web
counter
 

I'm Aaron Sorkin, Bitch

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (87)



001_social_network.jpg

David Fincher’s The Social Network does for the Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, what Rudy did for Daniel E. ‘Rudy’ Ruettiger. It doesn’t matter what was actually true, and what was fiction, the account that matters — and that may as well be the truth, whether it is or not — is what is memorialized in film. To the rest of us, Zuckerberg will always look like Jesse Eisenberg, just as Daniel Reuttiger will always look like Sean Astin. It’s more than truth; it’s a goddamn film.

Mark Zuckerberg, at least the one depicted in The Social Network, would probably appreciate The Social Network. It would satisfy his every desire to be depicted as a monstrously successful asshole, an insecure egotist, even if it’s not exactly true. Then again, Facebook isn’t true, either. It’s the embodiment of what we want ourselves to be; it’s the best picture of a bad bunch; it’s our life, reduced to an online highlight reel. That’s what The Social Network is for the origins story of Facebook: A well articulated, fast-paced, and, paradoxically, a humanely soulless highlight reel of the rise of Mark Zuckerberg.

It’s nothing less than brilliant.

What’s almost poetic about The Social Network — besides the masterfully constructed narrative, the effulgent banter, and the whooshing virtuoso performances by everyone in this film, including Justin Timberlake, but especially Eisenberg — is the cultural metaphor that Fincher has constructed. Eisenberg has created what most of us would consider a dweebish anti-hero, but for the Millennials his Facebook has helped to shape, there’s nothing anti about him. Gen Y has never been about putting something good out into the world; it’s been about putting themselves out into the world, which is why reality shows are one of the biggest industries in the United States. Millennials aren’t selling vacuums; they’re selling themselves (and part of the reason the economy is going to shit is because no one is buying). Zuckerberg is the FACE on the poster of this generation. Indeed, he didn’t create Facebook to make money or improve the lives of college kids — there’s barely any attention paid in the film to what Facebook actually accomplishes for the individuals that use it — he created it to make himself look important. If Facebook had existed before he’d invented it, “creating Facebook” would be the centerpiece of his FB wall. He invented Facebook for one fucking reason: So he could say, “I invented Facebook, bitch.”

It takes Fincher and Sorkin — a couple of Gen Xers, one of whom, Sorkin, has professed little knowledge of social networking before he took on this screenwriting gig — to hold a mirror up to an entire generation and smash it in their faces. It’s the brilliant, fast-paced back-and-forth zing-pop banter of Sorkin drenched in Fincher’s cynicism that reduces Zuckerberg from billionaire entrepreneur to a little fuckface dweeb who is misguided enough to believe that the best way to connect with someone is to make a name for yourself.

Indeed, it was all to impress a Boston University undegrad (Rooney Mara), who dumped Zuckerberg because he was too obsessed with his own need to be respected and appear important (at least, that was the motivation in the film, and as far as the world is concerned, that motivation has been concretized). Facebook was created out of his spite. After she dumped him, Zuckerberg developed, overnight, a HotorNot.com type site with the profile pics of Harvard women, which not only got him six months academic probation for violating the privacy of these women (oh, the irony), but elicited the attention of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and Josh Pence) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella), who had the idea to create a MySpace exclusive to Harvard. Zuckerberg took their idea, modified and improved it, made it his own, and launched Facebook while Narendra and the Winklevosses were under the mistaken belief that he was creating a website for them.

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg also brought in his best — and only — friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), to front him the money to start Facebook and be the financial officer of the company. The problem was, at the time, Facebook didn’t need a financial officer; Zuckerberg was too intent on keeping the site “cool” to put advertising on it. “That’d be like throwing this really great party and telling everyone they had to go home at 11,” the founder of Napster, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), tells them, as he aims to push Saverin out of the picture and replace him with himself. It’s that political maneuvering and a lot of alcohol that would lead to the ousting of Saverin and one of the two lawsuits — the other being between Zuckerberg and the Winklevosses — that frames The Social Network.

“The Facebook Movie” is not about Facebook. It’s about the social warfare behind its development. It’s about the hurt feelings, alienation, and anger of those left by the wayside in the rise of Facebook. It’s a pulsating, layered indictment of and about this generation, scored quietly by Trent Reznor. It’s also extremely smart, taut, engaging, and important, but it’s neither self-serious or humorless. It manages to be cool enough that the very people Fincher is damning would want to align themselves with this movie, a hat out of a rabbit feat that only two of the very best at what they do could pull off.

Over a year ago, when The Social Network was announced, almost everyone mocked the idea of a Facebook movie. We scratched our heads, and wondered what was becoming of Aaron Sorkin. Fincher enrolled Justin Timberlake, and we shook our heads again, laughing at the idea (I have the posts and comments to prove it). In the end, The Social Network is like a huge middle finger to all those naysayers, ourselves included, who insisted that this was a terrible idea. But it’s a middle finger we’ll gladly swallow, if only because it adds some intelligent and well-needed social commentary to the world. And when Sorkin gets up to accept his Oscar for best screenwriting, I hope he walks up on stage in his bathrobe, grabs his statue, ambles over to the microphone, says, “I’m Aaron Sorkin, bitch,” and exits stage left with one hand around a cocktail and the other one-finger saluting every punk blogger who had the audacity to doubt him.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Let Me In Review | Drained | Stephen J. Cannell: 1941 - 2010









Comments

Nice.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at October 1, 2010 4:30 PM

Neodiogenes likes this.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at October 1, 2010 4:30 PM

I read to "It's nothing less than brilliant." and then stopped. I've been waiting for this one all day. I was skeptical when I heard this was Fincher's new project but I have faith in the man. I've never seen Benjamin Button because I don't know anyone that actually liked it, Fincher fan or not. But he has yet to let me down, I really should sit down with it one of these days. The reviews are by and large through the roof and this just seals it. I really want to go into it blind, even if I have to wait for Netflix due to scheduling conflicts.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 1, 2010 4:32 PM

Sorkin is the non sci-fi Whedon. Or Whedon is the sci-fi Sorking. I'm not sure which but I'm inclined to say its the former because Whedon was my first. The only reason I'm going to see this movie is because of Sorkin. Otherwise I wouldn't give a shit. Even given his cred I was hesitant until I saw him on The Colbert Report last night and read this review.

Posted by: Dave at October 1, 2010 4:32 PM

Wow. I have to say I'm a bit surprised, but on the other hand not surprised at all. And I want to go around in a bathrobe saying, "I'm Aaron Sorkin, bitch!" too!

Posted by: fullertonregan at October 1, 2010 4:33 PM

Totally agree with you, Dave.

Can't wait to see the movie.

Posted by: Stella at October 1, 2010 4:39 PM

I'm glad to hear it.

*Of course* when somebody said, "They're making a Facebook movie!", everybody went "Shut the front door/Fuck the what?" I mean, Duh. What a stupid fucking idea. But then the TV commercials actually made it look good, and I'm glad to hear it mostly is. Plus, I just love Jesse Eisenberg.

Posted by: MM at October 1, 2010 4:42 PM

Yay! A good movie to make an effort to see! YAY!

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at October 1, 2010 4:57 PM

I love that there's a Facebook "You like this" button under this review.

The movie sounds surprisingly awesome. :) Can't wait to see it.

Posted by: Linda at October 1, 2010 5:07 PM

The only parts of Benjamin Button that are worth a damn are the first 5-10 minutes and the bit with the submarine. Forget the rest of it.

As for this movie, I guess I'll have to check out.

Posted by: FyreHaar at October 1, 2010 5:15 PM

Sorkin's involvement was enough to make me see this movie. The fact that it's good and accomplishes it's goals is justification.

Posted by: Spender at October 1, 2010 5:17 PM

I went to see this earlier in the morning with everyone I work with. I feel like the beginning and end of the movie really hit on the idea that this social media titan has no ability to understand how being social works. The middle felt like the basic story of how instant wealth and fame can be as damaging as it is helpful. In this case, I thought the bookends of the movie were superior to the books in between.

Posted by: Stupid_Rookie at October 1, 2010 5:19 PM

Sorkin and Fincher. Done and done.

Posted by: AlannaJudith at October 1, 2010 5:28 PM

I paused when I saw one of the actors in this movie is named Armie Hammer...seriously? His parents named him after baking soda. I dunno why, but I find that endlessly amusing.

This movie looks rather interesting, but since I rarely venture to the cineplex these days, I'mma gonna be RedBoxin' it at a later date.

Posted by: Jessie at October 1, 2010 5:38 PM

Also, it will be nice to see Jesse Eisenberg playing a douchebag for once, as opposed to the nebbishy Woody Allen wannabe he normally plays. Some ladies may find that type of dude sexy, but I just end up pitying their lack of spine and social skills.

Posted by: Jessie at October 1, 2010 5:41 PM

This movie feels more like the true heir to Gordon Gecko and Wall Street than the sequel that's out right now.

And yet, I've zero interest in it. Even with Fincher and Sorkin as its masterminds, it still boils down to twenty-something geeks screwing one another over the a website. And I'm as interested in that as I was in Middle Men, the earlier movie about the making of the credit card software for porn sites.

BTW, one good thing about this movie premiering is that we can all finally stop with the "Are they making a Myspace movie about Tom" joke. Please. STOP. IT'S NOT FUNNY ANYMORE!

Posted by: Fredo at October 1, 2010 5:43 PM

Jesse: "I paused when I saw one of the actors in this movie is named Armie Hammer...seriously? His parents named him after baking soda. I dunno why, but I find that endlessly amusing."

I once met Alka Seltzer and Bromo Seltzer. They were brothers. They were doctors. Their parents emigrated to the USA around the 1930's or 40's and thought those would be good American names.

Anyway, I have zero interest in the movie. I'm not on Facebook. I've tried Myspace and Facebook and I really couldn't give a damn about either of them. I've been a computer programmer for 30 years, doing purchase orders, and invoices, and stuff that real people in real businesses want computers to do.

Posted by: BWeaves at October 1, 2010 5:57 PM

The name "Armie Hammer" jumped out at me in the credits when I saw this earlier today, and I wondered if he was a descendant of Armand Hammer, the oil tycoon. Turns out he's his great-grandson -- which makes for a nice meta-joke, as he's a scion playing a scion. In the film credits, he's shown as playing both brothers, but in this review and imdb they list two different actors. I'd be shocked if they weren't the same person.

Posted by: sansho1 at October 1, 2010 6:10 PM

Something thats pissing me off (this review included) about the tone surrounding reviews of this film, and any writing about Gen-Y, or whatever they are calling them, is the smug sweeping bullshit they casually pin to my generation in few throwaway sentences. So all Mellenials are narcissistic, just like all Gen-xers are malcontent do-nothings and all Baby Boomers are spoiled hippies? Every generation frets over the perceived corruption they pin on the entirety of the generation that comes after, and they sound like cunts in the process.

The pathos of our age are certainly real and need to be explored, and it sounds like this film does a good job of it. We as a people have developed some real problems with an inflated sense of self and connecting to others, but they are in no way confined to the age bracket of 27 and under. Just because you've read some articles on Huffington Post doesn't give you the authority is say something dumb like "Gen Y has never been about putting something good out into the world; it’s been about putting themselves out into the world"

Posted by: JR at October 1, 2010 6:11 PM

I don't like that generalization, either -- but I think the film does indulge in it, not just the reviewer. If you buy that generalization, it will no doubt enhance your enjoyment. I looked at it more as litigious combat among several characters of varying unlikeability, so for me it was more or less a "three star" experience. Eisenberg was great.

Posted by: sansho1 at October 1, 2010 6:29 PM

JR, Every generation gets lumped under some bunch of crap that they disagree with by the generation before them. But understand it's always been about the blind masses. Dustin is right on when he said that but I'm sure he meant it in the scope of those in the majority of your generation that unfortunately drive pop culture for the most part. Sure, there's tons of people from mine and older generations going right along with it but those are all the assholes that were the guiding force behind all the stupid shit OUR generation wound up getting lumped under.

I hated it when the term Generation X was coined because I didn't want to be lumped in with the idiots that were my pop culture following peers. It happens to everyone just keep in mind that because you don't want to be lumped in with them that means you're in the thinking minority and that's a good thing.

Christ on a cracker, I just gave a "You'll understand when you're older" speech. Just put me in the mother fucking home right now. Shit.

Posted by: PaulterA at October 1, 2010 6:30 PM

@ BWeaves: yep, in my line of work I come across all sorts of goofy-ass names. My coworker keeps a file of documents we come across with silly names and/or normal folks who share their names with celebrities, just for fun.

Posted by: Jessie at October 1, 2010 6:30 PM

I saw a brief clip of the deposition scene a couple nights ago.

I think I shall now see this little wad of celluloid.

Posted by: The Wanderer at October 1, 2010 6:53 PM

I don't think you need to be a fan or avid user of facebook/myspace or social media sites to enjoy the film. It's about a guy who started a business that is now a ridiculous phenomenon. I hate stocks and trading, but I loved the shit out of 'Boiler Room' and 'Wall Street'. It's about the character and whether he's intriguing in the story being told, in my opinion.

Posted by: Teresa at October 1, 2010 7:02 PM

Perhaps I'm the only one in the world of the internets who doesn't particularly care for Sorkin. I find his writing to be pretentious, glib, and frankly annoying. Maybe I'm just a contrarian, but I've never seen in him the genius that everybody else gushes about. I mean, everybody raves about the West Wing, and I could not stand the smug, self-satisfaction that dripped off the screen when that show was on. Sports Night was okay, but not as great as some had me believe. I'll probably see this movie, and maybe I'll enjoy it. I love Eisenberg as an actor, and it's getting good reviews.

Posted by: jmag at October 1, 2010 7:26 PM

It's good but I guess they didn't show me the "movie of the decade" edition.

I thought it was just okay.

Posted by: junierizzle at October 1, 2010 7:28 PM

I seriously thought you were being sarcastic while I read the entire review. Then I read the comments. Now I'm confused. Really?

Posted by: ERM at October 1, 2010 8:16 PM

Might have to hold off and DVD this one. I have some hearing difficulty (my comprehension is fine, thank you, I can keep up OK with subtitles) but I've seen "crackling dialogue" mentioned in too many reviews, and by now I know what that means: Me whispering to Mrs. , "What did he say?" 100 times.

I know about the assistive devices but they seem to fuzzy up the sound and make it even worse.

Posted by: , at October 1, 2010 9:28 PM

I saw it this afternoon, having heard generally positive things, but avoiding as many details as possible. It was great. Given that it's 2 hours and I get restless easily I was a little worried but I never got bored. Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic; it's really too bad that they're holding Timberlake out as the focal point in all of the press, but I suspect that when awards nominations start rolling out, Eisenberg will be vindicated.

I am not a Facebook user either - you really don't have to be to enjoy the movie. It's really about the behind-the-scenes pathos more than anything, and the whole cast is pretty stellar. I am confused about the Winklevosses - Armie Hammer seemed to play both roles - is the second actor credited because he plays the other twin in the same way the "other girl" played Susan/Sharon opposite Hayley Mills in The Parent Trap?

Posted by: Nicole at October 1, 2010 10:05 PM

Jmag, you're not the only one. I don't find Sorkin overrated because an apt writer he undoubtedly is (strictly technically speaking), but waaay smug, pretentious, insincere, hypocritical in essence with a bit of a Messiah complex on top. I was saddened to see Dustin reviewing this one. Occasionally I do enjoy his musings in short form but in reviewing he tends to be childishly (sometimes in a good way, more often not) impressionable and/or judgmental while not providing much insight or substance unless (over)idealizing his idols/man-crushes and bashing his Heigls and Anistons is nowadays called substance. That's not reviewing, that's perezhiltoning. I yearned for Carlson, TK or Prisco while reading this.
JR, yes, I agree with you as well, that meaningless buzzword-heavy oversimplification made me bite my pillow (It's 4:48 AM here in one of the countries born in the death of Yugoslavia. I love Pajiba in the long, windy nights. Speaking of my countries, people here are pissed with "In Bosnia they have no roads, yet they have Facebook." Fuck you, you ignorant Sorkin fatherfucker, fuck your smug soulless heart.)
Ok, I'm done, kill me now you beautiful Pajibans and Pajibettes. I'll love you anyway...

Posted by: schmerpes at October 1, 2010 10:49 PM

Christ on a cracker, I just gave a "You'll understand when you're older" speech. Just put me in the mother fucking home right now. Shit.

I enjoyed it, PaulterA. My knee-jerk reaction was the same as JR, but when I thought about it, I remembered that I generally loathe the people of my generation, and it's usually well-deserved criticism.

Having watched Sorkin's interview on Colbert, I amused by his comment, "I do think that socializing on the Internet is to socializing what reality TV is to reality".

Posted by: Uda at October 1, 2010 11:45 PM

JR, what you'll find is that the movies that "define a generation" don't happen as quickly as the people who want to define that generation want them to be.

But still, anything that could be made to fit that description (whether it's Scott Pilgrim or The Social Network or Fight Club or Clerks) will be snapped up in a hurry.

Posted by: Fredo at October 2, 2010 12:49 AM

Linda, what a brilliant observation.
Also, just got home from seeing this. I wouldn't have thought of Trent Reznor to score a movie, especially not one set to the backdrop of Harvard, lawsuits and computer programming, but I thought the score was incredibly effective.
Eisenberg was fantastic, as was Timberlake, but I've seen a lot of reviews almost ignore Garfield entirely. I thought he was just about on the same level as the other two. Where are his accolades?

Posted by: A-schaef at October 2, 2010 12:53 AM

I seriously thought you were being sarcastic while I read the entire review. Then I read the comments. Now I'm confused. Really?
Posted by: ERM

The only other review I've heard was also quite effusive in its praise, and not because of the zeitgeist/FB/generation shit, but because of the craft, the acting, the story, etc. I was going to give this a pass, but after two strong reviews that address different aspects of the movie, I think I'm going to see this.

Posted by: Brenton at October 2, 2010 1:14 AM

So, is this gonna finally put an end to all the "poor man's Michael Cera" comments? I'm still fucking sick of those.

Posted by: pissant at October 2, 2010 1:48 AM

so, i'm on facebook. who plays me in the movie?

Posted by: skippy at October 2, 2010 2:17 AM

Is there not a bit of irony that this entire review is bookended by Facebook, via "like" tags?

Posted by: Ohgoodygoody at October 2, 2010 8:06 AM

Now that I think about it, there were scenes in which the Winklevoss's clearly appeared identical, and others where I wasn't sure. My guess is that Armie Hammer played both roles when they could split-screen, and Josh Pence played one of them when they couldn't split-screen. Hmmm....

Posted by: sansho1 at October 2, 2010 8:31 AM

Oh geezus now I have to go see this today.

Fuck you Rowles.

Posted by: grace b at October 2, 2010 8:59 AM

Che,

Really, in the whole of Hollywood -- indeed, in all of North America, because when a Gabby Sidibe can come from nowhere and carry a movie, can't a lot of people? -- weren't there actual identical twins who could have handled this?

This is why "he/she gained/lost 40 pounds and uglied up to play this role!" doesn't impress me one whit. There must be fatter/skinnier ugly actors who could carry the role and use the paycheck.

Think of all the actual vampires cut out of roles cause H-wood wants a "name."

Posted by: , at October 2, 2010 9:50 AM

Yeah riiiiiiiiiight.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I pay to see a movie about some fucking nerd asshole, billionaire. and AND you DO you KNOW these folks are laying the groundwork for the future tagging and tracking of all citizens, do you even realize that?

FUCK THIS MOVIE, fuck Zuckernerd and fuck you too Rowles for swallowing his load. You disgust me.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 2, 2010 10:39 AM

Its not the movie that bothers me, I haven't seen it. Its the review. I just thought there was a lot of blunt generalization and conjecture in it. A lot of the shit he caually pined onto twenty-somethings are only vaguely accurate and are more part of the malaise of America's entire consumer culture and not just a single generation and, frankly, beyond the scope of a single movie review, let alone one flippant paragraph.

Posted by: JR at October 2, 2010 11:08 AM

oops
*pinned

Posted by: JR at October 2, 2010 11:09 AM

Thanks Che. That fact adds a sly wink to the "two of me" line, I suppose. I'm glad I didn't know that going in, as I'm sure it would have distracted me. I also hated the Winklevosses, but I figured that was the point, so I chalked it up to good casting.

Posted by: sansho1 at October 2, 2010 11:34 AM

Yep, it seems like the twin effect was done through CGI, but honestly I would never have known that - it was pretty seamless. Armie Hammer did a great job.

@Jessie - funny you mention he was named after baking soda. In my research of his role, I learned that he's the grandson of Armand Hammer, and heir to the Arm & Hammer baking soda empire. No shit. So in fact, the baking soda was named after HIM (well, his namesake anyhow).

@A-schaef - yes! Andrew Garfield was fantastic. His name would not be out of place on any Best Supporting Actor list.

Posted by: Nicole at October 2, 2010 12:38 PM

I think that the biggest issue in regards to financial problems is deeper than what is seen on the surface. I feel as though the problem is actually as much emotional as it is monetary. Where there is overspending, not only is there a financial gap, but an emotional one as well that needs to be focused on Just something to think about

Posted by: Mark Baldwin at October 2, 2010 3:05 PM

He won't be holding a fucking cocktail. He's sober.

Other than that... yeah.

(Christ, I hope he stays sober. Sorkin not sober is a tragedy.)

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 2, 2010 6:37 PM

So I saw it! I actually really liked it. Scratch that, actually I LOVED Andrew Garfield. So nice to see him moving into the U.S. market with this movie (can't wait to see Never Let Me Go w/ him too) and he had an awesome American accent.

I didn't know about a lot of backstory (involving the Winklevi) so that was interesting. Though it just seemed like the involvement of Sean Parker was weird (JT did pretty well I think). If Mark Zuckerberg is really as much of an asshole as he seems then Jesse Eisenberg nailed it out of the park.

Unfortunately the friends I saw this with talked through most of it (one even dared to compare Jesse to ahem, Micha...) but I just tuned them out and had a very enjoyable time. You're review definitely cliched it for me though Rowles.

Also I thought the music was pretty good. I'm not a NIN fan but except for a few parts the music felt equally as modern as the story.

Posted by: grace b at October 2, 2010 10:40 PM

Awesome movie. I'd callit Oscar-bait but it's October, and the cast is too young to be considered by snobby and aged Academy. And refreshingly technically correct, speaking as tech systems systems guy.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at October 2, 2010 11:05 PM

Saw The Social Network and Catfish, the perfect companion piece. Of the two, I liked Catfish more but thought the acting was amazing in TSN. Who knew that Eisenberg could be such a convincing asshole? Or that Spiderman would be cast as Eduardo Saverin?

Posted by: Cookie at October 3, 2010 1:36 AM

I just saw it this evening. I quite enjoyed it. My one beef was Rashida Jones' character. Utterly useless and really? No second year associate at a firm like that would be an expert in voir dire. An expert at document review, maybe.

Eisenberg is officially no longer Cera in my mind. I was really confused when I saw Adventureland, having no idea at all what it was about.

I didn't think Zuckerberg was portrayed as that big of an asshole. Then again, I'm a bit of an asshole.

Posted by: stopthemadness at October 3, 2010 1:38 AM

Eisenberg is officially no longer Cera in my mind. I was really confused when I saw Adventureland, having no idea at all what it was about.

I didn't think Zuckerberg was portrayed as that big of an asshole.

I totally agree on both points. first viewing of Zombieland was really difficult because he was so Cera to me, but then it passed, and with this movie it's totally gone and I now even find him sorta hot?

Zuckerberg - to me anyway - is just socially awkward, highly motivated and super intelligent... people like that just don't relate well to the rest of us...

Posted by: k at October 3, 2010 2:03 AM

not sure if anyone brought up this little nugget of irony

In Zombieland, Eisenberg's character says at one point "No, the best thing about Z-land, no Facebook status updates. You know, "Rob Curtis is gearing up for Friday." Who cares?"

Posted by: k at October 3, 2010 2:09 AM

Really nice review. Can't wait to see this now.

Posted by: Shobhna at October 3, 2010 7:50 AM

Saw the movie last night ... dreamed about it .... the effect of these events unfolding in 2003 has forever changed our culture .. don't care if you're a FB user or not, the movie is excellent storytelling and the acting superb.

Posted by: Paula at October 3, 2010 9:46 AM

JR--agreed.

Another pet peeve of mine. "All these kids today, using facebook instead of having REAL human interaction." No. I, for one, have never once heard, "You're free this afternoon? Cool, me too. So, do you want to meet up somewhere?" "Nah, let's just spend the afternoon chatting using Facebook's shitty-ass IM feature. I like that better." Sometimes, for whatever reason, you *can't* have a face to face interaction with someone right now. That's what I, and everyone I know, use facebook for. That, and online study groups/setting up events.

Anyway, I saw the movie yesterday. It was pretty good. I love accounts of Harvard douchiness. And I really loved that Napster guy. He was fascinating.

Posted by: Lenina Crowne at October 3, 2010 4:49 PM

I'm sure this movie does the job. That said, I've read way too many reviews that take the Zuckerberg-as-outsider at face value. Upper-middle-class-white-Jewish Exeter grad at an Ivy League school? I'm just not buying that in the late 90s/early aughts. I also have an issue with adults who insist on wearing sweatshirt and jeans in business settings (adjusts strand of pearls and harrumphs). Looks about a hundred times more arrogant than wearing a suit.

Stopthemadness: so true about being a voir dire expert. Um, yeah, you might write a draft of the proposed jury *instructions* as a second year, but I don't think you'll take the voir dire by the reins.

Posted by: samantha t at October 3, 2010 5:29 PM

eh, overrated

Posted by: THRILLHO at October 3, 2010 6:26 PM

Just kidding, that was fucking brilliant

Posted by: THRILLHO at October 3, 2010 6:27 PM

"Zuckerberg - to me anyway - is just socially awkward, highly motivated and super intelligent... people like that just don't relate well to the rest of us..."

Sounds like an asshole to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I think that the associate played by Rashida Jones was there only for the very last dialog exchange. You know, where they fed us the moral of the story, assured us Zuckerburg was not really an asshole but just acted like an asshole and wrapped the movie up with a pretty bow.

Posted by: Cookie at October 3, 2010 6:35 PM

I've read way too many reviews that take the Zuckerberg-as-outsider at face value. Upper-middle-class-white-Jewish Exeter grad at an Ivy League school? I'm just not buying that in the late 90s/early aughts.

I have yet to see it, samantha t, but I take issue with this as well, particularly since I also know he had a girlfriend at the time (and not as portrayed in the movie). So they've obviously taken liberties.

And I know, it's fiction, it's a movie, Sorkin's trying to make a (generational) point, etc., but I personally find it cheapens the experience for me to know that Sorkin has made up both the atmosphere and impetus/motivation in order to do be able to make his point. I mean, I can make up any sort of compelling background to my story, but then why should I care about my story if what makes it compelling is made up? (*cough, James Frey*)

Posted by: leuce7 at October 3, 2010 9:05 PM

samantha t: I had an issue with the outsider thing walking into it, too, but I thought that the movie made it so that a) the only reason he might be considered an outsider was because of his dickishness, and b) he only thought of himself as an outsider because he wasn't at the absolute top of the heap.

"I also have an issue with adults who insist on wearing sweatshirt and jeans in business settings (adjusts strand of pearls and harrumphs). Looks about a hundred times more arrogant than wearing a suit."

They do address this in the movie, albeit briefly.

Posted by: Lenina Crowne at October 3, 2010 9:48 PM

From an outsider's perspective, I hear the Facebook condemnations almost daily, but many of these naysayers have an account. So, this same perspective drives me wonder what causes the grousing.

I've heard a lot of 'Woe is the world that is plagued by this trap. Woe be to him who takes up with that Whore of Qwerty-dom'.

The world that is always brought up is 'isolation'. Our planet has become Ray Bradbury's worst nightmare, and we are feeling the effects because...that hypothetical person is off not brothering you? That's a lot of sullen typing.
Is it that the feeling is that our tribes of old are breaking up and we're no longer reliant on unreliable circumstances to keep us safe?

Technology fears? It all goes 'boom' so quickly, Stephen Jay Gould himself wouldn't be track the evolution. Does this undercut the pastoral version of living that is more conducive to our 'natural' state? Don't let poetry about coy shepherdesses fool you, that kind of work really cuts down on potential wooing time.

The Unknown? Not new, universal. Part of the human experience, not negotiable.

Distraction? From what, your Great American Novel? Okay, flippant. Distraction? Well, so was The Pankration: I know what I'd pick.

Annoying: I guess, but so are a lot of devices and children. I can't help with that one as it is a matter of ettiquette--of which we sorely need more. And yet, truth time: things are annoying sometimes. I don't know what anyone sees in that lisping freak character Sally Draper. You run away from home, get a whole day off school with pizza and it's the worst days of your life because you tripped? Brat. Yeah. I will always go there if it suits me.

Ettiquette: Difficult one, as I would think that native rudeness is facilitated by technology, not the other way around. Maybe we all need to go to finishing school before more words are spilled.

Economy: Don't even know what to say about that, but I would expect that this worldwide meltdown didn't occur based on the television viewing habits of one seventeen-year-old in Des Moines between the hours of two and three o'clock on September 29, 2008. This was a long time coming.

Intelligence vs. Savvy: None of these reality show goons are going to be tearing up the paradigms at Bryn Mawr, or anything, but in those early days, I defy anyone who thinks that it didn't take savvy to launch an empire out of the ether itself. Of course, being a legacy helps a great deal, but even the stupidest idea can be a hugely influential one if you think of it and market both it and yourself first.

The State of Personal Enjoyment: Now that it's no longer plausible for the persons of note to feign distress when their sex tapes are 'leaked', it would take a truly naive person to believe that these goings-on are any more base than the legendary casting couch of Louis B. Mayer. Only difference is the dissolution of any pretense of respectability and night vision.

Of the 'Ages of Invention': Singing Bass on a Wall, Spray Hair in a Can, Blackface, John Mayer, Pet Rocks, Gin Pills, Radiated Water, Gibbets, etc. All highly profitable at some point and more than terrible. However, they thought of it first.

Dumbing Down: Have you ever met a person who has said, 'Everyone is smart except me' and wasn't suffering from some trauma--long-term or not--with any hint of credulity? And yet we go on. There are always going to be voices on some plane or from some location who will be almost hysterical about our merry devolution. They'll always be right and they'll always be wrong, but more than anything, they'll be there.

Back When...What? What is the past anyway but a stream of information that we try to monopolized and re-categorize in order to uphold our self-involved philosophies or examination processes? It's such a slipper and nebulous thing that can't be owned by anyone but everybody seems to think that he has exclusive rights to it. World events, or the story of me? Re-wire the power structures, deflate context, take the bottom out of the unsavoury parts, ignore that which doesn't uphold our figments of fantasy, try to be 'empirical' or 'object' about something for which we weren't present and in some nebulous manner create a persona for ourselves that will reasonably create something more presentable or even attractive. Then you have to hold onto it and defend it, lest some should mitigate the integrity of the thing, all the while it hardens into a death mask.

Bleh. I don't know, it's been a weird time ol' Jo-stopher's health. Distractions and lurches towards research in the meantime, amirite? No? 'k, sorry.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at October 3, 2010 9:56 PM

Multiple charge cards include their own group of pros and cons. In order to own multiple charge cards you will stand to gain many perks and simultaneously, you might lose out in certain areas.

Posted by: Sondra Liskiewicz at October 4, 2010 12:10 AM

""Zuckerberg - to me anyway - is just socially awkward, highly motivated and super intelligent... people like that just don't relate well to the rest of us...

Sounds like an asshole to me."

A to the men. Honestly, there are highly motivated, super-intelligent people who aren't awkward - indeed, some are actually pretty gracious. I'm thinking of authors, musicians, artists, etc. who manage to master their craft and be normal, all while in the public eye. I hate when social awkwardness is somehow written off as virtuous and emblematic of genius - honestly, maybe you're just a frigging weirdo who can't handle normal human interactions. It's a weakness, not a strength.

Posted by: samantha t at October 4, 2010 10:52 AM

Nice review.

And loved the film.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 4, 2010 3:47 PM

K: So true!

Also, I've been pumped to see this movie since I knew Eisenberg was starring in it.

Posted by: freefrombirth at October 5, 2010 12:01 AM


excellent film. excellent review. eisenberg is morning line
favorite to walk off with the oscar. he nails it.
observation for the old timers ... andrew garfield bears an uncanny
resemblance to the young anthony perkins. if they decide to
remake " psycho " they have their norman bates ...

Posted by: snake at October 5, 2010 1:23 AM

Slate has an interesting article about Harvard in movies and how this one really gets Harvard in 2002-3 particularly wrong.

Otherwise it's a great American business story- complete with stealing. Heck MySpace was around longer, Facebook just made it easier to use social media.

Posted by: bananapanda at October 5, 2010 1:31 PM

Sorkin is a big asshole who lacks originality in the things he writes almost to the point of plagarizing. What else is new?

Posted by: Matthew at October 5, 2010 7:50 PM

Wow. That was an absolutely amazing review. Thank you for that. I really enjoyed it.

Posted by: Tony at October 6, 2010 9:44 PM

I really wanna see the social network, but I'm worried my extreme jealousy for that geek will make my head explode. lol.

Posted by: movies at October 8, 2010 10:06 PM

A powerful take on the controversy sorrounding the creation of Facebook. With an amazing cast, visually striking shots,(especially in the rowing scene)and a perfectly crafted script, I believe this film deserves a best picture nomination, and may possibly be the best film of the year. David Fincher is wonderful in directing the Social Network, his immediate project predecessing "The Girl with The Dragon Tatoo

Posted by: Bob at October 9, 2010 5:28 AM

Comparison of Andrew Garfield as Anthony Perkins is spot on. How is that gangly nerd going to fill out a Spiderman suit?

Also, a lot of the criticism of Sorkin should be directed at Ben Mezrich, who wrote the book on which the movie was based. Seemed to me that the movie followed the book pretty closely. Sorkin just added the snappy dialogue.

Posted by: mediadogma at October 13, 2010 10:36 PM

"It'll be a cold day in hell when I pay to see a movie about some fucking nerd asshole, billionaire. and AND you DO you KNOW these folks are laying the groundwork for the future tagging and tracking of all citizens, do you even realize that?"

Potentially my favorite comment ever on this site. No I don't I know that directors and actors who are doing their jobs and telling a story are laying the groundwork for a conspiracy theory that stems from books that people who cannot even construct correct sentences have undoubtedly never read. Sorry.

Loved this movie. Love the review. Love Eisenberg (and Michael Cera, despite the popular opinion on this site. I just don't usually associate one with the other... I didn't really know people did that. haha)

Posted by: Sherrybaby at October 17, 2010 6:33 PM

Hmmmm, insightful… I additionally learned that In his 6 periods with the Cleveland Cavaliers, Brazilian forward/center Anderson Varejaohas averaged 7. points, 6.7 rebounds and 24.1 minutes per game.

Posted by: Lieselotte Glory at November 1, 2010 5:47 AM

I stand corrected: this movie was fabulous. And I thought Garfield was the best of a stellar bunch.

Posted by: samantha t at November 8, 2010 3:51 PM

Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information specifically the last part :) I care for such info much. I was seeking this particular information for a long time. Thank you and good luck.

Posted by: Tyson F. Gautreaux at January 21, 2011 10:41 AM

Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly don't know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Posted by: increase serp at January 26, 2011 6:21 PM

What are they looking for?

Posted by: click free6 at January 31, 2011 12:43 PM

You made several good points there. I did a search on the matter and found nearly all folks will have the same opinion with your blog.

Posted by: zero friction marketing at February 14, 2011 4:34 PM

I very much like what you are saying here. Maybe check my blog and see what you think?

Posted by: justin bieber eenie meenie at February 17, 2011 5:24 PM

I just thought I would leave a comment to let you how much of a nice read this actually was.

Posted by: justin bieber songs at February 18, 2011 6:05 PM

I was so disappointed that Aaron Sorkin didn't say "I'm Aaron Sorkin, Bitch" tonight.

Posted by: Sherrybaby at February 27, 2011 11:46 PM

It's not a real conversation about the effects of the Internet on our lives until the spambots have had their say.

Posted by: Lenoxus at February 28, 2011 10:35 PM

Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Posted by: Andrew Pelt at March 2, 2011 8:18 PM

Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Posted by: Gregory Despain at March 3, 2011 2:37 AM