But the most surprising thing is: there is no story.
Let me start by saying this. I like it. I do.
It’s some of the best filmmaking we’ll see this year.
In a movie with just talking heads, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin proves he’s king of the spoken word and gives a seminar in crisp, smart dialogue, especially in the opening exchange between Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his girlfriend (Rooney Mara). Filmmaker David Fincher directs with hypnotic style and seething, stunning cinematography.
The cast delivers riveting performances, from newcomer Andrew Garfield’s sensitive portrayal of Facebook co-creator Eduardo Saverin, musician-turned-actor Justin Timberlake’s swarmy performance of Napster’s Sean Parker, and the surprising tour de force of Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckerberg. And with a mesmerizing musical score, this movie exudes the mood of cool.
Yet, I walked out of the theatre feeling unfulfilled.
And that’s because of the movie’s unlikely protagonist.
Here’s a hint. It’s not Mark Zuckerberg.
If you’ve seen the movie, let me ask you. Who are you rooting for?
Are you rooting for the Winklevoss twins to prove Zuckerberg stole their idea? Are you rooting for Eduardo to prove Zuckerberg stabbed him in the back? Or are you hoping Zuckerberg will show some form of redemption for his crimes as a dickhead, by either recovering the one friend he had or proving that at least it was all worth it?
Well, if you are, none of that really gets a resolution. We don't learn the truth. We don't learn outcome of these lawsuits. We don't learn the fate of Eduardo and Zuckerberg. At the conclusion of the movie, as we wait for answers, Zuckerberg's lawyer (Rashida Jones) tells him, during a deposition break, you’ll pay these guys off, buy their silence, and this will all be a speed bump on the road of your success. And that's all we get. Drama over.
It could have been a story about Zuckerberg’s emergence as a ruthless CEO, but he ends the movie the same asshole he was from the beginning. It could have been about his seduction into business, but his ideals never really change. It could have been a story about his desperate need for attention, but once he's made Facebook, we never see him seek attention.
Sure, he starts Facemash to take his mind off a girl and he ends his nightly deposition looking to friend request that same girl. So the theme could have been that the nerds of the world can’t get chicks, so they go form billion dollar companies. It could have been that, but it’s not.
You see, every movie needs a hero (or villain) to root for. And at the end, that hero has to either succeed or fail. There must be resolution. But we get no resolution from Zuckerberg, Eduardo, or even the Winklevoss twins! With no resolution, we have no story!
So how can this successful and entertaining movie have no story?
How can it have no protagonist?
Well, actually, it does have a protagonist.
The protagonist is Facebook.
So how does the movie succeeds despite a human hero?
Because you know what’s cool. Facebook is cool...
It's a story about the rise of Facebook. We want Zuckerberg to defend Facebook from challengers who would impose advertising on it too soon. We want Zuckerberg to overcome these lawsuits that threaten to derail the creative power behind Facebook. We want Facebook to reach two continents, 100 schools, and 1 million members. Not for Zuckerberg’s sake, but for Facebook’s sake. We want Facebook to overcome all obstacles. We're rooting for Facebook.
The movie is a trip back to college. A snapshot into the geeky world of website programming, with creators who lord their intelligence over others, who get groupies, who party on the way to billionaire status. Who wouldn't want to come along for that ride? We're connecting with Facebook.
In reality, we all want to see where Facebook is going. We all want to participate in the evolution of this connecting phenomenon. And the movie is just another way to participate. This is why it succeeds.
This is the absent-minded genius of the Social Network filmmakers. In foolishly failing to give Zuckerberg a resolution at the end, the movie becomes about Facebook.
It becomes about us. It feels like our story.
Zuckerberg is the hero. Dude, the story archetype is "Institutional"
ReplyDelete"Will Zuckerberg succeed in gaining significance in this world of elitism?"
Significance can be "bought," "stolen" (as the twins try to prove) or it can be through "Contribution" which was through the book of face.
It's tragedy as it's a downward spiral of loosing friends in the process for your pursuit for significance.
The Villain is the idea of greatness. or Sean.
I'll have to disagree with your article buddy. His Arc didnt have a the usual conclusion but I think it's safe to assume that the "Asshole" scene was his turn around, his self realization.
His final act was to settle the lawsuit with his friend eduardo and give him back co ownership title.
Thanks so much for the point of view, Tim.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a difference between what you've presented, which was possibly what the filmmakers intended, and what actually ended up on screen. It isn't safe to "assuming" anything in story-telling.
In the final "Asshole" scene with Zuckerberg's lawyer, Rashida Jones, he tells her he's not an asshole. But there's no realization here.
There's no change in his attitude or viewpoint from earlier. She doesn't tell him anything that makes him realize he's been wrong all this time.
And as for his final act to settle. Well, it might have been more poignant if after she left, he was the one that put Eduardo's name back on the masthead.
But we don't see him make the decision to settle and we don't see him resolve anything with Eduardo. In fact, we're informed of both of these events with a title card.
Now obviously the movie wanted to be about Zuckerberg. But I point out the limitations throughout the film to demonstrate how these soft portrayals force us to either "assume" or be left unfulfilled.
And the only reason the movie succeeds in spite of this hollow conclusion for Zuckerberg, and doesn't leave us bothered by the need to "assume an ending", is because we're still fulfilled by another conclusion. The success of Facebook.
In the end, Facebook's subject matter saves the day.
I'd argue that when the protagonist of a film reaches his moment of apotheosis where he has finally reached the moment where he can learn from his mistakes and truly change, only to fail by rejecting this opportunity to evolve and overcome the very inner conflicts that have lead him to this "All Is Lost" moment, it just means that the movie we're watching is a "Tragedy", and our Protagonist is an "Anti-Hero."
ReplyDeleteI think as Americans, tragic endings don't come naturally. The crime genre may be the closest thing we have to a tragic hero. But even in our greatest American crime saga, THE GODFATHER, which is most certainly a tragedy, the Protagonist does at least change... it just happens to be for the worse.
I guess what's really tragic is when the protagonist sees the opportunity for change but stubbornly refuses to do so out of his own hubirus. But isn't that the definition of a tragedy in the "MacBeth" "Oedipus" "Henry V" vein?
I think of that final shot in THE SOCIAL NETWORK with Zuckerberg sitting alone in a room, refreshing his facebook page over and over again, waiting for the girl who broke his heart, the girl who inspired it all, to respond to him by accepting his friendship. You can't get more tragic than that.