After a very long absence of over three months, I finally returned to a multiplex theatre on the weekend to catch one of the most critically acclaimed Hollywood films of the year, a practical shoo-in for multiple Oscar nominations and the early frontrunner to be the big winner: The David Fincher (SEVEN, FIGHT CLUB, ZODIAC) directed, Aaron Sorkin (THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, THE WEST WING) scripted THE SOCIAL NETWORK, aka “The Facebook Movie.” Based on the book THE ACCIDENTAL BILLIONAIRES, the film tells the story of the founding of Facebook by Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) and the resultant lawsuits brought against him by former best friend Eduardo Savern (Andrew Garfield) and the Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer). The film was released a couple of months back in North America, thus quite a bit has already been said and written, most of it very positive. The praise has been particularly effusive for: (1) Sorkin’s script; (2) Fincher’s reserved direction; (3) the performance of Eisenberg, Garfield, Hammer, and Justin Timberlake (playing Napster founder Sean Parker); and (4) the score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. I had a mixed if ultimately positive reaction overall, very much liking two of the above elements but finding two of the others very much not to my taste.

First, I’ll start with the positives. The screenplay is very strong, especially in terms of dialogue. Sorkin is one of the most distinctive writers out there, mostly known for his television work on “Sports Night” and “The West Wing” but also penning screenplays for Rob Reiner’s A FEW GOOD MEN and THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, as well as Mike Nichols’ CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR (a fine discussion of Sorkin’s career can be found on a recent episode of “Battleship Pretension”, available here). In this film, the structure is rather loose and in terms of dramatic build-up, it is slightly lacking. But the dialogue is great to listen to, rapid-fire and intelligent, reminiscent of old Hollywood writers like Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges, the type of writing most movies have abandoned because of its stylized nature. The actors are equally good, handling the difficult amount of words and speeches very smoothly. I’ve always been a fan of Eisenberg; in fact, I wrote a piece about his performances in three of his early movies (available here). This character is very different, much less likable right from the great opening scene, but nevertheless somewhat familiar in being a highly intelligent yet awkward male trying to negotiate a social world he does not really understand. Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg as the smartest guy in the room, and yet also with a kind of autistic quality, unable to read others and somewhat distracted by his own thoughts. Despite the claims of many that this is an unfair and inaccurate portrait of Zuckerberg, I think it is more positive than negative. Certainly, Sorkin could have pushed a much harsher portrait in which Zuckerberg is simply a lucky guy who is one of the richest men in the world mostly by chance; that, however, would be a radical departure from American ideology, and Sorkin remains invested in the myth of the great man, even if that great man is also a bit of an asshole.

The aspects that I disliked were the direction and the music, although I have to acknowledge that both are very well crafted on their own terms. Fincher is clearly a talented director, but I think this is not material that suits him very well. Many have commented that he is more restrained here, but I disagree. Yes, there are not many flashy sequences, but the heavy amounts of rhythmic cutting eventually grows tiresome. While effective during an early sequence showing Zuckerberg creating “Facemash” intercut with a Harvard frat party, the desire by Fincher to constantly manipulate and bombard the viewer with his technique robs the film of any real nuance and emotion. It is as if Fincher does not trust a modern audience to have any patience: thus a dramatic film has to take on the pace and energy of a Hollywood action film because he cannot trust the viewer not to get bored. Again, the skill here is undeniable, but craft alone does not make great cinema (Exhibit A: “Spielberg, Steven”). Connected to this is the music score, which on its own terms I quite like as music, but just not as “film” music. It is far too intrusive and heavy-handed, at times dominating the image track and ruining what would otherwise be effective scenes of dialogue and drama. Again, it is a Hollywood film no longer trusting the material and deciding pyrotechnics are needed for the easily distracted modern viewer.

What this points to is a bigger issue: what will happen to modern Hollywood films that are not action films? Will they try to compete with the style of blockbusters? Will the style of THE SOCIAL NETWORK continue? On one hand, you can understand the worry of directors and producers, given the disinterest of audiences recently with the more conventional “Oscar-bait” dramas. But at the same time, television dramas like “Breaking Bad” are able to balance great action with quieter drama without over-indulging on empty formalism. But maybe that’s the problem. The quality of long form, serialized television has made the smaller budget, dialogue heavy movie drama irrelevant. If cinema is not dead, perhaps the prestige Hollywood picture will soon be. Good night, and good luck.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.