I’m more confused over the ongoing rimjobs gotten by BLACK SWAN and TRUE GRIT, frankly.
I think a lot of people fancy this movie because Lamebook is the fad of the month. But you just watch: as soon as Lamebook is surpassed by some other crap, the film shall become just as irrelevant as the thing upon which it is based. “The Social Network” sounds a lot like “Triumph of the Will”: a film about a phenomenon that was popular with millions of zombified followers for a while, then died suddenly causing its meaning to be lost on successive more enlightened generations of human beings. But at least “Triumph” is noted for its aesthetic quality. I bet you “The Social Network” doesn’t even have that going for it.
If someone discovered an old “lost film” about the hula hoop or yo-yo, how many youngsters would give a shit? None, that’s how many. Why wouldn’t they? Because hula hoops and yo-yos are pretty much extinct forms of entertainment for the young. “The Social Network” shall age quickly and brutally, as the children of Lamebook addicts laugh at how dumb their parents were, for accumulating 15,894 “friends” on Lamebook and never meeting even 10 of them, wasting every other hour telling perfect strangers what they ate for breakfast or what annoying song the guy sitting next to them on the train was playing. Children of Lamebook addicts will adopt an even lamer hobby but will still laugh at the foolishness of their parents in the same way children of the 1980s ridiculed anything invented before 1974. It’s a continuing cycle of stupidity.
ROSCOE:
I guess because Natalie Portman is getting pushed towards an Oscar win, and it’s easier to grasp the little golden man when the film you’ve starred in is actually some good (or at least seen as some good). Great performances in shit films don’t win Oscars. Perception is the key here. Of course, perception isn’t reality, but people like to delude themselves. Makes life easier.
Other than the above, I’ve no fucking idea why “Black Swan” is being hailed by so many as a masterpiece. Really bad is Roger Ebert, comparing the evil ballet teacher from “B.S.” to Boris Lermontov from “The Red Shoes”. For shame, Roger!
TRIUMPH OF THE WILL was made to further a phenom. SOCIAL NETWORK was not.
These two movies are DISsimilar.
The anti-Social Network backlash is going full bore these days. My boyfriend hated it so it’s become “thrid rail” topic round my house. The fact that its been getting every award that isn’t nailed down has really gotten under people’s skin. But I remain unmoved. It’s a really good movie about The Way We Live Now (and by that I mena in actual corporeal existence, not cyberspace) with Ambition and Betrayal playing a principle role in ways remindful (to me at least) of Force of Evil and ,Sweet Smell of Success.
My take on it is that it’a about the way straight guys have sex. Not though actual intercourse but by “fucking each other over” in business and social life.
Doubt that anyone agrees with me on this point, but perhaps it might start a serious discussion of the film rahter than a reflexive thumbs up or down.
For starters, 2010 was an AMAZING year for cinema. It just happened to be a bad year for American cinema. Check out some of the films on my 2010 list. You won’t be dissapointed: http://mubi.com/lists/15740
Yes, The Social Network was just a passable form of entertainment. It will most likely win BP because of the facebook fad. I think the main culprits are the American critics. This year it seems like more and more critics are standing behind what would typically be “comic book fanboy” entertainment. Perhaps in an effort to regain significance in the advent of movie bloggers. You typically see critics associations calling smaller IndieWood movies the best picture of the year, whereas this year everyone called TSN the movie of the year. A couple years ago, films like Black Swan would be your typical nominations (similar to how Milk and The Wrestler were big nominations a year ago).
I personally enjoyed Black Swan, but you have to think of it as more of an Argento flick than a Powell & Pressburger. And on that note, Vincent Cassel was heavily underused. He could have been closer to Boris Lermontov with a little better direction.
Kris:
Henry Ford didn’t make the first cars by any means, he revolutionized the process. This is essentially what Facebook has done with social media sites. These sites have existed since the late 90s, but Zuckerburg changed the game, so to speak. This is what I believe makes this a significant story.
However, I am yet to see the film, and while I expect that it will be a very decent effort, I am doubtful that I will be as excited as many of the critics, fans, and award shows seem to be. I mean, is it really that good? I hope so, but again, I doubt it highly.
And for anyone who has facebook, it’s changing, so keep an eye on your privacy options and what apps you use.
“My take on it is that it’a about the way straight guys have sex. Not though actual intercourse but by “fucking each other over” in business and social life. Doubt that anyone agrees with me on this point, but perhaps it might start a serious discussion of the film rahter than a reflexive thumbs up or down.”
Yeah, I agree with you here, David. My take on the film was that it was in narrative basically an 80s teen sex comedy in which outcast becomes cool kid except where “getting the facebook” replaces “getting the girl.”
I don’t think it’s the best picture of the year, but I thought it was a good film. The dialogue is well written, it’s well acted and photographed. I agree with you though. It was, at times, hard to really care about the story. I’m not sure if it’s because I lacked a strongly shaped protagonist; I actually really liked the Mark Zuckerberg character.
I don’t think it is winning all the awards because of the ‘facebook fad’. The film is hardly even about facebook, it’s about the people behind it and the events leading up to its creation. And I think the film is focused there since it’s actually a story worth telling. It grants some perspective on the way the Western world works today.
Facebook fad=500 Million people and Zucker worth 7 billion dollars.
Facebook isn’t the subject of The Social Network. It’s the MacGuffin
Facebook was indeed the MacGuffin of The Social Network, but it was also the main selling point.
I know, this thread is tiresome thoug. There are literally hundreds of articles and thousands of pages worth of information why people thing it’s great. It’s not exactly hard to find.
I loved both Black Swan and The Social Network… Black Swan is my favourite of the year. Although I havent seen a lot of the films that Nick Block listed on his list.
Seeing as this thread is about The Social Network though, I’ll stick to that for now. Apart from obvious stuff like good acting etc, what impressed me the most was the pace of the film, that was maintained, interesting and never felt too much. It felt very controlled, but loose at the same time if you get what I mean? Everything worked well, but it was so snappy and quick it felt like it was extremely free-flowing.
And about half-way through the film, the rowing scene. I imagine that is something that would split opinions right down the middle, but personally I thought it was a fantastic bit, first for the visuals and stylisation of it, but also as a chance for the audience to take a breather. Its the only part in the film where the Fincher makes the visuals of the film take front stage, and I think its done perfectly.
And I dont understand the criticism from Krisjkondrad about not knowing who to cheer for. I mean, you even say yourself that life isn’t as black and white as that, so what is the problem? Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver isn’t exactly the perfect guy either, do you not think that film is any good, or am I misunderstanding you? I can get why you didn’t like some of the things, but that comment really confused me.
Also, saying that its receiving all of this praise because its about Facebook and thats the in thing, but I distinctly remember everyone saying how awful and terrible its going to be for that exact reason. Like many I think, I went in with fairly high expectations (I personally really like Fincher) because of the high critical praise it was getting just before it was released, but these were bettered.
Maybe its cool to hate on whats being loved? I dunno.
hate on whats being loved
They hate what they don’t understand: hate is confused and inadequate thinking.
i didn’t think Black Swan or True Grit were as great as the critics have been making them out to be, but i dd think the Social Network was a very well-made film. How can you be so friggin snobby to not see that at least. FB is the selling point of the film yes, but it’s not really about the website itself. It’s more about the characters and their friendships, batrayals; it’s also about success, ambition and the dark side of it all. Jeez. And Aaron Sorkin wrote a great script with very good dialogue, etc. It was well-shot too. and it was entertaining.
I’m the first person to admit i’m a bit picky with my movies (i hate most of the pure-Hollywood crap that goes out these days that has no business even being made — Takers, anyone?) but The Social Network was a good film.
The Social Network worked for me on the level of its script alone. I don’t get how it’s a portrait of the Millennials (that film has yet to be made, I can only imagine it as a cross between Slacker and L’avventura), because most Millennials aren’t Harvard undergrads who make a few hundred thousand in energy futures over the summer. That interpretation is actually insulting, when you look at how many Millennials are having a hard time in the job market. To me, it’s a good variation on Citizen Kane. The only American films to equal it this year were Inception and The American.
The American – now that’s a criminally underrated film.
And no, Roscoe and Mark, I don’t understand why Black Swan is getting all its hype either. You’d think people had never seen The Red Shoes or Repulsion. I’m dying to see True Grit as a Coen brothers fan.
@David
It’s a really good movie about The Way We Live Now (and by that I mena in actual corporeal existence, not cyberspace) with Ambition and Betrayal playing a principle role in ways remindful (to me at least) of Force of Evil and ,Sweet Smell of Success.
I’m curious to know why you think we haven’t been living this way for a long time. What does the film say about this that Force of Evil and Sweet Smell of Success didn’t? As I type this one thought did come to mind: the one difference is that the protagonist is brainier, not so socially-skilled. So maybe the people doing the screwing are nerdier?
I appreciate everyone’s comments and found them all well informed and valid. I did think the Social Network was a decent movie. I just think it’s overrated. I also should have specified American films in 2010 because there were some great foreign films released. Black Swan wasn’t my bag and True Grit should have ended 10minutes earlier than it did, but they both felt like movies made by people who love movies. I’m sure David Fincher loves movies too but I don’t think the Social Network is a good example of that. I’m not saying every film has to be Lawrence of Arabia but come on. If the Social Network came out on cable people would say, “did you see that Facebook movie on TNT? Pretty interesting.” Not-“Holy *%#@, I saw the best movie of the year last night on TNT!” Of course now I’m messing with the logistics. It’s just my opinion, I don’t expect anyone other than myself to think it’s fact. Toy Story 3 was the best American movie I saw this year and I still didn’t Netflix the first two yet. I guess I’m more upset over the year in “film” than a topical drama about a bunch of douchebags.
@Jazzahola. We HAVE been living this way a long time. The Social Network simply places it in a contemporary frame with younger people. Garfield in Force of Evil is quite brainy and socially skilled. And so is Tony Curtis, in his way, in Sweet Smell .
I agree with David. Facebook is the MacGuffin. It’s an ok movie. well shot! but kind of a big nothing.
It is strange that the early criticism of this film- that it had nothing to do with the change internet has brought- did not have legs…
I thought it was based on the Al Pacino’s “Scarface” template. Overly mannered lead performance. Slick look. The allure of power plot. betrayal etc. I just wished it had the equivalent of the “say hello to my little friend” grand exit.
I felt it was too “well made” for its own good or to be accessible. It came at me in a self important manner. I felt like I was watching the result of a scrupulously polished, cleanly edited, over written, overly slick rollout of filmmaking perfection… instead of a human story. I would have liked it more if it had been somehow less.
What do you mean by “human story”? Examples?
It sounds like a terribly cheesy and faddish idea for a film. I will wait for it to turn up on tv or on a streaming site though. I wouldn’t go to the cinema for it.
There are no great directors working in Hollywood anymore.
“They hate what they don’t understand: hate is confused and inadequate thinking.”
settle down. The Social Network isn’t Mirror Robert ;-)
I thought the film looked incredibly flat and 2 dimensional, but it was decent enough. just nothing special.
@David
We HAVE been living this way a long time. The Social Network simply places it in a contemporary frame with younger people. Garfield in Force of Evil is quite brainy and socially skilled. And so is Tony Curtis, in his way, in Sweet Smell .
When I said, “brainier and not-so-socially skilled” I basically meant that nerds/geeks.
I think the re-framing interpretation is one of the more compelling arguments for the film, but I don’t know if it is enough to justify all critical acclaim.
“I think the re-framing interpretation is one of the more compelling arguments for the film, but I don’t know if it is enough to justify all critical acclaim.”
same goes for Zodiac.
krisjkondrad
I know that 2010 was a horrible year for cinema(one of the worst I can remember in quite a while)but is the Social Network really a shoe in for best picture of the year? It barely even seems worthy of a theatrical release. It’s a feature film made up entirety of college students arguing with each other broken up by visually stunning scenes of them giving testimony in depositions. I forgot to mention the bad party montages or the rowboat races with outcomes that are inconsequential to the audience. I know it’s a true story, but most good stories feature protagonists and antagonists. I know life isn’t black and white, but come on, give me somebody to root for. Am I getting behind the backstabbing a-hole who would probably screw over his own mother or the twin Aryan brotherhood of jocko-homo frat boys who love to preen in the mirror and race canoes? I guess the one guy (the Jewish friend with the Latin name) is likeable enough, but he’s still pretty boring. David Fincher started out as a real exciting director. He made Alien 3, which although pales in comparison to the first two is still visually interesting and boasts some good suspense. He went on to make Seven, Fight Club and the Game which were all exemplary. He then made Panic Room which I thought was dull at the time, but compared to Social Network it’s the #*+%@ Road Warrior. I know Facebook is a huge phenomenon, but the backstory doesn’t merit a film. What about the guys who created MySpace? The Social network is like making a movie about the guy who made the next car after Henry Ford. I know what you’re thinking as you read this. I don’t get it right? The Social Network is about a socially retarded person who ushered in the next stage in mankind’s social evolution. Brilliant? ! No..scary. Regardless,it’s a well written, well acted, highly watchable movie. If it’s the best picture of the year I weep for the future of cinema.