By now I think it's apparent that I view the inability to stop thinking about it as one of the markers of a good movie. The Social Network is, for better or worse, the latest addition to my list of hearty cinematic fare.
One of the things I find most striking about the film is not necessarily the plot, but all of the questions the making of this film brings up: where is the line between fiction and reality? What are the facts on which this story is based, and where do they align with the plot points of the film?
As far as the plot of the film goes, one of screenwriter Aaron Sorkin's best moments of construction and a testament to Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall's' editing was the juxtaposition of the two key lawsuits: one from a group who believes Zuckerberg stole their idea, and another from his "only" friend who was shut out of the company. There's the business side of things, and there's the personal side of things. The business side is pretty clean cut, and it's made clear in the film that the group suing him doesn't really have true case, but it's viable enough to question how a jury would react, and so they settle. The personal side of anything is going to be a lot more complicated, and this case is no different. Digging up the details of the case is painful for both friends, and more evidence turns up of their friendship (and Zuckerberg's supposed awkwardness) than of a reason why Zuckerberg did what he did. The question is actually never answered: it remains an inexplicable open wound. Sorkin parallels these two stories to highlight the corresponding sides of Facebook: the money and the business and the facts are cleaner cut (and lame by comparison) than any of the strange new bonds people maintain on the website.
Sorkin's black and white view of the social platform is well-executed, but certainly cause for concern. It's clear that he doesn't know anything about social media, and as you can read in countless places, facts aren't his chief concern either. It was thus that much more interesting to compare and contrast the film with the timely profile of Zuckerberg featured in the New Yorker. My first impression was that, from the author's description, Eisenberg nailed Zuckerberg's personality -- a feat, considering the star of the unauthorized picture has most likely never had the chance to meet his private, introverted, and self-proclaimed awkward non-fictional counterpart. Unlike some dimwits out there likely to take the story as fact and exposé, I think I have the sense to see a film about any origin story as sensationalized at the least, but reading the article brought Facebook's founder into the mix as well. After completing the piece, I had to admit there was more to this than getting a character's quirks down or at least exaggerating them to the perfect degree on screen. I started thinking about how it would feel to have a movie made about me: of course it would frustrate me that a) it existed in the first place, b) any grain of truth in it was most certainly going to be exaggerated, and that c) it would be possibly sensitive parts of my life portrayed onscreen by people who have no idea who I really am. But perhaps most of all, it would bother me that people out there would actually believe it. They wouldn't think twice. I really found myself pulling for Zuckerberg in all this, not necessarily because of the truthfulness of the facts or the level of acting, but because he's a guy who did some great things and some not so great things, just like everybody else, and we should just leave him alone.
One fleeting moment of the film SM and I spent a lot of time talking about was Rashida Jones' lawyerly explanation (if caught, for the benefit of the viewer, moreso than for Zuckerberg) that settling doesn't imply guilt, rather it admits defeat in the face of inescapable perception of guilt. All the prosecution has to do is convince the jury that theft was merely possible. He could have been thinking it, so he could be guilty. That's all it takes. As much as I might think I would react differently to any of the situations Zuckerberg faced, this was what it came down to: sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, people are going to extrapolate what they wish and judge you accordingly. I saw it as kind of concession by Sorkin for Zuckerberg, tucked away among the drama and the sometimes-harsh characterizations.
Is the goal of a film based on reality to tap into that reality for answers, for truth? Or do we watch these films as a mirror into the distant past, just to reaffirm that it happened, like clicking through a Facebook photo album? After watching this film, I would hope that Sorkin and Fincher were going for the latter. The former is just too fraught with incomplete truths and funhouse-reflected moments in history to do any justice to a real investigation. Maybe it's just too soon, or too much altogether. I thought the same of Oliver Stone's W: why am I watching this? What's the point of this exercise? He was a young guy who started a game-changing website, or a president who made some questionable choices...so what?
Overall, I think the movie was well-crafted, but ultimately a hollow experience. I found thinking of Facebook outside of Facebook for a while was the interesting exercise, regardless of the contents of the film. While waxing philosophical about the "power of social networking" is annoying to me, I do know that I joined the website before I was even a first year, in the summer of 2004. I knew that University of Chicago was the second tier of schools added after the Ivy Leagues, but I had never put that timing into perspective: Zuckerberg rolled out Thefacebook.com in February of 2004. When he was 19 years old. 19. The rate of growth of his consumer base was absolutely ridiculous, and he didn't have to advertise. It is word of mouth and desire to be involved that continues to drive the whole beast. That is pretty powerful, whether you like the (portrayal of the) guy or not. And I think what really sells him to me, though, is that he's not in it for the money. He enjoys building things, like so many of the other unknown developers and hackers in Silicon Valley, and he will continue to build it out until he moves on to something else, if ever. I can respect that from afar without having to know the ins and outs of his personal life, Sorkinized or no. I just hope this dramatization of him and the founding doesn't get in the way of other people doing so as well.
Further reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04portrayal.html?th&emc=th
http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
