Mark-ing's on the Wall

Rating: 9/10 (9 November 2010)

What do you call a film that evokes such a strong emotion about a real personality? A living, breathing personality. What do you do when for almost 115 minutes you have been lead to believe that what you are watching has probably happened? What do you do when you want to really act on your emotions? Is it still fiction? Is it naivety to believe in what you have just seen? I don't know, because all of the above are questions that I would like to get answers for.
As Mark Zuckerberg said. "I just wished that nobody made a movie of me while I was still alive", he probably knew that once you see a film, it's easier to believe in it than when you read a book. Although The Accidental Billionaires was already written, it never created such an effect on people. The film is based on the book and even though the book's publicist admits it to be "big juicy fun", I dare say the film does more damage than what the author would have even hoped for with his book. Don't buy it? Read any book you have read about Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi and then see the films made on their lives. If Hitler had to watch Inglorious Basterds in his lifetime, he would have killed himself, oh wait, except he already did. To call Social Network a film would be an understatement, it is a chronicle. A chronicle of a man's journey into what he needs to do to become "the man". There is a word that can give a hint on this subject, which is repeated both in the beginning and the end. Asshole. A man needs to become an asshole to become "the man" and the only proof to all of the doubtful facts about Mr. Zuckerberg is that he has become "the man". Some people admit it, some don't. Take a leaf out of Steve Jobs' book Mark and you won't feel this ashamed of yourself, I promise. Hell, I'd take it as a compliment.
For about 115 minutes of the film I wanted to do one thing - go home and delete my Facebook profile. Then, in the last 5 minutes, as if Fincher wanted to let Zuckerberg off the hook, he made me think twice. I didn't want to be a part of the 500 million people whose privacy Zuckerberg has control over. I went home and just to give Facebook another shot I read a little. I found out that Google Trends shows that over the last year about 35 million people have been interested in pulling out. Now, I'm not saying this is because of the film, but this is because of Facebook. Some of us have discovered the follies. I have seen Fincher do this before (playing with my head in the last 5 minutes), he did this in Zodiac too. Just like Zodiac, Fincher makes you believe and that is the only word I'd like to use for this film - Believe.
Now on to the elements, boy this one's tough. Again, how does one distinguish the parts once you have believed the whole and forgotten everything else. The analogy of the four blind men comes to mind, except here there is a fifth one who can see and has seen the elephant and the elephant is a mighty beautiful animal. To say that the trunk was long and the ears were wide would be stating the obvious. All the parts do their job to the core and to the best of their abilities. Jesse Eisenberg captures the screen as the eccentric, megalomaniac, delusional and narcissistic Facebook "founder". Even after watching Jesse in a diametrically opposite role (Zombieland), I wanted to break his neck. I still love you Jesse. The Winklevoss Twins played by, well, played by one man, Armie Hammer, Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake all do their jobs well, not a feather here or there. Yes, Justin Timberlake, he is not new to acting, watch Alpha Dog if you really want to be impressed. I might not listen to his songs, but I would pay to watch him act, anytime. Enough said. Coming down to the usual suspects - Cinematography and Editing. The film did not look beautiful, it did not capture my imagination, it did not make me look at the frame . And that's more than what I can say about any good film I have seen. The film feels real because the cinematography is real. No need for beauty here. Sometimes when you look at the beautiful frames you forget what you were watching. Unlike Zodiac, this film moved, I mean it really moved. The pace of the film is set from the opening scene itself. Just like its character, if you miss one minute, too much would have gone by. Again the editing never brought any attention to itself. The narrative which is woven in flashbacks and the present has been interestingly conceived, which I don't think can happen on the table. Nonetheless, effective, very effective.
Social Network is not a contemporary film (and thank god for that), it doesn't have any in/out zooms or jump/jerk cuts, its a classic film. This is why Fincher's film-making is not limited to any genre. If I have one complaint, there is only one, is that the end looks like it was all for the girl. I for one could not digest it. Who knows? It might have been. It could have also been for the elite final clubs. On second thoughts, I understand why Mark had to be Mark. When you really want to achieve something and you know you are capable, you might need to do a few things wrong. Not everyone can do it and hence, not everyone is a Mark Zuckerberg.
"You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain" I haven't deleted my Facebook account. Not yet.