The Social Network (F)

Sometimes a movie has an element that is certain to be a severely destructive influence on viewers. The Social Network has four.
The plot revolves around a super-genius who shares the name of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg; The Squid and the Whale, Zombieland) looking back on the events he is being sued for. The movie suggests that Zuckerberg used unethical and possibly illegal tactics first when dealing with fellow entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (mostly Armie Hammer with some Josh Pence to make the illusion of identical twins) and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, Boy A) while creating Facebook.
Before getting into the major flaws in the film, I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the film critic community. Last summer when The Last Airbender came out, M. Night Shyamalan got a lot of criticism for having white actors play characters which in his source material (a fictional, stylized cartoon) appeared Chinese and Inuit. Just a month or so before that, Prince of Persia got criticized for similar reasons. Now this movie opens up and Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin. Saverin is in real life Hispanic, and in the movie it is important that he is Hispanic, but Garfield is obviously Caucasian. If one is going to take offense at white actors playing non-white roles, one should at least be consistent.
The aforementioned issue, however, is a mild error in the vast sea of mistakes that make up this movie. To begin with, one should stop trying to ignore the fact that these are real people the film is slandering. This might be acceptable if the story was trying to follow the facts as best as can be, but Writer Aarron Sorkin (A Few Good Men; Charlie Wilson’s War) and Director David Fincher (Fight Club; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) have openly yet quietly stated that they are making a work of fiction and changed boatloads of facts to make a better story and convey their message. If one made a movie about what an excellent leader Hitler was, and it had a great message and astounding visuals, it would still be a bad movie because it is offensive to make up facts that will hurt real, living people. Likewise, this movie is a disgusting attack on people like Zuckerberg because it is presenting false events as truth. For example, saying that minors were allowed in Zuckerberg’s house and encouraged to get high is not something one could write in a newspaper article (in fact, it seems it was rare that Zuckerberg ever partied), but it is apparently allowed for these statements to be presented as absolutes in a “biographic” movie. In real life Zuckerberg was dating for much of the time he was inventing Facebook, but in The Social Network he was largely motivated by his loneliness after having been dumped. Saverin’s poor business decisions had caused Facebook to be in very deep trouble financially—at least in part because he did not move to California—a piece of trivia the movie leaves out. Zuckerberg’s Facebook coworker Sean Parker’s cocaine arrest was changed a great deal from reality to make him seem like the selfish villain Justin Timberlake got praise for playing. Saverin was not really Zuckerberg’s first partner. The list goes on and on.
Sorkin and Fincher have insisted that they wanted to be impartial and this is what came out. That could not be farther from the truth. Zuckerberg and Parker come out as evil because the book the film is somewhat based on (a biography called The Accidental Billionaires) was made with hours of consulting from none other than Eduardo Saverin. Of course Saverin himself could not have hoped for the movie to be as absurdly distorted as it is. It is sickening that this is being accepted as a realistic account of what happened in the early days of the social network.
On a related note, all of the acting is terrible. Not that it would be bad acting if it was on entirely fictional characters; its just that the actors take tremendous liberties with the roles of the real-life people they are playing. For example, Eisenberg talks twice as fast as real-Zuckerberg since he wants to convey how smart and detached he is. In an interview, Fincher said he was aware of this but says he wants the film’s Zuckerberg to symbolize a lot more. He seems to forget that his symbolic-Zuckerberg is hurting the image and feelings of the real Zuckerberg.
The film would be awful if these were its only flaws, but in fact it gets worse. For example, the drinking and drug abuse reaches levels never-before shown in a PG-13 film. Drinking (underage drinking!) is not only presented as a relatively harmless, silly habit; it is shown as something that all college students do and should not be afraid to do. Sure characters behave stupidly while drunk, but it is implied that this is just a time in life when such things happens. Likewise, marijuana use by minors during the midday in Zuckerberg’s house is used to convey a “party” atmosphere; not a building full of addicts. Parker’s cocaine abuse is portrayed as a poor idea, but mostly because it will hurt his reputation, not his life.
In a further display of purposefully spreading false information, The Social Network’s view of the legal system has a closer resemblance to the courts shown in Planet of the Apes then the ones you will find in real life. The movie states that cases are judged on a combination of personal prejudice and presentation of the witnesses, with absolutely no regard for things like the Constitution or the actual events. True, The Social Network would have had trouble finding the time to explore the complex legal arguments behind the Facebook lawsuits, but “being lazy” or “wanting to tell a story that sounds good” aren’t exactly valid excuses considering the movie claims it paid attention to the facts.
Finally, there is the issue that The Social Network’s overall theme is not just offensive, it’s arrogant. The movie has not thought out any of the benefits of Facebook—at best it shows it as just the newest manifestation of modern culture and interaction (Sorkin and Fincher obviously think our culture and interactions are done terribly). At worst, The Social Network portrays Facebook as an easy way to get in trouble because of negative pictures/videos or a way for people you thought liked you to make fun of you behind your back. Practically everyone has had a negative experience over the internet, but to insult the whole idea is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fincher and Sorkin might be annoyed about things said and done over Facebook, but it is arrogance for them to portray it as an mindless drug for people who don’t even think into the reasons its used. I have received much support and comfort over Facebook from friends who I would otherwise have not been able to keep up with. I think Facebook and the internet is helpful and a good thing. True, Fincher and Sorkin do not outright condemn Facebook, but they sure use a selective vision, not spending any time focusing on its benefits but going to great lengths to show its faults.
The Social Network is an abominable insult not just to Zuckerberg and Parker, or even filmmaking—it insults society and all the humanity tied to it.