The Machiavellian Network!?

Rating: 10/10 (17 April 2011)

Machiavelli stated that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. [17] In much of Machiavelli's work, it seems that the ruler must adopt unsavoury policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime. -- from popular on-line encyclopedia.
This is no revelation. And certainly it's shock value in the Social Network stems from this behaviour being practised by youths barely in their 20's. What sort of life is to come for these youngsters and indeed the world of tomorrow when such ruthlessness, entirely devoid of compassion, seems to be the hippest trend of the day? This is the most frightening element of David Fincher's latest masterpiece and perhaps the greatest through line in his films: somewhere embedded is always a great primal fear.
Here is the true core of the American Dream pursued to the extreme, the get rich or die-trying motif. Makes sense that it is terrifying. No longer is this dream some warm-toned primary colour saturated immigrant's goal pasted over with a smile. It's a ruthless business played by sharks. Are you game? What if you're not smart enough, savvy enough, young enough? Well perhaps then you'd be better off dead, like the poor sap who only made $5,000,000 on Victoria Secrets which went on to be a half-a-billion dollar company. He found his salvation jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.
This is the success of Nazism. To be swept away by emotion to the extent of being severed from logic. The greatest tool used by those who seek to be feared the most. Here it's our greed for world domination through face book at all costs that pumps through our sinews as we become swept away with Jesse Eisenberg's exceptional portrayal of Zuckerberg and the very accomplished film that surrounds him. Perhaps we fear David Fincher for his consistent adeptness in stirring these deep fears within us.
I want the same brilliance and tenacity that Zuckerberg wields, the unchecked arrogance that suffers no fools. But I don't possess his single-minded ruthlessness. What am I to do then? Reject him out of hand like his jilted girlfriend does by the end? Or should I seek to emulate him? The film doesn't give me a clear answer. But if I had to guess I'd say it wants me to emulate him. After all, face book is very much alive today and perhaps as vital as the internet itself. Should none of this been created? Could it have been created without ruthlessness?
This is a gripping film, and well deserves the Oscar accolades it has garnered and perhaps even ones it didn't. It is so well written, so well cast, so well acted, brilliantly edited and directed and gorgeously shot, and delivers one of the most compelling soundtracks at the hands of another frightening individual, Trent Reznor.
The film's only trite note for me, unfortunately, comes in the execution of the ending. I found the whole party scene: caught white-handed-with-cocaine and the underage-scared-of-the-cops scenario to be quite weak. This is not the behaviour of people seeking to be feared. They would not fear authority in the shell of a police uniform.
As well, Zuckerberg's disappointment in Parker's (Justin Timberlake) celebrations, sure to cause scandal, is out of proportion. Parker's been set up as a party animal. How is it a surprise that he's partying it up with, ooh "underage" girls; appropriately merited, I might add, only after they've hit a milestone of 1,000,000 members. I'd say that deserves a little celebration.
Equally irksome is the final moment of Zuckerberg sitting at his laptop repeatedly refreshing his friend request to his ex-girlfriend, as the credits update us on how things stand today. So world domination is empty then? Is that the point? He still doesn't have the girlfriend he had in the beginning. And if he had her now, would he then be fulfilled? He wasn't before when social climbing was his main priority. But now that that's all over, thanks to being the youngest billionaire in the history of the world, he wants his girl back? Yeah, sure I guess. It's just not very consistent with the ruthless individual he's been practising at. More frightening would be if he couldn't conscience her being with anyone else and took steps to remedy that. But then therein lies the limitation of true-to-life biopics. Artistic license only extends so far.