The Social Network

Why is a film that plays it safe with few auteur risks a great and defining film? There's little drama to speak of, and little story arc or insight into the protagonist and a weak climax with a mildly poignant/full circle closing scene. What is so GREAT about this film? Yes, it is witty, and funny and smart, and fast paced (to the point where the even-keel pacing becomes monotonous and never gives the film a moment to catch its breath and let something cathartic take place.) The closest to a payoff the film offered was when Saverin winds up to swing--but of course doesn't get to hit Parker. NOTHING HAPPENS.

Oct 1 - 09:34 PM

Sean Pak

You're a bit contradictory in that comment. You complain that Fincher played it safe, but then you sound like you wanted a movie with a more mainstream, conventional development of plot. What I thought was great about the film was BECAUSE the storytelling was risky. It was subtle, lightning-paced, wordy, and instead of going from Point A to Point B to Point C in a more normal sort of pace, the viewer was forced to keep up with all the little details of betrayal and complication, and eventually the effect added up and thus the emotions hit me at very unexpected times. The whole flow of the movie was distinct, different, risky. And I personally thought that by the end, you got deep insight into the main character. It just creeps up on you subtly. In this way, I thought the film was a close sibling to Zodiac, another movie with the illusion that "nothing happens" but after awhile you realize what Fincher is actually communicating. It's a very weird way of making and pacing a film, a way that Fincher is starting to become known for, and it's a pretty great method.

Oct 1 - 11:11 PM

Kaitain Jones

I agree.

Feb 2 - 11:32 AM

Sean Pak

haha ok, excuse my grammar there, I wrote it pretty quickly and clicked Add Comment without proofreading.

Corrections: meant to say "What I thought was great about the film was THAT..."

"...and thus the emotions hit YOU..." (since I used "viewer" as my subject.)

Sorry, this is more for me than you. Messy writing, especially mine, bugs me.

Anyway, it's fine that you weren't crazy about the movie. I'm not trying to force you to like it, was just confused at that little contradiction I read. I don't see how you wanted more "auteur risks" but at the same time a more regular story arc.

Oct 1 - 11:19 PM

Jason Root

Thank you for your intelligent reply. What I meant by that was if a director sets up a dramatic climax, he risks it coming off... over the top or ineffectual (a prime example is Thomas McCarthy movies: The Station Agent and The Visitor). Maybe that is 'mainstream' to have a clearcut, come to a head climax, but I don't consider McCarthy a mainstream directory; but I prefer a dramatic increase in tone for a climax, so to speak, to more subtle workings you speak of. For me, the scene with Saverin fuming was the closest the film got to shifting gears. I just felt the film set itself up to be more powerful but decided in the end for a more subdued effect. I was more concerned with the climax of the film than the development of plot. The development of plot was very good, I just thought the film could have changed up the pacing at times to feel less like a manufactured work and more like an organic work. The pacing is *very* even keeled (which to me is a 'safe' directing choice, even if it takes great skill to pull it off).

The insight I got into Zuckerburg was that he was a very ambitious individual who became blinded by his singular goal, with an imbalance of extraordinary CS brilliance and a dearth in social networking skills.

I liked the Station Agent even though nothing happens, but I prefer the tone of that film over this one. It just comes down to personal preference I think. I felt the opening scene of TSN that many people really liked felt a bit unreal... who carries a conversation like that? it was too stylized and rapid fire--and like the rest of the film, didn't give the scene a chance to breathe--I think stylized dialogue works in films like Indiana Jones, but not in biopics that are being hailed as something very special. I liked the film, don't get me wrong, I just don't quite see how it is 4 stars GREAT. For me it came off a bit cold: there was little emotional impact, despite the compelling performances.

Oct 2 - 08:01 AM

Charlie Tyrganst

The mechanical feel was deliberate...and it worked for me and I felt it drove the themes very powerfully. That's just me though, I can understand if it didn't work for you.

Feb 24 - 10:06 PM

bb cc

input this URL:
==== http://www.shoeswholesale.us/ ====
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
==== http://www.shoeswholesale.us/ ====
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

Oct 12 - 04:23 AM

bb cc