The Social Network
Although nearly all of the central characters in The Social Network are real, as are the major plot points, much of what fills in the rest of the plot was either exaggerated or just made up to make for a more compelling script. (Since it’s not pitched as a documentary, I don’t have a huge issue with this.) In the film, Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg is shown as a brilliant programmer, business visionary, and interpersonal doofus who is set on the path to start Facebook after he’s dumped (with cause) by a girlfriend after an insane conversation that more or less concludes when he tells her she doesn’t really have to study because “you go to BU.” After that point, the film uses two parallel lawsuits against Zuckerberg to structure the narrative through long flashbacks that follow the history of Facebook from its predecessor, facemash (a hot-or-not type of site featuring only coeds at Harvard), through his interaction with the Winklevoss twins (who may or may not have given him the idea for Facebook), to the startup phase of Facebook and eventually to the move to Silicon Valley and venture capital investments that led to a schism between Zuckerberg and his best friend, CFO, and seed-money source Eduardo Saverin.
The pace and intelligence of the dialogue in The Social Network are frenetic, reliant on actors who can deliver the lines credibly and time everything properly. It reminded me not of any drama or anything recent, but of one of my favorite classic films, the screwball comedy His Girl Friday, a Cary Grant vehicle known for so much dialogue that its script had three times the pages per minute of a typical script of the era. The Social Network isn’t quite that frenzied – characters aren’t talking over each other as Grant and costar Rosalind Russell did – but just about every character speaks quickly, and there’s no mercy with the dialogue, not in vocabulary, in subject matter, or in pauses between scenes. This isn’t merely a movie about really smart people – it’s a really smart movie about really smart people, and it expects you to follow along.
Eisenberg earned plaudits and award nominations for his performance as Mark Zuckerberg, affecting disdain for most of the people around him and perhaps for social connections in toto, yet switching to fanboy mode when Internet rock star/bad boy Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) shows up and talks his way into the company. Timberlake was just as good as Eisenberg in less screen time, playing Parker as more pretense than substance, untrustworthy but never grating. And Andrew Garfield, who’s about to become a huge star as Peter Parker in the next unnecessary Spiderman reboot, was incredibly affecting as Eduardo Saverin, who, in the movie at least, is squeezed out by Zuckerberg and Parker in the latter’s power play. (Saverin was the primary inside source for Ben Mezrich’s book The Accidental Billionaires
I did enjoy the Harvard scenery and even some campus vernacular. The final clubs’ role in campus life may have been overstated; my sense at the time I was there was that they were very much on the fringes of the social scene, although to be fair I was never “punched” and so I don’t have first person experience to back that impression up. I did notice that Zuckerberg’s dorm room was a good bit larger than any room I ever had at Harvard, and less industrial-looking.
I’ve read some criticism of The Social Network for its portrayal of “nerds” as socially awkward or simply awful people, but I didn’t see that in the film at all. No one comes off worse than the Winklevoss twins, who appear as entitled upper class twits and are, in the script, probably the least intelligent of the central characters. Zuckerberg may be socially inept, but he also ends up getting stinking rich because of his intelligence and work ethic, and I think the portrayal of him as able to outsmart would-be competitors and to work wonders with a modest amount of coding both paint him in a better light than otherwise reported. He’s not depicted as a great guy, but the film’s central debate on his character – it’s bookended by women telling him he’s an asshole (beginning) or that he’s just trying to be one (end) – only covers half of what makes him compelling as the protagonist.
In a rather scathing review of the film’s underlying message, Harvard Law professor Laurence Lessig argued that the script ignores the fact that the Winklevoss’ suit, one of two central plot points, was basically frivolous. The film never mentions an NDA or non-compete agreement, and Zuckerberg says explicitly that he took no code from the Winklevoss’ efforts. So what exactly were the grounds for their suit? You can’t copyright an idea, and you aren’t supposed to be able to patent one (although there are these bogus “business method” patents, the film never mentions that either). Zuckerberg isn’t accused of stealing a trade secret. He settled simply to make the nuisance suit go away. Lessig argues that this is a pox on our economy, and I tend to agree. He also argues that the film omitted the power of the Internet to destroy barriers to entry into new or existing market spaces, which is undoubtedly true but tangential to the human story (real, fabricated, or somewhere in between) at the heart of The Social Network.
It was a good film. I think the movie does a nice job with Zuckerberg. Not a nice guy, but insanely driven, and obsessed with his idea to the exclusion of most everything else – that seems totally plausible to me. Fincher is a great visual stylist, always has been even back in his music video days.
Sorkin of course is right there with Mamet and Tarantino in terms of (at least for movies and TV) writing with a distinctive voice. You can pick up the author right away in the cadence of the lines and the way that the dialogue is organized. It is funny how Sorkin can write about so many different venues, but the meter of his characters’ speech is always apparent.
So Klaw; after seeing both King’s Speech and Social Network, do you agree with KS winning Best Picture? It was the odds-on favorite, but many critics felt SN was the more deserving film (as I’m sure many of the Fincher fan boys did).
Your readers are Fincher fans for good reason. you’ve seen Seven and Fight Club, right? Zodiac is also really good, in spite of Gyllenhaal.
This review is spot on.
I’m curious about your assessment of Bringing Down the House. While Mezrich has an uncanny ability to discern the next big thing in terms of book topics, he took what should have been a freight train of a tale and installed so many (seemingly artificial and unnecessary) layers between the story and the reader that the entire thing came off flat and not at all compelling. The movie version was no better.
IANAL, The Winklevoss lawsuit is (at its heart) is a breach of (oral) contract. The Winklevoss’ ‘hired’ him to code a social website. He took the idea and worked on his own version while lying to them continually about that status of their project.
“I did notice that Zuckerberg’s dorm room was a good bit larger than any room I ever had at Harvard, and less industrial-looking.”
Somebody wishes he lived in the quad…
No one wishes they lived in the Quad — that’s just what people who did live in the Quad tell themselves.
To echo #4, Mezrich’s believability in Bringing Down the House is about zilch, because his story doesn’t match the other articles he wrote at around the same time (see the one in Wired for example) and he includes details that are impossible to know and are pure fiction. I doubt his book here is any better, and he’s not exactly a fabulous writer, and wouldn’t waste a minute on anything else he wrote.
I find it interesting that Eduardo was the main source of information for the book because I thought they made him look foolish and unintelligent in the movie. Even going as far as to make his successes selling oil futures seem simple.
Since I also enjoyed Bringing Down the House, I read Rigged, which Mezrich also wrote. It was awful, and makes a mockery of true non-fiction. Among other things, the book includes detailed interactions between the main character (who is real) and “composite” characters. I cannot take him seriously as a writer or journalist.
My post-movie one-liner was that it was the first time I’d enjoyed a movie without liking any of the characters.
“I find it interesting that Eduardo was the main source of information for the book because I thought they made him look foolish and unintelligent in the movie. Even going as far as to make his successes selling oil futures seem simple.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYqNSRGdeU4
really interesting stuff from Fincher on his perspective of what happened, skip to about the 6 minute mark.
Fincher: “I have no problem saying that I think Eduardo Saverin had a failure of imagination. And I think at some point there was going to be a fork in the road for those two guys. And I don’t think that Sean Parker was overly Machiavellian”
He also defends Parker and says that he can’t imagine Zuckerberg saying to himself, “How am I going to screw Eduardo out of this?”
Couldn’t disagree more w/r/t Zuckerberg v Eduardo (or, at least the movie portrayals). Zuckerberg sold out his friend to get in with the cool crowd. I don’t know if it was illegal or not or whathaveyou, but it was a dick move. Yea, he was ambitious and smart and all that jazz. But he was a dick. To a guy who was genuinely kind to him when few others were, because of his amazing ability to alienate people who weren’t financially invested in him.
Interesting review. I really liked TSN, but anyone who knows the Academy knew TKS (also a very good if formulaic pic) was a lock for Best Pic. If the held the awards on a five year delay per Matt Damon…
I also really liked both Zodiac & Benjamin Button from Fincher, tho I fully understand those who hated both or either. I have to say I can’t see what Fincher can do with Dragon Tattoo that can match the original. Noomi Rapace was born to play Salander, I feel sorry for Rooney Mara.
Then again, Let Me In equaled Let The Right One In at a minimum, which I never thought possible, so who knows.
Keith, when are your reviews of Eight Men Out & The Godfather coming out?
TSN has quickly entered my list of a few movies that if I find on TV and have nothing else to do, I will watch to the end. Not sure if it’s so much the quality of the movie or my nostalgia for entrepreneurial thrill. As I look back on it, I don’t think that there is anything great about it (i.e. great acting, or a great/memorable scene). It just seems to be consistently very good throughout. Kind of like a movie version of Will Clark, never an MVP worthy season, but never an off-year. In some ways just being so consistently good throughout made it a great movie despite nothing amazing about it.
Keith, one thing you brought up was how you felt it reminded you of something else. I had the same feeling. It’s not quite it, but did you ever see the documentary “Startup.com” (Personally one of my favorite on par with Hoop Dreams and When We Were Kings) Very similar premise in the entrepreneurial world about how the needs of the dream (and fulfilling that dream) can destroy a friendship, especially when one of the two is completely unequipped for that world. Strong evidence of the perils of going into business with friends.
As far as the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo … KLaw, you seem to have seen enough of Fincher to recognize the visual style, and above all that is what he brings to any production. He is a great visual stylist, creating mood through use of lighting and whatnot. His gift is atmosphere – so yeah, the question becomes whether the script can hold up, and whether Fincher’s typical palettes and atmospheric tendencies jive with the story. What I will say is Fincher is a confident enough director (I’d hope) that he will not just rehash the first movie, but perhaps try to do something more with it.
Great summary of the flick, Keith. You really should read the Mezrich book, it’s a great beach read / page-turner. Can sometimes be heavy on the melodrama/foreboding, but very entertaining. Also, Sorkin maintains that the movie was written independent of the Mezrich book – not sure if I buy that.
Interesting you mentioned “My Girl Friday.” Sorkin has said that the movie was his inspiration for becoming a writer, so the similarities to his style and that movie are by design. It is very much a trademark of Sorkin’s, and if you enjoyed it, you should watch his TV series “The West Wing,” which is fantastic.
Tim, great point about it reminding you of startup.com. That didn’t occur to me until I saw your post, but thinking back it’s a very similar situation (with the obvious exception of the companies having success vs failure). Klaw, if you haven’t seen it, I heartily recommend it, as it’s a very interesting look at the interpersonal relationships involved in starting, and building, a business.
Also, definitely have to recommend The West Wing…but stop after season 4, because really, it just goes to hell until about halfway through season 7.
Actually just thinking Keith, that you probably overlapped with Kaleil Tuzman (from startup.com) at Harvard. Did you know him at all?
Never heard of him. I was ’94 – not sure of his year.
He was born in 1971, so I’d guess he graduated a year or two ahead of you.