The Social Network

[pete]

the boatrace - they said it was shot one of the last days of production and I forgot where I read it that said the turn-around time for the effects shots was short.  seemed like they stylized it because it was going to look phony and out of place anyhow.

[Gold Trumpet]

Can anyone give me a good reason for the boat-race scene being shot like it was (other than it looking cool)? Clearly this is a very accomplished bit of filmmaking in-and-of-itself, but why does it make sense in the context of the movie? Extreme stylistic departures like these require a really good reason, in my book, if a film is going to achieve the kind of coherence needed to make it great.

The scene didn't stand out for me. It looked different, sure, but it matches the tonal pace of the rest of the film. The film rips of the corners out of all of its scenes and gives you a tough edged look at human encounters in flux. The whole film is a bit of musicality with how it amazingly edits between the scenes and all of the actions. If this film was more Bergman-esque and concerned about standstill tone, I would agree with you. But I'm not sure how a criticism of this scene clouds the rest of the film. What did you think about all the other scenes?




For me, to say this is just Fincher's best film feels like an understatement. It's a graduation film for him to new levels. In Fight Club, I can see how certain levels of the story are about more than their immediate gratification aspects, but Fincher directs this picture for it to perfectly tap into a character aspect of how people act. It's also a lot more than Zodiac. That was a historical coverage film of an era and a sequence of events. The filmmaking was pretty to look it, but it does not blend with its environment the way it does in this film. Fincher ratchets up the editing and composition level to make this film bleed with its characters.

Wonderfully, the movie is very superficial. Like the Dark Knight, it announces all of its major themes within the first scene. However, unlike the Dark Knight, it does not try to make the character revelations to be, well, revelations... For me, this movie does what Dr. Strangelove did for comedies. It takes a superficial element of a genre structure (here, the drama) and films it at a rapid level pace of editing, tonal fusion, and composition where you get into the nervous center of these characters. Dr. Strangelove is reflective of hostile moods in a chaotic atmosphere and show how personalities can be unhinged at fundamental levels. In The Social Network, I believe, you get the same type of mapping out of human emotions. The difference is that it's done at a dramatic level for dramatic purpose. Fincher creates a slide show aspect of looking through the actions of the scenes and getting the split hair information that is necessary in the scene to move it forward. In a normal film, the scenes build up tonally in standard fashions. A scene with Erica Albright when she finds out she has been slammed by her ex boyfriend on his blog would end with just the tear in her eye. That is standard, because it's a bookend scene to a series of events. However, all the scenes that build up to it are equally minimal with context as well. The film cycles through so many reactions, actions, things, at a time, that a tear by Erica Albright is actually a big deal.

I could go on, but Fincher directs the film to make it a constant reflex movie to the interests and emotions of the characters involved. Dimensions of who they are is not important because it really is a filmed drama. Most filmmakers just film coverage of Sorkin's writing because it generally just sounds nice to listen to (like a dance is to look at), but Sorkin adjusts the focal tone of his writing to make it geniuely much more reactive to the personalities of the characters here. Sure, some characters still go on about cultural topics in cute and funny ways, but Sorkin mostly plays the writing straight to the emotional needs of the characters. Having been a mild fan of his previous work, he hasn't been allowed the ability for this much of a dramatic challenge.

For me, Fincher and Sorkin make the best team. Sorkin got his best chance for an organic story and Fincher found the pulse in which to highlight the dramatics, but I would love to hear other ideas. All I want to do is talk about this movie.

[picolas]

Can anyone give me a good reason for the boat-race scene being shot like it was (other than it looking cool)? Clearly this is a very accomplished bit of filmmaking in-and-of-itself, but why does it make sense in the context of the movie? Extreme stylistic departures like these require a really good reason, in my book, if a film is going to achieve the kind of coherence needed to make it great.

maybe because it visually represents one of the key themes of the film (it doesn't matter how close the race is, if you're 0.00001 seconds behind, you lose) ?

[Ghostboy]

Can anyone give me a good reason for the boat-race scene being shot like it was (other than it looking cool)? Clearly this is a very accomplished bit of filmmaking in-and-of-itself, but why does it make sense in the context of the movie? Extreme stylistic departures like these require a really good reason, in my book, if a film is going to achieve the kind of coherence needed to make it great.

It might not have been CGI, actually. It's a tilt-shift effect, very easy to do in camera (search on YouTube for all sorts of examples). But as to why they did it - Fincher said it was because they only had one chance to shoot the actual race in the proper location, and so they filmed a handful of other races elsewhere but had to obscure where they were happening. Hence the effect.

I read one bit of criticism that pointed out that it was the only sequence that was in no way connected to Mark Zuckerberg, and was thusly justified. Not sure if I buy it, but I liked the sequence and felt that it fit in fine enough.

[children with angels]

maybe because it visually represents one of the key themes of the film (it doesn't matter how close the race is, if you're 0.00001 seconds behind, you lose) ?

I get the parallel with the main storyline, of course - the characters make the same point explicitly themselves. But I wasn't asking why the scene is in the film (the movie answers that question for you), I was asking why it was presented in the way it was.

The scene didn't stand out for me. It looked different, sure, but it matches the tonal pace of the rest of the film. The film rips of the corners out of all of its scenes and gives you a tough edged look at human encounters in flux. The whole film is a bit of musicality with how it amazingly edits between the scenes and all of the actions. If this film was more Bergman-esque and concerned about standstill tone, I would agree with you. But I'm not sure how a criticism of this scene clouds the rest of the film. What did you think about all the other scenes?

I don't see how it couldn't stand out - it is hugely different to everything that surrounds it, at least in plastic terms. I'd need to watch it again to talk about specifics, but it's pretty obvious that it's a stand-out sequence - and, I would say, also a stand-alone sequence. It feels almost like a short film unto itself, which doesn't belong in the context of the movie. This scene can colour the rest of the film because to be great I think a film needs to be coherent, which means not featuring elements that jar so completely with everything else - unless there's a good reason for it (say, the presentation of the shower scene in Psycho, which shatters stylistic expectations for a very obvious reason, whilst also building on motifs the movie has already established). Incidentally, I've always felt that almost all the stylistic quirks people object to in Fight Club can be justified by it being one of the most 'first-person' movies imaginable - that person being on the verge of mental collapse, indeed.

However, having said it's so unique, I did pick the scene out in particular because it seemed the most obvious representation of a clash I felt throughout the movie between the material and the way it was being presented. I wouldn't say the material demands Bergman-like stillness exactly, but I do think it demanded to be less capital-D Dramatic - or rather, if it is going to be dramatic, it could do with feeling like a drama that stems from real people rather than from the movie they're in (the amped-up score, pounding intercutting scenes of debauchery with Zuckerburg on the computer, some overly-stressed line readings). Though Fincher is less overtly stylized here than in some other films, he nonetheless still seems less interested in people and the intricacies of human interaction than is needed for a script like this, which I would say does require a more toned-down and character-centred approach like, say, Shattered Glass or Breach (since Pete made those parallels). Or in fact Seven, which I think may be his most convincing film in terms of believable human relationships (Pitt and Paltrow, Pitt and Freeman). Again, after only one viewing I can't get too detailed on this - it's just a sense I have.

It seems to me that, faced with a scene focused on physicality, Fincher just went all out stylistically simply because the ostensible subject matter of the scene meant that he COULD - and it feels like a tension going on in smaller ways throughout the film: an over-interest in pace, tone and posture rather than people, places, and rounded social interactions. Take the scarf-burning scene, for instance: with different emphasis in the direction and performances this could have convinced, but as it stands for me it just felt like an awkward and bewildering sequence, because we know nothing of what these people's relationship might actually be like. This to me felt like the outcome of a director having more interest in effects (what a crazy situation!) than in human action (what a complex relationship). You didn't necessarily need loads of new stuff in the script to make that feel real and more rounded - you just needed a director who could make a crazy situation feel (through mood, handling of performances, etc.) like it stems from a complex relationship.

Faced with a time-constraint like this:

Fincher said it was because they only had one chance to shoot the actual race in the proper location, and so they filmed a handful of other races elsewhere but had to obscure where they were happening. Hence the effect.

Fincher reverts to a kind of stylisation that excludes the human focus entirely, opting instead for a disjointed view of the physical effects, pace, and feel of a situation that could just as easily be about human emotion. Under similar conditions of pressed-time, another director might have made the sequence's focus purely on the feelings of the rowers (say, long-ish takes of them in the boat, their frustrations). Fincher is much less interested in that sort of thing, and this sequence just stands as a particularly extreme example of that lack of interest - which I felt was clear in more subtle ways throughout the film.

Anyway, these are ramblings. And I'll warn you GT (because I would guess it would only be GT who's tempted to respond in depth!) that I'm super pressed for time myself right now - phd thesis due in a matter of weeks! - so I may not be able to mount much more of a debate here, particularly after only one viewing. I just wanted to get some thoughts down.

[Stefen]

I still haven't seen this. I'm surprised there hasn't really been much backlash. It's getting universal praise with no end in sight.

Movies I saw before seeing this -- Let me In (one of the best of the year), Never Let Me Go (not good), and, uh, Jackass 3D (storytelling was suspect).

I tend to see stuff based on how long it will be around and Social Network seems to be sticking around for awhile. Hopefully this weekend.

[Gold Trumpet]

Jackass 3D (storytelling was suspect).

Haha,

About the Social Network, I expected Zodiac: Part II and that concept wasn't thrilling me at all. However, the film taps into the nerve base of its characters wonderfully. It's the best film I have seen in a long time. Whenever I write movies, I write stories that play musical chairs with the editing, dialogue, and composition the way this film does. This is how I create movies in my head and since most films don't even attempt to do this at all, I never feel spiteful. I always feel distant to the movies I criticize. However, I envied this film. It has a lot of things I would do as a filmmaker if I was in the position currently to do so.

[picolas]

maybe because it visually represents one of the key themes of the film (it doesn't matter how close the race is, if you're 0.00001 seconds behind, you lose) ?

I get the parallel with the main storyline, of course - the characters make the same point explicitly themselves. But I wasn't asking why the scene is in the film (the movie answers that question for you), I was asking why it was presented in the way it was.

i know. i thought that was a pretty good reason.

[modage]

The blu-ray for this is amazing!  I wrote this on my blog but that doesn't make it any less true.  The documentary is probably the best I've seen since That Moment and you can't watch it and the featurettes and not come away with a greater respect for the film.

And aesthetically it's probably the most beautiful packaging design (courtesy of Neil Kellerhouse) on any DVD or Blu-ray that I've ever seen.  (Sorry Criterion, it's time to step up your game.)  So much care has been put into every aspect of it's presentation from the menus to the packaging to the quality of the behind-the-scenes material that it makes me mad that other films don't care this much.

[Stefen]

Yes, I love the packaging. Also the sound is something else. It may be the best sounding BD I have heard. Haven't touched the second disc yet but can't wait. Eveyone is raving about the documentary.

I'm kind of disappointed it doesn't have the trailers, especially the one with creep.

[modage]

Interesting tidbit from the commentary: the mansion the Winklevii are in after the rowing match is the same one with the bowling alley from CMBB.

[Reel]

whhhhaaaaaaaaattttttttt?? 

[Pubrick]

whhhhaaaaaaaaattttttttt?? 

there is a mansion somewhere that rents out its rooms to movies sometimes.

[Pwaybloe]

Hm. Since the commentary was bleeped out on the DVD, does anyone know what the letter Mark got in class really said?  Obviously it wasn't supposed to be "U dick".

[Reel]

his face does one of the funniest things I've seen in a movie all year after he reads that, I wish there was a gif. of it