Slow down there tigers. David Fincher’s “The Social Network” is an admirable piece of work, another outstanding piece of technical craftsmanship from the notoriously fastidious filmmaker, a tour de force of editing, a snap, crackle and pop of witty “His Girl Friday”-like tête-à-tête dialogue, and it does feature Jesse Eisenberg’s best performance so far. Admittedly, there is a lot to love about the film, but those critics bemoaning the fact that it doesn’t have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes because of Armond White (that evil man, how could he!?) are being downright silly. The picture — like all movies — is not perfect (does a truly perfect movie even exist aside from a handful of unimpeachable classics?) and more importantly, it has its flaws.
Moreover, it’s a film that has been doused in hyperbole. The film that defines a generation. Really? Why, because it features computers? It’s well established that the film is not about Facebook and or social media or social networks. It’s about — at the end of the day — friendship, greed, betrayal, entitlement, and to an extent, communication in the communication age. But how most of those themes only apply to this decade is puzzling (Peter Travers, care to explain?). Don’t get it twisted, we liked the film (this writer’s grade is more B, B+ than the A-grades it’s been getting across the board, but whatever), but it’s not god’s gift to movies (though it certainly will have more long-tail resonance than the enjoyable, but slight, “Toy Story 3” which also almost had a 100% RT grade until Armond did his unspeakable dislike thing).
Oh, and don’t let producers tell you that screenplays that leak online are just first drafts. While that’s often the case, it’s not always true, and Aaron Sorkin’s script is proof; the version online and the finished film are almost word for word the same in dialogue and certainly in exact structure and sequence flow. Regardless, here’s six issues and/or quibbles why the film is not “perfect.”
1. The under-developed relationship between Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). While Justin Timberlake is an important part of the equation as entrepreneur Sean Parker, the film’s nuts and bolts are about the dissolution of the Zuckerberg/Saverin relationship. And in a very Sorkin-esque/TV manner, the backstory of their friendship is done away with and implied. It’s fully in swing when the film starts and when it eventually crumbles under the weight of underhanded maneuvers, potential betrayals, miscommunication and greed (though this is all subjective and the viewer is supposed to decide), there’s no real sense that Saverin is Zuckerberg’s “only friend” as Garfield states in the film. We’re not asking for a hugging scene or a heart-to-heart, but something that developed their relationship a little deeper may have made the conclusion a bit more resonant. This under-developed friendship, in a way, is the Achilles heel to the picture; it zips by so enjoyably and with such thrilling zest you might not even realize until later.
2. Speaking of underdeveloped relationships, the girlfriends — Erica (Rooney Mara) and Christy (Brenda Song) — are given particularly short shrift. While Mark continues to pine for Erica after she dumps him in the first scene, we’re never really shown that he cared for her or they had much of a relationship to begin with. As for Christy, her turn from casual sex Facebook groupie to the raving psychopath girlfriend of Eduardo is as random as it is puzzling and ultimately pointless. Her ultimate impact on the narrative or even Eduardo’s brief arc is nil.
3. Fincher’s tone is cold and aloof. While “The Social Network” is Fincher’s most humanist film, that’s still relative and he keeps the viewers at emotional arm’s length. This speaks to the director’s decision to not develop the friendship further or task the screenwriter to do the same (in a recent Vulture interview Fincher says the studio asked for something more between the two in the film’s conclusion, but they ultimately decided to not add the scene).
4. The TV-ish-ness of it all. Yes, the editing is something thrilling, but the sometimes unimaginative cutting-back-and-forth structure in the middle of the film feels slack and TV-ish, as per Sorkin’s standards. There’s an episodic feel to Zuckerberg’s adventures with Sean Parker sans Saverin and one could argue that “The Social Network,” while a thrilling piece of drama, is nothing more than super entertaining two-hour tele-film. One created by one of the best technicians working in cinema today, but there’s something about the episodic nature and structure that has little emotion and more importantly, little long-tail resonance. “The Social Network” is thrilling in the moment. A little later? Not so much.
5. It’s “Law & Order” functioning at its highest level. Back to the TV argument again, but the script — which this writer didn’t really care for — is essentially a court room drama played out in flashbacks. Pretty conventional stuff when you think about it.
6. A very small quibble, but the film’s lack of interest in current Facebook predicaments — the sharing and profiting of people’s personal profiles and Zuckerberg’s antagonism towards the critics of this practice would have been some excellent drama or themes that are not utilized.
7. Also, hello? Not enough Winkelvi. Kidding. Sort of, though Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins is an outstanding scene-stealer.
Again, don’t get it twisted. This isn’t the contrarian critic point of view, more of just a keep your pants on fyi to the the critics who woke up passed out with their pants around their ankles and their underwear conspicuously missing when their reviews were completed (in a year of Oscar fives, this writer believes “The Social Network” would have a zero shot). As for the hate on Armond, well, pile on all you want, but he’s right with this point (even though we too often don’t always agree with him either), “[the] frat-boy mentality in effect, no one else in cyberspace dares dissent from the hype.” And it’s true and unfortunate. Once that buzz ball starts rolling downhill, everyone wants to join and rarely does anyone care to hear otherwise.
Also? We could totally be wrong, but like Justin Timberlake recently said, this film could easily divide audiences. We suspect it’ll do well, but it feels like a critics film to us, not one that the public is going to be totally receptive to afterwards. We could be wrong, time will tell. What seems to be clear though is that the raves and the curiosity bug has bit them. With little competition this weekend, “The Social Network” should easily nab the #1 slot, now it’s just a matter of how well it does. Our guess is the $15-20million range, but maybe the Facebook appeal — there are 500 million users worldwide after all — could prove stronger. — RP, Gabe Toro, Kevin Jagernauth
Not sure what draft you read but I read the first draft and it's very different from the final film.
Why can't this blog just stand by movies when they like them? Seriously, your review was VERY positive and now with all the accolades you're changing your tune. Embrace a good movie and don't try and pull it down from the podium before it's even released.
Do you guys have a list of unimpeachable classics?
"Why can't this blog just stand by movies when they like them? "
One person wrote that review. another person wrote most of this piece.
I think it's a fine film, and I think some of these critiques are a tad irrelevant – Fincher's as "cold" as Kubrick. But yeah, there needs to be some course-correction regarding the obscene love it's receiving, and I think while the review we ran was very very positive, the one negative point it made overshadowed the stronger elements of the film.
From a personal perspective, it stands a chance of being one of the ten vital films of the year when I look back, but 2010 has produced stronger, more interesting films that haven't received the king's welcome awarded to "Social Network."
Also, Justin Timberlake is scary-good at playing an obnoxious, superficial dickbag.
Also, despite the constant "we" references, it's weird that some readers consider us some sort of "hive mind" collective.
in all seriousness. what is your take on armond white? you cant be sticking up for him. i think he does what he does to get a rise out of people.
he liked resident evil/grown ups/ the list goes on and on.
frankly i think sorkin is the weak link in the credits.
fincher/reznor/the cast/rudin
sorkin is a hack. but i'll give him props for a nice script. not revolutionary. but overall excellent work.
Armond. His opinions are frustrating because his intellect is so fierce.
Happy to have him around. Glad he exists, rarely agree with him, but he's spot-on about dissent. Same thing happened with Dark Knight, Toy Story, etc.
how DARE he stop it from being 100%? A mob mentality does crystalize around films like this and its unfortunate.
I rarely agree with White, but I always read him — there's normally some good points buried amongst all the wrongness. Plus, shouldn't we all be secure enough in our opinions that we can let him have his own?
Again, I loved The Social Network, but the EIC and others make some good points above. I don't think it's the film that defines a generation, at all, but I think it's the first film to deal intelligently with my generation
I wasn't blown away with the film as well. It left me as soon as I stepped out of the theater. The next day, all I had was a couple of amusing quotes and a reminder as to why I don't really miss college all that much (douchebag privileged boys, sad sack girls all too willing to please such boys with faux-lesbian acts, ugh).
The movie for all its themes is very shallow thus in my opinion not the movie of the year or a movie of our times. I can't see any film teacher 10, 15 years from now putting this in the DVD for students to watch and decipher.
As it stands now, "Animal Kingdom" and "Inception" are the best movies of the year I've seen.
Why is it weird that that the use of "we" in this blog confuses readers?
Obviously I don't come here expecting ridiculous, Ain't It Cool News-like characters that stick their aliases in the headline of every review they write, but some your reviews have no mention anywhere of who actually wrote it (like your MacGruber review,"Posted by The Playlist," for example).
It can get confusing.
This backlash is so ridiculous and petty, let te film enjoy it good reviews. It has a great screenplay, a great director and FANTASTIC performances by young new actors. What joy to see those young kids gatting their first acting break in Hollywood.
I am not getting the need to bash this film at all. Last year we all were dissapointed by the failure of big contenders like Amelia or Nine. This year the films are actually good yet the bloggers can only focused on the negative or flaws.
Honest to God, cant you at least let the film opens before staring your stupids lists?
This article is not a "backlash." Unless you have to be in the "love it" or "hate it" camp. Which is obviously stupid.
Also, usually when it says "posted by The Playlist," that means one specific guy. Barnaby T. Playlist, a mustached villain with genital warts and a wardrobe of seersucker suits. My wife left me for him.
Fincher's films will always be "cold and aloof"…what was supposed to be his most human (Ben Button) still retained every bit of those feelings and I wouldn't expect Social Network to be any different. He's very much like Chris Nolan that way…it doesn't matter how many love stories these guys can put into a picture, it will still lack that emotional core, unlike say The Coen Brothers who can actually make you feel for their characters. Nevertheless I still consider them master filmmakers.
I've never seen Armond display intellect. He hates great movies to get attention, the same way he pretends to love awful movies to get the same attention. Most, if not ALL his reviews come up with some cockamamie "commercialism" reasoning. He's an attention seeking idiot, and I'm only feeding his desires by posting about him.
the reason why i disagree with that about armond white is because he doing it for reaction. i truly believe that.
is it affirmative aaction or something? cause the new york press looks dumb
I haven't even seen the film yet, but I will go ahead and throw a prediction (or two) out there. The Social Network will win Best Picture at the Oscars. To support this theory is the predictions that it will also win Best Screenplay (the most likely), Best Editing (second most likely) and Best Director (third most). A film can't win those three awards and not take home the main prize.
I'll expand on the Best Director prediction by looking at the competition. Danny Boyle for 127 Hours…well the guy won just two years ago and defeated none other than David Fincher, so that's that. The Coen Brothers for True Grit…they too won only three years ago, and let's face it, there's no way this film will top No Country For Old Men. Clint Eastwood for Hereafter…yes, the Academy does love them some Clint but to his fault, he's already won twice and his last three films didn't seem to win them over. So who else is Fincher's competiton?
Roger Ebert on the royal "we:" http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story
Like any other work of art, films will affect people differently depending on their background and experiences. Not every masterpiece in a museum is viewed as such by everyone. But if a film succeeds in moving a lot of people to the degree that this has then it has to be considered an excellent film. It doesn't have to be unanimous. Just as there isn't unanimous love for Inception or The King's Speech or even Toy Story 3. But all are great films to a sizable group of fans.
People are moved by sitcoms, doesn't mean they are great works of art.
@Circus don't you already owe me one Criterion boxset in a bet you lost?
I'll bet you again. The Social Network is NOT winning Best picture. It will get nominated up the wazoo, but it any gonna win anything super major. AND it's strong enough to win the editing award and yet, still won't take best picture.
Ha…yes I do owe you one (damn Lovely Bones) but this time I guess we'll have to make it BluRay. I've just heard the script is the best thing going for it, as it's full of delicious dialouge, and the editing it fast and furious. But more importantly I don't know who would win over Fincher. Tell me someone. But even more importantly, the film is the best reviewed film of the year according to Metacritic, even more than Toy Story 3 (which I will bet won't be on Oscars 10 best list unlike many others believe), and as you know, being well liked across the board is important when talking Oscars.
Toy Story 3 could have 100% and it won't win and best reviewed or not it won't win.
I'll tell you right now the life-affirming nature of 127 Days will jive better with the Academy then a film about entitled 20-somethings in the digital age who are not at all likeable characters.
Think of the voters, not meta-critics.
Laughter induced by a sitcom is not = to being moved by a drama. You would not have this discussion about The Hangover.