The Film Thugs Movie Show

The Social Network

Recycling has gone too far. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with recycling glass, paper, and aluminum or what have you; everyone needs a hobby I guess. But in our culture anything that starts out as a good idea ends going horribly awry.

Awesome microbrew beer leads to Mike’s Hard Lemonade, the endless potential of information exchange that is the internet becomes the endless parade of dongs that is chat roulette, and REUSE, REDUCE, RECYCLE becomes a Hollywood creative mantra. Everything and I do mean EVERYTHING that is old is new again in the town of tinsel.

Remember that crappy TV show/board or videogame from 25 years ago that you were slightly aware of, but by no means watched or played with any real frequency? Neither do I! But, it’s coming soon to a theatre near you.

So, when the initial grumblings began about a “Facebook Movie,” I almost got a shotgun and set out for LA.

Really? A fucking FACEBOOK movie? It’s not enough that it’s dominated our lives for years, but now we have to go see a… a what? A dramatic interpretation of a website? I think I’ll pass.

Then more information started slowly coming out. Names like Aaron Sorkin, and David Fincher were being mentioned. I started to feel like I was being set up, something was way, way off.

As release approached buzz started picking up. Good buzz. Really good buzz. The first preview, all moody and Radio-heady, and interesting hit and I stopped cold.

Could I have been wrong? As impossible as it is to admit, I was. I was very wrong.

How?

Well, for starters, it really isn’t a “Facebook movie.” It is the story of business, friendship, greed, betrayal, exclusivity, revolution, and the basic human desire to build a community and gain acceptance.

This is a good film. There has been a LOT of hype surrounding this film, some of it very deserved, while some of it is insanely hyperbolic. It is a good film, possibly the best I’ve seen in years. But there are those who call it “a modern ‘Citizen Kane’” and while I can see why from both a stylistic and thematic standpoint, I think such comparisons are silly.

Let’s begin with the premise. A socially awkward but brilliant Harvard computer science student wants to be accepted by the old money elites. He knows he won’t be and allows that to consume the rest of his life which leads to him being dumped by his girlfriend. In his drunken woman hating rage (this movie kind of nails the awkward geek/woman dynamic, but more on that later) he hacks the private social network pages of the dorms on campus and creates a site that allows students to compare the attractiveness of Harvard women against each other.

On the plus side (to him at least) his website is so popular that its traffic crashes the entire Harvard computer network in less than two hours and gets the attention of every student on campus focused squarely on him. On the minus, the site also pisses off every woman on campus.

Further on the plus side, it gets him the attention of three of the very people from whom he seeks acceptance. They don’t want him to join their club, just build their website, harvardconnect.com, which will allow women who want a Harvard man to find one. He takes the basic framework of their idea and adapts it into The Facebook.

It starts out a Harvard only thing and slowly moves outward until it becomes the all encompassing free time devouring menace it is today. But, as the poster says, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”

Yes, this is a movie about the rise of this now ubiquitous part of our lives, but it is really about so much more.

Facebook started a revolution (If you don’t believe me just ask where you are reading this or where you found the link to it. If you and I have never spoken, why not hop over to Facebook and find me Jim Dirkes, there are two of us, but I know the other through Facebook. I could go on, but I think my greater point has been proven.). It just is, and every revolution has fallout. This movie follows that fallout.

What makes the movie good, for starters is that everything works.

Jessie Eisenberg, who I use to consider “the poor man’s Michael Cera,” but who is now “Michael Cera with range,” is amazing. Yes, his performance is reminiscent of his early work, but that isn’t a bad thing. It is reminiscent, not redundant. He isn’t a stumbling, muttering, “I’m so adorably awkward,” guy. He’s an outright genius who suffers the same problem so many other geniuses suffer. He is horribly inept with people. The world he inhabits is entirely cerebral and anything outside of that, you know like people and stuff, is alien to him. He isn’t an asshole exactly, he just doesn’t really know how NOT to be one. Eisenberg is entirely believable and real in this performance.

Armie Hammer, as the Winklevoss twins, turns in two of the best performances of the year. I say two because it isn’t just two versions of the same person. One is hyper aggressive and kind of a douche, the other is more refined and struggling NOT to be a douche. He creates a compelling bond between the two that is believably in both conflict and camaraderie.

The only one I will mention is the one that surprised me the most. Justin Timberlake absolutely kills it as Napster creator Sean Parker. He plays the cocksure, self aggrandizing paranoia of his character perfectly and balances both the charming Pied Piper of internet rebellion and the scheming backstabbing prick sides of him without it feeling forced.

I could go on and on about the performances, because they are all that good, but I won’t. These are the standouts, but honestly everyone gives a fantastic performance.

-A quick aside. There has been some who criticize this film as misogynistic and that criticism goes beyond foolish into self indulgent stupidity. Some people want to criticize and call this film misogynistic, so they find some reason to. Those people need to get a visit from Problem inc. (If you listen to the podcast, this makes sense.)

Making a film about misogynists is no more misogynistic than making a movie about the life of Hitler is anti-Semitic. Could it be? Yes, of course. Is it automatically? No, it isn’t.

Showing characters, no matter what your personal feelings about them are, as who they are is not acceptance of their ideas. It is simply an examination of who they are.

This brings me to what seals this film; the writer, director combination. Can please, please, PLEASE have these two work together again? Please?

Sorkin, as always, achieves the difficult balance between being a writer’s writer and a fan’s writer. He does cool, interesting things that writers go nuts for without confusing of ostracizing people who don’t care about that stuff. His dialogue is interesting, realistic, crisp, and never feels forced or overwritten (this is HARD). He gives his characters interesting voices and lets them use those voices tell the story.

Bring in Fincher with enough of his style to make everything look amazing, enough sense to pace it well, and the touch needed to help the actors communicate their scenes and there isn’t much NOT to like.

I remember joining Facebook in 2004. You had to have a .edu email and it was pretty much just used to keep up with people in your classes, find old friends, and stalk attractive people you didn’t have any valid reason to talk to. I remember watching as it slowly turned into something else. Photo tags and status updates, people willingly giving up any semblance of privacy made some people rich off a website that provided no content. This movie addresses the question, “What is Facebook?” And repeatedly answers, “We don’t know, yet.” That’s the beauty of it, we think we know, but we don’t. In a year it could be something completely unrelated to what it is now, and that is what makes this story so compelling. We have allowed this enigma into our lives, and even those behind it don’t know what it is.

Right now if Facebook were a country it would be the third largest country in the world and nothing that big can happen without a good story behind it. Thankfully, someone decided to tell that story well.