The Social Network

In another lifetime, I was on my way to becoming a film scholar.

Since I gave that up? The first six months of this year I was unsuccessfully trying to make a living as a pool hustler. Now I run a library.

Regardless, I’m often watching movies and thinking about movies. Nothing too deep. But sometimes I’ll see a film that piques my interest and I’ll think more about it. Lately, the film in question has been The Social Network. Considering that the awards season is underway, it seemed apt to share this thought I’ve had.

Technically speaking, I found the film to be very well done – what David Fincher film isn’t? – and the script is alright, I guess. So that out of the way, what’s been bugging me about the movie is the issue of whether it should be watched as a fiction, or a non-fiction.

Let’s address the non-fiction idea first. If we argue that the film is about Facebook and the pertinent beginnings and history of all those involved; well, The Social Network has a major failing. That problem being the disparity between real events and what is depicted in the film: some of it is completely made up!

Which isn’t to say that Fincher and Alex Sorkin aren’t allowed to do that; how’s that cliché saying about the truth and good stories, and not letting one of those get in the way of the other, go? But regardless, the film isn’t non-fiction. Which means the film isn’t a historical document about Facebook, and can’t be watched as such.

So in that case, the film is a fiction. Ostensibly a fiction about Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire boy genius, and his personal and business relationships. Which comes to what has been bugging me about the movie. What’s the point to the story? When we’re faced with the final image of Mark refreshing his computer browser, waiting to be accepted as a friend by his ex-girlfriend, and the end credits roll, what’s the point?

Ok, being a little facetious here, I know it’s about the lawsuits, and some question of Zuckerberg trying to find acceptance from his peers, and his dedication to Facebook, and a slight subtext of the question of finding love. But, well, it’s pretty boring; tediously so when it comes to the end. Where’s the escalating stakes to raise the tension? Where’s the third act? I usually hate it when a reviewer, or critic, analyses a film and posits what could have been done to make it better. A film is what it is. Talking about what could have been and should have been is for the dreamers. But regarding The Social Network, it’s not a true telling of events. Fine, once again that’s the pejorative of the Sorkin and Fincher connection. But as they have already taken liberties in telling the tale, well, why not go further and make the film something truly exciting? I’m not saying I want gun fights, or Zuckerberg in a bat suit, or anything like that. I am but confused as to what made Fincher and co. opt for the mediocre middle ground.

I read today Fincher being quoted as saying he wanted to release the film right now, and not in the spring. That strikes me as a cynical move to capitalise on the current popularity of facebook. Considering the relative financial success enjoyed by The Social Network, was the film purely an attempt by Fincher to have a hit?