We don't know what it can be, we don't know what it will be. We know that it is cool, and that is a precious asset.
I was inspired to write a post about The Social Network after an email from a friend about the movie. I had been thinking about the movie since watching it on Friday and doing reading on the people and the history of Facebook, so it was definitely on my mind.
Is The Social Network the film of our generation? Maybe. It might be just because it's a great film about a topic so very relevant to our generation. I'm not sure it's a classic movie similar to the way Fight Club (another Fincher film) has become such a cult hit for the late 90s and for the disgruntled young males of recent time. It certainly has started off with a bigger bang than a movie like that though, with a #1 box office spot and rave predictions of Oscars galore. I'm not sure if it can reach the pinnacle of movies like Network or All the President's Men, movies that reviews have compared it to for capturing its era.
I remember when the movie was first announced, and I, like many of you, thought "A movie about Facebook? Really? Already? Ridiculous." And then I was shocked to see that David Fincher, he of thrillers like Seven and Fight Club and majestic FX movies like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would agree to direct a movie about a website becoming big. The first two trailers didn't impress me either at the time (lines in the trailer seem much better in the context of the film, like the above quote, and the quote "A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool?... a billion dollars"... a line that definitely hit the Unintentional Comedy Scale for me).
Yet the reviews started coming out, and they were filled with praise. And they were right for the most part. The amazing thing about the film, and something that makes a push for why it might be the "film of our generation", is the absurd timeliness of the film. Yes, the movie only starts about 7 years ago. Seven years ago is a long time. Our time in Iraq was in its beginning phases, I, and a chunk of you, were juniors in high school, and the first Pirates of the Caribbean had come out that summer. Kerry hadn't lost yet. YouTube wasn't around. Things in our time move at a rapid pace... in another year, the captions at the end of the movie* will probably be slightly outdated. A movie about a website as big as Facebook, one that has changed the way we interact socially online and in person (and I don't think I need to explain that), can warrant a film this quickly, both because it's important and because its story, though exaggerated, is captivating nonetheless.
*I actually was hoping before the movie that there wouldn't be captions even though I figured there would be, since I fear that the captions will date the film in a few years. But I guess that's a small point. And it seems like others have enjoyed the captions to know more about what happened to everyone.
And then, can you believe it? People who graduated from high school in 2005, that was still when Facebook had limited access to universities and no photos (and no high schoolers). This website... it grew quick. And part of my enjoyment from the film was seeing the thought process behind that. Yes, Eduardo Saverin comes away as the most sympathetic character and the one we side with... but he was wrong on some critical points. The thought process of Zuckerberg and Sean Parker in the movie is fascinating, even as you think that these guys are douchebags. Yes, the line at the top sounds tooly, but it's completely true about Facebook then, and why they had to limit access initially. Facebook had to be cool enough for everyone, parents, high schoolers, random Joe Schmo to want it... and now... it's everywhere.
The Oscars
Can this film take home Oscars? Yes. I think right now, it's the film most likely to win that has been released, and it's set the bar high for any coming challengers. From stuff I've read, there are movies like The Black Swan and The King's Speech that could challenge, but I think they'll have to be damn good and mainstream to beat out a movie so timely and well done. I see locks for nominations for Best Picture, Director, Writing for Adapted Screenplay, Score, and then I see good shots for Jesse Eisenberg for Best Actor and Andrew Garfield for Best Supporting Actor. It would be cool to see JT pull off a nod, but I'm dubious. I won't get into that other stuff, but I imagine it could aim for things like Best Editing and such.
Do I like this movie better than Inception, that movie I was crazy about this summer? Noooo. I mean, I love Inception. It's way up there for me, almost unreasonably. I do think The Social Network is the better-made film though. Better writing and acting, and probably a better cohesive movie in general. But... Inception's awesome.
Is The Social Network a perfect movie? No. For one thing, something I didn't think much about when watching it and had pointed out to me later was that the portrayal of women as fools* and prizes in the film is poor (consider this article that was linked to me: http://jezebel.com/5654633/the-social-network-where-women-never-have-ideas. No, I'm not an avid Jezebel reader). On an aside, it seems like Sorkin hasn't had a great track record for women in movies (although he has had good characters in his TV shows). A prime example is Demi Moore's character in A Few Good Men, who was pretty wooden and was originally written for a male character.
*A big scene concerning this is when Eduardo's soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend sets his scarf on fire (culminating her character's progress of crazy). A friend of mine told me that supposedly that really happened according to the book, but I haven't heard anything one way or the other. If anyone has more insight on that... I would be curious.
On top of that, let's be real, the portrayals of characters are fairly exaggerated. You can find that in lots of articles, but I'll point to a few and make my quick thoughts on it. See here for a guy who gives his own insight on some of the main people: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-30/the-facebook-and-zuckerberg-in-the-social-network-arent-real/. See here for a cool Vanity Fair feature on Sean Parker: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/sean-parker-201010?currentPage=all
Zuckerberg doesn't seem to me to be nearly as awkward in real life, although he's still pretty damn awkward (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3hu3iG8B2g). He's almost awkward more in an endearing sense, like you're more likely to feel sorry for the guy. Not quite in the movie. And I was a little annoyed with the scene where he made the weird noises in the advertising meeting with Eduardo. It didn't seem plausible. In addition, it seems like he had more friends in real life and still has friends (and a long-term girlfriend). The scene where Eduardo says how he was his one friend is awesome in the context of the movie, but it doesn't ring true. Heck, he's at least got Dustin (really minimized in the movie), and then other nerds he must hang with.
Sean Parker's character is also made a crueler, supposedly, than real life. He seems to be made out to be less brilliant in the movie too. The Vanity Fair article might shed some more light on that.
Does that really affect my opinion of the movie? Not really. I just try to remember that the movie is more of a fictional, generally true story, with some character exaggerations to make for a better story (a damn good story in this film). The basics of betrayal, exciting business rises, and character flaws are still there. The dialogue is still wonderful (and amusing to repeat). The actors are on top of their games (let's give it up for Armie Hammer too!).
Basically, this movie made me think about it a lot. And research about what happened and still be intrigued by it. Does it define our decade, as Peter Travers says? Eh. But I would feel OK with saying that it defines at least our social interaction this decade. Yeah. I'm OK with that.
