Poster image taken from here
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake
Rating: 1/5
Before I begin, I would like to establish the following:
*The Social Network is considered to be an incredible film by both the public and by critics
*Popular opinion is referring to it as the 'movie of the year'
*Whether or not YOU took it seriously is immaterial. The orld takes it seriously and hence, it requires examination
'Facebook' is a product that has impacted millions of lives from across the globe. It has revolutionized the rather dubious umbrella term of 'Social Media' and today agencies are at liberty to charge companies exorbitant amounts of money for something a thirteen year old might do. It is undeniable that Facebook has left its still-growing-mark on the world and it would seem only logical, that a film be made about its creators. Moreover, Mark Zuckerberg - the inventor of Facebook is the world's youngest billionaire and there are people exclaiming, "Hey! That guy's even younger than I am!” They are still wondering how he made all that money. So it would appear apt that a film about such an individual should be made. However, for such an enterprise to be justified, some basic questions must be answered: Is the conception of Facebook worth dramatizing and is Mark Zuckerberg's life worth turning into a film?
The Story
Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is an unpopular student at Harvard who walks into the spotlight after he creates a web application that allows students to rank their female classmates on their looks. The application is such a huge success that it causes the Harvard servers to crash, just a few hours after going public. However, Zuckerberg isn't alone in this endeavour. He is helped by his wealthier, best friend Eduardo Saverin - whose popularity causes Zuckerberg to be secretly jealous of him. The motif of jealousy is incessantly reinforced throughout the film and Zuckerberg is evidently an unsavory character. Following the success of Zuckerberg's 'rank your classmates' idea, he is approached by fellow Harvardmates Divya Narendra and the Winklevoss twins, with the idea of Facebook. Zuckerberg is a computer programmer and they are not.
Now, it must be noted that throughout the film, Zuckerberg is obsessed with getting into the one of the private fraternities at Harvard - one that is comprised of the most popular Harvard alumni. Narendra and the Winklevoss twins are recruiters for one of these clubs. However, when they approach Zuckerberg, it is not with an extended invitation to join their club but with the idea of creating Facebook. Zuckerberg agrees to develop the site for them.
With financial aid from Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg develops Facebook behind the backs of Narendra and the Winklevoss twins. He then meets the creator of Napster, Shawn Parker (Timberlake) and Facebook begins to grow exponentially, becoming increasingly popular by the hour. Zuckerberg is so scheming, that he even cheats Saverin and takes away his share of the company.
Finally, he is sued by both Saverin and the team of Narendra and the Winklevoss'. He pays a settlement of 66 million dollars to the latter party and 'figures things out' with Saverin. The film ends.
Scrutiny
So back to our initial question - "Is the story of the creation of Facebook worth turning into a film?" The answer is no. That an individual got incredibly rich through a moderately intelligent invention are not enough grounds for us to want to know his story. Do we, for instance, also have a film about the creators of USB? Or do we have a film about Colonel Sanders? KFC is far more controversial than Facebook and we could even have Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing Colonel Sanders! So why specifically a film about the creators of Facebook? Because its inventor cheated four people and, later paid them fairly large settlements in court? Absolutely not! People cheat each other everyday. People sue each other everyday. People pay massive settlements everyday. So that is not reason enough to turn it into a film.
That leaves us with Mark Zuckerberg's ‘genius’. In the film, Zuckerberg is portrayed as an arrogant Einstein. He is incessantly belittling people throughout the film with his scathing sarcasm. There's even a scene in the film where he announces at the hearing that virtually no one else is intellectually incapable of producing anything like Facebook. Let's just stop right here. 'Intellectually capable'? Is he serious? For the record, Facebook is not the first of its kind. Similar sites like Orkut and Hi5 preceded it. Facebook is simply the most popular of the lot and this is largely attributed to the amount of privacy it allows users. That does not constitute genius. The filmmaker cannot convince us that it is a work of genius either and he simply endorses this claim. The film is filled with incredibly mundane conversations between the various characters, but by throwing in bits of jargon and words that aren't generally used in conversation, he makes it seem like the characters are discussing something profound. For example, in the opening scene, when Mark Zuckerberg talks about college affairs, he does so with the air of someone discussing relativity. There is also a section in the film where we see snatches of Zuckerberg writing 'code' and convolutedly explaining what he's doing. All this is perhaps, in the service of his ‘genius’.
There are people who argue that Facebook is one of the most powerful 'social media networking tools' in existence. However, we must acknowledge that what Facebook is today is not only because of Zuckerberg. It is primarily because of the number of independent developers from all over the world who have designed applications for it. Facebook was created by Zuckerberg, but it was developed by programmers from all over the world. Zuckerberg is less of a genius than an entrepreneur with few moral qualms.
The Social Network is not a badly made film. David Fincher is one of the more competent Hollywood directors and it is very slick. The performances are not miserable. Jesse Eisenberg is convincing as an unscrupulous person. After I watched the film, I learnt that Trent Reznor of 'Nine Inch Nails' was responsible for the music. I cannot recall a single piece of background music from the film and I am too infuriated to watch it again for its music.
