem as much movies for teenage boys as The Social Network. They may not be feel-good crowd-pleasers (and I don't think Fincher's film is either, at least not in the same sense as a film like My Big Fat Greek Wedding), but the fact that this is what's considered challenging is, well, kinda depressing to me.

I'm using those films because they are also American productions that generated a lot of critical hype. You can throw in your own favorites from French/Russian cinema if it makes you feel better. I personally think some of the thematic depth afforded to No Country for Old Men is pretty overstated, but you have to be retarded to think morality issues in that film are just as accessible as The Social Network. As for There Will Be Blood, that's one of the most thematically interesting films OF ALL TIME, so you're just plain wrong there. Sorry.

[Ezee E]

It's been a few months, but I recall it ending with Rashida Jones magnanimously absolving Jesse Eisenberg of his sins (which to me felt sorta tacked on).
Not really. She was basically telling him what his girlfriend told him at the very beginning of the movie, only without any bias. He was obviously hurt by it.

And it is a sad ending. He really didn't get anything he wanted, and essentially lost his only friend.

[elixir]

It's been a few months, but I recall it ending with Rashida Jones magnanimously absolving Jesse Eisenberg of his sins (which to me felt sorta tacked on).

It was him refreshing Erica's FB page after he friended her...

[Ezee E]

It was him refreshing Erica's FB page after he friended her...
...in hopes that she'll accept his friend request.

[elixir]

...in hopes that she'll accept his friend request.

Right. Sorry, I should have added that.

[baby doll]

It was him refreshing Erica's FB page after he friended her...Okay, now I remember. I wouldn't call that depressing, though. I mean, it's not a happy ending but it's not like anybody died.

[DavidSeven]

I don't know. No Country has some tense, violent scenes, whereas Social Network is talk, talk, talk. I figured both would have the same appeal.

Every non-cinephile I know who saw the Coens film basically hated it to varying degrees.

[elixir]

Okay, now I remember. I wouldn't call that depressing, though. I mean, it's not a happy ending but it's not like anybody died.

People have to die for it to be depressing? He lost his best friend and his girlfriend...he has no one to truly turn to...

[Watashi]

Okay, now I remember. I wouldn't call that depressing, though. I mean, it's not a happy ending but it's not like anybody died.
You're starting to sound like Fincher.

[soitgoes...]

Okay, now I remember. I wouldn't call that depressing, though. I mean, it's not a happy ending but it's not like anybody died.Being alone isn't depressing? It isn't death, but Death isn't the only thing that's depressing.

[Watashi]

Every non-cinephile I know who saw the Coens film basically hated it to varying degrees.
Most of my co-workers loves There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. And they're dumb as paint when it comes to cinema.

[elixir]

Most of my co-workers loves There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. And there dumb as paint when it comes to cinema.

Really, most people I Know hate TWBB

[DavidSeven]

Most of my co-workers loves There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. And there dumb as paint when it comes to cinema.

You work at a movie theater. Your co-workers are disqualified from "general audience" consideration. I don't care how dumb they are.

[Watashi]

You work at a movie theater. Your co-workers are disqualified from "general audience" consideration. I don't care how dumb they are.
You do realize that most movie theater employees are idiotic teenagers still in high school? I really haven't met anyone at work that is as knowledgable about film as me or Barty.

[Ezee E]

Every non-cinephile I know who saw the Coens film basically hated it to varying degrees.
It probably was the only thing playing at my fire station for a few weeks. Right now, they love Wipeout and Jersey Shore.

They didn't give There Will Be Blood a chance.

[DavidSeven]

You do realize that most movie theater employees are idiotic teenagers still in high school? I really haven't met anyone at work that is as knowledgable about film as me or Barty.

Working in that environment still suggests more interest in cinema than the average person.

Anyway, if the point you're trying to make is that There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men are crowd pleasers then go ahead. I'm comfortable with my position that most non-cinephiles didn't like those movies.

[Watashi]

Working in that environment still suggests more interest in cinema than the average person.

Anyway, if the point you're trying to make is that There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men are crowd pleasers then go ahead. I'm comfortable with my position that most non-cinephiles didn't like those movies.
You don't have the final word on what is "challenging" or is "crowd-pleasing". I personally think The Social Network is as thematically deep as any Coen or Anderson film.

[DavidSeven]

You don't have the final word on what is "challenging" or is "crowd-pleasing". I personally think The Social Network is as thematically deep as any Coen or Anderson film.

Fair enough. You are wrong, and I think the film's director would agree with me, but fair enough.

[Bosco B Thug]

What really differentiates The Social Network from Slumdog Millionaire anyway?
No, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Like I said, I liked both films. I just think it's time people recognized them for what they are: superficial crowd-pleasers that were read too deeply because of their subject matter. We seem to have got there with Slumdog. Waiting on the Fincher flick.
I'm not saying "crowd-pleaser" as in having a happy ending. I'm saying a movie that was designed to appeal to the masses more than anything else. The Social Network is a total fast-paced crowd pleaser. This is not a challenging film in the same way that No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood were. General audiences didn't respond to those films. A 14 year old can go into The Social Network and enjoy it and take as much away from it as me and you. NEIN! No more perspective for you!

:) Anyway, put me on the record with fundamentally disagreeing. TSN isn't existentialist like NCFOM and TWBB, but is that what determines depth? Just because it's not particular "artsy" (the best sense or the worst sense, whichever) doesn't mean it doesn't handle a thematic backbone keenly, challengingly, and with aplomb (which is my opinion of TSN, increasingly alone...).

The most important point, though, is that Slumdog Millionaire is the wooorst. Comparing it to TSN is being morally awful to TSN.

[baby doll]

I'm using those films because they are also American productions that generated a lot of critical hype. You can throw in your own favorites from French/Russian cinema if it makes you feel better. I personally think some of the thematic depth afforded to No Country for Old Men is pretty overstated, but you have to be retarded to think morality issues in that film are just as accessible as The Social Network. As for There Will Be Blood, that's one of the most thematically interesting films OF ALL TIME, so you're just plain wrong there. Sorry.I was thinking more about style than theme.

[Ezee E]

I'd agree with David7 on the idea that theater workers will probably have more interest in cinema then the average person. Why else would they apply to a movie theater? Most of the jobs which pay less then $10/hour?

[baby doll]

Regarding who is and isn't a cinephile, and which movies are and aren't for a general audience, both No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are commercial American features with recognizable stars that were shown in multiplexes on 35mm to paying customers. They were written about in major publications like The New York Times and were both nominated for Academy Awards. If that's not the very epicenter of the American mainstream, then how are we to talk about more radical avant-garde figures like Hollis Frampton, Ernie Gehr, and Michael Snow?

[soitgoes...]

Regarding who is and isn't a cinephile, and which movies are and aren't for a general audience, both No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are commercial American features with recognizable stars that were shown in multiplexes on 35mm to paying customers. They were written about in major publications like The New York Times and were both nominated for Academy Awards. If that's not the very epicenter of the American mainstream, then how are we to talk about more radical avant-garde figures like Hollis Frampton, Ernie Gehr, and Michael Snow?
Things don't need to be so black and white. Yes, they are commercial American features, but they aren't on the level of Grown Ups. There Will Be Blood never hit 1000 screens, neither did No Country for Old Men. When films tend to open on 4000 screens, 900 is not so mainstream.

[DavidSeven]

If that's not the very epicenter of the American mainstream, then how are we to talk about more radical avant-garde figures like Hollis Frampton, Ernie Gehr, and Michael Snow?

As more radical avant-garde figures.

Generic Commercial/Mainstream ---> The Waterboy --> Social Network/Slumdog Million ---> No Country for Old Men/There Will be Blood ---> Movies that baby doll likes ---> Radical Avant-Garde Cinema.

You see what I did there.

[Ezee E]

Things don't need to be so black and white. Yes, they are commercial American features, but they aren't on the level of Grown Ups. There Will Be Blood never hit 1000 screens, neither did No Country for Old Men. When films tend to open on 4000 screens, 900 is not so mainstream.
You should really verify your stats. No Country was on 2000+ screens on Oscar weekend, several months after it opened. There Will Be Blood went to 1500.

[baby doll]

Things don't need to be so black and white. Yes, they are commercial American features, but they aren't on the level of Grown Ups. There Will Be Blood never hit 1000 screens, neither did No Country for Old Men. When films tend to open on 4000 screens, 900 is not so mainstream.Still, we're talking about, essentially, films for a mass audience. Not blockbusters, of course, but what David Bordwell might call mid-range items. They're not so specialized that anybody walking in off the street won't be able to enjoy them, as they still stick to the traditional dramatic structure and continuity editing style that Hollywood movies have been using since 1917. And even if they don't open on 4000 screens, they'll eventually turn up on DVD and Netflix.

[baby doll]

As more radical avant-garde figures.

Generic Commercial/Mainstream ---> The Waterboy --> Social Network/Slumdog Million ---> No Country for Old Men/There Will be Blood ---> Movies that baby doll likes ---> Radical Avant-Garde Cinema.

You see what I did there.Not really, but I did like The Ghost Writer, which is as old school as it gets.

[DavidSeven]

You should really verify your stats. No Country was on 2000+ screens on Oscar weekend, several months after it opened. There Will Be Blood went to 1500.

I think the point still remains clear though. These were not breakout hits and certifiably "mainstream" movies when they initially came out. If they ended up making some decent money and getting seen, it's only because the Oscar telecast gave them that bump. The Social Network and Slumdog were hits with audiences before they ever won anything.

[Adam]

The Coens, PTA, Fincher and Boyle are all filmmakers who have been met with both high brow and middle brow acclaim/success. This is kind of a silly argument, because you're all essentially right. Although baby doll's probably the most right because of course No Country and There Will Be Blood were commercial films. Heck, those two in particular were more or less pop cultural touchstones. They even made the cover of Entertainment flippin Weekly!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ew215.jpg

[Ezee E]

I think the point still remains clear though. These were not breakout hits and certifiably "mainstream" movies when they initially came out. If they ended up making some decent money and getting seen, it's only because the Oscar telecast gave them that bump. The Social Network and Slumdog were hits with audiences before they ever won anything.
Slumdog opened to winning basically every possible accolade already at the Toronto/Telluride Film Festival. It didn't go wide until Christmas when it had already gotten the same nominations that No Country/TWBB did.

Social Network can stand on its own.

[DavidSeven]

I guess the best illustration of the distinction that seems lost on a lot of you is that David Fincher would consider Slumdog Millionaire and The Social Network "movies", and he would consider There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men "films".

[Ezee E]

I guess the best illustration of the distinction that seems lost on a lot of you is that David Fincher would consider Slumdog Millionaire and The Social Network "movies", and he would consider There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men "films".
Ha. Well, I'd still put No Country as a "movie." So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[DavidSeven]

Ha. Well, I'd still put No Country as a "movie." So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Gotta say, if he considers his own Fight Club a "film" then No Country has to fit in that category as well. There's no way No Country for Old Men is designed exclusively for the audience's pleasure. There's a major narrative device in the middle of the film that specifically fucks with them!

[baby doll]

I guess the best illustration of the distinction that seems lost on a lot of you is that David Fincher would consider Slumdog Millionaire and The Social Network "movies", and he would consider There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men "films".All I know is that No Country for Old Men, The Social Network, and There Will Be Blood were enjoyable films, and Slumdog Millionaire wasn't.

[baby doll]

Gotta say, if he considers his own Fight Club a "film" then No Country has to fit in that category as well. There's no way No Country for Old Men is designed exclusively for the audience's pleasure. There's a major narrative device in the middle of the film that specifically fucks with them!Fucking is pleasurable. Or at least it can be, if done properly.

[Ezee E]

Gotta say, if he considers his own Fight Club a "film" then No Country has to fit in that category as well. There's no way No Country for Old Men is designed exclusively for the audience's pleasure. There's a major narrative device in the middle of the film that specifically fucks with them!
Bah. I don't even know anymore.

I liked all four though!

[DavidSeven]

Fucking is pleasurable. Or at least it can be, if done properly.

I don't think the Coens incorporated the protagonist-switch because they thought that's what the audiences wanted.

[Adam]

Technically Fincher is right because No Country & There Will Be Blood were shot on film, whereas The Social Network and Slumdog were shot on digital video


I don't think the Coens incorporated the protagonist-switch because they thought that's what the audiences wanted.

They probably did it because it was in the book they were adapting

[DavidSeven]

They probably did it because it was in the book they were adapting

Yeah, and they adapted the book because there were things about it that appealed to them as filmmakers. Not because they thought the novel was broadly appealing to general moviegoers.

[baby doll]

I don't think the Coens incorporated the protagonist-switch because they thought that's what the audiences wanted.The only reason to watch movies in the first place is pleasure, and one of the main pleasures of any Coen brothers' film is getting involved in a complicated, occasionally surprising story line. It may be a "film" in your words, but it's also a movie.

[baby doll]

Yeah, and they adapted the book because there were things about it that appealed to them as filmmakers. Not because they thought the novel was broadly appealing to general moviegoers.Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that most moviegoers are just too stupid to understand this movie, which is not really that difficult.

[DavidSeven]

The only reason to watch movies in the first place is pleasure, and one of the main pleasures of any Coen brothers' film is getting involved in a complicated, occasionally surprising story line. It may be a "film" in your words, but it's also a movie.

But this is exactly the distinction that Fincher is making. "Films" are designed for both audiences and the filmmakers making them so there is a combination of enjoyable elements and elements that the filmmakers find interesting. "Movies" are designed for the audience alone.

In case you guys forgot:


Fincher divides his work between “movies” and “films”—by his definition, a movie is overtly commercial, engineered for the sole pleasure of the audience. A film is conceived for the public and filmmakers: It is more audacious, more daring. By his reckoning, Fight Club and, especially, Zodiac (neither of which were box office successes) are films, while The Social Network (which is a box office smash—close to $100 million in America alone) is simply a movie.

[baby doll]

But this is exactly the distinction that Fincher is making. "Films" are designed for both audiences and the filmmakers making them so there is a combination of enjoyable elements and elements that the filmmakers find interesting. "Movies" are designed for the audience alone.But if the filmmaker finds the material interesting, then he or she must assume that other people will as well.

[DavidSeven]

Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that most moviegoers are just too stupid to understand this movie, which is not really that difficult.

I don't think it's difficult to understand. I think it's a film/book that compromises "enjoyable" elements for elements that the author/filmmaker find interesting.

[DavidSeven]

But if the filmmaker finds the material interesting, then he or she must assume that other people will as well.

I think most filmmakers, and people in general, are smart enough to recognize there is a difference between something that is broadly appealing and something they and few others find personally interesting.

[baby doll]

I don't think it's difficult to understand. I think it's a film/book that compromises "enjoyable" elements for elements that the author/filmmaker find interesting.Actually, the way you phrased it is a little difficult to understand. Are you saying that "films" are enjoyable for the people who watch them than "movies"? 'Cause I got news for ya, I didn't get any pleasure at all from watching Slumdog Millionaire. But There Will Be Blood--very enjoyable.

[baby doll]

I think most filmmakers, and people in general, are smart enough to recognize there is a difference between something that is broadly appealing and something they and few others find personally interesting.And those few others would be the audience for said film, so then isn't No Country for Old Men still a film for an audience, even if it's a slightly smaller one than say Slumdog Millionaire? (But still very large compared to Hollis Frampton, who still made films for an audience.)

[elixir]

The distinction between "movies" and "films" is insanely stupid.

[baby doll]

The distinction between "movies" and "films" is insanely stupid.Word.

[DavidSeven]

Makes sense to me. Take it up with Fincher.

[elixir]

Makes sense to me. Take it up with Fincher.


I can talk to you, who agrees with Fincher, while I can't contact him quite so easily...

[elixir]

Well, I guess here's the more important question: in your definition, DavidSeven, are "films" inherently better than "movies" and if a movie has broad appeal, is that necessarily bad?

But if you answer "no" to these questions, then what's the point in even making a distinction...?

[soitgoes...]

You should really verify your stats. No Country was on 2000+ screens on Oscar weekend, several months after it opened. There Will Be Blood went to 1500.
Ah, I looked at the wide opening. My bad. Still not 4000.

[DavidSeven]

Well, I guess here's the more important question: in your definition, DavidSeven, are "films" inherently better than "movies" and if a movie has broad appeal, is that necessarily bad?

But if you answer "no" to these questions, then what's the point in even making a distinction...?

My answer is "no" to both of your questions. The point of making the distinction is simply to express my annoyance with the critics that hail "The Social Network" or "Slumdog Millionaire" as being anything other than great "audience-oriented" movies. Critics seem averse notion that the best "popcorn" movie of the year can also be the best "film" of the year, so they fill in a bunch of made-up intellectual vomit on movies that don't have that kind of depth. If a critic wants to call a movie the best production of the year because it was dramatically well-written and directed for broad audiences, then so be it -- I can jive with that. Some of my personal favorite films are nothing more than superficial crowd-pleasers. I don't need to add social/thematic significance to Speed to call it one of the best movies of the 1990s. I wish critics could do the same for audience-friendly pics like "The Social Network" and "Slumdog Millionaire" that are really concerned with little more than being breezy, engaging two-hour experiences (and there's nothing wrong with that).

[baby doll]

I don't need to add social/thematic significance to Speed to call it one of the best movies of the 1990s.My question is: Why should we feel the need to add social/thematic significance to a movie like There Will Be Blood (which you earlier claimed was one of the most "thematically interesting" movies--sorry, I mean Films--ever made)?

[DavidSeven]

My question is: Why should we feel the need to add social/thematic significance to a movie like There Will Be Blood (which you earlier claimed was one of the most "thematically interesting" movies--sorry, I mean Films--ever made)?

I don't feel the need to add social/thematic significance to it. I think it's great partly because it has those things. This is not to say being deep trumps being entertaining in every instance. Something can be great because it's entertaining, something can be great because it's deep, or some combination of the two. Depth can be part of the experience, which I believe is true for There Will Be Blood. I don't think it's part of the experience of The Social Network, but I seem to be in the minority there. I do think The Social Network is a very entertaining film and would give it three stars for those reasons; I simply challenge the notion that it's anything other than that.

[baby doll]

I don't feel the need to add social/thematic significance to it. I think it's great partly because it has those things. This is not to say being deep trumps being entertaining in every instance. Something can be great because it's entertaining, something can be great because it's deep, or some combination of the two. Depth can be part of the experience, which I believe is true for There Will Be Blood. I don't think it's part of the experience of The Social Network, but I seem to be in the minority there. I do think The Social Network is a very entertaining film and would give it three stars for those reasons; I simply challenge the notion that it's anything other than that.Earlier you said that Movies were for audiences, and Films were for directors. Would you say, accordingly, that Paul Thomas Anderson is more of an artist than Jan de Bont, and that while There Will Be Blood is Art because it has "depth," Speed is merely entertainment? And is it possible to make an audience friendly film that has depth, or is depth inherently alienating to the stupid unwashed masses? Does, for instance, Casablanca have "depth," or is "depth" the exclusive property of auteurs like Chaplin, Hawks, or Hitchcock (none of whom ever had a box office hit)? (Personally, I think there's no such thing as an auteur, only auteurists--which is to say: If a director makes a movie in the middle of the forest, and there aren't any reviewers around to look for his themes, does it make depth?)

[DavidSeven]

Earlier you said that Movies were for audiences, and Films were for directors. Would you say, accordingly, that Paul Thomas Anderson is more of an artist than Jan de Bont, and that while There Will Be Blood is Art because it has "depth," Speed is merely entertainment? And is it possible to make an audience friendly film that has depth, or is depth inherently alienating to the stupid unwashed masses? Does, for instance, Casablanca have "depth," or is "depth" the exclusive property of auteurs like Chaplin, Hawks, or Hitchcock (none of whom ever had a box office hit)? (Personally, I think there's no such thing as an auteur, only auteurists--which is to say: If a director makes a movie in the middle of the forest, and there aren't any reviewers around to look for his themes, does it make depth?)

I don't distinguish art and entertainment or place value on one over the other. It takes an artist to make great entertainment in this medium. And no, depth and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. Look at The Godfather. The classifications are Fincher's, not mine. I merely agree with them in how he applies it to this particular film. My argument is only that we appreciate something for what it is, not for what we want it to be because it's not "acceptable" in critics' circles to laud superficially entertaining films. Thus, if Casablanca is one of the best movie ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told then appreciate it for those reasons and don't crowbar the thing into some auteur theory explanation of its quality. Also, if The Social Network is great because it's dramatic, funny, and well-acted, then we should recognize it as being great for those reasons rather than placing some non-existent "generation-defining" significance on it.

[megladon8]

I don't distinguish art and entertainment or place value on one over the other. It takes an artist to make great entertainment in this medium. And no, depth and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. Look at The Godfather. The classifications are Fincher's, not mine. I merely agree with them in how he applies it to this particular film. My argument is only that we appreciate something for what it is, not for what we want it to be because it's not "acceptable" in critics' circles to laud superficially entertaining films. Thus, if Casablanca is one of the best movie ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told then appreciate it for those reasons and don't crowbar the thing into some auteur theory explanation of its quality. Also, if The Social Network is great because it's dramatic, funny, and well-acted, then we should recognize it as being great for those reasons rather than placing some non-existent "generation-defining" significance on it.


See, I very much agree with this, but I also think it goes against a lot of what goes on here on MC, in that people often demand more explanation, more "reason" for one's love/hate of a film than just "it's one of the greatest stories ever told".

I do, personally, consider Casablanca one of the greatest movies of all time. And I completely agree with you that trying to shoehorn some "auteur theory" into it is unnecessary.

But at the same time, making a simple statement like what you said - "Casablanca is one of the best movies ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told" - is something I don't think would fly here.

Or the person who makes that statement would be told that they were unable to back up their opinion if they didn't support it with ways in which it fits into auteur theory, analyses of thematic depth, etc.

[baby doll]

I don't distinguish art and entertainment or place value on one over the other. It takes an artist to make great entertainment in this medium. And no, depth and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. Look at The Godfather. The classifications are Fincher's, not mine. I merely agree with them in how he applies it to this particular film. My argument is only that we appreciate something for what it is, not for what we want it to be because it's not "acceptable" in critics' circles to laud superficially entertaining films. Thus, if Casablanca is one of the best movie ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told then appreciate it for those reasons and don't crowbar the thing into some auteur theory explanation of its quality. Also, if The Social Network is great because it's dramatic, funny, and well-acted, then we should recognize it as being great for those reasons rather than placing some non-existent "generation-defining" significance on it.In the case of Casablanca, in addition to being a well-written story, I would add that there's a good deal of craftsmanship at work here as well. In fact, even though Curtiz is not generally considered an auteur, he knew things about staging that most so-called auteurs today (Aronofsky, Fincher, Nolan, etc.) never bothered to learn. But that's just basic craft, which has nothing to do with depth.

As for The Godfather, I would maintain that it was, in a sense, The Social Network of its day but times ten, in that it was so acclaimed and so popular that people started spouting this nonsense about it being a film about America in order to justify all the accolades that were being heaped on what is, essentially, a gangster picture--that is, the sort of film that hadn't typically been taken very seriously up till that point (although the film takes itself very, very seriously).

[baby doll]

See, I very much agree with this, but I also think it goes against a lot of what goes on here on MC, in that people often demand more explanation, more "reason" for one's love/hate of a film than just "it's one of the greatest stories ever told".

I do, personally, consider Casablanca one of the greatest movies of all time. And I completely agree with you that trying to shoehorn some "auteur theory" into it is unnecessary.

But at the same time, making a simple statement like what you said - "Casablanca is one of the best movies ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told" - is something I don't think would fly here.

Or the person who makes that statement would be told that they were unable to back up their opinion if they didn't support it with ways in which it fits into auteur theory, analyses of thematic depth, etc.As David Bordwell likes to say, interpretation is easy, but analysis is hard. If you want to back up your opinion that movie X is terrific, it's just a lot simpler to offer an interpretation than to do a more detailed analysis of what's actually happening on screen.

[elixir]

Can't a film be great just by the virtuosity of its craft? It doesn't have to be the most superior example of having deep, complex themes to be great.

[elixir]

As David Bordwell likes to say, interpretation is easy, but analysis is hard. If you want to back up your opinion that movie X is terrific, it's just a lot simpler to offer an interpretation than to do a more detailed analysis of what's actually happening on screen.

That's the guy who wrote my film studies book!

[baby doll]

That's the guy who wrote my film studies book!He also has a pretty awesome blog that he shares with Kristin Thompson. I particularly like this entry (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=859) comparing a scene in The Shop Around the Corner with its counterpart in You've Got Mail.

[Morris Schæffer]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but it's dawned on me just how much some of the tracks resemble the bare bones bleeps and electronic scores of C64 and Amiga 500 videogames.

I mean, listen to this (starting from 0:22):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-FYLLGytZs

Now listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bSdeP8yH2I&feature=related

[DavidSeven]

See, I very much agree with this, but I also think it goes against a lot of what goes on here on MC, in that people often demand more explanation, more "reason" for one's love/hate of a film than just "it's one of the greatest stories ever told".

I do, personally, consider Casablanca one of the greatest movies of all time. And I completely agree with you that trying to shoehorn some "auteur theory" into it is unnecessary.

But at the same time, making a simple statement like what you said - "Casablanca is one of the best movies ever made because it's just one of the best stories ever told" - is something I don't think would fly here.

Or the person who makes that statement would be told that they were unable to back up their opinion if they didn't support it with ways in which it fits into auteur theory, analyses of thematic depth, etc.

I hear you. Charade is one of my favorite films, but I'm not going to pretend it's for any other reason than being funny, engaging, well-directed, and damn charming.


In the case of Casablanca, in addition to being a well-written story, I would add that there's a good deal of craftsmanship at work here as well. In fact, even though Curtiz is not generally considered an auteur, he knew things about staging that most so-called auteurs today (Aronofsky, Fincher, Nolan, etc.) never bothered to learn. But that's just basic craft, which has nothing to do with depth.

As for The Godfather, I would maintain that it was, in a sense, The Social Network of its day but times ten, in that it was so acclaimed and so popular that people started spouting this nonsense about it being a film about America in order to justify all the accolades that were being heaped on what is, essentially, a gangster picture--that is, the sort of film that hadn't typically been taken very seriously up till that point (although the film takes itself very, very seriously).

I think we're more or less on the same page theoretically. We just disagree about The Godfather.


Can't a film be great just by the virtuosity of its craft? It doesn't have to be the most superior example of having deep, complex themes to be great.

Yep. I'm not arguing otherwise. Personally, I think Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice is one of the best films of the past 10 years, and that's almost entirely based on its immaculate craftsmanship. It's definitely not something I would categorize as thematically or intellectually complex. Similarly, I appreciate the Coens's work more for their craftsmanship and wit than anything else. I think the thematic complexity of their films is frequently overrated (though certainly deeper than average Hollywood fare). Yet, that doesn't stop me from considering them among my favorite filmmakers.

[Dukefrukem]

This is the 7th best movie of the year.

[baby doll]

This is the 7th best movie of the year.And the top six are, I'm guessing: Carlos, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Film socialisme, The Ghost Writer, Greenberg, and Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives? Or maybe something I haven't seen yet, like Aurora, The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu, Certified Copy, I Wish I Knew, Poetry, or The Strange Case of Angelica?

[Dukefrukem]

And the top six are, I'm guessing: Carlos, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Film socialisme, The Ghost Writer, Greenberg, and Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives? Or maybe something I haven't seen yet, like Aurora, The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu, Certified Copy, I Wish I Knew, Poetry, or The Strange Case of Angelica?

1. Inception
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. The Social Network

[baby doll]

1. Inception
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. The Social NetworkIf I had to watch one of those movies again, I'd probably go with The Social Network myself, although neither one strikes me as being particularly interesting formally (structurally, Nolan's film is more ambitious, but in terms of local texture, the execution strikes me as mechanical and bloodless), nor does either film have much resonance. Both are slick and entertaining (Fincher's film decidedly more so, as it's better acted, funnier, and less self-important--all around the more successful of the two), but not among my favorite movies of the year. I would say that Greenberg, in addition to being a better written and acted Hollywood talk-fest (if nothing else, not all the characters talk the same way), and a better directed movie to boot (I think Fincher's framings are deliberate to a fault), it actually is kind of a generational statement, in that Ben Stiller belongs to one generation, and Greta Gerwig and the party kids belong to another, so it has a bit more resonance than The Social Network.

[elixir]

I like Greenberg quite a bit, though I prefer The Social Network. One thing I would say is that the characters do not talk the same way at all...Eduardo talks like Mark? Really? And I could go on with more comparisons, but I think while there may be some general cleverness/snark-iness to some of the characters, you can still easily separate who one is based on their dialogue.

[baby doll]

I like Greenberg quite a bit, though I prefer The Social Network. One thing I would say is that the characters do not talk the same way at all...Eduardo talks like Mark? Really? And I could go on with more comparisons, but I think while there may be some general cleverness/snark-iness to some of the characters, you can still easily separate who one is based on their dialogue.It all sounded pretty similar to me, in that it was all done in that zippy Aaron Sorkin style. Just as Fincher's compositions strike me as overly fussy (you get the feeling that the director made all the actors sit perfectly still so that they didn't spoil his perfectly symmetrical compositions--says the man with a Jeanne Dielman avatar), the dialogue strikes me as overly written.

[elixir]

Jeanne Dielman...I'm watching that in my film class in a couple of weeks!

It was done in a writerly/clever-Aaron Sorkin way, but I don't mind stylized writing (which I guess all writing is!) as long as it works--and I think it did. I still have trouble believing someone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the dialogue of Eduardo and Mark, just to name one difference though.

[Ezee E]

They had completely different ways of talking. I think I'm done arguing with babydoll for a few weeks. It feels like Irish.

[Sycophant]

They had completely different ways of talking. I think I'm done arguing with babydoll for a few weeks. It feels like Irish.

Shit, dawg. Irish felt like baby doll. Respect your O.G.!

[Dillard]

Where did Irish go anyway?

[Briare]

It all sounded pretty similar to me, in that it was all done in that zippy Aaron Sorkin style. Just as Fincher's compositions strike me as overly fussy (you get the feeling that the director made all the actors sit perfectly still so that they didn't spoil his perfectly symmetrical compositions--says the man with a Jeanne Dielman avatar), the dialogue strikes me as overly written.

Coming off a fresh rewatch of the film... i can honestly say I have no idea where you got any of this from. To say Eduardo and Mark talk or behave alike, in the confines of the film is quite simply wrong. i didn't find any of the other characters, especially Eduardo sounded anything like Zuckerberg. Mark gets most of the snarky one liners, thus the way his character is painted. The dialogue on the second time through sounded very naturalistic.

[Irish]

Shit, dawg. Irish felt like baby doll. Respect your O.G.!

:lol: Hadn't seen these posts until just now. Just saw the film and skimmed the last two pages. Looking forward to digging into the rest.

Kinda agree with whoever said this was a fast paced crowd pleaser. It doesnt have a helluva lot of depth and I think it lesser hands it would have played like some cheap docudrama. But that's fine.

Massive kudos to Fincher and Sorkin for taking what has to be one of the thinnest stories ever written and making it compelling as hell. I think this should have won best picture on those merits alone.

Two problems, that really have nothing to do with the overall quality: One, holy shit do they take it easy on Zuckerberg. What a softball of a movie. Two, and this may have been intentional, but I found it odd how much the movie pulls back from Zuckerberg's character as the story plays out. the opening scene with Rooney Mara had me expecting certain high level rat a tat tat His Hirl Friday exchanges that never really happen, mostly because Zuckerberg is increasngly in thei background. Which is something of a small shame, because the rest of the characters aren't as interestng.

Great movie. I can't remember everything I saw frm last year, but that's got to be one of the tops.

[Ezee E]

Are you forgetting about all the exchanges between Z and the lawyers? While not as long as the talk with Rooney Mara, but equally as funny.

[Irish]

Are you forgetting about all the exchanges between Z and the lawyers? While not as long as the talk with Rooney Mara, but equally as funny.

There are some good lines there, in a typical Sorkin kind of way, but the difference is that none of those characters ever push back on Zuckerberg. That ties into so bunch of other stuff going on in the movie (Mara is the only one who keeps up with him, who stands up to him, and who walks out on him. And she's the only one he cares about at the end of the film) but I still found it slightly disappointing.

I didn't really walk away from this feeling like I'd gotten any fresh insight into Zuckerberg as a person. Arguably, though, that's not what the movie is about so I can't really call it a flaw, per se.