(Originally posted here)



Director: David Fincher | Year: 2010 | Country: USA
With: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer, Rooney Mara

David Fincher's latest film is an engaging, involving work. Its opening scene is a shot-reverse shot sequence of a couple's final date that unfolds at a rapid pace and culminates in the girl walking out on the boy and leaving the latter with unfinished pint in hand and bewilderment etched across his face.

The boy is Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), a Harvard undergraduate student who later that same night gets drunken revenge by creating a simple, one-click website that allows others to compare an endless selection of female students to one another, the photographs of which have been attained by hacking into the university's computer system. This isn't some serious attempt to overcome the kind of personal loss or hurt that drove Jon Favreau's self-pitying Mike in Doug Liman's Swingers (1996); it's not even a more immediate, 21st century equivalent. This is an altogether more violent act, a hurtful, callous display of frank, bitter confession, itself a product of the blogger generation that has helped validate a great deal of dorm-dwelling douchebaggery blind to its own pathetic juvenility or the emotional frailty it betrays.

Zuckerberg of course created Facebook; in this film, he makes it. From the outset, as played by Eisenberg, he converses with people – friends, hangers on, lawyers, those he perceives as enemies – with all the delayed, haphazard logic of electronic interaction. Quick to commit to a comment, Zuckerberg here talks as if he expects everyone to listen without reply; he doesn't speak in monologues, though, but in quick, curt ripostes whose meaning is immediate to him and not immediate to others. In short, he is already half on his way to the stop-start rhythm that embodies online communication in his wake.

Written by Aaron Sorkin and performed superbly, the script captures a sense of hurt for its characters, the kind of hurt that brims beneath the surface, finding its everyday expression in the form of social alienation that has Zuckerberg and friends on the one hand pressing their noses against the windows of the fraternity clubs from which they'll forever be excluded, whilst on the other hand forming a self-congratulatory elitism of their own, silently smug at figuring out the source code that allows them to hack their own university's computer system and later wanting to be thanked for it.

This kind of hurt finds its most outward expression in the scenes most connected to the real world that exists beyond student dormitories: the two court cases through which the film's story is framed. This is a talking film, and not only is the dialogue delightfully sharp (to a fault?), but the film's emotional baggage, even if it often stems from the devious actions of petty opportunism and corporate capitalism, seeps through by way of the literally verbal recollections of those suing the boy billionaire and the lawyers representing them.

The Social Network's promotional tag line reads, “You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies”. As a matter of fact, the narrative seems to suggest, you don't get a site as global or profitable as Facebook without some serious big-money investment. Indeed, without the flashy business bluffing of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), thefacebook.com remains the popular but unendurable dream-that-never-was of Havard friends and co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield).

This point is significant: the raison d'être for the film, both in story and narrative terms has its very seeds in the gem of Facebook itself. The very nature of this story is governed by its necessary pace: it's arguable that Facebook could only become the site that it now is by expanding so rapidly that it could beat any other would-be competitors and meeting the profit demands of short-term capital. This would preclude Saverin and Zuckerberg making it alone, and thus in turn making it at all – and so, since their final decision to sue is because of Facebook's international success, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) would never have sought compensation from Zuckerberg for violations of their intellectual property.

This is the quiet tragedy at the heart of Fincher's film. But if this is inherent in the material, the director doesn't stress it. From the outset, there's that contradiction familiar to all of Fincher's films: a certain level of interest in the material as it presents itself to him, but a careful, deliberate detachment from it on his own part. This means that even if Fincher knows how to stage a scene and his directorial style is consistently immaculate, his work as a whole is uneven; when the script is formidable, you get something like Zodiac (2007), when patchy, something like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008).

Fincher's latest film presents its world in a matter-of-fact manner, and in doing so creates an apparently authentic sense of life at one of the world's most elitist institutions. In having events unfold mostly through Zuckerberg's viewpoint, though, Sorkin's script lacks the critical emphasis required of Fincher to make a genuinely provocative film that reaches beyond the betrayal of friendship between Zuckerberg and Saverin.

Even if the makers don't indulge too much, Zuckerberg is quietly admired. And if there is nothing inherently wrong with this, you get a sense that Fincher has missed the point. Where is the film's genuine interest in the actual social dynamic of something not only as politically complex, but as culturally significant, as the formation of Facebook?

As a film about the heartbreak of a friendship gone wrong, The Social Network is an often powerful film; as a film concerned with how one underestimated sophomore came to be the youngest billionaire in the world, it's both dramatic and hilarious. But without a deeper commitment as to why both the friendship and the development of the website itself is governed by much wider forces, the film can't be anything more than these things. And so Fincher and Sorkin's 'no-nonsense' presentation of their subject matter allows both aesthetic appeal and unfulfilled potential: there's no attempt to understand why Zuckerberg – or anyone else for that matter – would find solace in blogging in the first place, nor why it's so important to Zuckerberg to be 'cool' as opposed to rich, why there are girls willingly attending frat parties or why such parties even exist...

Many commentators have declared The Social Network as the 'film of the decade', as a 'film of a generation' and so on. Perhaps the most influential example of such praise came from Peter Travers in Rolling Stone, when he placed the film as one of 13 that defined their respective generations; the claim has met criticism and agreement from a wide range of professional critics and bloggers. Worse than mere hyperbole, the notion that The Social Network 'defines' this current period of time – or even that of 2003 – is severely misguided.

“If youth can't see itself in this movie, it's just not paying attention”, writes Travers, who seems not to notice or care about the condescension involved in such a statement. Furthermore, if we look at the other films Travers lists as defining their generations, several are critically fruitful from a reception studies point of view, but are too far removed from reality to tell us anything significant about history or society: Star Wars (1977), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971).

These films might epitomise a specific film culture more than something as homogeneous as an age group. Certainly, they are 'cult films', but their appeal is then limited to a certain group defined by something much more than age. Regardless, whatever constitutes a 'generation-defining' work, it must speak to and about the forces that govern it. As C. Robert Cargill of Film.com writes, “I find it hard to believe that a generation is going to identify with a kid already going to the world's most prestigious school, who happens upon an idea that makes him one of the world's richest men, just because he's hung up on a girl and abusive to people who remind him of his past tormentors”.

This is not to say the film doesn't deliver in the areas it wishes to. Fincher might be the most adept storyteller currently working in Hollywood, regardless of the material he chooses to work with – though given the common elements found within his films, we might wonder what draws him to them repeatedly. Further to this, the cast is remarkable. Fincher shows himself once again as a director of actors – under him, Garfield seems to have matured considerably; as Sean Parker, Timberlake steals the film. And it seems as if Fincher is one of a few film-makers working in the mainstream who is able to pull of an otherwise incongruous scene such as that stylistically brave and strangely magnificent boat race sequence in the final third of the film.

But for all the mastery of technical achievements, there remains a careful detachment from the material itself. Though we might be able to extrapolate various, concrete implications from the narrative's events, it seems Fincher does not want as an artist to commit to anything resembling critical distance as opposed to the general 'clever cynicism' that marks the rest of his work. It might be that Sorkin's script needed a final shift in emphasis, before shooting began, in order to place itself in a better position to answer some of the larger questions left unexplored. Or perhaps the story is in itself a limited one, and that in order to speak to and of a generation increasingly dependent on the phenomenon of social networking and electronic interaction, and a generation for that matter increasingly removed from this story of big-big-bucks, it might have been better to tell a different story altogether.

As it is, we're still anticipating a film that speaks of and for this generation.

Thanx for posting this. Interesting read, tho I probably should've seen the movie first before reading/posting here. I'll watch it next week, but just a couple of things I feel like saying right now:




I call it the on-the-way information flow. The keywords are speed and minimalism. How many long, smart and healthy discussions can you find on Facebook? truth is, on Facebook you're as good as your next funny status update or cool pics from your last trip.

Facebook also depicts an utopia, where everything is shiny, and the ratings can only be good. You can "like" a post or pic, but you can't "dislike" it. You can have "friends" but no "enemies". And no one will know if someone has broken the friendship with you, as opposed to when you befreind someone and then facebook makes sure to let all other friends know about that. But that only covers the real problem with this type of site. The "no-privacy/share-with-everyone" culture and the "minimalist" culture.

Minimal, for example - before the "like" option ppl were saying "this pic is amazing!!!" or "wow you're so funny!!!"....and now you get tons of "likes"....because it's faster, easier, the comp will save you a few good lines, don't be an old log.

Also minimal are all the 'discussions' going on there. One-liners, mostly. Sure you can have discussions in a thread with a number of people you choose, but it feels like most people would rather focus on the status updates, because it's easier, light and fun. You gotta keep up.

Is it any wonder that Twitter showed up after Facebook? the road to minimalism never ends, so it seems.





Hmmm. Not so sure I agree with the "removed from this story of big-big-bucks" part. In fact, the current generation seems to be more obssessed with the notion of big (yet easy) money. Apps, apps and more apps. Facebook, iPhone and all the rest. More and more youngsters are getting richer by the minute, gathering sums of money older generations had to work all their lives to gather. Money becomes virtual, but always a motivation for success. If you're already obssessed with the online world, you just might make a living out of it.

You might, but most don't.

I might argue that Facebook is a passive obsession. If it were 'active' it'd be more healthy than it is.

Not sure about that, though.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Capo, guess what got voted the #1 movie of the year by Sight & Sound?

http://incontention.com/2010/11/28/sight-sound-names-social-network-best-of-2010/

Want a hint?

I don't know why I am not real interested in seeing this movie. I mean it must be an interesting story. This kid is so young to have made it so "big." Plus it is getting (obviously) good reviews for the most part. Yet, I likely will not go to the theater and see it.


TIS

Capo, you'll be pleased to know that TSN kicked ass sunday with the critics' groups.

Won the top prize from the Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC), New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO), and Los Angeles Film Critics (LAFCA). Also nominated for Best Picture by the AFI. Definately front-runner for the Oscars.

Yeah yeah what do those Yanks know, right?

Oh wait, Sight & Sound from your side of the lake also picked this as the best of the year. You might have heard of them.

http://incontention.com/2010/11/28/sight-sound-names-social-network-best-of-2010/

Erm, yes, you already posted about Sight & Sound, to which I subscribe every year.

I'm planning on writing some thoughts on the critical appeal of this film.

Oh really? Well I didn't know that. Have they ever by chance published any of your letters?



This shit got to ya, didn't it buddy?

What shit?

I like the film, as is clear from my review.

Unless I am very much mistaken RR is using *shit* in the vernacular sense of *stuff* or *things* . If one were for example passing around a joint and a member of the circle said "This is some good shit" and everyone nodded in agreement or if one were engaged in vigorous coitus and one's partner screamed "This is the shit!" it would mean that they were enjoying the activity.

Oh, I know that. I just don't know what he's referring to by saying (sh)it 'got to' me.

I think he means that you were really impressed with the film and quite inspired to write on it. But he can explain his words...

Ah, the old 'innocent' dick-stroke on RRA's part.

Well, as a follow up to my own post, by 'critical appeal of [The Social Network]' I mean why its topping many Best of Year polls - and why I don't think it should, despite me liking it.

Then why does this (ridiculous) massive critical support for TSN bug you as much as you're letting on? So what if every major critic group (so far) has given it their top prize? Why does that factor into your otherwise legitimate criticisms, musings on the product?

Only time will tell if this movie "defines" a generation, or is only simply a product for it. But none the less, I'm intrigued by your own personal theory on the matter.

EDIT - In other news, Daily Telegraph named this their #1 for 2010.

What gives you the impression it bugs me 'as much as I'm letting on'?

I've hardly let on it bugs me; all I've concretely said is I don't think it should top a 'Best of 2010' poll, and all I've implied is that I can see why the film is getting as much critical praise as it is, hence why I might have 'some thoughts on the critical appeal of this film'.

There's an interesting follow-up to this sentiment here.

New Yorker months back nailed the reason, quite frankly. You read that piece?



I like how every topic over there somehow ends up becoming the same old boring Marxist debate.

Frost posted something I liked: "I don't think such a work can exist, in any medium. People are far too idiosyncratic."

In other news, the Winklevoss Twins are suing Mark Zuckerberg. Again.

I smell a sequel!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...gh-2155946.html

Best Picture Oscar?

Not so fast, Ronnie.

Producers Guild Awards 2011 host Judd Apatow slams Ricky Gervais.

"King's Speech" wins top prize

BY Soraya Roberts
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Judd Apatow used the Producers Guild Awards on Saturday to slam Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais.

While hosting the PGAs -- in which "The King's Speech" caused a major upset by beating out Social Network for the top prize, the Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award -- the producer behind "Knocked Up" and "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" told the crowd he thought the British comedian was "mean" last weekend.

Prior to the un-televised ceremony, Apatow asked his Twitter fans for jokes that "they think are better than Ricky Gervais'," promising to read them and the joke writer's name at the PGAs.

Several fans took him up on the stunt -- though he later admitted that he "spent days fanning controversy to help ratings for a show not being televised" -- including "Lost" creator Damon Lindelof.

"Hey Folks! Just flew in from a screening of 'Black Swan,'" Lindelof tweeted, "And, boy, are my arms ready to masturbate, then stab, Mila Kunis."
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Apatow returned the favor on Saturday by defending "Lost" in light of Gervais' jokes about the show.

"He had that joke about the guy on 'Lost' [Jorge Garcia]," Apatow told the PGAs crowd. "He said he ate everybody else. Let's be honest: Ricky Gervais just lost weight. Even now, he's four pounds away from not being allowed to do a joke like that. Did he lose weight just to make fat jokes? You think that's how mean he is?"

Apatow also addressed the joke about Tim Allen's career, stating that "we all look like a piece of s--- standing next to Tom Hanks."

In an ironic turn of events, Gervais took to his blog this weekend to ask, "I can't find these people who were supposedly offended. Who are they? Do they actually exist?"

But even without the Gervais theme, the PGAs would have surprised Hollywood big wigs. While "The Social Network" was considered a favorite to win top prize after taking best picture at the Golden Globes and the Critics' Choice awards, its loss at the PGAs puts it ahead of the game to win the Oscar.

According to usatoday.com, for the past 21 years, the PGA best picture winner has matched the Oscar best picture winner 14 times, including over the last three years.

The Academy Award nominations will be announced on Tuesday morning.

Other winners at the 22nd Annual PGAs included "Toy Story 3" for best animatured feature, "Mad Men" for best TV drama series and "Modern Family" for best comedy series



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment...l#ixzz1Bt2vCQoh

That was an upset win for TKS.

Off topic: Why all the Ricky Gervais hate? I thought he was GREAT!

This is why I hate celebrities. They lead ridiculous entitled lives, then cry when they're portrayed as such.

Yeah Ricky Gervais was brilliant. I love a good insult comic. Next time they should use Andrew Dice Clay.

Its the same hate Jon Stewart got when he hosted the Oscars and wasn't afraid or didn't care about brusing over-inflated egos in the room. Well the big difference was that Stewart has a secure gig, his future doesn't depend upon kissing Hollywood's ass. We shall see if this gig actually hurts Gervais' movie offers or not.

But really, nobody blames Gervais for calling out the obvious bullshit that is the Golden Globes. Depp/Jolie may cringe all they want, but the only reason THE TOURIST got nominated was the studio bribing the voters, same with BURLESQUE. Ricky aint joking when he mentioned that "free" Cher concert.

I'm reminded of that anecdote from last year ('09?) when at a party junket, Hollywood Foreign Press (the GG voting body) were welcomed personally by Leonard DiCaprio who gave them all not just DVD screeners of BROTHERS, but free DVD players as well.

Result? Leo's good (drinking) buddy Tobey Maguire scored a Golden Globe acting nomination for BROTHERS.

I started out not caring if I see this movie, but now am leaning toward seeing it at the theater. (Hey, I can change my mind) Thing is, it's not playing any longer around here. However, don't they usually bring back the Oscar nominees in the theater one more time before the awards?


TIS

it is out on dvd

Gervais has an ongoing role playing himself in the upcoming season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." The thought of Gervais and Larry David bickering onscreen has me giddy .

It's been a long time since they did the last season. Larry likes to take some long ass breaks, but I guess it's easy when you got like $800 million in the bank hahah. He deserves every penny though. The man's an absolute genius.

I hope to see the SN on Pay For View soon, but I also see it's on a local theater again here. I had a feeling, since it is nominated for an oscar that it would come back. Yet, it is not one of those movies that necessarily would be better on a big screen. I'll save a few bucks and just see it at home.



TIS

Interesting read.
I actually cant see why this film is so widely praised, and it's getting to be a bit frustrating. Was it good, yes. Was it great, no. The only thing of note I saw was that the film seemed to parallel the product it featured. There is nothing inherently interesting about Facebook. Yet millions waste far too much time there daily, and put far too much emphasis on it. There is nothing inherently interesting about the film either (smart guy invents something, then gets legal woes, not the greatest tagline), yet so many people willingly gave their 2 hours to see it, and are putting (perhaps) far too much worth into it.

Good, yes, and certainly better then most of the junk produced today, but not a cinematic masterpiece many are trying to portray it as.