The Social Network

The Social Network, 2010
Directed by David Fincher
Won 3 Oscars: Best Film Editing, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score
Lost BP To: The King's Speech
Up Against: The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, True Grit, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, Inception


Last year, I was a huge huge fan of the King's Speech, and rooted for it all the way. After the nominees came out for Best Picture, I decided I should probably see what the big fuss was about for The Social Network, it's biggest competitor. Whether it was bias, or because it truly didn't strike my fancy, I wasn't a fan. I didn't see why it was getting attention, though it was an average, kind of dull movie, and completely dismissed it.

Now, about a year later, I've decided to give it another chance. Why? Because I've become a fan of Andrew Garfield, having watched him in Never Let Me Go and the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, both of which he was fantastic. Also, having dismissed the Original Score as well, thinking How to Train Your Dragon should've won, I also picked that up again, and while I knew it was just okay on it's own, it probably rocked with the movie. Thus, I picked it up from the library and settled down and watched it tonight.


This is the story of Facebook, and the people behind it. Mark Zuckerburg is a computer genius, even before he started Facebook. He was going to Harvard, and was able to create websites in an evening, while drunk, that would gain 22,000 hits in one night, and crash the Harvard network. That's the kind of guy he is. When he's approached by the Winklevoss twins to program a website for them, Harvard Connection. It's an exclusive facebook/social network for Harvard University students. Mark initially says he's in, but then he deems their idea lame, doesn't tell them he's out for 6 weeks, and starts up his own social networking site, TheFacebook, for Harvard students with his best friend Eduardo Saverin.

The story revolves around Mark, obviously, and just how he rolls to the beat of his own drum. Doing things with Eduardo's money before asking him for said money, teaming up with Napster-creator gone broke, Sean Parker, moving to California to set up his business, and eventually betraying Eduardo. Mark is given to us a cold-hearted college student. The only person he really cares about is himself. And that shines through in every moment we see Mark. Though we know at the heart of the matter, Mark wants acceptance. And he does this through creating Facebook. It's an interest flip-flop, seeing this in the opening scene with Erica, and then the lawsuit scenes. In the end, you can't have worldwide acceptance, and keep your best friends, it seems.

This movie moves back and forth from the past (creation of Facebook/Harvard) and the present (lawsuits). It's almost as though this film is a supplement and evidence in the cases. We see the scenes as they come up in the suits, sometimes with description and narration from Mark or Eduardo. And we are taken, linearly through the process of the creation of Facebook. The "stealing" from the Winklevoss's, the creation and programming of TheFacebook, with Mark and Eduardo, the college celebrity phase, the move to LA and teaming with Sean Parker, and the Business Deal. It's well told, with not too much narration (but a sufficient amount), and not too much back and forth between the two (though, again, sufficient, that we don't forget about it, and it keeps us wondering what went wrong with Mark and Eduardo).

The screenplay, written by Aaron Sorkin, is whip-smart, witty, and just so geeky. It is said that the opening scene between Erica and Mark was 8 script pages long, and took 99 takes to get right. And I believe both those facts. Aaron Sorkin's screenplay was really great. He has such a talent for turning okay subject into really great movies (see Moneyball).

Additionally, the movie was well acted, and it garnered Jesse Eisenberg a Lead Actor nomination. Though, if anyone should've been nominated, it should've been Andrew Garfield. He's a really strong actor, and that's also true for this film. He has so much passion, and you can see it in every line he speaks in this film (with a wonderful American accent to boot). Of all the acting in this film, I'd say he was definitely the strongest, especially with his moment of confrontation, at the end, with Mark. He plays that so perfectly.

Overall, the film was good, but not Best Picture worthy. I understand the nomination, but still agree it shouldn't have won. It was a well told film, with an interesting(ish) story, but I don't think it'll stand the test of time well, since it's such a modern piece. Not that modern is bad, or that Best Picture's need to stand the test of time, but it's a very here-and-now movie, and while it was good, it wasn't amazing.

7.5/10

Winner Breakdown: Screenplays

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
- The Descendants
- Hugo
- The Ides of March
- Moneyball
- Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy


This year was very much composed of book adaptations in the best picture category. Of the 9 nominees, 6 are based upon books, though surprisingly only 3 of those made it in (Moneyball, Descendants and Hugo). So far, it looks like the competition will be between the 3 Best Picture nominees. Behind The Descendants we have Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon. Payne previously won an Oscar (his only) for his writing for Sideways. Behind Hugo is John Logan, who hasn't won an Oscar yet, but was previously nominated for Gladiator and The Aviator. And for Moneyball we have Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Zaillian has been nominated 4 times and won for Schindler's List, and Sorkin has been nominated twice, winning for his work on last year's The Social Network. (Ides writers both have been nominated for 1 other film, and TTSS are first time nominees). So we're really looking at the BP nominees. But personally, I feel the award will go to Moneyball. Zaillian and Sorkin made a smart baseball film, with some humour, but also with some wit, and passion. It's a well-written script, and may be Moneyball's best shot at anything. It's won lots of Film Critics awards (Toronto, San Diago, etc), and it has the powerhouse's of Zaillian and Sorkin. If anything is to upset this award, it'll be The Descendants, which just won the WGA Award for Best Adapted. Payne has previously won for Sideways, and both films will be duking it out for (possibly) the only awards they have shots at. But I'm going to have to put Moneyball as the winner, just over The Descendants, though I wouldn't be shocked if The Descendants took it.

Will Win: Moneyball
Could Win: The Descendants
Dark Horse: The Ides of March
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball



Writing (Original Screenplay):
- The Artist
- Bridesmaids
- Margin Call
- Midnight in Paris
- A Separation


This category was interesting since there weren't too many Original Screenplay's this year. This is Margin Call's only nomination, and it's not likely to win. The clear winner here is Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. It won the Golden Globe and the Writers Guild Award. I'd say it's pretty much a lock-in, with Allen previously winning 2 Writing Awards, and being nominated a total of 15 times (just for writing). This one is a pretty clear winner. However, The Artist could make an upset (as could Bridesmaids), but I wouldn't seriously think on it, as it's not at all likely. 




Will Win: Midnight in Paris
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: Bridesmaids 
Who I Want to Win: Midnight in Paris

MONEYBALL

Written by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin

Directed by Bennett Miller

Starring Brad Pitt, Johan Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman

Billy Beane: There are rich teams; there are poor teams; then there’s fifty feet of crap; and then there’s us.

These days, it seems that when it comes to conversations about the American economy, the focus is on the increasing divide between the rich and the poor. In MONEYBALL, that same gap is affecting America’s favourite pass time, baseball. How can a team that only has $40 million to pay its players possibly compete with teams that have three times that amount at their disposal? The answer is simple. Input everything you know about the players into a computer and let it do all the thinking for you. And once you have all your algorithms in place, you can apply them to the sport and rob it of all spontaneity and excitement.

Unfortunately, some of the fun and excitement that usually spills over from the sport itself into the baseball movie genre, has also disappeared from MONEYBALL. Bennett Miller’s second film after his incredible debut, CAPOTE, is a succinct account of how former Oakland Athletics general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), changed the way major league baseball teams were formed in 2002. Inspired by a concept that was brought to him by his new assistant (Jonah Hill), Beane began adding players to his roster who were notorious for getting on base. The logic was that these players cost way less and produced more consistent, if not necessarily showy, results. MONEYBALL then becomes a waiting game to see if his theory pays off and less about the actual success of the players themselves.

Pitt gives a fine performance as the frustrated Beane, choosing to play most of his struggle internally while presenting with great confidence to all who doubt him. As strong as his performance is, it is not as impressively nuanced as the turn given by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the unfortunate coach who has to play with Beane’s team of mismatched baseball rejects. Even Hill shines as a young actor who is showing more and more promise in dramatic parts. No, the trouble with MONEYBALL is not the acting but rather the thin subtext of the script. Having gone through three hands before going into production, it comes across as self-important but doesn’t have the gravitas to back it up. As a result, MONEYBALL is solid entertainment, but it never manages to crack it out of the park.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Written by Aaron Sorkin
Directed by David Fincher
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake

Mark Zuckerberg: There is a difference between being obsessive and being motivated.

With over 500 million members worldwide, Facebook has come a long way since it was just a little social networking site kicking around a few prestigious colleges in the United States. In fact, I remember quite vividly when I first heard about it. It came out of nowhere and suddenly everyone I knew was asking why I wasn’t on Facebook yet. I actually held out. I had done Friendster and Myspace. Why did I need this new network to come into my life so I could feign the idea of closeness with people I had neither seen nor thought of for years? For days, I cursed it to anyone who would listen. This made it particularly difficult when I actually joined Facebook a few weeks later and started inviting all the people I had complained about it to, to be my friend.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK, or what is affectionately known as “The Facebook Movie”, is not about a bunch of bored office workers or late night loners wasting hours of their lives on Facebook. That’s about all it isn’t about though. Screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, has taken the real life story of how Facebook came into existence and turned it into something so much more revealing about human nature. By walking us through the two lawsuits that Facebook co-creator, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), was served as a result of how he went about co-creating Facebook, Sorkin is able to comment on everything Facebook touches on, directly or indirectly. Suddenly, a factual account of a civil law suit is able to expose America’s class system as still going strong, our universal fascination with gossip and popularity and the increasingly blurred difference between public and private statement. Even the inclusion of the lawsuits themselves denounce an American fascination with suing to get even, even when that means suing your best friend.

Fortunately for Sorkin’s ambitious script, David Fincher helms THE SOCIAL NETWORK and I really want to add him as my friend again after THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON made me hide him from my news feed. (Kidding, David Fincher is not my friend in any capacity). Fincher has this one though. He has an incredible awareness of the implications being made by the actions and accents the perfect moments to prove the points subtly and effectively. He also drives brave, brazen performances from his three young stars. Justin Timberlake shows dramatic depth as Sean Parker, the creator of Napster. Andrew Garfield finally shows me why I should give him any notice as Facebook co-creator, Eduardo Saverin. And Eisenberg, an actor that is oft criticized for being one note, takes what is now his signature whip of a tongue and infuses it with a strong sense of character and understanding. He plays Zuckerberg as an unstoppable force, driven by a deep-rooted self-hatred. You want to hate the guy yourself but Eisenberg makes it so you think twice before you do.

One of my original arguments for not joining Facebook was that I thought it enforced a horrible falsehood. People could remain close virtually and keep up with loved ones without making any actual effort to be a real part of their lives. It would drive us further apart while making us feel like we were getting closer. THE SOCIAL NETWORK proves me wrong though. This fantastic and fascinating piece of filmmaking will unite us all through the one thing all 500 million of us can relate to, our love/hate relationships with Facebook. And by breaking it all down, he manages to find the heart behind the screen.