Movie Review: The Social Network

So I finally got around to watching the Social Network. I actually found it a little disappointing, but that was probably because it was talked up so much. It was quite a bit sexist and if you’re going to try and do the rapid-talking smart-alecky stuff it’s best to do it in a format where you can be realistic — i.e. with an R-rating and no grandiose blockbuster target numbers — otherwise it sounds a little stupid and forced. 

The biggest flaw with the movie, and the one I actually want to discuss, was in getting the motivations of the key players in creating Facebook. I thought the movie was really smart to use the two lawsuits as the narrative vehicle for the movie. With that in place, the question is why was Zuckerberg so ruthless and asshole-ish towards his former partners, particularly his best friend Eduardo Saverin. The movie tries to make it a story of jealousy, rejection and revenge. Mark is jealous that his partners are in finals final clubs, and wants to one-up them and impress the girl who just dumped him in hopes of winning her back. It’s the easiest story line — one that has been told many times before — but also pretty implausible. 

In this fairly annoying video, Zuckerman complains about Sorkin/Fincher’s inability to understand the real motivations and intentions for the start and success of the film. He says, ”It’s such a big disconnect from the way that people who make movies think about what we do in Silicon valley, building stuff. They just can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”

Commenting on this video, blogger Ezra Klein writes, 

Both fictional and factual reportage have a bias towards human relationships and failings as the driver of professional achievements. In part, that just makes for better stories. The psychology of a president — his complicated bond with his mother, or father, or wife — is more interesting than a story of sweat, talent and interest being joined by luck. The personal conflicts between legislators make for a better story than “yes, they wanted to do this, but no, they didn’t have the votes, and couldn’t have gotten them.” And particularly in political reporting, tracking donations or reading polls — a story, in other words, of personal corruption or opportunism — is a preferred explanation for a politician’s behavior than the idea that he or she simply thought this or that problem worth solving.

  I think this is largely right, but it misses the real opportunity that Sorkin/Fincher missed — though it seems like this movie was made with profits vastly out-prioritizing authenticity.

I don’t know much about Facebook or Silicon Valley — but I did read this awesome New Yorker profile of Mark Zuckerberg. Anyways, it seems to me that Zuckerberg was more motivated by his sense of his own place in history, and his confidence that he had hold of a really big, big thing in Facebook. It was less a fuck-you to Harvard — the final clubs and the girls — than a desire to be part of a wave or something that was better than Harvard. 

The film definitely plays this up, and these struck me as the most realistic parts. Basically any scene involving Sean Parker accomplished this. Particularly, there is the scene in the nightclub where Parker tells Zuckerberg that this is a once in a generation idea/opportunity. 

  At the climax, the movie doesn’t really do justice to why Zuckerberg edges Eduardo out — “you froze our bank account once and you got into a final club that I wanted to get into”, doesn’t strike me as grounds to edge your best friend out of a company you created together. The only option Sorkin/Fincher leave you with is that Zuckerberg is a straight asshole. But if they did a little better job explaining the point what Eduardo represented at the end, I think you would get a much better understanding of Zuckerberg and of visionaries like him.

In the movie at least — and this is one part where I would be more likely to trust the authenticity of their account — Eduardo represents the outmoded business-major, minimize risks, let’s get ads and some revenue flow type of thinking. He’s not onboard with the grandiose vision of Zuckerberg’s as Facebook being one of the biggest websites in the world —  a vision that was, conversely, egged on by Parker. I’m not saying this is justification for forcing him out, but it makes a lot more sense than motives provided by the movie — at least during the climax. 

The Sean Parker vs. Eduardo rivalry was a great way to personify these two philosophies and two options that Zuckerberg was confronted with. East Coast Ivy Education vs. Silicon Valley. A remarkable professional vs. what legends are made of. The movie does a great job of portraying this rivalry in many instances, and I think these ideas, and their corresponding personifications would be sufficient to carry a movie.

This story-line appears to be much closer to reality. As Zuckerberg points out in the video, he has been dating the same girl since before he started Facebook. And the preoccupation final club stuff really seems outdated and over-sweated, and probably says more, in the end, about Sorkin than about Zuckerberg. (Update: I just came across a passage in the New Yorker profile where Zuckerberg says he was not interested in joining “any of the final clubs”). 

So it wasn’t a strictly sweat, talent and interest story, as Klein writes. Those stories probably aren’t often told in the movies made outside of the Disney studio lot. There was a lot of extra stuff going on — obviously the lawsuits and their corresponding drams. It’s a fascinating story and it’s a shame that Sorkin/Fincher really whiffed when they came up to bat.