The Social Network, and why it’s not just “a movie about Facebook”.

Well to an extent it is, but it also isn’t, you know?!

This masterpiece is a classic, almost Shakespearean, storytelling about love, betrayal, friendship, business, that uses the invention of Facebook as a modern-day setting.

And after that pretentious, and over the top statement, I believe a pretext is in order:

I’m but a wannabe movie buff that has fallen in love with this film and its details, after watching it an extensive amount of times.

However, there’s a multitude of reasons as to why “The Social Network” is so critically acclaimed and beloved by many individuals, including yours truly. Let’s explore them together, take by take, shall we?!

Technically, it is a meticulous, perfect movie.

From its opening scene that was famously shot 99 times, with Ball and Biscuit (by the White Stripes) playing in the background, this film differentiated itself from others.

Everything in it seems to flow with a prominent beat.

Here’s a no-brainer for us all: What do you get when you combine the greatest screenwriter (Aaron Sorkin), the most precise director (David Fincher), and a cast talented enough to graciously fit into the rhythm of it all?!

Potentially one of the best screenplays ever put to motion.

The script is almost identical to the movie. And if you’re there wondering: “Well, isn’t that how a script is supposed to be like, duh?!”

Perhaps, but it doesn’t always work out that way. A lot of the times, it’s difficult to translate the written words well into what we, as an audience, end up experiencing on the screen.

Masters of their craft, both Sorkin and Fincher, set out an example of what a collaborative spirit can achieve in the production of a movie.

Sorkin is known for his sharp and flashy dialogue. In his own words:

“I grew up really enjoying the sound of a good argument, of smart people arguing. I just wanted to imitate that sound”.

And indeed, listening to his characters interact is like following a heated ping pong match.

Now, combine that with Fincher, who is a peerless visual director. This guy definitely likes his shots a certain way.

In fact, because he wanted to understand how fast the script played out in the writer’s head, he timed Sorkin whilst reading the dialogue. Afterwards in rehearsal, he talked to the actors about running the scenes exactly at the same speed.

Talk about extremely meticulous film-making.

DON’T GET ME STARTED ON PERFORMANCE. It’s quite difficult to portray Sorkin dialogue because everything in it has a rhythm, you almost have to fit in it. Not to mention all the intentional hiccups he likes to add from time to time. The “uhs” and “ohs” might not come naturally to everybody, but Jesse Eisenberg manages to deliver them flawlessly as the antisocial nerd.

It is the epitome of Show Don’t Tell.

The movie doesn’t spell things out for you. Instead, it portrays its story and characters in subtle, yet brilliant ways.

It respects the intelligence of its audience.

“The beer scene”, simply through the power of visuals and directing, illustrates the friendship dynamic between our two main characters, Mark and Eduardo.

Mark goes into the room, opens the fridge, and only gets one beer for himself, illustrating his individualistic nature. Whilst Eduardo (Andrew Garfield’s character) instead, picks up two beers, emphasizing he’s always looking out for the both of them.

And as an act, that is never discussed. They simply continue with their conversation.

It is an innocuous moment, that through magnificent directing, passes by effortlessly. You almost might miss it. Yet it conveys so much, subliminally.

Another example of the movie’s authenticity is the club scene.

In it, the characters are interacting in a pub, and the noise/music volume has been turned all the way up. You, as the viewer, really have to concentrate in order to understand what they’re saying. This offers a more genuine experience, as if you were actually in the club, listening to Mark and Sean explore business ideas.

It is not a black and white story, and neither are its characters.

Now, I’m not here to discuss the accuracy of how Facebook came to life and the nitty-gritty details of it all. I will leave that to Zuckerberg and his petty comments on how he wasn’t “portrayed accurately”.

However, this story leaves you feeling torn and confused. The movie does a really good job of making you care about both sides, in spite of their flaws in perspectives. The characters aren’t perfect, and the protagonist isn’t likeable. As we passage through the courtrooms and the college dorms, we can’t seem to decide on who we’re actually rooting for.

Is it the underdog, who after years of struggling with his nerdy nature, gets to make a name for himself, whilst ruining the only friendship he had in the process? The loveable sidekick, who foolishly enough goes blindly into a business, invests in it, only to end up being backstabbed and boycotted?

Or the trio that had a premise idea, but lacked the brilliance and innovative mind to execute it?

It is a complex movie. It confirms that sometimes, there isn’t a “right” or “wrong”, especially in the cut-throat world of the tech business. Decisions get made, people suffer the consequences, and the lines of “plagiarism” get blurred. In the words of Mark himself:

You know, you really don’t need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook.