The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010)

[eerik]

Looks like Fincher streak of great DVD/BD covers has officially ended.

You think this was a great cover???

[Anhedionisiac]

Come now, don't be mean. Everyone's entitled to some hyperbole

[Tom Hagen]

Sony has announced a comprehensive two-disc Blu-ray set for January to capitalize on the attention it will be receiving throughout awards season. Unfortunately, despite the great work done by Neil Kellerhouse, they have come up with the silliest, most obnoxious, contemptible cover imaginable.

It could have been so much worse. It could have been a giant Facebook "thumbs up." It could have been a horrible attempt to turn a profile page into a DVD cover. It could have been a Zuckerberg Time "Person of the Year" tie in. The terrible possibilities with this one were pretty much only limited by your imagination.

Are those pull quotes actually going to be on the cover though? If so, it's almost as bad as the Focus Milk cover that has four huge stars above Sean Penn.

[swo17]

That cover is terrible and completely inconsistent with the feel of the film, but does appeal to the "Jesse Eisenberg: I Just Want to Give Him a Hug" demographic to which my wife, for one, belongs.

[jojo]

Looks like Fincher streak of great DVD/BD covers has officially ended.

You think this was a great cover???

That wasn't the "official" tipping point yet.

[Finch]

Dan Callahan challenges the praise dished out to Social Network, Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right. Why can't Armond White write like this?

[Brian C]

Dan Callahan challenges the praise dished out to Social Network, Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right. Why can't Armond White write like this?

Agreed, although I wish he would have "wasted" more time on Black Swan. His near-outright dismissal of the film seems like a dodge.

[JMULL222]

As happy as I am to see someone knocking the overtly offensive "Kids are All Right", this guys a moron. First he loses me by trying to act cool with drug talk though he clearly has no context or intelligence, referring to "that 80's coke" or a "70's altman joint" in regards to "Social Network" as if weed came and left with Robert Altman, and coke with 1980's stockbrokers. And if he says "no one talks like that", I'd say he clearly has never met 2000's Harvard students (if he wants to be so specific with his criticisms), and quite possibly that he's never met anyone of a hyperactive intelligence.

"Is Fincher a Wyler mixed with a Lang, by way of Kubrick?" Notonlyis that the most pretentious, unqualified "watch me look smart and make a movie reference" statement I've heard in a while, but he doesn't even qualify it with anything but "they did a lot of takes", neglecting to mention any films by the personalities involved other than a non-connected reference to "Clockwork" as an audience repelling film.

Then, as mentioned, he dismisses "Black Swan" over the course of a few sentences as if its "Yogi Bear". Worse yet, he criticisizes it for making him laugh, but also for having an "uneasy tone", then refuses to mention any scenes that break the films (in my opinion) unpenetrable narrative style. Then, to make himself look even worse to those who have a brain, he starts railing on about Lang again and Aronofsky being "assholes" (direct quote), using no proof for Lang and an anecdote about a 2-word response at a Q+A to qualify his take on Aronofsky. Somehow, he weaseled himself out of discussing "Black Swan" through becoming a tabloid reporter attacking the character of Aronofsky. Then, to top it off, he takes a knock at those who enjoy Aronofsky (which I can't even fit into, I only like "Swan" and parts of "The Wrestler"), taking a knock at "film students furiously writing their 'Open Wounds in the Cinema of Darren Aronofsky' papers, and god bless them". Hate to break it to you bud, but your "editorial" here would get an F for refusing to back up its points, this is sub film student work with nothing but faux-provocative statements. You make comments like "Lang is an asshole" (which has nothing to do with your topic) which not only is tabloid sensationalism, but goes without any qualifications or "Proof".

I can't even take this seriously, especially when he lumps in "Kids" as if its some accepted critical masterwork with "Swan" and "Network", referring to them together as this years "supposed best movies". What, you couldn't find a 3rd critically appreciated film to knock, you had to attack the mediocrity of "The Kids are All Right"? That's not even up to his own standards of journalistic trolling. He continues to make himself look ridiculous in the final paragraph, like someone who doesn't even watch films, just reads about them on wikipedia. He says ROBERT TOWNE could have made Sorkin's script less corny, apparently forgetting the overwrought sentamentalism of "Shampoo" (one of my favorite films), or "The Missouri Breaks", or "Days of Thunder", or...

This guy has nothing to say. Perhaps worst of all this is his title: 'From Booze to Pot to Coke: the best of 2010'. Yet again he shows himself as a tabloid journalist exploiting the most "exciting" part of his story (and the most terribly executed, this guy has clearly never smoked a blunt, bumped a line, or chewed a shroom) for the title, when it has nothing to do with the topic itself. "Social" uses coke as a plot device for all of 2 minutes, theres very little drug use in "BlackSwan"(only ecstacy, which he likely didn't identify because the film didn't spell it out for his dumb ass), and "Kids" features only a hippie smoker (unmentioned by him) and pill usage in the opening 60 seconds (again, unmentioned). If your gonna act like your whole article is a drug expose, at least study a bit on the subject your talking about.

More and more, I lose faith in the critical community. It makes me sad, I have a few friends and professors who are professional critics at major papers, but more and more I see it simply as a tool for self promotion, with 90% of writers making retarded statements that are obviously bullshit to the 1% who knows enough about film to see through them simply to sound smarter, like randomly connecting Fincher to Wyler, Lang, and Kubrick. There not interested in pushing films, onmly in pushing themselves. This is a sad little piece of writing from what is likely a sad little human being.

[matrixschmatrix]

Re: Lang, he did earlier make the claim that Lang had terrorized Henry Fonda and Spencer Tracy to get good performances out of them, which is certainly strong evidence of being an asshole, and I don't know that I've ever read an account of the man in which it wasn't fairly clear that he was a terror on set. The references to him certainly got strained at a couple points, the Wyler/Lang/Kubrick triple reference being easily the worst.

I think the major problem with the essay is that the points he wants to make about the various movies are so poorly tied together that it doesn't actually read like an essay, just a series of specific criticisms about three unrelated movies. His conclusion, which lays the problems he identifies at the feet of the screenwriters, doesn't relate at all to his complaints about Black Swan, and seems only tenuously related to The Kids Are All Right.

[JMULL222]

A slightly longer and more formal response I posted on the comments, as he's responding to them personally.

I have no clue what this is all supposed to add up to, other than you nitpicking directors with no clear direction.

Your comment about Fincher’s detached nature is totally unfair, and to me unqualified. You say he evinces no particular interest, but to make an unfair comparison (as you do constantly in this article, acting as if the amount of takes required is all that’s necessary to thematically link 4 wildly different directors), but this detached-yet-not-unkindly approach is exactly what Kubrick employed, and I see characters of extreme interest in both their films. Be it Barry Lyndon or Mark Zuckerberg, these are characters defined by mores, laws, and culture, and I (and many others) find them interesting for their character, for the context around them, and to reduce it to a “cog in a machine” discredits the whole process of cinema.

As far as I see it, your attacking Fincher’s film because you were looking for an entirely different film, one that certainly is not a crowd pleaser nor a awards contender (not a compliment, though I adore the film). The Social Network is not half as complex as critics are acting like it is. It’s detached, and to service that it’s structure is classically American in pretty much all ways. It is bookended on both ends with a coda, which we are reminded of in the middle (the “three mentions” rule). It is “complete” in the fashion of a Preston Sturges film, aiming to explain every gesture and statement by the end of the film. Sorkin uses contemporary issues about Facebook or the legal system as an excuse to paint broad strokes about friendship, capitalism, popularity, and jealousy; this isn’t a film about our specific time period (it’s not even meant as a realistic film) but rather about how our time period is wracked by the same failings as all others. This is where the true genius of the film lies, in its ability to appeal to every moviegoer capable of feeling emotion, it appeals to the philistine College Facebooker and many of the most jaded critics – this is its true triumph, not the contemporary academic complexity most critics are seeing in it because of a nightclub scene, the lack of which you see as its failing.

Besides, I’m not even sure what your complaints add up to. You complain that the group talk isn’t particularly humanist, but then complain that Fincher doesn’t properly depict alienation on an aural level. To me, the self-centered dialogue alone depicts modern alienation well enough, here is a film where everyone is talking and no one is listening. And to address another complaint, where DO the female characters sound like they’re on coke? The Albright character’s every line is reactionary, I don’t think she ever spits out more than 15 words at once. The Asian girls, as well, never once ramble on in a collection of sentences, the characters inherent misogyny also limits them to no more than a sentence at a time. Even the lawyer character used at the very end speaks in a slower, more expository drawl, quite possibly to separate here from the closed off world of the Harvard guys.

The, you say “Is Fincher a Wyler crossed with a Lang, by way of Kubrick?” At this point, I had to assume you were purposefully in a state of self-parody about the academic cross referencing constantly featured in the intellectual film writing of those like Jonathan Rosenbaum. You have only connected the three directors in terms of how many takes they require (which, anyway, is irrelevant to the finished film in every way, it’s more useful as tabloid fodder than as a way of deconstructing a film) and only mentioned they’re films (actually, only Lang and Wyler’s films) by way of a reference to a performance.
And I see no way by which the ending is sentimental, surprisingly you didn’t elaborate there. It presents Zuckerberg at his most pathetic, his most alone, and accompanies it with a song that, to many audience members, simply reminds us of his cultural dominance (like the Beatles) and the financial control we have afforded him.

As for ‘Black Swan’, I won’t spend long rebuking you, as you don’t spend long making you points. I will say I’d expect you to be a little clearer in dismissing this film, attacking Portman’s acting range as monotonous (despite scenes where she is a murderous psychopath, an inhibited little girl, and many in the middle including the pitch perfect masturbation scene). You called Aronofsky’s tone “uneasy”, despite the fact that most of your complaints seem to deal with it’s confident subjective style, essentially approximating the structure of a repressed woman’s nightmare (which itself divorces the film from any form of reality, and justifies any “uneasiness”). But again, I’m not sure what you’re attacking? You laughed, but at what? You call Aronofsky a “jerk”, but where does that factor into the film, in which scene does this intrude? And what the HELL does Fritz Lang have to do with all this, again?? It’s so unfair for you to attack ONE ACT of a film as shallow, especially when the film is a visceral sprint of an experience that isn’t meant to be deconstructed and explained away through academic articles. You insult, but fail to explain exactly what it is you think Aronofsky is “getting away with”.

And jesus, what’s with the elitist knock at film students (god forbid anyone try to learn anymore, they should just read your stuff, right?) and the titles of their papers? Your title is pathetic, a tabloid esque exploitive grab at the “Coke, Pot, Booze” interested reader when your article has nothing to do with that at all. Not to mention, your equation of weed to being a “Robert Altman” thing tells me you probably don’t know much about drugs other than what you learned from “Requiem” and “Brewster McCloud”.

I hated “Kids”, so whatever there, but your insinuation that its getting the same critical adoration and emphasis as “Swan” and “Social” is very misleading, it came out 6 months ago and certainly isn’t an awards contender nor a film constantly mentioned among the “best of 2010”.
I can’t help but feel you don’t know what you want. Do you want “more subtle and ambiguous thought” or “firm psychological sense”, two things you ask for in the same sentence but surely would contradict each other? If Aronofsky infused “Black Swan” with Freudian references and flourishes from psychological texts, surely its meaning would be far less ambiguous. You even suggest Robert Towne as a writer who mastered the art of subtlety and avoiding sentimentality, apparently forgetting he wrote the entirely sentimental “Shampoo” (one of my favorite films, for the record), the overwrought “Missouri Breaks”, or some of the corniest movies ever made in “Days of Thunder” and “MI:2” and “Heaven Can Wait”.

You even seem to switch your focus mid article, going from lamenting Fincher’s inability to properly depict alienation visually and aurally in the opening paragraphs to describing his “visual, editing, and soundtrack mastery” in the final paragraph. Now you’re writing as if the big problem is screenwriters, but your entire first half presents the thesis as if the problem is directors. Did you forget what you were writing about?

All of your complaints essentially add up to “I don’t like the way you shot that script”, which is such a subjective and personal take that I cannot believe you are trying to pass it off as some industry-wide failing holding back the art form itself. I can’t help but feel like you think films should be education, where every bad action needs to be justified with a clear depiction of a drinking problem and every unfair turn has to be explained proper. Film is an art form of mood and tone, not an ethics class nor an academic essay where everything must fit in perfectly. To quote Godard, “The Cinema is the station, not the train.” Perhaps you should take a cue from the paper-writing film students you knock, restrict your thesis, and focus on actually backing up your points with more info than an out-of-context sentence from a Q+A or an unqualified take on the kindness of Fritz Lang.

And his response:

"Jake, responding to all of your points would require writing another article, but here's just a few thoughts on some of your questions.

Your ideas about "The Social Network" feel apt to me, in your first paragraph on it. But let me quote Nick Davis again, who said of the film's look, "You're watching a film about a friendship busting up and a dot-com going boom, and visually, you're thinking, "Who died? Is everyone gonna die?"

I'm very hard on Aronofsky and outright dismissive of "Black Swan," and I don't think it can withstand much if any serious scrutiny. But I'm sure some reactions to it will be interesting for their own sake, like Kim Morgan's piece at her site.

When I think of Robert Towne, I think of "Chinatown." If I had gone to IMDb and stared at some of his bad credits, maybe I might have thought of someone else as would-be rescuer.

Kubrick and Fincher do have many similarities, as you point out. I used Wyler and Lang as examples because their approach to cinema and the making of it seems analogous, in some ways, to Fincher's, and so their results reflect on his."

[rs98762001]

Actually The Kids Are All Right was better received critically than Black Swan, according to Metacritic, and seems to have garnered just as much awards attention, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[knives]

It's quickly being forgotten (deservedly) and only Benning has a chance to win.

[Cold Bishop]

Yeah right... I'll be shocked if the film doesn't end up with a Best Picture nod. It's this year hit feel-good "indie" comedy à la Juno and Little Miss Sunshine. Mediocrity stopped neither of those two, that without ten nomination slots.

[JMULL222]

Re: Critical opinion on "Kids" and "Swan", I suppose I was just drawing from my opinion of the awards race (where Portman has actress locked up and "Swan"s massive per theater average is giving it better chances at each award every day), but fair enough. Does it really excuse the ridiculously negative and nitpicky nature of the article, or any other issues I raised above?

[rs98762001]

I agree with him that both Kids and Black Swan were comically overrated (and have written about the latter in its own thread), so in my opinion no.

[flyonthewall2983]

It could have been so much worse. It could have been a giant Facebook "thumbs up." It could have been a horrible attempt to turn a profile page into a DVD cover. It could have been a Zuckerberg Time "Person of the Year" tie in. The terrible possibilities with this one were pretty much only limited by your imagination.

Oh, that's what happened. I thought they switched my subscriptions and that I was starting to get Mad by mistake.

[domino harvey]

I'm pretty late to the party here but I finally saw this during some Oscar season house-keepng and liked it a lot. The film's biggest problem is that it has a terrific script that is at all times being undermined by at best lazy direction on the part of Fincher. And I'm also not sure why there's such a reliance on distracting computer effects (the fake snow and breath to name two glaring annoyances). But man, Sorkin's words just sing through any filter and this is one of the funniest and energetic films of the year. Anytime a movie that doesn't talk down or condescend still connects on a popular level is an event worth celebrating, even if this isn't quite "The Movie To Define Our Generation."

[dad1153]

Saw this Christmas Day in a packed NYC theater and loved it. Great casting (Garfield and Eisenberg particularly), Sorkin's quirky/rapid-pace dialogue is always a delight to hear (especially when uttered by Rooney Mara) and the mature Fincher's tendency to let his movies feel conventional (while showing themselves to be anything but on repeat viewing) didn't prepare me for how engaging and interesting a movie than can be described in a couple of sentences could be. The seemingly-convenient device of using depositions to tell the characters' stories (which isn't about Facebook as much as the life-altering friendships, betrayals and decisions young people make that they carry with them for the rest of their lives) is brilliant because it allows us to witness within the span of the 121 min. running time what the young kids we're watching grew up to become. I knew of Fincher's penchant for 'invisible' SFX shots and I thought I spotted a couple (background plates in Harvard campus, the Thames rowing scenes, etc.) but I had no idea Armie Hammer played both Winklevoss twins. Holy s***, I was completely fooled and had no idea Hammer was pulling a double-role until I read about it in this thread! That's the highest complement I can pay to the SFX shots of a movie I didn't know had them (sorry domino, the breath and snow didn't look fake to me at all... more praise!). As someone that's chosen to not participate on social networks (too paranoid about posting personal information that will live on the internet forever) I could relate to the somewhat-fictitious Zuckerberg's subtle (unconscious?) efforts to isolate himself emotionally from the characters that showed him true affection. The final scene isn't as emotionally powerful as "City Lights" or any other film in which a lonely person pines for an impossible loved one's affection, but for a generation reared on "Transformers" CGI blockbusters it might as well be. Best film I saw on Christmas (ahead of "Somewhere" and "The Illusionist").

[James Mills]

The film's biggest problem is that it has a terrific script that is at all times being undermined by at best lazy direction on the part of Fincher. And I'm also not sure why there's such a reliance on distracting computer effects (the fake snow and breath to name two glaring annoyances).

The first sentence somewhat answers the second; Fincher is a notorious sucker for extraneous cgi.

Anyways, I've defended this film in other threads on these boards, so I might as well share my short review that I wrote back in Summer:

Social Network is borderline fantastic. Outside of an overly quixotic Sean Parker (that is almost saved by Timberlake's performance) and a histrionic scene between the Harvard president and the Winklevos', the script is paced to perfection with dialogue that manages to retain its intimidating intellect throughout while deftly avoiding exposition. Fincher's love for huge telephoto lenses is put to better use than any of his previous films with pinpoint focal direction and effective rack focusing that rarely distracts, all supported by some downright gorgeous lighting and cinematography that should be a shoe-in for the Oscar nod at this point of the year. Not only is the score beautifully composed by Reznor and Ross (though sometimes too frequent when the editing hastens), but the overall sound design is incredibly supportive of the settings with creaks and echos resonating from the beautifully opulent halls of Harvard. Other than a spotty Brenda Wong, the acting is unsurprisingly stout given Finch's meticulous stage direction, but the chemistry between Eisenberg and Garfield is absolutely absorbing. Eisenberg portrays a level of decadent self loathing that is powerfully subtle while physically expressing a hidden desire to release these feelings to Garfield whenever the two interact. Garfield responds with what I believe is the performance of the year and reminds me of why I was so excited about him when I saw The Imaginarium...; I think he's going to be a star.

I think its their monolithic relationship that ultimately makes the comparisons to Citizen Kane not completely unwarranted. There is a lasting power to this film that's just too bright for its blemishes. I'll be seeing it again shortly, as I think The Social Network is the best film of the year thus far.

[eerik]

It is actually a quite nice looking digipack. Pictures taken from blu-ray.com forum:

[dad1153]

^^^ Two New York Times pull quotes on the cover? You don't do that after Labor Day... tsk, tsk!

[swo17]

It's just a shame they wasted all that space on the front cover where they could have put more pull quotes.

[SSF]

By the looks of those stills, the "Pull Quote" cover is just the part of the packaging you throw away, no?

[domino harvey]

You throw away the slipcases? That sound you just heard was everyone but Matt collapsing from a fainting spell!

[mfunk9786]

I think I know what he means: It sort of looks like a cardboard case that isn't a full slipcover, sort of like the ones that go onto the back (and part of the front) of HBO sets and peel off easily.