Kevin Marshall's America
“You’re going to think that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. That’s not true. It’s because you’re an a**hole.”
– Rooney Mara as Erica Albright in “The Social Network”
Ever since “The Social Network” started making the rounds on the festival circuit, film critics have been tripping over each other to be the first to slap the “defines a generation” label on it. It’s a snarky sentiment meant to deride and dismiss Generation Y and new media whilst heaping praise on the film. But nothing so dismissive and negative in tone towards one thing can be simultaneously flattering or fair to another.
Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) deposed and distracted in "The Social Network."
Neither is it accurate to say it’s a movie about Facebook, which is the chorus sung by cynical nay-sayers who are all too quick to dismiss it. The film is about Facebook insomuch as “Citizen Kane” is about a newspaper or “There Will Be Blood” is about drilling for oil. Rather, like the three aforementioned films, it’s an enthralling and absorbing character study of one of the most successful and possibly most influential men of his time, and how his feelings and motivations exemplify and/or are a direct product of our society as a whole, regardless of the times.
Except it’s a Hell of a lot more fun.
It’s easy to take the film as a statement on Generation Y, particularly with its discussion of attitudes of entitlement, the age group involved, and…well, Facebook. But in doing so, critics and bloggers have unfortunately (and unintentionally) short-changed the film, which is hands down the best film I’ve seen in a long, long time. I also want to call it an immediate classic, but like “a film that defines a generation,” it’s a label that may create an inaccurate image of what it is and what it intends to be.
Besides, say something like that about a film and most will think it’s something that will go over their head and that only pretentious jerks like yours truly will enjoy. But, trust me, this film is every bit as accessible as it is great.
Directed by David Fincher and written by “West Wing” and “A Few Good Men” scribe Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network” provides a thrilling glimpse of a website built by a man who could not attain entry to a club with exclusivity, so he created his own.
Zuckerberg and Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) talk shop.
The level of tension and anticipation in the film is pretty astounding considering much of it takes place in the confined space of a Harvard dorm room and two conference rooms. The conferences rooms are the setting of two simultaneous depositions for lawsuits against Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of Facebook and the film’s subject. Even when the film ventures out of these rooms, Fincher frames it so that the space is still confined to the small area occupied by the main characters. The effect isn’t claustrophobic but focused, although such a line can be tenuous in a society obsessed with self-promotion.
It is that obsession that isolates many of us while inhibiting our ability to develop empathy for others, which is a central theme to the film and ultimately Zuckerberg’s (let’s just accept that I’m talking about the character rather than the real Zuckerberg and not obsess over how much of it is true) primary character flaw.
That, and he’s a nerd obsessed with success, though it might be more apt to say he’s obsessed with the appearance of success. In High School he rejected several opportunities to turn his work into massive profit, instead gunning for notoriety as an internet hero, acceptance into exclusive clubs, and admiration from his peers.
If he can't be in your club, he'll make his own.
Jesse Eisenberg, for his part, is breathtaking in the role and makes me ashamed that I ever thought of him as the poor man’s Michael Cera. His performance, while understated, reflects a depth and maturity that many actors who have been practicing the craft for decades will never attain. Sometimes you’ll see a “great” performance and still not be able to shake the feeling that the person is “acting.” Which is fine, since most of the time it’s at least entertaining. Eisenberg, on the other hand, never lets his performance overwhelm the material. Yet even the slightest pause or change in expression conveys the underlying and overwhelming amount of regret he feels when making those terrible business decisions. Well, good business decisions that are terrible for other people, anyway.
Zuckerberg is Charles Foster Kane for the 21st Century in the sense that he doesn’t know how to love, yet desperately needs others to love him. And, like Kane, his life’s work became a reflection of that desire and neurosis, which in turn shaped the world around him. Facebook gives everyone the opportunity to share their lives and view the lives of others, but from a distance that doesn’t allow you to feel or partake in anything. Your friends become an audience, just as Zuckerberg’s former friends and classmates are only able to view him and his success from a distance. In the end, we become Zuckerberg through the monster he created.
Or we do in the film, at least.
This isn’t to say that the film is merely a new version of “Citizen Kane”, nor is it an indictment of Facebook and its prevalence. It’s not really an indictment of Zuckerberg, either, though he unquestionably make decisions that hurt people that genuinely only wanted to help and/or love him. For all our proselytizing and debate over what the film says or doesn’t say about our culture, the bottom line is that it’s just a damn good film.
Share it!
9 Responses to Review: “The Social Network”
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
Good review- haven’t seen it- might not- but still a good review.
Cool! Yeay Nerds! Yes it seems like it’s a great story about the American Dream. The story of this person, his vision and business sense definitely defines the times. Yeay Harvard! Great write up!
Good review, I saw the movie this weekend and enjoyed it too. Lots of great one liners. It was interesting how no one was portrayed as coming out on top – I pretty much felt bad for everyone at the end. No clear winners or losers.
Colleen – Such is life, no?
Terrific movie. The director and editor deserve Oscars for the way they told the story, juxtaposing the deposition scenes and the flashbacks. Brilliant.
I may catch the film on PPV, what with our babysitter being far off in Boston until Christmas break (but not at Harvard). In the 3D world, I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the real or fake Zuckerberg’s existential dilemmas. Fact is, Facebook provides the technology by which each and every one of us can have our own web site without learning HTML or PHP, without registering a domain, without worrying about our server going down. It’s got it’s limitations, but enough people voted with their feet to make it what it is, and the semantics of how deeply my old boss from LA and I really relate takes second place to just enjoying the pics of her little boy with a big pumpkin.
I interviewed a guy who invented the technology one of the earliest routing standards, and after he sold out to one of the big boys (Sun or Cisco), he was worth about $100 million. Then he helped a couple guys named Joe and Bob Google get their little biz started. When I talked to him he was worth about half a billion…and he was absolutely miserable because he had a new technology nobody would take seriously. This attitude kind of stumped me: not being an in-demand software/hardware wizard since high school kind of crimped my ambition level at being real happy if the rent got paid and the car worked.
Much as I love FB — and I agree with your assessment of it though I’d add instant socialization for people who were previously isolated, the financial or physically challenged and the shy which is, of course, the secret to its success — I’ve no desire to see this film. It simply looks deadly boring. Like I’d rather actually be on FB than sitting through it.
I don’t really know or care if it’s at all accurate. I also don’t care about all the damned sour grapes of those suing him, etc. I don’t care about how it came to be beyond the sound bite that some guys started it in college to connect and even that’s only mildly interesting. I’ve no burning desire to know if Zuckerberg’s likeable or not.
I do know I like the product but probably wouldn’t pay for it.
Can’t we just enjoy a thing someone invents without having to have the dish on the person behind it? Please.
Query from a guy who has to attend till November to see this; is Jesse Eisenberg shaping up as a legit Finest Actor contender? I really like him to bits, but there hasn’t really been anything he is executed but that would warrant critical awards consideration. I might like to see him get in there amongst the Firths and the Duvalls and the Bridgeses.
I have to preface by saying I haven’t seen the other performances yet (since most of them still haven’t hit up here and won’t for another month or so).
That said? Well, let me put it this way: if I had a voice (which I don’t), I’d absolutely nominate him. I think most would take this role and just make him some awkward, boring nerd and be satisfied letting the events unfold around him. That’s what I assumed he’d do, going by an unfair basis of only having recalled seeing him in “Zombieland”.
Instead, he really does draw you in with a strange charisma. He says and does these things that, while not reprehensible per se, are definitely questionable in terms of business ethics. He’s frustratingly misguided when it comes to women, and takes very good people for granted and throws them away.
Yet somehow, at the end, you feel sorry for him. Not because you want to pity this poor awkward billionaire because it’d make YOU feel better, but because at times you empathize and feel an emotional connection with this person who is supposed to be miles away from you on every level: intellectually, emotionally, physically, etcetera. You don’t just understand what he’s done, you understand WHY he’s done it and start asking yourself if you’d do the same thing in his position. Which you wouldn’t, but he makes you ask anyway.
Of course, part of this is the greatness of Sorkin as a scriptwriter. But for as good a script as it is and Fincher’s talents as a director, it’s still Eisenberg that this movie lives or dies by. And he doesn’t just nail it, he in my opinion raises the film from a good and fascinating story to one of the greatest character studies in film.
Going back, though, I’m not sure if the Academy will recognize this. For as sophisticated as they like to appear, they rarely give a nomination to a performance that nuanced and subtle in its presentation, great as it is. Not that all of the guys nominated will be (overly) hammy, but they’re definitely going to need an emotional breakdown or two to get consideration.
I mean, just look at Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways.” He got the nom, but did he deserve it on the strength of his performance as a whole? I didn’t feel wowed at him, not that it’s entirely his fault, when I watched the film. But he did have that one scene where he broke down and cried, and that one scene was enough for them to give him consideration.
So in short: yes, I think he deserves consideration. As for whether he’ll actually get it? I have my doubts, but the film is being so well-received he might just squeeze in.