Four months ago I wrote my first review of The Social Network. I think in many ways that review conveyed my point well, but perhaps I was a little too indistinct at times. With the movie winning the Golden Globes and becoming an Oscar contender, I decided now was the time to take a comprehensive look into why it is one of the worst things to mar cinemas. I completely understand that you may not agree with this, but I just want you to understand why someone could object. That way, I hope, you will not let its negative elements affect you. Anyway, this new response is different from my original review in that it contains spoilers (something I generally do not do in my reviews). I doubt there is anyone out there who still cares about such things in regards to this movie, but I'm warning you anyway.
1. Historical Inaccuracies What separates The Social Network from most other historical dramas is that the events it discusses were very recent. That should have been a reason for Writer Aaron Sorkin and Director David Fincher to take extra care in providing as detailed and truthful a look as possible, seeing as their writing is going to affect how living people are seen. Instead, The Social Network lacks any basis in reality. Below are some of the inaccuracies included in the film.
A. Mark Zuckerberg did not blog a lengthy diatribe about his ex describing her breasts and comparing her to animals. All he did was call a classmate who he does not appear to have dated "a b---h." Not a nice or intelligent thing to do, but not anything as sexist and vulgar as what the movie shows.
B. Mark Zuckerberg was not motivated in his creation of Facemash and Facebook by a break-up. This is because the girl the opening scene shows dumping him did not even exist. In fact, the real Zuckerberg spent most of the time shown in the movie in a deep relationship.
C. It is true that Zuckerberg participated in underage drinking. This does not mean that every genius moment he had was fueled by copious amounts of alcohol.
D. There is no evidence to show Mark Zuckerberg's California house had 18-year-olds smoking marijuana at all, especially every noon. In fact, interviews point to the contrary.
E. Eduardo Saverin refused to move to California. At least partially as a result from that, Facebook began to struggle financially.
F. Sean Parker was arrested for cocaine use, but not at the same time or place as the movie portrays, and certainly not for sniffing it off an underage employee's breasts.
G. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't talk like movie-Mark Zuckerberg and he doesn't insult everything that crosses his path. David Fincher encouraged Jessie Eisenberg to do that for artistic reasons, even though they were both aware it was not accurate.
Fincher and Sorkin may be able to admit their film is fiction, but they are bearing a double standard. If they seriously wanted to create a peace of fiction, they would not have "based" it on real events. The fact of the matter is people now think terrible things about Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker due to Fincher and Sorkin, who fully new they were making it up.
Furthermore, though The Social Network was billed as non-biased (Fincher said as much in an interview with Time). That is not true. The non-fiction book that Fincher and Sorkin skimmed so they could say they did their research was made with consulting and interviews with non other than Eduardo Saverin. Yup, the guy who sued Mark Zuckerberg and ends up the star of the film. Of course, Fincher and Sorkin did not make the movie in order to expose injustices. They have both said they did it as a work of art--probably a reason for why even Saverin's biased account was so distorted.
This movie is morally wrong. There is no way around that. Making art does not justify slander and libel. The Social Network spreads hurtful lies and it knows it.
2. The Idea that the US Court System is a Popularity Contest It really fits into the flow of everything if at the end Zuckerberg is told he needs to pay Saverin and the Winklevosses because he is just too abrasive to win a trial. That can convey all sorts of meanings, and show a symbol for whatever Fincher and Sorkin think the new American generation is. Unfortunately for the story writers, it is not true.
The whole point of judges and lawyers is to make sure the legal system is not a popularity contest. If a lawyer started giving a speech on Zuckerberg's character or brought up inconsequential evidence they would be told to shut up. If they continued they would be thrown out.
Furthermore, people allowed into juries are checked and educated to use logic instead of opinion. Fincher and Sorkin might think that everyone else is too stupid to judge the facts but they are wrong. People understand what the point of a court case is and they can make good decisions. And even if one jury or judge decided to make their decision based on personal taste the case would just go to a higher court and be retried.
If Saverin and the Winklevosses had a case, the movie did not show it. It was just easier to pass off the whole "unfair society" idea legend. But that is wrong. The two reasons Zuckerberg made an out-of-court settlement were either a) he knew he would lose or b) he wanted to keep the press from dragging his name through the mud. I am inclined to go with the latter, but either way it is NOT because the US legal system is run by the characters of Mean Girls.
3. Reckless Behavior Let me make it clear, I have no problem with a movie showing bad things. I loved Winter's Bone despite its dark atmosphere and rampant drug use. I enjoyed The Expendables and all its violence. I laughed at The King's Speech's profanity-laced tirade.
The difference is it is not portraying such things as commonplace and socially acceptable. No one watches Winter's Bone and then goes and takes meth. No one sees The Expendables and then blows up a South American island. No one takes a private talk in The King's Speech to be an argument for using those words at the church picnic.
People will watch The Social Network and think its reckless behavior is commonplace. Many of the film's viewers will go to college and get offered a drink or receive sexual advances from strangers and will think such things is okay. Yes, some people do those things. But the vast majority of us do not spend their Friday nights vomiting beer during their winter strip poker matches. Even in college. And the people who do: It isn't good for them. Some will grow out of it and think back on what they thought was "harmless fun." But many will suffer the affects of alcoholism, mental illness, STDs, college expulsion, or an unplanned pregnancy for the rest of their lives. You shouldn't choose not to get wasted just because you might embarrass yourself--the only reason given by Fincher and Sorkin. You should do it because you understand that there is a strong possibility you will be feeling the consequences ten years later.
4. The Next Generation is Not Lost There are negative consequences of Facebook and electronics. That is not something that should be denied. However it should not be used as a scapegoat either.
If I decide to use Facebook to describe my classmate's breast size I will look like a jerk. I might even end up getting denied from a job because my potential employee found this in a lengthy google search. But you know what? Chances are if I was the kind of person to do that I would have said it to the wrong person and everyone at school will know I'm a jerk regardless of whether I post it. I might even be inspired to do something truly nasty because I don't have a computer to vent on.
Anyway, for the vast majority of us it is a non-issue. Most people figure out not to write stupid things; not to post stupid pictures; not to have their friend videotape their romantic exploits. Most of us use the internet to make connections.
A large moral of The Social Network is that while the internet can provide a reason for people to obsess over their connections is they are really losing them. This is shown by moive-Zuckerberg spending his life getting into the science and logic of relationships without trying to make them. I am sure that is true for some. I could obsess over who has friended and defriended me on Facebook and not talk to my brother or best friend.
I don't though. Most people don't. Most people use Facebook and the internet to meet new friends and improve their existing relations. Fincher and Sorkin may have had such a booming social life in high school and college they fell confidant condescending to those who need the internet for such interactions. I am not like that. After leaving a hospital I spent months lonely and depressed. I was able to get through those times by talking to friends who were far far away over Facebook--people who truly cared about me. And I am not alone. Many of my friends do. Still others use Facebook to find people they met once and would have forgotten, developing beautiful new relations with them. In fact, many people now form lasting marriages over relations forged online.
The Social Network will not destroy the internet. But it will have lasting repercussions. People could stop using Facebook. Too many will associate with a pathetic outlet full of perverts and bullies. Facebook will most likely be phased out for some slightly different social network (likely not as good), and this movie will have a large piece of the blame.
It may seem cool to blame the new generation's existing problems on the internet, and make up new ones to fit that idea. But it is not true. Today's social network is vibrant and innocent, full of people--people who would have been lonely--making friends.
This is why The Social Network is the worst film of 2010 and one of the most destructive of all time. Please don't support it, and if you do at least consider its flaws. Or at least remember that the internet and Facebook are there for you to find friends, share moments, and make connections like never before.
For my original review of The Social Network click here: http://cinetim.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-network-f.html
No comments:
Post a Comment