10% inspiration and 90% perspiration

Rating: 8/10 (5 October 2010)

I've been hearing the phrase "It's only a movie" probably before I even began watching movies. When I was younger it was to make sure a film didn't scare the sh*t out of me before going to bed. Now more so in reference to fact checking, especially if the film is based off a true story. "The Social Network" is one of those films where I had to tell myself "its only a movie" before going in, having some prior knowledge of the true events.
In knowing this "The Social Network" being based on a true events, embellishes and manufactures certain aspects of the plot and changes character traits/motivations in order to achieve the best cinematic experience possible. It's a good study on how a film can take a basic, somewhat mundane story and tweak it until it's a perfectly structured, neat little package. The movie, partially-based on the book, "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich, is supposedly itself part fabrication because Mezrich never interviewed the film's protagonist and founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, as well as most of the book being debunked by other Facebook insiders. The film's Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is a brilliant but angry, egotistical, arrogant asshole who comes off as knowing he would be a billionaire even before writing the first line of code for Facebook.
Anyone who knows the real Mark Zuckerberg says he's actually a nice guy who rarely gets angry. David Kirkpatrick, author of "The Facebook Effect", said "Zuckerberg is one of the least-angry people I've ever met." This might be the most glaring disparity between the film's story and the actual one. And although it is an obvious Hollywoodizing device, using it was a wise choice, considering how well this movie performs under the skewed, yet perfectly executed screenplay. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin never met with Mark Zuckerberg either — purposefully. He knew transforming him into a cruel and unrelentingly ambitious prick was the unapologetic direction needed to fuel the plot. Sorkin said, "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling." And even in the script he admits every "creation myths need a devil". So with that in mind, Sorkin's Zuckerberg became an ambivalent anti-hero - an emotionless machine only driven by success.
Machine being the operative word, and most obvious and cliché parallel; Sorkin and director David Fincher make it clear that Zuckerberg is so talented on his machine because he thinks and acts like one. There were a couple of times where I couldn't help but compare Zuckerberg to Bill Gates, not only because there is a direct reference to him in the film, but if you've seen "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" there are more than a couple similarities between the two, especially in their cutthroat methods in empire building. But I suppose this is true for any genius/inventor who knows when it's there time to strike the iron. Thomas Edison, one of the most cutthroat inventors of them all said it best: "Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." The real Zuckerberg might have done it cleaner than the rest, but it doesn't mean he can escape being dragged through the dirt for it