The Social Network

[Mister Tee]

Just to take one more shot at it, dws:

From Here to Eternity and LA Confidential are two books whose movie versions famously delete a good deal of material from the original. Someone has already done a TV miniseries using much of the unused sections of the former, and it's conceivable someone someday might do the same with LA Confidential. You could try the same with less successfully transfered novels -- The World According to Garp, Sometimes a Great Notion. Do you really think such new versions would not be considered remakes?

[FilmFan720]

I'm not saying that. I would call it a re-interpretation. We are looking at how voters and audiences are going to look at it. What I am saying is that is going to be the perception, whether for good or bad. The Academy has never really embraced a lot of remakes (lets remember that every Hamlet since Olivier did poorly at the Oscars), and I think a lot of them only know the film True Grit and assume this is a remake of it (I know many educated folk who call this the Coen's remake). It is just a hurdle they have to overcome.

[FilmFan720]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that is going to be the perception, whether for good or bad. The Academy has never really embraced a lot of remakes (lets remember that every Hamlet since Olivier did poorly at the Oscars), and I think a lot of them only know the film True Grit and assume this is a remake of it (I know many educated folk who call this the Coen's remake). It is just a hurdle they have to overcome.

[dws1982]

But everyone knows Hamlet, and knows it is based on a play. I bet 9/10 people don't know True Grit is based on a book (let alone have read it), and think of it purely as a John Wayne vehicle.

So basically what everyone seems to be saying is this: Because the film version of True Grit is better known than the novel, that makes the new version is a remake of the film, rather than a re-adaptation of the novel. Don't agree with that logic, but I also don't really care enough to keep pursuing the issue.

[FilmFan720]

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won.

How about because it's a remake of, if not a classic, at least a relatively well-known American film?

I know that just because the original film is well-known and the novel isn't so well-known, the new film will be automatically labelled as a remake, but it's not really. It's an adaptation of the same novel as the 1969 film (which changed the novel significantly), but it's not really any more a remake than Michael Almereyda's Hamlet was a remake of the Kenneth Branagh film.

But everyone knows Hamlet, and knows it is based on a play. I bet 9/10 people don't know True Grit is based on a book (let alone have read it), and think of it purely as a John Wayne vehicle.

[Mister Tee]

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won.

How about because it's a remake of, if not a classic, at least a relatively well-known American film?

I know that just because the original film is well-known and the novel isn't so well-known, the new film will be automatically labelled as a remake, but it's not really. It's an adaptation of the same novel as the 1969 film (which changed the novel significantly), but it's not really any more a remake than Michael Almereyda's Hamlet was a remake of the Kenneth Branagh film.

I'm willing to accept that details might be somewhat or even significantly different, and certainly that this film might be better/more literate. But, based on what I've seen of the trailer, it's still the story of a feisty young girl who hires a broken-down lawman (and a sidekicky guy) in the old west to track someone down because of what happened to her father. And for me, that's True Grit, so I don't see how I can view that as other than a remake. Hell, Warren Beatty changed the sport and gazillions of details when he made Heaven Can Wait, but it still felt familiar to those of us who knew Here Comes Mr. Jordan. There can be esthetic justification for working with previously filmed stories (esp. if they were done poorly first time around, as in The Maltese Falcon), but you can't knock people for considering it less immediately interesting than something fresher. (For the record, I have a fairly extreme intolerance for reworked plots -- lost my taste for White Teeth when I realized she was borrowing Forster, even felt Ran would have been more interesting with a newly invented story than with one whose every rhythm I anticipated)

As far as people unfairly dismissing the film because of earlier Coen success -- I'd say the opposite. Oscar Watch, Tapley and Dave Karger are all talking about it as the big unopened package for the year, and most of those people who do fantasy lists have both film and Bridges slated for nominations. I think they're being over-optimistic, but we'll see...sometimes these strong pushes from bloggers can become self-fulfilling prophecies.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1286331869

[dws1982]

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won.

How about because it's a remake of, if not a classic, at least a relatively well-known American film?

I know that just because the original film is well-known and the novel isn't so well-known, the new film will be automatically labelled as a remake, but it's not really. It's an adaptation of the same novel as the 1969 film (which changed the novel significantly), but it's not really any more a remake than Michael Almereyda's Hamlet was a remake of the Kenneth Branagh film.



Edited By dws1982 on 1286325381

[MovieWes]

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won.

How about because it's a remake of, if not a classic, at least a relatively well-known American film?

And don't forget Oscar-winning...

[The Original BJ]

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won.

How about because it's a remake of, if not a classic, at least a relatively well-known American film?



Edited By The Original BJ on 1286317579

[rolotomasi99]

Like No Country for Old Men, which was handicapped by the ending until more time went by and voters seemingly forgot about their reservations lest they vote for Juno.

Except the only real competition for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was THERE WILL BE BLOOD which had its own wtf ending. Of all the Best Picture races of this past decade, it would be that competition and CRASH vs BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN where I would love to see how close the vote came.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK it seems has two very real threats. THE KING'S SPEECH and TRUE GRIT. Something else could come out of nowhere, but I doubt it. I keep reading how this year boils down to the new guard (THE SOCIAL NETWORK) vs the old guard (THE KING'S SPEECH), but it seems to me TRUE GRIT could appeal to both groups quite well.

The only reason folks seem to not be taking TRUE GRIT seriously as a possible winner is because the Coens just won. However, it was that thinking that made folks assume Sean Penn could not possibly win again for MILK since he had just one a few years ago. I know the window between the Coens winning is even smaller, but I think THE SOCIAL NETWORK has plenty of competition to worry about.

[MovieWes]

Dead Poets Society was a smash-hit but unless I'm mistaken it wasn't taken any kind of seriously as an Oscar front-runner and achieved some kind of populist spot. Same thing with Breaking Away.

That was exactly the point I was making, Sabin.

[Sabin]

(Greg @ Oct. 04 2010,6:47)

How can Facebook's stock be worth ten times its revenue to date, especially given the history of so many Internet-based businesses that have gone big early then crashed and burned? It strikes me that Facebook could be its own mini-dot-com bubble.

Considering how much the first half of the film is devoted to discussing keeping something free and "cool" vs. advertising revenue, wouldn't that intrinsically tie to the narrative in a perfect world? How on Earth was Facebook "Sold"? I don't know. The film completely loses sight about Facebook after the first half of the film, afterwards it becomes a party.

[Greg]

The Social Network brings up a question I have about Facebook. Perhaps someone like Magilla who has a background in investment could answer. I've read that Zuckerberg is worth $6 billion because he owns 1/4 of Facebook's stock and that the stock is worth about $24 billion. I've also read on Wikipedia that the estimated revenue so far generated by Facebook has been about $2.4 billion.

How can Facebook's stock be worth ten times its revenue to date, especially given the history of so many Internet-based businesses that have gone big early then crashed and burned? It strikes me that Facebook could be its own mini-dot-com bubble.



Edited By Greg on 1286236178

[Greg]

I think The Social Network is a true masterpiece.

The most impressive aspect for me was how the story was able to seamlessly cut back and forth from past to present, as with Mark and Eduardo remembering their Facebook history during the court deposition, and from drama to comedy, as when Mark was yelling at Eduardo through a cell phone while Eduardo spectacularly fails at making up to his girlfriend.

I loved how the screenplay is peppered with great lines that do not at all feel forced as if they are trying to show themselves off as great lines, but result completely organically from the interactions of the characters. Some examples are, "I was accused of forced cannibalism!" and "I'm 6 foot 5, 250 pounds, and there're two of us!" My favorite line is "You're not really an asshole, Mark. You just try so hard to be one." I think that line truly summed up the character of Mark Zuckerberg.

The sets and cinematography gave Harvard an especially intriguing aura, especially for someone like me who has never been there. The score underlined the mood quite effectively and subtly, more subtly than I would expect from Trent Reznor.

I loved all the performances. Two smaller performances I liked that I have not so far seen discussed are the portrayals of Larry Summers and new female lawyer who was observing the proceedings.

10/10

As far as Oscar nominations go, I think the sure things are Picture, David Fincher for Director, Aaron Sorkin for Adapted Screenplay, Jesse Eisenberg for Actor, Andrew Garfield for Supporting Actor, Original Score, Film Editing, and Cinematography. Other possible nominations are both Armie Hammer and Justin Timberlake for Supporting Actor, Art Direction, and Sound Mixing.

[Mister Tee]

Having spent much of my life hearing that Academy members didn't seem to like, and therefore would never vote for, westerns (till 1990 and 1992), thrillers (till 1991), comedies (till 1998), popcorn epics (till 2000), musicals (till 2002), fantasies (till 2003), crime films (till 2006), Coen brothers films (till 2007) -- I reach the conclusion that trying to scope out the best picture winner by genre/subject matter is the most useless exercise of all. People just have to LIKE the movie alot; they don't seem to care what kind it is.

EDIT: Let me amend that slightly: certainly films can be ruled in by genre -- esp. big sweeping epics. But I see no evidence for ruling them decisively out.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1286220733