The Social Network (Fincher, 2010)

[Watashi]

http://media2.slashfilm.com/slashfilm/images/ZZ39D6A9D8small.jpg

Trailer should be up soon.

[Pop Trash]

I actually think this could be interesting if Fincher treats the accumulation of digital information in the same way he treated the accumulation of analogue info in Zodiac.

[[ETM]]

And of course it's a Mac OS window...

[Ivan Drago]

I had a feeling that the ad campaign for this would be glorious and the poster proved right. Bring on the trailer!

[number8]

I kinda wish that Sorkin would insist a rewrite to add this bit in. :lol:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/06/19/pakistan-authorities-wants-facebook-founder-charged-with-blasphemy/

[Spun Lepton]

A premise like this will either do really well, or bomb embarrassingly. I suspect the former.

[Sxottlan]

Teaser (http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=23420).

Takes a cue from The Dark Knight's teaser in that you don't see anything, just hear a little of Sorkin's dialogue.

[Ezee E]

Quite the daring teaser to go for by having a teaser about someone that most people haven't really heard of.

Still works though.

[eternity]

From what I hear, audiences HATE HATE HATE the teaser. I thought it was spiffy enough. :/

[number8]

From what I hear, audiences HATE HATE HATE the teaser. I thought it was spiffy enough. :/

Why, what happened?

[Mara]

I like it.

[Qrazy]

That was fucking terrible.

[Derek]

From what I hear, audiences HATE HATE HATE the teaser.

Audiences have shit taste.

[Qrazy]

Audiences have shit taste.

You know what's cool? A billion dollars.

[Ezee E]

Can't understand "HATING" the trailer. Maybe the logo at the end made it seem like something that's way more serious then it should be.

[Derek]

Can't understand "HATING" the trailer. Maybe the logo at the end made it seem like something that's way more serious then it should be.

I can't understanding feeling strongly one way or the other because of it.

[Ezee E]

I can't understanding feeling strongly one way or the other because of it.

I think people have heard of "The Facebook Movie" being made, and when they saw that this was it, it probably put out more laughs than anything.

[Winston*]

I don't think the teaser works. It tries to attach too much weightiness to dialogue samples that could easily be from some average made for TV movie about the subject. A teaser for a major motion picture about Facebook really needs to justify to its audience why there is a major motion picture about Facebook.

[transmogrifier]

I don't see how this movie can be interesting. I just can't.

How can this movie be interesting. How? HOW?

[Sven]

What Winston said. It comes off like one of those youtube trailers: someone trying to be funny by turning the mundane into movie moments.

[Derek]

I don't see how this movie can be interesting. I just can't.

How can this movie be interesting. How? HOW?

Directed by David Fincher = Top 7 of 2010 for you.

[transmogrifier]

Directed by David Fincher = Top 7 of 2010 for you.

But...but...HOW?

[Derek]

But...but...HOW?

I don't know, but I'll be interested in reading your justification.

[transmogrifier]

I don't know, but I'll be interested in reading your justification.

Me too.

[Watashi]

I just read that Trent Reznor is doing the score for this film? Wha?

[Ivan Drago]

I just read that Trent Reznor is doing the score for this film? Wha?

:head explodes:

....AW. SUM.

[Spun Lepton]

This is generating too much interest, thus, I have lost interest.

:D

[Dead & Messed Up]

Trent Reznor will be doing the score. Bizarro.

[Spun Lepton]

No you can't poke me...
No you can't invite me...
No you can't get me to play your
Stupid games ...
No you can't ...
FRIEND MEEEEEE-AAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
(*clang clang clang clang*)

/Reznor

[Sxottlan]

Curiouser and curiouser.

[D_Davis]

I'd rather see the Zucker Brothers make a lamebook.com movie.

[Ezee E]

This is opening the New York Film Festival for those of you that live out there.

New teaser out as well. Basically the same as the first, but in a facebook chat. I prefer the first one.

[number8]

Amazing trailer. I cannot fucking wait for this movie.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810128131/video/20889623

[[ETM]]

All links to it seem to be dead now.

[Henry Gale]

Very good trailer.

Not sure how that's truly a green-band one considering JT's middle fingers at 2:03, but still, that's exactly the type of thing that would convince anyone to see a "Facebook movie".

[Dead & Messed Up]

That trailer's really, really, really cool.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Fantastic trailer.

[MacGuffin]

Looks awesome, mostly because of Eisenberg.

[Ezee E]

Maybe Fincher should remain scaled down.

[transmogrifier]

Still just looks like a film about Facebook.

HOW can this be good?

[Watashi]

The reason that any movie can be good?

The whole "I dont like/use Facebook, therefore I don't like this movie" is really weaksauce.

The trailer makes it more than just "the invention of Facebook". I got a big early 90's Oliver Stone vibe out of this trailer. It looks fantastic.

[[ETM]]

Still just looks like a film about Facebook.

Judging by that trailer alone, it looks like it's the least about Facebook itself.

[Ezee E]

Perhaps trans thinks part of the movie is closeups of random facebook pages with people typing in statuses and changing relationship updates. I, too, would not be excited about that.

[Watashi]

Perhaps trans thinks part of the movie is closeups of random facebook pages with people typing in statuses and changing relationship updates. I, too, would not be excited about that.
You have to be a moron if you think that's what the movie is.

[D_Davis]

I'm into this because I find the whole idea of online social networking to be a fascinating one. Forums, Facebook, online dating services, and such are all a part of our modern culture. Whether or not one really likes or uses them is not the point. The MIT Media Lab has done some really interesting work in evaluating and studying how these kinds of things, and things like e-mail suffixes (aol.com, gmail.com, etc) have impacted our culture, going as far to say that these things are important identifiers in new kinds of stereotypes (one being how e-mail users with gmail.com suffixes are, generally, thought of as being more intelligent than e-mail users with aol.com suffixes). I'm hoping the film touches on this in some way.

[transmogrifier]

The reason that any movie can be good?

The whole "I dont like/use Facebook, therefore I don't like this movie" is really weaksauce.

The trailer makes it more than just "the invention of Facebook". I got a big early 90's Oliver Stone vibe out of this trailer. It looks fantastic.

I use Facebook and like it a lot.

[transmogrifier]

Perhaps trans thinks part of the movie is closeups of random facebook pages with people typing in statuses and changing relationship updates. I, too, would not be excited about that.

Heh. I think it's about a bunch of rich kids creating something that took off and then suffering the consequences of succ.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'll watch it, because I love Fincher and it will be awesomely cut and paced, but.....well, I'm hoping to be proven wrong.

[Ezee E]

Heh. I think it's about a bunch of rich kids creating something that took off and then suffering the consequences of succ.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'll watch it, because I love Fincher and it will be awesomely cut and paced, but.....well, I'm hoping to be proven wrong.
Fincher doesn't seem the type to go that boring of a route. Kind of why I'm anticipating it so much.

[Spinal]

I liked the trailer until the dialogue started.

[Derek]

Great trailer.

[Spinal]

Apart from the nifty use of Radiohead, what am I missing? This seems an awful lot like the biopics that you guys are always railing against with the characters who speak like they've read news articles about themselves five years in the future.

[transmogrifier]

Apart from the nifty use of Radiohead, what am I missing? This seems an awful lot like the biopics that you guys are always railing against with the characters who speak like they've read news articles about themselves five years in the future.

Yes.

[Derek]

Apart from the nifty use of Radiohead, what am I missing? This seems an awful lot like the biopics that you guys are always railing against with the characters who speak like they've read news articles about themselves five years in the future.

It's wonderfully cut and perfectly paced. Maybe the film will be formulaic, but as a stand-alone piece, that's a very well-made trailer.

[Derek]

Yes.

Have you heard about Chan-wook Park's upcoming Craig's List trilogy?

[transmogrifier]

Have you heard about Chan-wook Park's upcoming Craig's List trilogy?

I'd be having the same reservations, tbh. The founding of Amazon, on the other hand.....just hold me back!

[Spinal]

How about a Joe Francis film? Sort of like The People vs. Larry Flynt meets [Rec].

[Ivan Drago]

Apart from the nifty use of Radiohead, what am I missing?

There's Radiohead in that trailer? I missed that.

[Spinal]

There's Radiohead in that trailer? I missed that.

Dude.

[Sven]

Dude.

Yeah, that's face palm worthy.

*face palm

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's wonderfully cut and perfectly paced. Maybe the film will be formulaic, but as a stand-alone piece, that's a very well-made trailer.

This.

[Ivan Drago]

Dude.

Sorry. It's been forever since I listened to Creep.

[Spinal]

I liked the last bit, with him asking the panel for recognition or whatever. It felt less 'writer-ly' than the rest of it. Genuine, like something was really at stake.

[Sycophant]

It's a nifty trailer, though Spinal's biopic reservations are not without merit.

I like Jesse Eisenberg.

[Watashi]

The running time is rumored to be around 190 minutes long. I don't think it will remain that long.

[Ezee E]

Won't surprise me if it's still 2 1/2 hours. All of Fincher's movies are pretty damn long. Even Panic Room runs two hours.

[Ezee E]

Crowd kind of meh'd this during Inception.

[Fezzik]

Crowd kind of meh'd this during Inception.

Same. There were a couple of "what the..?" when they realized the following: Facebook+Movie+Hey is that Justin Timberlake?

[Qrazy]

This trailer is better than the first one but it's still not especially good.

[megladon8]

Wow, that was quite a trailer.

Liked how it ended with the final line sung by the choir, "I don't belong here".

Very cool.

[Bosco B Thug]

Derisive laughter during my screening. Saw that coming.

This looks good. Drips Fincher atmosphere. If anything, the overlong Facebook montage in the beginning sets itself up for mockery, although I'm sure it's simultaneously what sells it to the general populace.

[Watashi]

I think this movie will be huge.

[megladon8]

I think this movie will be huge.


I'm not sure about that. I think it might have a novelty where a lot of people see it in the first week or two, but I just can't see it having an enormous box office.

Maybe they've got a really cool ad campaign coming up?

It looks like a talky drama, and if it's true that it's 3+ hours long, I can't see many people going in big groups to see it, let alone seeing it over and over again.

A lot of people I know IRL who adored movies like The Dark Knight and Avatar, and who usually see movies several times when they love them, only saw them once because they were so long. And those were fairly quick-paced action movies.

[Ezee E]

It'll have to be an awards contender to be a success. Comes out in October, so it'll get drowned out by the horror movies. I'll say $40-$50... which I think might still roll in a profit.

[Ezee E]

Great TV Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppamk0iTCQ8)

Probably my favorite out of all the previews.

[DavidSeven]

Didn't realize Sorkin wrote this until just recently.


the characters who speak like they've read news articles about themselves five years in the future.

And now it all makes sense. Not anticipated.

[endingcredits]

I liked the last bit, with him asking the panel for recognition or whatever. It felt less 'writer-ly' than the rest of it. Genuine, like something was really at stake.

Yeah, that was the highlight for me as well. The rest of the trailer was meh.

[Sxottlan]

Early rave review from Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff/2010/revenge-of-the-nerd).

[Boner M]

Pretty much sold from that review. Sounds excellent.

[Pop Trash]

Early rave review from Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff/2010/revenge-of-the-nerd).

Meh, can't trus' it. FC always champions Fincher. Even Benjamin Button which I found mediocre, they really liked.

That said, I'll still see this.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, Foundas is kind of a Fincher fanboy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Spinal]

It is a movie of people typing in front of computer screens and talking in rooms that is as suspenseful as any more obvious thriller.

Color me dubious.

[Sven]

Color me dubious.

It will likely be suspenseful in the same television-y kind of way that some West Wing episodes are suspenseful. Meaning: Sorkin-suspenseful. Meaning: not that suspenseful.

[transmogrifier]

It will likely be suspenseful in the same television-y kind of way that some West Wing episodes are suspenseful. Meaning: Sorkin-suspenseful. Meaning: not that suspenseful.

It's a movie about Facebook. It won't be suspenseful.

[Qrazy]

It's a movie about Facebook. It won't be suspenseful.

OMGZ!!?? Will she decline or accept the Friend request!??

Twist ending!

She ignored it entirely!!!!!

[number8]

Network was just a movie about TV ratings.

[baby doll]

I saw the trailer today when I went to see The American, and I'm pumped--and I don't even like David Fincher movies. Or trailers. Then again, I wasn't nervously trying to discern how other people were responding to it in order to gauge its box office potential. Seriously, when did you guys all turn into reviewers for Variety?

[DavidSeven]

I think it's interesting to discuss what sort of cultural impact, if any, a film might have, is having, or has had. Talking about its financial performance and how its playing to mainstream critics, "elites" (you know, MC Consensus, Film Comment, Slant, FFC, things of these sorts), and the general audience is all a part of that. Don't think it's about being all Variety-like.

[Watashi]

Are we really elites?

[Spinal]

Are we really elites?

It's certainly not the first word to spring to mind.

*waits for first word to spring to mind*

...

...

...

Doofuses. We are doofuses.

[DavidSeven]

Well, I've noticed that MC doesn't really fall comfortably within either the mainstream critic perspective or the general audience perspective. So, it's either that or a separate category for whoever it is that likes to discuss the merits of blood splattered camera lenses.

[Qrazy]

Well, I've noticed that MC doesn't really fall comfortably within either the mainstream critic perspective or the general audience perspective. So, it's either that or a separate category for whoever it is that likes to discuss the merits of blood splattered camera lenses.

I'm for them.

[Qrazy]

I think it's interesting to discuss what sort of cultural impact, if any, a film might have, is having, or has had. Talking about its financial performance and how its playing to mainstream critics, "elites" (you know, MC Consensus, Film Comment, Slant, FFC, things of these sorts), and the general audience is all a part of that. Don't think it's about being all Variety-like.

Speaking of this I'm finding the posters for the film fairly obnoxious. Zuckerberg is a visionary? A genius? Really? It's not like the guy invented social networking.

[DavidSeven]

By the way, the inclusion in the elitist group was mostly just in fun. We're clearly dweebs.

[DavidSeven]

Speaking of this I'm finding the posters for the film fairly obnoxious. Zuckerberg is a visionary? A genius? Really? It's not like the guy invented social networking.

I haven't seen the posters, but I'm hoping there's some irony or sarcasm implied in there somewhere. He had the foresight to make something that already existed more marketable and more stable and the intelligence, resources, and connections to execute. The work of many smart, well-connected people made it as profitable as it is now. But let's not act like this thing is saving lives or enlightening our minds. I'm really wondering how this is even a remotely interesting subject for a supposedly relevant director to tackle. Well, here's to hoping it's suspenseful.

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen the posters, but I'm hoping there's some irony or sarcasm implied in there somewhere. He had the foresight to make something that already existed more marketable and more stable and the intelligence, resources, and connections to execute. The work of many smart, well-connected people made it as profitable as it is now. But let's not act like this thing is saving lives or enlightening our minds. More and more, I'm wondering how this is even a remotely interesting subject for a supposedly relevant director to tackle.

Yeah but isn't this true of so much in the corporate market? But anyway, my prediction is this... the film will turn out fine as a result of Fincher's direction. However it will be crippled by it's uninteresting subject matter and mediocre script. I will watch it once, find it mildly palatable and never have any desire to ever see it again.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah but isn't this true of so much in the corporate market? But anyway, my prediction is this... the film will turn out fine as a result of Fincher's direction. However it will be crippled by it's uninteresting subject matter and mediocre script. I will watch it once, find it mildly palatable and never have any desire to ever see it again.

Yeah, exactly. I wasn't trying to lend credence to those ridiculous marketing claims at all. I mean you might as well put those words on the posters for Pinkberry: The Movie, Starbucks: The Movie, or Self-Sufficient Hot Dog Stand: The Movie.

[Spinal]

I'm for them.

I'm agin' 'em.

[Raiders]

I'm pretty certain the personal, social and global impact of Facebook is just a bit ahead of Starbucks.

[Qrazy]

I'm agin' 'em.

Are you for liquid splashage in Von Trier films? Can't recall if we covered that last time around.

[baby doll]

But anyway, my prediction is this... the film will turn out fine as a result of Fincher's direction. However it will be crippled by it's uninteresting subject matter and mediocre script.I'll take the opposite wager. Fincher's direction will be competent and professional with a tendency to be a little too fussy (for instance, the scene where he's demanding recognition from the people investigating him), but the subject will be so interesting and resonant that I'll wind up liking it anyway, especially since Eisenberg's character comes off as a totally amoral douchebag in the trailer.

[DavidSeven]

I'm pretty certain the personal, social and global impact of Facebook is just a bit ahead of Starbucks.

Is it? I mean, really? It's corporate product that is just a brand for something that would have existed anyway. Let's be real here.

[Raiders]

Is it? I mean, really? It's corporate product that is just a brand for something that would have existed anyway. Let's be real here.

Sure it would have existed, but how does that change how truly addicted and intimate people are with Facebook and how much of a great signifier it is for the connectedness of today's society? You're not going to get that with Starbucks.

It's much more than just the internet or corporate product. It's the most visible use of the vastness of the internet and the way it is more and more every day a greater part of our life.

As a genesis film I don't know that it is going to say much about any of this, but I think you are undermining, or underestimating, just what Facebook is.

[Qrazy]

Sure it would have existed, but how does that change how truly addicted and intimate people are with Facebook and how much of a great signifier it is for the connectedness of today's society? You're not going to get that with Starbucks.

It's much more than just the internet or corporate product. It's the most visible use of the vastness of the internet and the way it is more and more every day a greater part of our life.

As a genesis film I don't know that it is going to say much about any of this, but I think you are undermining, or underestimating, just what Facebook is.

I don't know. I'm with DavidSeven here. Starbucks won the coffee race just as Facebook won the social network race. But it's popularity doesn't make it more culturally significant than it's precursor Myspace (66 million users vs Facebook's 500 million) or all that came before. I mean we might as well have a Mac vs. PC film or a Google film, a youtube film or a Wikipedia film.

[Watashi]

Without Facebook, how could I stalk you guys on a daily basis?

[Raiders]

I'm kind of baffled that you guys don't actually think Facebook is more culturally significant than Starbucks. Whatever, I'm going to go post my status...

[Winston*]

I find Facebook and Starbucks equally significant to my life in that I don't patronise either of them.

[Qrazy]

I'm kind of baffled that you guys don't actually think Facebook is more culturally significant than Starbucks. Whatever, I'm going to go post my status...

Okay, if we're ranking corporate entities in terms of cultural significance yeah I guess I'd put it above Starbucks... but then I'd be putting IBM, Mac, Google and maybe even youtube over facebook as well. At least youtube by it's very nature has tons of filmic content. I'd also probably rank Wal-mart, Ford Motor, Bank of America and Exxon Mobil above facebook. Where are their movies!?

[DavidSeven]

Sure it would have existed, but how does that change how truly addicted and intimate people are with Facebook and how much of a great signifier it is for the connectedness of today's society? You're not going to get that with Starbucks.


Honestly, you haven't convinced me that Starbucks culture doesn't suggest the same things about society. Though I concede to a lesser degree.


It's much more than just the internet or corporate product. It's the most visible use of the vastness of the internet and the way it is more and more every day a greater part of our life.

As a genesis film I don't know that it is going to say much about any of this, but I think you are undermining, or underestimating, just what Facebook is.

I'm not questioning Facebook's cultural significance or ranking it below Starbucks or a hotdog stand on the "significance" meter. I'm just challenging the marketing claim that Zuckerberg is especially genius or visionary. He got a marketable product off the ground and on the investment radar. From there, a number of very smart business managers, investors, and engineers molded it into what it is today. Fortuitous timing and good funding made it a cultural phenomenon. Let's face it, Friendster could have been Facebook if their servers hadn't crapped out on them almost immediately.

And as you hinted at, this film is not a documentary on the impact of Social Networking on society. It's a narrative film about two kids who became millionaires then got mad at each other. It's ability to say anything interesting will inevitably be handcuffed by the necessity to follow at least a minimal level of biographical facts. Though I'm sure that didn't stop Sorkin from sensationalizing these kids' lives and putting a lot of worldly weight on trivial shit.

[number8]

That's why the marketing is focusing on Zuckerberg being an asshole. No one would want to go see a movie about the founding of Facebook if it's just about its founding, but Zuckerberg is a pretty controversial figure in the tech and business world and he alone could have sold the movie to that crowd. The trick is to let the laymen know why he's a controversial figure and why people are making a movie about him.

[transmogrifier]

Good reviews (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/sony-allows-online-critics-weigh-social-network-20795) from the first screening, though it was screened to bloggy critics, the very group pre-determined to like it. If Fincher pulls this off, he's certainly a genius.

[Rowland]

though it was screened to bloggy critics, the very group pre-determined to like it.I wouldn't call them bloggy critics, more like "CHUD and AICN'ers."

[number8]

...though it was screened to bloggy critics, the very group pre-determined to like it.

...

Because bloggers are on the web like Facebook?

[transmogrifier]

...

Because bloggers are on the web like Facebook?

I don't know, a decent film about computer geeks and social media? Seems like the bloggy critics would be all over that shit.

[Watashi]

Bloggy critics > Regular critics

[Spaceman Spiff]

What about bloggy regulars?

[number8]

Has anyone stopped to consider that this is actually a really great movie title?

[[ETM]]

Has anyone stopped to consider that this is actually a really great movie title?

Yes.

[number8]

I loved this movie.

[D_Davis]

I loved this movie.

Of course you did, you're from the Internet.

[NickGlass]

I find it amusing how you can tell someone's interest in this film by what they call it. Among a group of friends last night, half--who were interested in seeing it--called to it as "The Social Network" while those uninterested referred to it as "The Facebook Movie?"

[number8]

I'm trying to decide whether to call it this generation's Wall Street or this generation's Scarface.

[Dukefrukem]

I was reading the history of FB earlier, and I remember when it was only offered to the Boston and Ivy league schools... and I clearly remember signing up for it before 2004. I'm trying to figure out why that can't be correct.

[Boner M]

I find it amusing how you can tell someone's interest in this film by what they call it. Among a group of friends last night, half--who were interested in seeing it--called to it as "The Social Network" while those uninterested referred to it as "The Facebook Movie?"
I remain on the fence by calling it The Social Movie.

[NickGlass]

I'm trying to decide whether to call it this generation's Wall Street or this generation's Scarface.

Neither bodes well for the actual quality of the film. Is it that cheesy?

[number8]

Neither bodes well for the actual quality of the film. Is it that cheesy?

Sorkin's heightened exchanges and unexpected nonsequiturs are always a little cheesy, but Fincher downplayed that a bit. It's more that it starts of as a story of the young upstart maneuvering to the top, ala Wall Street, but ends up being a twisted American Dream mythic power grab story that resembles Scarface, with the sex, money and drugs intact, but the guns and chainsaws replaced with lines of computer code and lawyers.

[Watashi]

Is Timberlake doing cocaine off a women's breast still in the film or was that cut out?

[Ezee E]

Sorkin's heightened exchanges and unexpected nonsequiturs are always a little cheesy, but Fincher downplayed that a bit. It's more that it starts of as a story of the young upstart maneuvering to the top, ala Wall Street, but ends up being a twisted American Dream mythic power grab story that resembles Scarface, with the sex, money and drugs intact, but the guns and chainsaws replaced with lines of computer code and lawyers.
Replacing it with computer code and lawyers? Sounds like an Armond White reach for comparison.

[number8]

Suddenly, sitting at work approving payments to Facebook seems very odd.

[transmogrifier]

Well, I guess I'm excited to see it after all. On ya, Fincher.

[Skitch]

I loved this movie.

Look fella, I'm trying to keep my expectations for 'new Fincher movie' in check, and you're not helping.

[Morris Schæffer]

41 reviews on the Tomatometer, all fresh. Fincher does it again!

[Ezee E]

41 reviews on the Tomatometer, all fresh. Fincher does it again!
Well, people did like Benjamin Button at first...

[Watashi]

Well, people did like Benjamin Button at first...
I still love it.

[Watashi]

I know everyone's tired of the guy and no one cares, but Armond White hated the film (http://www.nypress.com/article-21676-creeps-as-heroes.html).

[NickGlass]

That makes perfect sense. He pans every Fincher film, doesn't he?

[number8]

Here's my review (http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/6993-the-social-network.html). It's pretty long.

[transmogrifier]

That makes perfect sense. He pans every Fincher film, doesn't he?

He despises Fincher. Take the next Spielberg film, slap Fincher's name on it, and White will castigate it.

The fact that you can look at the director and know exactly what White's review will be means that he is completely useless as a critic.

[D_Davis]

The fact that you can look at the director and know exactly what White's review will be means that he is completely useless as a critic.

No, no, no. He just has a unique, singular voice!

[Milky Joe]

The fact that you can look at the reviewer and know exactly what people will say about the review means that people are completely useless.

[Sven]

His piece this week on discourse is good.

[Ezee E]

For the first time, I read an Armond White review before I saw a movie. It was Takers (yeah yeah yeah) and I cannot comprehend how he got those thoughts. It's like reading political posts from Barty.

[Derek]

For the first time, I read an Armond White review before I saw a movie. It was Takers (yeah yeah yeah) and I cannot comprehend how he got those thoughts. It's like reading political posts from Barty.

He has fucking awful taste. But to prevent this from becoming another outright White hate-fest, he does occasionally come up with interesting defenses for the abysmal shit he enjoys.

[Ezee E]

He has fucking awful taste. But to prevent this from becoming another outright White hate-fest, he does occasionally come up with interesting defenses for the abysmal shit he enjoys.
He has a great defense of Takers which was kind of the reason I led myself to being pulled into seeing it.

But that defense made absolutely no sense when I saw it. A chase scene that he considers one of the best of all time is so horribly edited, shot, and lacking suspense that I can't fathom the idea.

[transmogrifier]

He has a great defense of Takers which was kind of the reason I led myself to being pulled into seeing it.

But that defense made absolutely no sense when I saw it. A chase scene that he considers one of the best of all time is so horribly edited, shot, and lacking suspense that I can't fathom the idea.

White is all about politics and "cultural truth", whatever the fuck that means. He has next to no interest in actual cinematic craft.

[number8]

You know what I said about Tyler Durden in the Hobo thread? Yeah, here's another example. Armond and I saw opposite things apparently in what was portrayed.

[number8]

I'm trying to decide whether to call it this generation's Wall Street or this generation's Scarface.

By the way, as written in my review, I went for There Will Be Blood instead.

[Skitch]

I've contemplated starting an official Armond White thread so his idiocy (and arguments about his idocy) don't have to pollute every damn thread on Match-Cut, but I'm not cool enough to have such a thing not poo-poo'ed by the in's. Could one of you cool kids do it, please?

[B-side]

Despite the widespread praise, I'm still not expecting much from this, but I will be seeing it, most likely this weekend.

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing it at midnight tonight. Can't wait!

[Ezee E]

Tomorrow morning. I've stayed away from all reviews and thoughts so I'm not spoiled by any good sequences or notable scenes.

[MadMan]

I still love it.Same here.

After all the buzz and having seen the trailers for this, plus the fact its directed by Fincher, I'm interested in actually seeing this. I wonder if Timberlake is actually good or not.

[Mara]

Every review I've read praises Aaron Sorkin by name.

Do me a favor, buddy. Ride this wave and make another television show.

Thanks ever so.

[baby doll]

As played by pale-skinned, curly-headed Jesse Eisenberg, Zuckerberg may be the most obnoxious movie protagonist Noah Baumbach didn’t writeSold!

[B-side]

Sold!

:D

[Ivan Drago]

It wasn't very deep, but despite that it's a brilliantly written, acted and directed story. I haven't been a fan of Jesse Eisenberg, but he won me over with his performance here.

[Spinal]

Listening to Sorkin on Colbert. Think I'm finally getting swayed to want to see this.

[Ezee E]

Not floored by this, but definitely good.

Timberlake surprised me the most, in a very good way.

[Ezee E]

And kudos to Fincher for his mastery of CGI. Just found out the twins were played by one guy. Wow.

[Watashi]

I can definitely see the comparisons to There Will Be Blood, but it draws way more out of Fincher's own Fight Club. Garfield does the best job here. This is Sorkin's Oscar to lose.

There's no "emotional wallop" found in here, but it doesn't need to have one. Just smart filmmaking all around.

[transmogrifier]

His piece this week on discourse is good.


You don't think him complaining about others reviewing reviewers rather than the film is, how to put this politely, a bit rich?

[Ezee E]

Comparisons to Fight Club huh? Zuckerberg wanting to be like Sean Parker? I don't know if I see that entirely. It's more of him simply being accepted in general. Although I can't exactly pin why he pushes those people away that actually would consider him a friend, only to eventually mope about why they don't like him later, as the girlfriend does.

A great final shot by the way.

It's kind of hard to discuss more about the movie as it seems to simply speak for itself. In a way, the movie shows everything that's good and bad about facebook without making it obvious.

[Watashi]

Comparisons to Fight Club huh? Zuckerberg wanting to be like Sean Parker? I don't know if I see that entirely. It's more of him simply being accepted in general. Although I can't exactly pin why he pushes those people away that actually would consider him a friend, only to eventually mope about why they don't like him later, as the girlfriend does.

A great final shot by the way.

It's kind of hard to discuss more about the movie as it seems to simply speak for itself. In a way, the movie shows everything that's good and bad about facebook without making it obvious.

I was thinking Eduardo as Tyler Durden.

[Qrazy]

I was thinking Eduardo as Tyler Durden.

That makes no sense.

---

Anyway, the movie was okay. The film was well structured, well made, etc but the entire experience just felt somewhat shallow to me.

[Watashi]

That makes no sense.


How does it not? Even though they don't explicitly say it, Eduardo is everything Mark wants to be. Sean has the extravagant lifestyle that Mark wants on the outside, but it's Eduardo's life that makes him jealous.

[Boner M]

Anyway, the movie was okay. The film was well structured, well made, etc but the entire experience just felt somewhat shallow to me.
B-?

Probably should give this query a rest.

[Watashi]

Qrazy, update your signature, you whore.

[Qrazy]

How does it not? Even though they don't explicitly say it, Eduardo is everything Mark wants to be. Sean has the extravagant lifestyle that Mark wants on the outside, but it's Eduardo's life that makes him jealous.

I see what you're getting at but I don't think two instances in these films of characters being jealous of another makes the film like Fight Club. I'm not saying Sean as Derden makes more sense than Eduardo as Durden, I'm saying neither makes sense to me.

[Pop Trash]

Computer nerd question time:

What was Zuckerberg clicking on in the final shot? Was he just refreshing his ex-gfs facebook page over and over?

[Watashi]

Computer nerd question time:

What was Zuckerberg clicking on in the final shot? Was he just refreshing his ex-gfs facebook page over and over?
Yes.

You don't need to be a computer nerd to figure that out.

[Pop Trash]

Yes.

You don't need to be a computer nerd to figure that out.

Well he had a code script window up. Thought maybe he was hacking her FB.

[Henry Gale]

It's very, very good. I haven't seen much of Fincher's earlier work since I was a lot younger, but at the same time I don't feel too uncomfortable calling this my favourite film of his.

[Ezee E]

Well he had a code script window up. Thought maybe he was hacking her FB.
Not even a code script was up. He was seeing if she'd accept his friend request.

Great end.

[RoadtoPerdition]

Great movie. I thought Timberlake's acting was fairly weak at times, but it was serviceable. The part that kind of left me feeling a little incomplete was Eduardo getting screwed with the .03% share. Is this something that Sean Parker was in Zuckerberg's ear to do or did the attorneys pressure him into it or did Zuckerberg come up with that on his own? It just felt like this kind of came out of nowhere and they made it a point the whole movie that Zuckerberg wasn't interested in money, so why did he decide to do this to his best friend? Do you think this is left open intentionally or did I miss something?

[Ezee E]

Great movie. I thought Timberlake's acting was fairly weak at times, but it was serviceable. The part that kind of left me feeling a little incomplete was Eduardo getting screwed with the .03% share. Is this something that Sean Parker was in Zuckerberg's ear to do or did the attorneys pressure him into it or did Zuckerberg come up with that on his own? It just felt like this kind of came out of nowhere and they made it a point the whole movie that Zuckerberg wasn't interested in money, so why did he decide to do this to his best friend? Do you think this is left open intentionally or did I miss something?
I put it to being Zuckerberg doing it on his own so that he, and only he, could be recognized as the main facebook guy. The recognition he deserves, and the fact that Eduardo froze the account was sort of a slap in the face as well from the only person that he did trust.

[Watashi]

Great movie. I thought Timberlake's acting was fairly weak at times, but it was serviceable. The part that kind of left me feeling a little incomplete was Eduardo getting screwed with the .03% share. Is this something that Sean Parker was in Zuckerberg's ear to do or did the attorneys pressure him into it or did Zuckerberg come up with that on his own? It just felt like this kind of came out of nowhere and they made it a point the whole movie that Zuckerberg wasn't interested in money, so why did he decide to do this to his best friend? Do you think this is left open intentionally or did I miss something?

I'm pretty sure it's because he froze the account.

[eternity]

Not even a code script was up. He was seeing if she'd accept his friend request.

Great end.
A code script was up, but it had nothing to do with her Facebook profile.

[eternity]

I'm pretty sure it's because he froze the account.They clarify that it was indeed because of this. Eduardo's stunt was not going to be tolerated so they kicked him out.

[Qrazy]

No, it ran much deeper than the frozen account. His whole relationship with Eduardo was strained ever since the first time Ed mentioned he had been punched by Phoenix. As far as how cutting out Ed came about, I do think it was partially Sean and the suits as well ('So who is this Eduardo?' - suit). And it's clear Mark felt bad about what happened when Sean was in Ed's face gloating about the situation. The professed reason as to why they cut Ed out was that Ed's approach to the business model was going to kill the site from becoming a billion dollar idea by adding ads to it. The underlying reason was Mark's jealousy (of Phoenix but also of the upper class in general), but he did view Ed as a friend for a long time. He wasn't trying to screw him from the get go out of jealousy and spite... but Ed's approach to the venture, the frozen account, the fact that he didn't come out to California, and the fact that he'd been punched by Phoenix... all of this came together and led to Mark's acceptance to cut Ed out.

[Ezee E]

No, it ran much deeper than the frozen account. His whole relationship with Eduardo was strained ever since the first time Ed mentioned he had been punched by Phoenix. As far as how cutting out Ed came about, I do think it was partially Sean and the suits as well ('So who is this Eduardo?' - suit). And it's clear Mark felt bad about what happened when Sean was in Ed's face gloating about the situation. The professed reason as to why they cut Ed out was that Ed's approach to the business model was going to kill the site from becoming a billion dollar idea by adding ads to it. The underlying reason was Mark's jealousy (of Phoenix but also of the upper class in general), but he did view Ed as a friend for a long time. He wasn't trying to screw him from the get go out of jealousy and spite... but Ed's approach to the venture, the frozen account, the fact that he didn't come out to California, and the fact that he'd been punched by Phoenix... all of this came together and led to Mark's acceptance to cut Ed out.
Well said.

[Izzy Black]

Don't get the hype. Struck me as Modernist Filmmaking 101. Fincher is great, as usual, but the story isn't very interesting to me. It romanticizes capitalism and the Ivy League, and I wasn't particularly impressed. Regardless of the fact that a lot of this comes off as embellishment of the trivial, the faux-character analysis fell short on pain of unoriginality and lack of depth.

[RoadtoPerdition]

No, it ran much deeper than the frozen account. His whole relationship with Eduardo was strained ever since the first time Ed mentioned he had been punched by Phoenix. As far as how cutting out Ed came about, I do think it was partially Sean and the suits as well ('So who is this Eduardo?' - suit). And it's clear Mark felt bad about what happened when Sean was in Ed's face gloating about the situation. The professed reason as to why they cut Ed out was that Ed's approach to the business model was going to kill the site from becoming a billion dollar idea by adding ads to it. The underlying reason was Mark's jealousy (of Phoenix but also of the upper class in general), but he did view Ed as a friend for a long time. He wasn't trying to screw him from the get go out of jealousy and spite... but Ed's approach to the venture, the frozen account, the fact that he didn't come out to California, and the fact that he'd been punched by Phoenix... all of this came together and led to Mark's acceptance to cut Ed out.

This makes sense. I'm sure it's been said before, but this story is very Shakespearean.

[Qrazy]

One of the tragedies for Zuckerberg's character is that these Final Clubs are idiotic. Ultimately it's just a bunch of douchebag kids who may be more intelligent than the next guy, but are so full of themselves that any value their intelligence may bring is completely eroded by their obnoxiousness. My girlfriend has actually been to one of those final club parties and said that the people who attend are simply insufferable.

I don't know, I found the film's script a little confused. On the one hand Zuckerberg is supposed to want to get into these final clubs more than anything else. On the other hand when he has a chance to do so he instead screws the members of the club and yet he's supposed to be jealous of his friend for getting into another club? On top of this he doesn't return to Harvard to complete his degree so he certainly has no chance of getting into a club at that point. I suppose we're supposed to just accept that he's moved beyond his obsession with the clubs, but then why does the film harp upon his purported jealousy?

[Qrazy]

Don't get the hype. Struck me as Modernist Filmmaking 101. Fincher is great, as usual, but the story isn't very interesting to me. It romanticizes capitalism and the Ivy League, and I wasn't particularly impressed. Regardless of the fact that a lot of this comes off as embellishment of the trivial, the faux-character analysis fell short on pain of unoriginality and lack of depth.

I'm completely with you.

Those bantering exchanges Sorkin lays down on paper (especially the opening scene) really don't work for me either. And yeah, in relation to your romanticization comment, lines like... "Thousand" "What?" "Twenty-two thousand"... really rubbed me the wrong way. I mean fair enough that the Zuckerberg character would be obsessed with that kind of stuff, but to have the legal aid inadvertently stroking his ego? Wow, twenty-two thousand, BFD. It's a website. He'll make money. This is not the second coming of Jesus.

Also why do Erica's random dorm mates read Zuckerberg's blog? Was he some sort of big deal in the blogosphere before facebook?

[Ezee E]

One of the tragedies for Zuckerberg's character is that these Final Clubs are idiotic. Ultimately it's just a bunch of douchebag kids who may be more intelligent than the next guy, but are so full of themselves that any value their intelligence may bring is completely eroded by their obnoxiousness. My girlfriend has actually been to one of those final club parties and said that the people who attend are simply insufferable.

I don't know, I found the film's script a little confused. On the one hand Zuckerberg is supposed to want to get into these final clubs more than anything else. On the other hand when he has a chance to do so he instead screws the members of the club and yet he's supposed to be jealous of his friend for getting into another club? On top of this he doesn't return to Harvard to complete his degree so he certainly has no chance of getting into a club at that point. I suppose we're supposed to just accept that he's moved beyond his obsession with the clubs, but then why does the film harp upon his purported jealousy?

It's not that he wants to be in those clubs specifically. It's just about being accepted, well-liked. But when he doesn't get that, he wants to make those people look like less then him, and he works to do just that.

[Izzy Black]

On
I don't know, I found the film's script a little confused. On the one hand Zuckerberg is supposed to want to get into these final clubs more than anything else. On the other hand when he has a chance to do so he instead screws the members of the club and yet he's supposed to be jealous of his friend for getting into another club? On top of this he doesn't return to Harvard to complete his degree so he certainly has no chance of getting into a club at that point. I suppose we're supposed to just accept that he's moved beyond his obsession with the clubs, but then why does the film harp upon his purported jealousy?

Absolutely! It's likely because it's a distortion of the truth. Zuckerberg has stated he had no intent of joining a finals club and this fact agrees with what's known about the story. It also, as you've pointed out, showcases the inconsistency of the narrative events with the dramatic characterization and motivations of Zuckerberg.
I'm completely with you.

Those bantering exchanges Sorkin lays down on paper (especially the opening scene) really don't work for me either.

The opening scene almost completely ruined the film for me. I haven't encountered people who actually act this way - Ivy League or otherwise.


And yeah, in relation to your romanticization comment, lines like... "Thousand" "What?" "Twenty-two thousand"... really rubbed me the wrong way. I mean fair enough that the Zuckerberg character would be obsessed with that kind of stuff, but to have the legal aid inadvertently stroking his ego? Wow, twenty-two thousand, BFD. It's a website. He'll make money. This is not the second coming of Jesus.

Or "We're gentlemen of Harvard" and other such things. Yes, there's class privilege and pretentiousness aplenty, but the filmmaker's restrict themselves to this exclusive account of Harvard alone, underwriting the ultimate attempt to capture Zuckerberg as an amoral, disillusioned opportunist in a vacuum of prestige, but the result is fictionalization to the point of hyperbole and romanticism, and thus reinforcing naive assumptions and stereotypes that are both grating and annoying. What's more, the fact that Summers, who admittedly was a controversial president at Harvard, would be so dismissive of violations of the Honor Code seems suspicious to me. The Honor Code, especially among the Ivy League, is taken very seriously. Evidence of this can even be seen in the recent scandal involving a Harvard psychologist who possibly fabricated data in his published scientific research. The investigation has been an entirely internal Harvard investigation that, in effect, has drawn negative attention to one of it's star faculty. The information was nonetheless released to the public in a commitment to the principles of academic honesty and integrity. It's also not clear to me why they only needed to speak to the President to handle this problem rather than say the Dean of Students, the department that typically handles academic misconduct.


Also why do Erica's random dorm mates read Zuckerberg's blog? Was he some sort of big deal in the blogosphere before facebook?

The assumption here is that he would know Erica's dorm mates, as often is the case in relationships. But in any case, there is an air of absurdity about the way it all went down. The screenwriter has attested to his disavowal of truth and "accuracy" and his preference for drama and story-arch in this case, though.

[Qrazy]

It's not that he wants to be in those clubs specifically. It's just about being accepted, well-liked. But when he doesn't get that, he wants to make those people look like less then him, and he works to do just that.

Yeah but he doesn't get it because he didn't strive to get it. He blew off the idea of getting into a Final Club fairly early on but then supposedly he remained jealous of Eduardo for getting into one? Being in a final club was his initial obsession. The film should have made clearer that the twins weren't going to let him in the club even if he'd helped with the project, that would have explained his later motivations better imo.

[Izzy Black]

^^ Agreed.

[trotchky]

Don't get the hype. Struck me as Modernist Filmmaking 101. Fincher is great, as usual, but the story isn't very interesting to me. It romanticizes capitalism and the Ivy League, and I wasn't particularly impressed. Regardless of the fact that a lot of this comes off as embellishment of the trivial, the faux-character analysis fell short on pain of unoriginality and lack of depth.

I mean, yeah, but in the same way Fight Club romanticized fighting. There is something romantic about capital and the Ivy League, but doesn't the film sort of go out of its way to make the audience see past that initial glamor? I mean, isn't that kind of the point?

[Qrazy]

Also enough of these Rubik's cube equivalent scenes... 'storms out of classroom while giving correct answer to difficult question'.

[Qrazy]

How do people feel about one of the two central moral dilemmas? Do you think Zuckerberg's character should have had to pay the twins? All they really did was come up with an 'elitist' myspace. He didn't use their code and he presumably didn't use their layout/graphic design. So What's good about the site, what sets it apart from myspace is imo it's clean layout. It's not even elitist in the endgame, that's only it's rollout approach. And all the film shows that the twins brought to the table was an 'elitist myspace'.

[balmakboor]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/10/the_social_network_communicati .html

Some interesting thoughts here.

[number8]

Hey, what were those two boxes that Mark ordered?

[Watashi]

Hey, what were those two boxes that Mark ordered?
His business cards.

[number8]

His business cards.

D'oh. Of course.

[number8]

The film should have made clearer that the twins weren't going to let him in the club even if he'd helped with the project, that would have explained his later motivations better imo.

I wouldn't have liked that. One of the more interesting things about the portrayal of Zuckerberg in this is his distance to other people and to the audience. It helps give him the air of mystery and pettiness that makes me believe he can do the most damaging stunt for the smallest of reasons. It's possible that he screwed over the Winklevii just because they're on the rowing team, which reminded him of Erica.

But really, I think it's just an ego thing. He put his photo on the Facebook header and every page has "A Mark Zuckerberg production" on it. He wants his own legacy, not as a hired help for some final club jocks.

[Qrazy]

I wouldn't have liked that. One of the more interesting things about the portrayal of Zuckerberg in this is his distance to other people and to the audience. It helps give him the air of mystery and pettiness that makes me believe he can do the most damaging stunt for the smallest of reasons. It's possible that he screwed over the Winklevii just because they're on the rowing team, which reminded him of Erica.

But really, I think it's just an ego thing. He put his photo on the Facebook header and every page has "A Mark Zuckerberg production" on it. He wants his own legacy, not as a hired help for some final club jocks.

I was referring to his later motivations in relation to cutting out Eduardo, which it is insinuated at least partially has something to do with jealousy in relation to Eduardo and Phoenix. If he couldn't get into a club that makes more sense, but destroying his opportunity to get into a club and then remaining jealous of someone who does get into a club, does not make sense.

The more I think about the film the more it feels like Citizen Kane-lite on a number of levels. I mean Fincher owns the fact that Kane was an influence but certain elements of his approach just feel like weak imitation.

1) Zuckerberg's character is no Charles Foster Kane. Israfel and I have already commented upon some inconsistencies in the character's motivations so I won't go into them again.

2) Citizen Kane demonstrates the tragedy and hollowness of Kane's life from the very beginning and by virtue of it's structure. The appeal of capital is shown for Kane but the film never endorses it itself. Here the Ivy's and Capital is romanticized throughout (the film ends with 'he is the youngest billionaire') and while the film shows that Zuckerberg alienated a couple people he presumably cared about, in the final estimation Erica is no rosebud. It's all the more bullshit given that this film is based directly on the celebrity in question and the real life Zuckerberg has been dating the girl he met as a sophomore at Harvard (Priscilla Chan) for 6 years now. He was also a member of a fraternity apparently.

3) The film's structure while initially appealing applies those rapid jumps between time frames along strings of relevant dialogue. Compared to the back and forth structure of Kane at times the editing in The Social Network just comes across as gimmicky. Kane's editing gradually revealed pertinent information from various perspectives. The Social Network just uses the litigation as a focal point around which to swing the weight of the story.

Under different circumstances I might say 'yeah the film's not as good as Citizen Kane, because it's freakin' Citizen Kane!' ... but here I think there are enough parallels that it's worth commenting upon.

[Henry Gale]

But really, I think it's just an ego thing. He put his photo on the Facebook header and every page has "A Mark Zuckerberg production" on it. He wants his own legacy, not as a hired help for some final club jocks.

The thing is, that's a made-up touch that works well for the story in the film, since in real life the header had the face of a young Al Pacino.

[number8]

I don't see why we should bother talking about what's real and what's not, since the movie is a loose adaptation of an already mostly fictionalized novel.

[Spinal]

It saddens me that this film is being hailed as an example of exceptional cinema. This is not drama. It's elevated trivia. I worried early on that it would resemble a conventional biopic. It's worse. I'll take overwrought emotion any day over endless scenes of characters racing through their lines as if they're speedreading from a Newsweek article. We got this many hits! We've got this many members! We're worth this much! OMG, the internet is a'sploding! The film has a modicum of artistry in terms of solid performances, decent editing and the occasional zinger. I particularly liked the score. But, it is ultimately an utterly empty experience, predictable and dull. Sort of like a special edition of VH1's I Love the Facebook, it's mildly amusing to say, hey, I lived through that. But beyond staging the backstage bickering, of what use is this film other than to point out the most trite conclusion that can be reached from all this? -- that the mastermind of the social network is himself antisocial. The writing team of Aaron Sorkin and Captain Obvious have not created a lasting work. They've created an opportunistic one.

[D_Davis]

The whole idea of the Ivy League schools and their clubs, money, prestige, and what-not, is so foreign and weird to me that it might is well be Hogwarts. It's like those people and I live in completely different worlds.

[Henry Gale]

In terms of the dynamic between the four sides involved -- Zuckerberg, Saverin, Parker and the Winklevoss twins -- the film seems to look at the events as if Zuckerberg, being the person with the most power in the situation, is probably the person who wants his position the least as well as being the least-suited for it. After one viewing and not having reviewing each and every detail in my head that much before right now, I don't know how much I'll stand by this after more time with the film. But right now, it sits well enough with me.

From the very first scene we hear Zuckerberg explain what he finds to be the allure of a life more prestigious than what he currently has, why it's "cool" and his blind enthusiasm in wanting to be a part of it. In the span of that conversation he fails to realize that he's ruined his relationship, and doesn't understand how or why. Then over the course of the film, proceeds to do a much larger scale of it all over again.

Once Zuckerberg has the site, he doesn't seem to want anyone else but him to understand or have real control over what it needs to be. He realizes the potential dangers of it and no longer wants to be the sole person responsible for things as the begin to spiral out of control. Mark seems to bring along Sean Parker because he empathizes with him and the downfall of Napster and knows Sean has first-hand experience in making huge waves with a website, even if Facebook, and he himself as the man behind it, could end up in a similar place if it all fails.

Mark never seems to actually like Sean or how well he's worked to make Facebook huge, but by how much they seem to think alike, Zuckerberg can take comfort in Parker's potential for failure, knowing his past both professionally and socially. In the whirlwind of success and the changes in Mark's life, Parker's reputation is almost his way to get back to Harvard, the final clubs, all the things Eduardo still seems to have access to amongst everything that Mark can no longer be a part of. It's all simply something resembling a normal life, and that life being something the site disconnected him from.

It's hard to tell if Mark tried to remove Eduardo from the company as a way to not have him end up in the same place as him, considering their focus on very different things (relationships, internships, the direction of the website) but also their friendship. If that was why Mark left him out, to spare him the sort of life his was becoming, then it's easy to see why he doesn't think of himself as an asshole, and why he feels like he's changed as a person from the very first scene of the film.

[RoadtoPerdition]

How do people feel about one of the two central moral dilemmas? Do you think Zuckerberg's character should have had to pay the twins? All they really did was come up with an 'elitist' myspace. He didn't use their code and he presumably didn't use their layout/graphic design. So What's good about the site, what sets it apart from myspace is imo it's clean layout. It's not even elitist in the endgame, that's only it's rollout approach. And all the film shows that the twins brought to the table was an 'elitist myspace'.

Yeah, these were my thoughts. I'm not understanding where the original idea for the Facebook was all that, well, original. Mark even compares the Harvard Connection stuff to Friendster and MySpace, so I'm not sure where he thinks his Facebook is so completely different or where the other parties feel the idea is actually their intellectual property.


Winklevoss twins

It's Winklevii.

[Mysterious Dude]

That was so not like my college life.

I didn't like Rashida Jones (a.k.a. that girl from The Office). Every time she opened her mouth it felt really false to me, and I'm almost positive she's not based on any real person. Why is she so smitten by Mark, anyway? His sex appeal? His lovable personality?

I didn't particularly like the way it ended, either. I think it would have been better if the last flashback had been Eduardo and Mark's fight, instead of Sean Parker's arrest (since the consequences of that didn't seem to have much to do with the frame story). Citizen Kane did it better, with the last flashback being Susan walking out on Kane.

[Ezee E]

Was Rashida smitten by Mark? I just thought she was doing her job, and trying to make him feel comfortable when it was just them two in the room.

But I'll agree that she's not a very good actress.

[Watashi]

It saddens me that this film is being hailed as an example of exceptional cinema. This is not drama. It's elevated trivia. I worried early on that it would resemble a conventional biopic. It's worse. I'll take overwrought emotion any day over endless scenes of characters racing through their lines as if they're speedreading from a Newsweek article. We got this many hits! We've got this many members! We're worth this much! OMG, the internet is a'sploding! The film has a modicum of artistry in terms of solid performances, decent editing and the occasional zinger. I particularly liked the score. But, it is ultimately an utterly empty experience, predictable and dull. Sort of like a special edition of VH1's I Love the Facebook, it's mildly amusing to say, hey, I lived through that. But beyond staging the backstage bickering, of what use is this film other than to point out the most trite conclusion that can be reached from all this ... that the mastermind of the social network is himself antisocial. The writing team of Aaron Sorkin and Captain Obvious have not created a lasting work. They've created an opportunistic one.
Thank you for confirming my love for it. ;)

Saw it for a third time last night.

It's His Girl Friday meets Citizen Kane for the techno-age.

I never really cared how much was fictionalized and how far off base it is from the truth. Sorkin stated in an interview that he didn't care how Facebook was created (or even use it). He just the story had a good cinematic drama to it that everyone can relate to.

[Watashi]

Was Rashida smitten by Mark? I just thought she was doing her job, and trying to make him feel comfortable when it was just them two in the room.

But I'll agree that she's not a very good actress.

She is the weak link in the film, acting as a plot device to deliver the main message to Mark at the end. I think the final shot alone illustrates it perfectly without words.

[Spinal]

It's His Girl Friday meets Citizen Kane for the techno-age.



The only resemblance between this film and His Girl Friday is that the characters talk really fast.

And any comparison to Citizen Kane only serves to show how utterly hollow this film is. It has no mystery, no artistic ambiguity, no innovation, no risks, no moral seriousness, no drama of real consequence. The one thing this film has over Welles' film is that Citizen Kane did not have an adorable Stanford girl with a cute butt.

[Watashi]

The one thing this film has over Welles' film is that Citizen Kane did not have an adorable Stanford girl with a cute butt.

Isn't that all you need sometimes?

I would disagree with all your complaints about its lack of innovation, risks, and moral dilemma. I found the film to really hit close (and I'm far from an eccentric genius). Maybe you're just an old coot and missed out on the party. :)

[ledfloyd]

i'm not sure how one can come away from this film thinking it romanticizes ivy league universities. the impression i got was that they were comprised of a bunch of misogynist, elitist assholes. and when the winklevii were going on about 'we are gentlemen of harvard' i felt the film was scoffing at them. and indeed, larry summers scoffed at them.

walking away from this film thinking it glorifies zuckerberg and harvard final clubs is tantamount to walking away from fight club thinking it glorifies tyler durden and fight clubs. i had nothing but scorn for both of them.

[Fezzik]

I really liked this. I didn't try to compare it to anything, I just went in to see a Fincher film written by Sorkin.

My comments:

* I didnt realize the Winkevii were played by the same guy till the end credits. Great CGI work and a great performance by Hammer.

* Eisenberg seemed more "alive" in this than he has in any other role. Yes, he still seemed like Eisenberg, but he actually felt like a different character this time. I liked him a lot.

[ledfloyd]

also, criticizing the dialogue for not being natural is kind of silly. the dialogue in noirs and screwball comedies isn't natural. it's stylized. as is the dialogue in the social network. the film is so filled with dialogue i feel it almost has to be stylized and rhythmic. otherwise it would grow tiresome. perhaps for some people it still does. but it didn't bother me in the least.

[Spinal]

The film barely even addresses the issues of privacy that go hand-in-hand with the Facebook explosion. There's a little bit with the exchange between him and the ex-girlfriend and that's about it. This would be far more interesting to me than the story of which geek deserved the biggest share of a billion dollars.

[Spinal]

also, criticizing the dialogue for not being natural is kind of silly.

Who has done that?

[Bosco B Thug]

I wouldn't have liked that. One of the more interesting things about the portrayal of Zuckerberg in this is his distance to other people and to the audience. It helps give him the air of mystery and pettiness that makes me believe he can do the most damaging stunt for the smallest of reasons. It's possible that he screwed over the Winklevii just because they're on the rowing team, which reminded him of Erica. Yeah, exactly. The way Zuckerberg is drawn is with an insistence that he is an enigma, plain and simple. He is a computer genius enfant terrible, after all. As much as he runs his mouth, he's always keeping an amazing amount to himself throughout the film, due to his schizophrenic self-image issues and his characteristically high-functioning acknowledgment that even he himself hardly can predict his whims. So I think the inconsistency of his actions and motives is completely intentional, or, more accurately, intentionally made vague and capricious.

Looking for consistent cause-and-effect in Zuckerberg is to ignore the film's painting Zuckerberg as someone who simply doesn't live life the way most people do. Another film, dealing with a normal-Zuckerberg, would address the Break-Up Myth the film concocts by exploring normal-Zuckerberg's love life. Instead, we have a seeming asexuality foisted upon him for the entire running length. The screenplay aims for the opposite of cause-and-effect, and whenever it does insinuate a cause-and-effect, it's always made dubious.

I thought it was perfectly in line with his character that his wish to become popular at Harvard and get in their exclusive clubs becomes an afterthought after he gets caught up in the newest, now most pragmatic objective. He's the opposite of stupid, and he knows what he's good at and where he belongs, which is as CEO of a billion dollar website.

And I also thought it was perfectly in line that his greatest emotional responses come from sensitive women characters calling him an asshole for his own good. I think Erica is a great Rosebud.

Finally, the film is about the triviality and pettiness of everything. The Winklevoss's crybaby allegations. Their split second loss in the crew race. The ridiculous amorality capable of contracts. Harvard Final Clubs. Academic Honor Code. The party lifestyle, which lo and behold isn't what makes Zuckerberg happy. The truth behind all of this is that while all of those things are trivial, they still can mean so much to people. I think it's quite powerful that the one and only thing that could actually make Zuckerberg happy is reconnecting with Erica.


How do people feel about one of the two central moral dilemmas? Do you think Zuckerberg's character should have had to pay the twins? All they really did was come up with an 'elitist' myspace. He didn't use their code and he presumably didn't use their layout/graphic design. So What's good about the site, what sets it apart from myspace is imo it's clean layout. It's not even elitist in the endgame, that's only it's rollout approach. And all the film shows that the twins brought to the table was an 'elitist myspace'. Yeah, I didn't think their allegations hold much water. Zuckerberg shouldn't have led them to believe he was still working for them, though.

The Winklevoss subplot was perhaps my favorite aspect about the film. LoOoOoOoved the almost Man With a Movie Camera race scene.


I didn't like Rashida Jones (a.k.a. that girl from The Office). Every time she opened her mouth it felt really false to me, and I'm almost positive she's not based on any real person. I actually kinda clung to Jones' performances. She was the only person who didn't deliver her lines like a sass master, and I felt like she was going for awkward. I loved her bad posture in this movie, too.

Yeah, maybe I just like Rashida Jones.

[B-side]

LoOoOoOoved the almost Man With a Movie Camera race scene.

Yup.

[Watashi]

It's made clear that Zuckerburg doesn't care about the money he makes. He's not some greedy capitalist. He does it for the passion of being an owner to his own intellectual property that people find popular. I don't think the percentage of shares are suppose to really represent money, but the value of contribution. I also don't understand how it romanticizes capitalism.

[ledfloyd]

The film barely even addresses the issues of privacy that go hand-in-hand with the Facebook explosion. There's a little bit with the exchange between him and the ex-girlfriend and that's about it. This would be far more interesting to me than the story of which geek deserved the biggest share of a billion dollars.
is it about which geek deserves a billion dollars? along the way it raises issues of privacy, of greed, of egotism, of the internet's ability to destroy the class system. that was what i found interesting about the film. who deserves credit for creating facebook seemed like a macguffin to me.

[ledfloyd]

Who has done that?
i could be wrong but i assumed that's what israfel meant when he said 'i've never encountered people who actually act this way' in regards to the opening scene.

[Spinal]

is it about which geek deserves a billion dollars? along the way it raises issues of privacy, of greed, of egotism, of the internet's ability to destroy the class system. that was what i found interesting about the film. who deserves credit for creating facebook seemed like a macguffin to me.

It raises the issue of privacy (in the scene with the ex-girlfriend) and does nothing with it. It is wrong to publish nasty blogs about people. Yes, that is true.

It raises the issue of greed and does nothing with it. People will screw over their friends for large sums of money. Yes, that is true.

It raises the issue of egotism and does nothing with it. Ivy educated computer geeks have difficulty relating to other people. Yes, that is true.

I don't really see much exploration of the internet's ability to destroy the class system. Isn't it just a new systen? Doesn't Sean Parker with his pedigree and notoriety crush the little guy? Doesn't Zuckerberg simply move to the popular kids' table?

It's not that these things aren't there. It's that there's not a whole lot of substance or insight to them. I can understand someone liking this film. I don't really understand how it can be considered among the year's best.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yup. Such. A. Good. Idea.


It's made clear that Zuckerburg doesn't care about the money he makes. He's not some greedy capitalist. He does it for the passion of being an owner to his own intellectual property that people find popular. I don't think the percentage of shares are suppose to really represent money, but the value of contribution. I also don't understand how it romanticizes capitalism. Yeah. There Will Be Blood this is not. If this film's geek soap opera is trivial, I'm calling out TWBB's family issues and homoerotic entrepreneur S&M torture porn.

[Spinal]

i'm not sure how one can come away from this film thinking it romanticizes ivy league universities. the impression i got was that they were comprised of a bunch of misogynist, elitist assholes.

Agree with this.

[Spinal]

It's made clear that Zuckerburg doesn't care about the money he makes. He's not some greedy capitalist. He does it for the passion of being an owner to his own intellectual property that people find popular. I don't think the percentage of shares are suppose to really represent money, but the value of contribution. I also don't understand how it romanticizes capitalism.

So I'm supposed to believe that Zuckerberg would rather have popularity and validation rather than a massive amount of money?

[Watashi]

So I'm supposed to believe that Zuckerberg would rather have popularity and validation rather than a massive amount of money?
From what's displayed in the film? Yes. Do you see him wearing fancy designer suits or living in a spacious house? No.

The real-life Zuckerberg has given a majority of his money away to charity.

[Spinal]

The real-life Zuckerberg has given a majority of his money away to charity.

Majority? As in more than 50%?

[Izzy Black]

i'm not sure how one can come away from this film thinking it romanticizes ivy league universities. the impression i got was that they were comprised of a bunch of misogynist, elitist assholes. and when the winklevii were going on about 'we are gentlemen of harvard' i felt the film was scoffing at them. and indeed, larry summers scoffed at them.

walking away from this film thinking it glorifies zuckerberg and harvard final clubs is tantamount to walking away from fight club thinking it glorifies tyler durden and fight clubs. i had nothing but scorn for both of them.

To clarify this (and to another poster here who raised a similar concern with my post) - I mean romanticism in at least one of these two ways:

fanciful; impractical; unrealistic: romantic ideas.

or

imaginary, fictitious, or fabulous.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/romantic

If you fully read my second post, I explain that the film romanticizes negative connotations of the Ivy League and Harvard. I point out specifically the stereotypes of pretentiousness and class privilege that it presents as pervasive. I find the film is in error for this slanted, restrictive, and/or bias presentation of the Ivy League.

I also raised suspicion about the characterization of Harvard's administrative dealings with misconduct which seem odd to me for two reasons: (1) Why didn't they go to the Dean of Students and (2) There's evidence to suggest that Harvard and the Ivy League takes the Honor Code, academic misconduct, and behavioral misconduct in general rather seriously.

Lastly, the comment of "We're gentlemen of Harvard" was that it reinforced the above stereotype. That he was scoffed at for his comment doesn't enable a non-elitist argument against him, but an elitism that doesn't necessarily hold to social propriety or etiquette (although it suggests that this is still a noteworthy attribute of Harvard students).

[DavidSeven]

From what's displayed in the film? Yes. Do you see him wearing fancy designer suits or living in a spacious house? No.

The real-life Zuckerberg has given a majority of his money away to charity.

This just isn't true. He made his first public charitable contribution last month before the film's release (to an educational foundation in New Jersey that he has no apparent ties to). Also, almost every inch of his wealth is tied up in Facebook stock. The guy isn't liquid at all. So, unless charitable organizations are getting ownership shares of Facebook, that statement is just logistically impossible.

[Ezee E]

THe privacy issues can't really be discussed in the movie as that didn't really become an issue until just the past few years really. But the movie still shows the negatives that have come from facebook, such as the obsession with relationship status, addictiveness, and getting help for work from others.

[Mysterious Dude]

David Lynch is now pretty much the god of special effects I didn't know were special effects until after I saw the movie. He's got a three-movie running streak with me.

[Watashi]

David Lynch is now pretty much the god of special effects I didn't know were special effects until after I saw the movie. He's got a three-movie running streak with me.
Don't you mean Fincher?

[Mysterious Dude]

Don't you mean Fincher?
You know, I made that mistake in my mind as I was preparing to make that post, and before I started typing it, I told myself, "Don't type 'David Lynch,' Isaac."

[monolith94]

David Lynch is now pretty much the god of special effects I didn't know were special effects until after I saw the movie. He's got a three-movie running streak with me.
Yeah, that bird at the end of Blue Velvet was pretty realistic.

[ledfloyd]

It raises the issue of privacy (in the scene with the ex-girlfriend) and does nothing with it. It is wrong to publish nasty blogs about people. Yes, that is true.

It raises the issue of greed and does nothing with it. People will screw over their friends for large sums of money. Yes, that is true.

It raises the issue of egotism and does nothing with it. Ivy educated computer geeks have difficulty relating to other people. Yes, that is true.

I don't really see much exploration of the internet's ability to destroy the class system. Isn't it just a new systen? Doesn't Sean Parker with his pedigree and notoriety crush the little guy? Doesn't Zuckerberg simply move to the popular kids' table?

It's not that these things aren't there. It's that there's not a whole lot of substance or insight to them. I can understand someone liking this film. I don't really understand how it can be considered among the year's best.
eh, i thought the whole hacking into databases and lifting everyone's pictures to use for his own purposes showed he had little regard for other's privacy. there also was a conversation with sean parker in which he said something to the effect of privacy being an antiquated concern.

in regards to egotism and greed, is what they did with it much different than what was done in citizen kane or there will be blood? it's nothing new but it was interesting seeing it represented in a modern milieu and thinking about how it effects us now.

as for the latter, possibly. it's something to consider. but i saw zuckerberg using the internet to completely break through the harvard class system. the winklevosses were appalled at what he'd done because he wasn't rich, he wasn't popular and he had complete disregard for the way things are usually done around there. did he merely establish another class system? perhaps, but he used the internet to dismantle the existing one. i do think this aspect of the film is a bit hamstrung by sorkin's distaste for internet culture, which is a shame, because it's one of the more interesting bits.

you're right in stating that it raises concerns and does little with them. but when is asking questions and not providing answers considered a bad thing? i don't think it will be the best film of the year but currently it's one of the best of a relatively weak crop. the direction, score, cinematography, writing and acting are all top notch and it provides plenty to debate and mull over. i can't think of any other 2010 films i've seen that i can say that about. it's not terribly profound, but like zodiac it gets a lot of mileage out of merely reciting a bunch of facts.


If you fully read my second post, I explain that the film romanticizes negative connotations of the Ivy League and Harvard. I point out specifically the stereotypes of pretentiousness and class privilege that it presents as pervasive. I find the film is in error for this slanted, restrictive, and/or bias presentation of the Ivy League.
ah, gotcha. in that case you make a fair point.

[number8]

From what I understand, Sorkin sort of interviewed Natalie Portman to get a feel of what Harvard was like in that period (she's the "movie star" mentioned in the film, obviously).

[Ezee E]

I really have no doubt that Harvard has that feel of elitism on campus. That's why it's Harvard.

[ledfloyd]

larry lessig wrote a piece on the film (http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network)

it's interesting. his criticism of sorkin's worldview is, i think, legitimate.

[number8]

larry lessig wrote a piece on the film (http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network)

it's interesting. his criticism of sorkin's worldview is, i think, legitimate.

This is actually very good, and yes, very valid. The point occurred to me, too, actually, especially when I thought about its connection to There Will Be Blood, regarding a new commodity in American entrepreneurship and how much it's changed from era to era. Ultimately, though, I find the film to be more about our state of social interactivity than capitalism, so I feel moving the focus away from the webmine is smart. The fluidity of today's start-ups wouldn't have lent too well to mirroring the personal relationships. Facebook's interconnectedness does.

[Mysterious Dude]

Yeah, that bird at the end of Blue Velvet was pretty realistic.
Yes, and this moment from Lost Highway:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/lost-highway1.jpg

How did they DO that?!

[Spinal]

i don't think it will be the best film of the year but currently it's one of the best of a relatively weak crop. the direction, score, cinematography, writing and acting are all top notch and it provides plenty to debate and mull over. i can't think of any other 2010 films i've seen that i can say that about.

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

[Raiders]

Keep talking Spinal. Every post only makes me more anxious for this Saturday when I can finally see this film.

:P

[Spinal]

That's all right. As long as I get the 'Cut' paragraph in Boner's end-of-the-year thread, I'm content.

[Spinal]

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

[Qrazy]

you're right in stating that it raises concerns and does little with them. but when is asking questions and not providing answers considered a bad thing? i don't think it will be the best film of the year but currently it's one of the best of a relatively weak crop. the direction, score, cinematography, writing and acting are all top notch and it provides plenty to debate and mull over. i can't think of any other 2010 films i've seen that i can say that about. it's not terribly profound, but like zodiac it gets a lot of mileage out of merely reciting a bunch of facts.


It doesn't ask the questions, it hints that maybe there are questions to be asked.

[Boner M]

Inception is superior to this film in every aspect, expect perhaps score.
I dig Inception and all, but oh man is it boringly directed until the van free-fall & cross-cutting fireworks. The ideas and narrative drive more than compensate, but I still wonder what could've been in the hands of another director. Have a hard time believing that TSN is inferior on formal terms.

[Fezzik]

I really have no doubt that Harvard has that feel of elitism on campus. That's why it's Harvard.

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

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

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

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

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

[Bosco B Thug]

larry lessig wrote a piece on the film (http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network)

it's interesting. his criticism of sorkin's worldview is, i think, legitimate. Hmm. It is a shame that the film is essentially a smear on real-life Zuckerberg, turning the story of his groundbreaking achievement into an excoriation of things instead of a celebration...

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

[Spinal]

I dig Inception and all, but oh man is it boringly directed until the van free-fall & cross-cutting fireworks.

Going to have to respectfully disagree, I suppose. I don't find a single minute of Inception to be boring. Fincher isn't the biggest problem here. Sorkin is. But about half the film is pretty darn tedious. If we're strictly talking about direction, I'd say that even Benjamin Button was more impressive, though it had an even more problematic script.

[Watashi]

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

[EyesWideOpen]

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

[number8]

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

That is the end.

[Qrazy]

I dig Inception and all, but oh man is it boringly directed until the van free-fall & cross-cutting fireworks. The ideas and narrative drive more than compensate, but I still wonder what could've been in the hands of another director. Have a hard time believing that TSN is inferior on formal terms.

Nah, another director like who? Inception has it's problems but I don't think another director would have made that script any better than it already is. Another director would just add their own problems to the mix. Spielberg? He might have made the film's staging ever so slightly more dynamic but given his recent output he would have botched the ending and over orchestrated the set pieces to a plastic-y degree. Sticking with the more sci-fi oriented directors right now... Gilliam, Cameron, Carpenter, Lucas? Again I don't believe any of these guys would have been able to make a better film than what we currently have. Aronofsky? Cronenberg? Tarantino? Anderson? Jonze? Gondry? Lee? I'm not seeing any of them. Gondry could have probably handled some of the dream sequences in his own unique and enticing way but I see no reason to believe he wouldn't bring his own foibles to the project.