net h8
The Social Network (2010)
2 stars
Directed by David Fincher
Starring Jesse Eisenberg
The Social Network is a biopic about Mark Zuckerberg and associates and the rise of Facebook in 2003-4. It depicts both Harvard and Silicon Valley startup society. It is about elitism and the cult of celebrity.
Of the thirty-two movies released in 2010 I've watched so far, The Social Network, is the worst. The only possible exception is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, which, if you haven't seen it, is exactly what you'd expect from a Disney movie based on a video game. Inception—which was a disappointment for me—was vastly superior to Fincher's latest.
As I know my opinion of this Oscar front-runner to be in a tiny minority, allow me to explain my criteria for a good movie.
I am an unapologetic lover of the classic Hollywood formula—I believe its development to be the greatest leap forward in the history of entertainment. My understanding of the core of the formula is this: movies are entertainment, and their primary mode of entertainment is storytelling. Whether it is a biopic, documentary, musical, thriller, or weepie, it's the story and storytelling skills that elevate a movie to the status of a classic.
So what makes a good story? To me it breaks down into plot and character arc. A few genres (mystery, thriller, horror, sci-fi) emphasize plot, but these very same genres tend to be criticized by the mainstream for being "cheap thrills". For the mainstream Hollywood movie consumer, a good story is built on engaging characters undergoing a transformation we can relate to. What makes a character engaging? Charisma, good looks, fame, talent, a good heart—all the things that make you empathize with, even root for, or at least guiltily admire the character.
This is the primary appeal of The King's Speech. Of Casablanca. Of Jane Austen's Emma. For me, it is the sole appeal of a biopic.
So how does The Social Network score on these criteria? It's definitely a biopic. The subjects are certainly famous and talented. But:
None of the characters are remotely likeable. The (real-life) social network in which they live is both grotesque and stereotyped to the point that I find it hard to believe the authors ever had any first-hand experience of it. The authors clearly do not empathize with the characters, so how can their audience possibly do so? And to say they do not empathize with Zuckerberg and his associates is a vast understatement: I'd characterize their attitude towards them as downright mean-spirited.
Where's the motivation? Zuckerberg wants to get into a fraternity. Why? Clearly the authors of the film not only despise the Harvard Final Clubs, they want their audience to despise them as well. Why would he think starting an Internet company would gain him entrance to a club? Why do any of the other characters go along with a guy who is a jerk from start to finish? Maybe I'm applying too much of my own knowledge as someone who has worked in the industry, but everything technical that he is shown to do on screen could have been done by many other Harvard undergrad CS majors. So what are his unique talents that draw other characters and the audience to go along with him? His infectious charisma? But again, he is portrayed as a loser throughout the movie. Is it just geeks are cool? But again, clearly the filmmakers don't think so: there is little glamorization of and almost as little time devoted to actual geek culture (as opposed to the generic cult of celebrity) in the movie.
In other words, Fincher and crew assume the audience idolize Zuckerberg and actually spend the whole movie trying to disabuse them of the notion that he is admirable.
Okay so what about plot? There's little action to speak of, just a boat race that has almost nothing to do with the story. The framing device is lawyers doing discovery in a law office. The only drama is that of two betrayals. But since the character development is cardboard-thin and I found them all tedious in the first place, I couldn't care less if one of them was betrayed. Other than the race and betrayals, the movie consists of a couple generic parties and people talking or typing on a computer.
But I was told before I watched it that even if I wasn't interested in the subject matter, the movie was made with such skill that you couldn't help but admire it. The only way I can understand this statement is that from a purely technical standpoint, Fincher and his crew are accomplished professionals (although even here I question gimmicks like the tilt-lens camerawork at the race). From the standpoint of storytelling skills, I'm not sure how they could be worse.
It all comes down to the lack of entertainment value. Don't get me wrong: I am not a popcorn movie junkie. I am not a fan of mindless horror, action-adventure, or chick flicks. I enjoy a good documentary, and even the occasional biopic. In fact, my favorite movie of 2010 (so far) is Exit Through the Gift Shop, which, after all, is also a biopic about a famous catalyst for the explosion in crowd mentality in the mid-2000s. Social Network may be a fictionalized biopic, while Gift Shop is a fictional documentary, but the basic type of story and mode of storytelling is the same.
Their attitude and approach could not be more different though. Gift Shop is deadpan to the point that many come away wondering whether or not it is a mockumentary, and yet it is suffused with irony and humor. Without the big budget, famous locations, major stars, crackerjack script, slick camerawork, or decades of experience Fincher had access to, Banksy creates engaging, believable characters.
Let me ask this: if the name "Facebook" did not appear in the film—no let me go further—if the events depicted in the film were fictional—that is, there were Internet startups, Bill Gates, Web 2.0, etc., just not an actual company called Facebook—how interesting would the movie be then? Because, even though I don't know whether or not the events and characters in Exit Through the Gift Shop are real, I like it either way. Because the movie is entertaining enough to stand on its own.
And that is the difference between just writing off Social Network and actually hating it. Because the real-world phenomenon of Facebook and the culture it represents has zero appeal to me. I don't have a Facebook account and don't intend to create one. Neither am I a Luddite: I've worked in a Web startup (as a programmer) and have been blogging (off and on) and active on Flickr, another Web 2.0 social network, since 2005. To have my interest in Facebook and the celebrity surrounding it taken for granted, and then preached to by a humorless, mean-spirited author without first-hand knowledge of his subject is simultaneously tedious and galling.
Again I recognize that almost no one will agree with my opinion of The Social Network. If anything, that just reinforces my opinion. Because the irony is I agree wholeheartedly with Fincher's message: that putting too much stock in the opinions of others is poisonous. So how come, if I agree with the message of such a technically-accomplished film, I find it tedious? Because its story is poorly told.
posted by 1600 Squirrels at 2:36 AM
|
