The Social Network

[RegularKarate]

FIRST!

[modage]

Saved by the page.   

[polkablues]

Well, fuck everything.  Apparently there was a screening in Seattle last night and I only found out about it now.

And apparently there are (unconfirmed) rumors flying around that Mark Zuckerberg was in attendance.

[SiliasRuby]

A fantastic phenomol film about what could have been boring and tedius. Drove from LA to Vegas for it because i've been foaming at the mouth to see this. The editing is kinetic, fast and taut it seems to keep the young generation interested. This is my fav. movie of the year so far blowing out 'inception' by a long shot. Andrew Garfield is gonna be a huge star.

Spoiler Paraphrasing Quote:
'Why Can't We Just Beat The Shit Out Of Him....I'm 6'5 220 and there's two of me'

Edited by Admin to better hide spoiler of one of the funnier lines.

[JG]

perhaps only to further enrage mod, but i will say that i saw it last night and give an almost-review: twas good, very cool and sleek, though prolly not worthy of the praise that will no doubt be bestowed upon it. but why do i feel the need to even make the distinction?! acting, music, visuals - all excellent, and the script's clever, no doubt.. still, i felt like i was eating popcorn or something; the must empty kind of full.

[modage]

1 hour video interview with David Fincher:
http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff/2010/nyff-video-hbo-films-directors-dialogue-with-david-fincher

(I went to this. Really interesting.)

[matt35mm]

Excellent stuff.  Thanks Mod!

[modage]

from my blog:

I don't think anybody was excited when they first heard there would be a "Facebook movie".  I know I wasn't.  Nor was I encouraged when Aaron Sorkin, who had never even been on Facebook, was hired to write it.  I was completely mystified when David Fincher signed on to direct.  But with the release of an iconic poster, brilliant trailer and glowing reviews that's all turned around.  Suddenly I got very excited at the possibilities of the film and I got to see it for myself on Friday as the Opening Night film of the New York Film Festival.

The Social Network is a very good film, probably one of the 3 best I've seen so far this year.  It moves very fast and packs a lot of information in a way that's completely entertaining, for a subject that could have easily been very boring.  The film looks great.  The script is unexpectedly funny and fast.  The score by Trent Reznor is propulsive and dramatic.  And the cast is great.  Because they weren't able to secure Mark Zuckerberg's participation in the film, rather than guess at what he was thinking at each moment, it's left for the audience to fill in the gaps.  Other than suggesting he may have created Facebook because it would make him cool, Jesse Eisenberg's Zuckerberg doesn't let you know why he does the things he does and the film is better for it.

While you're left to wonder for much of the film how much is "real", the only thing that really holds the film back from being great is the scope is too limited.  The film focuses on how Facebook was founded and doesn't give much attention to the ways in which it's changed how people communicate and the positives and negatives of that connectedness.  I got goosebumps watching the trailer, with the ordinary images of interacting on Facebook given a new depth by the haunted score.  Had the story included not just the people behind the founding of Facebook but further hinted at how the world has changed since it's inception, it might have truly been a classic.  But it'll have to settle for being one of the year's best.

[Pas]

how the world has changed since it's inception

I thought you were saying "how the world has changed since Inception" ha!

but I actually totally disagree with this, though I haven't seen the film:

the only thing that really holds the film back from being great is ... doesn't give much attention to the ways in which it's changed how people communicate and the positives and negatives of that connectedness.

That is exactly what I feared would be in there. Because then it would've been the damn stupid facebook movie nobody wanted to see. If that "look at how facebook changed the world" part isn't in there, then the story is about something else that might be interesting.

If they had made a "look at how myspace changed the world" movie in 2007 how would we laugh today. For all we know facebook might be dead in 5 years. Nobody can say this is impossible, especially since the new trend is more getting off facebook than in*. About half my friends did in the last year including me.

So yeah, this should be good then.

* Except for Grandmas and annoying aunts who never had children.

[modage]

I guess what I was hoping for is a little more of what made the first minute of the trailer so chilling.

[Pubrick]

maybe on second viewing you'll have stopped judging it on what you hoped it would be and more on what it actually is, which is actually more than what you hoped it would be.

pas i think you misunderstood my huge post i made earlier because what you are hoping for in the film is exactly what i was talking about. the movie should have nothing to do with facebook as we experience it. i agree, who cares about the repercussions of a site? that definitely wasn't my point originally, tho that's what many took it for. nor was i strictly talking about the sociological effects of social networking in general as pete took it for. the last part of my post was trying to understand the mindset of ANYONE in position of power in the modern age.

the problem in talking about this film is that it makes everyone an expert because we are fooled into thinking that it's about something we know INTIMATELY and within a LIMITED perspective. how you feel about facebook has nothing to do with the THEMES of this film because as has been made clear from the promotional material (not just the first minute of a trailer but the idea behind the whole thing, music + characters + dialogue + poster tagline + title of the film + EVERYTHING) and interviews given by Fincher (which have since vindicated me completely) that it is about the experience of losing friends, growing up, and becoming your own person. it sounds stupid and not that interesting but why do yo think fincher has said he wanted to make a john hughes movie for this generation? it's not just a joke.. hughes' appeal in his time was the ability to capture a nostalgic feel for the fantasies and real experiences many teens had in the 80s. the reason his films strike home with most teens even today is that hidden beneath all the make-up and ridiculous fashion of the 80s (the FADS if you will) the emotional experiences of his characters are relatable at a basic level of what it feels like when we realise that we are growing up.

i don't want to repeat myself or keep saying things that no one will take seriously until i see have seen the film and can point out scenes/dialogue/shots that would allow me to spell it out for you conclusively, but all i want to establish is that this film has obviously been victim of the limits of ppl's imagination. and now that it is beginning to be seen it seems to CONTINUE to be limited by what anyone can possibly expect a film about facebook to be. the LIMITS of most ppl's expectation is made worse by the fact that it's about facebook, because ppl's inability to see past the literal content of a film is already a major problem in works of art in general.. just look at, well, ANY film that's worth a damn. whether it makes money or not doesn't change the value of something amazing, but to the general public and to most ppl who watch movies if it doesn't appeal to ALL OF THEM, it really doesn't matter whether it has any artistic integrity or thematic insight. the way most ppl watch movies is a one way selfish relationship of "give me what i WANT", as i said already in my huge post.

obviously i am aware that i too am prejudging the film on its fulfilment of my own expectations, but i am not treating it any different to any other film i've ever seen. i analyse themes, relate them to the context of the story, compare with what i know of a subject and insights that i may have, and most importantly absorb everything that i don't understand or didn't expect for use in future reflections with the hope that when i repeat the process there will be nothing left over. the question is whether you think you are smarter than a movie. you either think you are smarter and know better than every movie, or you think that you are smarter and know better than only SOME movies.. those films are nothing more than fun entertainment or trash depending on how stupid they take me for, and the ones that offer more than i expected and i am convinced are worth more of my time are all some kind of masterpiece.

[modage]

I'll be very interested to see what you think of it.  I think for me, what it comes down to is 99 times out of 100, I will prefer a fictionalized movie to one based on real events.  So in trying to figure out why it might be missing something, the real answer is because it's beholden to the truth.

[socketlevel]

I'll be very interested to see what you think of it.  I think for me, what it comes down to is 99 times out of 100, I will prefer a fictionalized movie to one based on real events.  So in trying to figure out why it might be missing something, the real answer is because it's beholden to the truth.

the same arguement could be made for documentaries, and i agree with you.

though i am more interested in seeing it then i was. i just generally feel fincher goes for the obvious, which in turn dates his material.  I have hopes for this film however.

[RegularKarate]

I think for me, what it comes down to is 99 times out of 100, I will prefer a fictionalized movie to one based on real events.  So in trying to figure out why it might be missing something, the real answer is because it's beholden to the truth.

At our screening, Sorkin actually said the movie would not have been as good if he had been allowed to fictionalize it.  He would have made it too hopeful and Capra-esque. 

I think having to stick to the facts helped make the movie as strong as it is... otherwise, it could have easily been your basic "birth of an empire" movie.

[MacGuffin]

Trent Reznor wants to get closer to movies
Source: Los Angeles Times

Trent Reznor, the dark mastermind behind Nine Inch Nails, has long aspired to score a feature film. So when he got a call last fall from director David Fincher -- who had used NIN music in "Seven" -– the rock star naturally assumed the assignment would lead to some scary places.

He was right. Fincher was eager to use Reznor's unsettling soundscapes for "The Social Network," the Friday  release that is being met with mostly enthusiastic reviews. "In all honesty, when David mentioned it was a movie about the founding of Facebook, I was like, 'What the...,' " Reznor recalled with a chuckle. "I wondered how that could be interesting, but, knowing the level of excellence and integrity he brings to everything, I got the script from him. And then it became clear."

What Reznor saw was a vibrant tale of "the human condition and greed and entitlement." The film is now indeed moving to the center of the cultural conversation, and it's doing so with the backbeat of Reznor's music, which always demands attention but is especially intriguing in this new career context. Reznor worked with longtime collaborator Atticus Ross on the 19-track soundtrack, which was released in digital form Tuesday and will hit stores on CD, audio-only Blu-ray and vinyl in October.

In an unusual move for a studio film, the soundtrack album will be released through Reznor's own label, Null Corp., as opposed to a major label. The musician, who has a history of posting music for free on his website and criticizing labels for their pricing practices, even finds himself in partnership with Amazon, which is selling the digital version of the album for $2.99 for a limited time. On Tuesday, the soundtrack was No. 1 on the merchant site's bestselling album downloads. "As much as I hate the corporate partner idea, for this particular case it felt right," Reznor said. (The artist, incidentally, is getting more involved with Hollywood, as an HBO series based on his "Year Zero" multi-media concept moves forward.)

Reznor had worked with Fincher before -– the "Fight Club" filmmaker directed the Nine Inch Nails music video "Only" in 2005 – but he doubted this was the best time to reunite. "It is [Aaron] Sorkin's script,  so it's a lot of people talking in rooms and there is a lot of technical talk and after reading it I wasn't sure how it would become a watchable, entertaining film," Reznor said. "It wasn't the obvious type of film that you would imagine David Fincher would be attracted to."

So, last fall, Reznor, who had also gotten married recently and had promised his wife he would be stepping back from the mad crush of work, called Fincher back and declined. "And of course it gnawed away at me," Reznor says. "I got back in touch with him in late winter or early spring and apologized again and asked him to keep me in mind in the future [on other projects] and he said, 'No, what are you talking about, you're doing this one.' "

Reznor dropped by Fincher's edit bay and, in short order, took on the challenge. Reznor is candid about being a dictator of his own artistic path, but he says it was a rare respite to be in service of someone else's project. Fincher didn't want an orchestral score. He wanted something that would have the shimmer, shiver and thump of Reznor's electronic-anchored soundscapes. "David has a very clear vision of what he wants and then opens up that template to make it what you think is right," Reznor said. "At the first rough cut screening, it became clear to me what the film needed, which was to darken the mood a bit."

The music that Reznor and Ross compiled over a few weeks was quickly diced and draped across the film by Fincher, and the first scoring process of Reznor's career was startlingly fast and painless. "I was amazed by that. There was no meddling by the studio Darth Vader types. The experience has been exceptional and, I fear, not the usual experience. But I'm up for more."