SAG Nominations

[Mister Tee]

Honestly, I don't see any evidence Sorkin/Fincher were trying to elevate Zuckerberg or give him any redemption. The film was a clear-eyed view of a guy who was not good with people, behaved badly, and yet created an online empire whose reach expands every day. I get no "vibe" from the movie that this is approved or disapproved; it's merely observed -- though you're free to assign youir own prejudices to it and form an opinion. A genuine "We report, you decide". (This, by the way, is the same quality for which both Patton and The French Connection were highly praised in their day -- for presenting protagonists about whom people might differ wildly and allowing for all sides to draw their own conclusions)

[Sabin]

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 22 2010,9:55)

I am confused. Are you saying Sorkin did not want the audience to like Zuckerberg?

Well, the film is confused as well. I like it but it has problems in its scope. However while Sorkin does want us to be intrigued by the malicious genius of Zuckerberg, he makes his thesis pretty clear at the end that he's incompetent at many things, including being an asshole. Now while I think Mark Zuckberg is an asshole, the film is saying that he's really quite pathetic as he waits for a friend acceptance that probably will not come. We're not supposed to want to be Mark Zuckerberg because his downfall is set in motion. Also, we may like Gordon Gekko and we may kinda want to be Gordon Gekko, but nobody wants to go to jail for the crimes that he commits.

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 22 2010,9:55)

I got the feeling Sorkin and Fincher were going for a tortured artist type vibe. I thought the whole point of the FaceSmash scene was to show how much of a genius this young man was. He misused his talents, but his genius just could not be restrained. The FaceSmash scene played like something out of AMADEUS, like Zuckerberg was writing a brilliant symphony rather than code for a hateful, horrible website.

Well, they are. However, the impetus for FaceSmash births from him being an asshole. I think the film's He's An Asshole vs. He's A Genius ratio is tilted strongly to the former.

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 22 2010,9:55)

I think it is important to note the asshole-genius dichotomy you see in movies only works when you respect what the asshole-genius is good at. It can be anything from art (AMADEUS) to war (PATTON) to science (A BEAUTIFUL MIND), but if what they are a genius at is not something you respect than you do not forgive them for being an asshole.

It's funny that you mention A Beautiful Mind because I think it is impossible to respect the John Forbes Nash as portrayed in the film. I am not pulled into any form of genius that he does. Outside of one demonstration, he's just old school bananas throughout the entire film, delusional in a ridiculous fashion, beats his family into submission, and refuses to take his meds, ensuring a life of misery for all of them. Compared to John Forbes Nash, Mark Zuckerberg is harmless. Also the difference between The Social Network and A Beautiful Mind is that the latter ditches any real interest in Nash's work very early one while the former is coded as a facebook movie of the trolling mentality.

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 22 2010,9:55)

That was my problem with Zuckerberg. Not only did I not respect his creation, but the asshole stole many of the ideas from other people and used other people's money. He used people and threw them away, and all for a stupid website. It is not like he was curing cancer or something.

It sounds like that's not entirely your problem with Zuckerberg (maybe it is) but rather the movie that in the home stretch reveals that it really doesn't entirely know what to do with Zuckerberg, facebook, or itself outside of a good final scene. However it is worth noting that the stupid website made him billions! If The Social Network suggests that Zuckberg sold out his friends for a website, then Citizen Kane suggests that Kane took us to war for a newspa - DAMMIT! I said I wasn't going to compare The Social Network to Citizen Kane.

(Also, just for whatever - if your follow-up is that you can respect a newspaper more than a website, well fine. In this case they both come attached with billions of dollars so who really cares about the difference?)

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 22 2010,9:55)

My hatred for him was turned againt the movie itself when the filmmakers decided to have the last moment of the film be some pathetic "redemption" moment. Just because that shit worked for Orson Welles does not mean it will work for you Sorkin/Fincher. At the end, poor Eduardo only got a paragraph on the screen about what happened to him. He deserved to be treated better than that.

What is Zuckerberg's redemption moment? I think it's a DON'T BE LIKE THIS GUY moment. This isn't redemption. This is loneliness. At the end of the movie, I don't want to be anything like Mark Zuckerberg.

[rolotomasi99]

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 21 2010,4:11)

Yup! Much in the same way Gordon Gekko was beloved despite being a total asshole. I actually think THE SOCIAL NETWORK shares many similarities to WALL STREET in how the audience is supposed to be seduced by this genius of a man who becomes very wealthy screwing over others.

You're talking about the approach of the film rather than the message. There's a difference between whether or not an anti-hero is embraced and whether or not that is the point of the film.

I am confused. Are you saying Sorkin did not want the audience to like Zuckerberg?

I got the feeling Sorkin and Fincher were going for a tortured artist type vibe. I thought the whole point of the FaceSmash scene was to show how much of a genius this young man was. He misused his talents, but his genius just could not be restrained. The FaceSmash scene played like something out of AMADEUS, like Zuckerberg was writing a brilliant symphony rather than code for a hateful, horrible website.

I think it is important to note the asshole-genius dichotomy you see in movies only works when you respect what the asshole-genius is good at. It can be anything from art (AMADEUS) to war (PATTON) to science (A BEAUTIFUL MIND), but if what they are a genius at is not something you respect than you do not forgive them for being an asshole.

That was my problem with Zuckerberg. Not only did I not respect his creation, but the asshole stole many of the ideas from other people and used other people's money. He used people and threw them away, and all for a stupid website. It is not like he was curing cancer or something.

My hatred for him was turned againt the movie itself when the filmmakers decided to have the last moment of the film be some pathetic "redemption" moment. Just because that shit worked for Orson Welles does not mean it will work for you Sorkin/Fincher. At the end, poor Eduardo only got a paragraph on the screen about what happened to him. He deserved to be treated better than that.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1293033548

[Sabin]

(rolotomasi99 @ Dec. 21 2010,4:11)

Yup! Much in the same way Gordon Gekko was beloved despite being a total asshole. I actually think THE SOCIAL NETWORK shares many similarities to WALL STREET in how the audience is supposed to be seduced by this genius of a man who becomes very wealthy screwing over others.

You're talking about the approach of the film rather than the message. There's a difference between whether or not an anti-hero is embraced and whether or not that is the point of the film.

[Big Magilla]

Boo hoo, Zuckerberg has no friends or the girl he pines for. We should totally feel sorry for this bratty little billionaire. He is just a misunderstood genius. Even if you are not part of the world he created, you must admire what he created.

Um, no thanks.

I read somewhere that the broken heart scenario is Sorkin's invention, poetic license if you will. Yes, the girl dumped him, but he found another one in college that he is still with.

[rolotomasi99]

Just wondering, didn't you think TSN was actually NOT celebrating the Facebook phenomenon?

I think the movie was saying Facebook was amazing, the man who made it was a genius, and you should totally excuse his horrible behavior because all he wanted was to be liked by pretty girls (or one girl in particular) and accepted by the cool kids. It was a celebration of the man who made Facebook more than the website itself, but you can only admire Zuckerberg (which the movie wants you to) if you admire what he has created.

...really?

Yup! Much in the same way Gordon Gekko was beloved despite being a total asshole. I actually think THE SOCIAL NETWORK shares many similarities to WALL STREET in how the audience is supposed to be seduced by this genius of a man who becomes very wealthy screwing over others.

I think the problem was Sorkin and Garfield made me like Eduardo so much, I wanted to see Zuckerberg destroyed at the end of the film. If it had just been Zuckerberg screwing over the Winklevi and Narendra, it might have played differently. As it was, I could never identify with Zuckerberg. At least Gekko knew what a shit he was, and he paid for it in the end.

Boo hoo, Zuckerberg has no friends or the girl he pines for. We should totally feel sorry for this bratty little billionaire. He is just a misunderstood genius. Even if you are not part of the world he created, you must admire what he created.

Um, no thanks.

[Greg]

What drives The Social Network for me is not the question of how much of a villain is Zuckerberg? Instead, it is the unfolding of the fascinating story of how a college guy disses a girl who dumped him, something that happens countless times; but, this one time it leads to the guy becoming the rich head of a multi-billion dollar empire.



Edited By Greg on 1292783630

[Uri]

Zuckerberg, according to TSN, is a would-be harmless, negligible sociopath, who happened to stumble upon the greatest concept since sliced bread, therefore unintentionally becoming the world wide superpower he now is. As Damien rightly said, Parker is the only person in the movie who actually gets - and hence is able to manipulate – the events as they happen. Yes, Zuckerberg is not depicted as an evil mastermind set to conquer the world, he's simply being pitted, which is, in a way, even more degrading.

I had the weirdest concept yesterday, following this debate. What if Forrest Gump was to cover American history of this past decade too? Wouldn't it be right up his ally to be the one who unintentionally take credit for something other, more conventionally socially accepted people, have originally came up with. Let's call it Spacelook or something. And then it takes over the world. And then he's a billionaire. And then he's on the cover of Time. Another decade, another piece of chocolate. And simpleminded people would still be accepting it as a celebration of some kind of a heroic depiction of human achievements and high browed, leftist intellectuals would dismiss it for wrongly see it the same way. And then little me…, well, never mind.

[Damien]

On Italiano's side here. I'm startled at how uncritical it was of Zuckerburg.

Really? The film I saw depicted Zuckerberg as a brilliant but arrogant asshole who screwed over a lot of people including his best friend.

But it ultimately has a sentimental affection for him, which is played up by Jesse Eisenberg's homely puppy dog qualities. The movie sees him as a sad, sympathetic outsider. The only person the film is critical of is Justin Tmberlake's character, but his evil-ness is so over-the-top he should be twirling a moustache.

My old college movie gang has been having an extensive debate about Social Network -- it's basically a ratio of 2 to 1 negative. The film's admirers say its a brilliant piece of contemporary social criticism because Zuckenberg -- and by extension a large segment of the populace -- can't relate within accepted social norms so he and they need a platform like Facebook to create their own idealized versions of themselves. To which the rest of us respond, Yes, we get that in the opening scene, but after that the movie keeps repeating that theme, having nothing else of interest to put forth.

Frankly, I think the movie is too banal and trite to warrant all the discussion being expended on it.

And the ecstatic reviews remain a mystery to me.



Edited By Damien on 1292748156

[Okri]

"You're not an asshole. You just try to be one."

[anonymous1980]

On Italiano's side here. I'm startled at how uncritical it was of Zuckerburg.

Really? The film I saw depicted Zuckerberg as a brilliant but arrogant asshole who screwed over a lot of people including his best friend.

[Okri]

On Italiano's side here. I'm startled at how uncritical it was of Zuckerburg.

Also, as someone who's never used Facebook, I don't really get from the film WHY it's had such a profound impact.

And I fail to understand how Zuckerburg's impact this year outstrips any number of people, but that's another conversation.

[criddic3]

Perhaps I didn't phrase it as well I could have. Outside of Nicholson, the only other performer with four Oscars to his or her resumé was Katherine Hepburn.

I thought that was what you meant, but you had mentioned all the other nominees and not Nicholson, so it just seemed a little odd.

[Uri]

One of the reasons I like Fincher's films is that he is constantly occupied with the way people are objectified in modern society. Se7en, Fight Club, The Game and Zodiac all offer a very dark take on a world where everything and everyone is consumable. (Benjamin Button deals with it from a different perspective). And in TSN he suggests that Facebook is really the ultimate platform for people to compartment the way they interact with/use other people. In a way, it's version of reality is just as valid as the one inside Edward Norton's head. The fact that he is fascinated with Zuckerberg doesn’t necessarily indicate Fincher embraces his vision. Like the state characters are in, time and again, during the climax of his films – the point of view in TSN is a combination of an amazement and horror.

[ITALIANO]

Yes, but in this case the motivations seem to be more on the "positive" side, at least from what I've read.