Tuesday, 28 December 2010
The Social Network // The Accidental Billionaires
I did say I will try to cut down on more unnecessary general posts (as in song lyrics and generic reviews) but I felt like this movie, if any other, deserves to be written about.
So let’s set the scene. It was a rainy weekday evening. There was still around an hour before it started so, a coffee break after a long day at work seemed tempting. A warm mocha and chocolate cake set, on offer no less. This was nice. Watching the rain pelt the windows while enjoying a decadent dessert and a warm beverage. A sort of mental cleanse from the day’s grim before diving into a different scene. A scene whose beginning was marked by the ushering of audiences into the theatre, the dimming of lights...
(and the shoving of a multitude of advertisements and trailers into our collective throat.)
Just kidding. Well, not kidding, just needed a break sentence. The above was just the depiction of the moments before I entered the theatre to enjoy arguably, one of the most significant movie of the year, if not the decade, “the Social Network”. The movie was loosely based (more on that later) on the book “the Accidental Billionaires”, which depicts the meteoric rise of a certain little website called (the)facebook in 2003 to its necessitous status today with millions of members. Yes, who remembered that facebook only came into existence in 2003 and was only available to the public around 2004/05? Certainly not me. I mean that in the best possible way.
In fact, I enjoyed the movie so much that I went to get the book and wolfed it down just yesterday (as I had another book to get through before that). Granted, it was a light read. So, that’s how I spent my Christmas holidays. Thanks for asking. At least it wasn’t spent in academia, right?
Anyways (before my academic guilt and paranoia cripples me), here I shall review both the movie and the book in attempts to consolidate, compare, and contrast the partial stories. And I say partial, because throughout the making of both the book and movie, Mark Zuckerberg, did not want to give his input into the material because... he’s Mark Zuckerberg? I could only imagine. (If you happen to not know who he is, you really should.)
And therein lies the biggest flaw of the book, “the Accidental Billionaires”. In an attempt to record the history of this marvel, the author, Ben Mezrich, has been unable to obtain direct contact with the lead character (Mark) and quite frankly, that hardly ever works. Throughout the book, one is constantly reminded of this major flaw by sentences that begin with the likes of “We can only imagine...” or “One could see that...” when describing Mark’s actions and thoughts in solitude. The closest he (the author) could get was to Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, both of whom while being close to Mark at certain points in time could in no way have outputted what Mark went through to a satisfying level of accuracy (at least not for me). I know this flaw is not technically a fault of the author, but he did make the decision to write the book in a tell-all, biographical manner rather than exercise his creative liberty (as the screenplay writer and director of the movie did so brilliantly) in a more, for my lack of creative vocabulary (I’m not the one getting published, am I? Sad face.), creative manner based on the material he had in hand.
Also, due to the manner in which material was gathered for the book, dialogues, thoughts and opinions (particularly of Mark’s) must be taken with agrain handful of dust salt, as the sources are mainly his oppositions, although again, the author does remind you at the preface (but I know a lot of us tend to skip that) as well as assures us, the readers, that the dialogues that were recreated are done so in the most meticulous fashion as to ensure accuracy. Then again, it all ultimately boils down to he said, she said’s (so does accuracy even comes into play?).
A small annoyance (of not only me apparently when researching the topic) that I noticed while reading “the Accidental Billionaires” was how (homo)erotic the few scenes of the Winklevoss twin’s rowing practices with their flaccid muscles, phallic boats, and oars. It’s just a horrific mental image parade that’s jammed into your (rather mine) mind and refuses to exit. In contrast, the movie’s most action-packed scene was the Henley Royal Regatta (think prestigious inter-continental boat race) with a beautiful landscape and a spirited soundtrack to boot.
Getting past that, and it’s not terribly easy, at least for me, the book serves as a decent chronological account of the development of facebook although edging on the side of dry. It just seems that the author got terribly lost in the arduous process of data collection (and it must have been dreadfully difficult) that the writing became so restricted and uninspired. Although, this is mere speculation as I have not had a chance to read his other works yet, one of which even inspired another favourite movie of mine, “21”.
Luckily, although loosely based on the book, the movie was anything but dry. Kudo’s to both the screenplay writer, Aaron Sorkin [A Few Good Men, The West Wing], and the director, David Fincher [Seven, Fight Club,Madonna’s “Vogue” (figured I just throw this one in as well), Benjamin Button and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy (still in production)] .
The movie begins with in a college pub where Mark’s social inaptitude leads to his (alleged) girlfriend dumping him and (he) in a fit of rage (and drunkenness) creates a websites where people could rate the hotness of girls as well as a few drunken blog posts/progress logs that eventually (lands him in minor trouble with the school and) leads the realisation that there was a void to be filled in terms of online social networking. With the funding and contacts of his friend, Eduardo, he creates the site thefacebook (the the was later dropped many thanks to Sean Parker), which at that time was Harvard-exclusive, and later expanded to other universities and eventually the whole world, which took off almost overnight.
As with any major success, evil follows not far behind. With the success of facebook came lawsuits claiming that Mark stole the idea from a Harvard trio that had previously requested Mark’s assistance in the setting up of a social website of their own, and another that claims Mark unfairly cut Eduardo out of his share of the company by diluting his, and only his, shares in the company (for which Eduardo and Mark’s legal team eventually reached a settlement). And it is these lawsuits that Aaron and David had, in a spark of genius, used to frame the movie. The tale of the founding and subsequent developments of the site were told through a series of queries and flashbacks throughout the movie which not only gave the movie a more dynamic feel, it also walked that very fine line between in-your-face-stupidity and over-the-top-complexity (as a few complained about “Inception”) beautifully. It engaged one’s mind to put in a little work initially, particularly in parsing the speedy dialogue in the beginning which I absolutely loved, and then took off by itself without one even knowing it. (I’m not sure how much sense this last sentence would make to someone outside my headspace...)
Aaron had exercised fully his creative liberty in writing the screenplay for the movie and it paid off. The rather dry recollection of the history of facebook was rewritten in such a way that it would be impossible for it not to be a motion picture success. The rearrangement of dialogues and certain scenes/trivia seem to make so much more sense (for example the initiation and the chicken cannibalism incident), and the inclusion of the additional (ultimately false) beginning and end in the movie transformed it further to include a subtle love story. And which moviegoers could say no to a good love story? And good it was. Light, gritty, imperfect, (illusive) and ultimately, hopefully uncompleted.
The main character was transformed from just a dedicated, focused, socially awkward young man into one who is also naive and a romantic. One with more room to grow and mature as the movie progresses. Another plus in terms of movie attractibility. This was made evident by the different interpretation of the business card Mark made that read “I’m CEO – Bitch”. In the book, this was just chalked up to Mark’s dark sense of humour, but in the movie, this was made to be a pivotal moment of realisation for Mark. The card reflected his naïveté and it was through the reflection, he saw. His trust in Sean Parker, which contributed greatly to the decision of cutting Eduardo out of the company, his ridiculous antics and the superficiality that is Sean Parker.
All these morphed the undercurrent of business, debauchery, and male friendship (which, lets be honest, is at least 75% stupidity, if not more) into affiliation, brotherhood, romance, redemption and the loss of innocence. It added the drama needed to boost the film from a dry documentary to an engaging tale of triumph and tribulation. Granted, the additions and modifications were a far cry from the truth (the book wasn’t an all-encompassing biography either anyways) but do we really go the cinemas for the truth? If you do, I’m sorry but gigantic blue aliens, dream inceptions and twinkling vampires are not real. Especially not the twinkling vampires... And no, werewolves don’t fare any better on the likelihood scale.
All in all, Aaron and David have managed to weave this amazing piece of cinematographic art so splendidly that it would a terribly waste not to have watch it. This is made even more so by the terrific ensemble that were cast for the movie. The cast comprised of mainly young actors, most of whom are relatively unknown, lending a fresh, indie-film-like atmosphere to the movie. From Jesse Eisenberg to Andrew Garfield to Rashida Jones to Brenda Song,everyone potrayed their characters, however minor or major, with such vividity and charm that it’s hard not to connect with. Even the (or so I thought) cheese factor that isBoo Boo Justin Timberlake did not turn me off too much. Sure, I did not like the character one bit but then it wasn’t a likeable character to begin with unless you were Sean Parker or his mum (or maybe not his mum).
Brenda was absolutely convincing as the groupie turned girlfriend turned crazy, jealous, psychotic girlfriend who torches Eduardo’s bedroom. From her aloof heiress days on “the Suite Life”, that’s just what I imagine she’d eventually be like in college. Too bad her character was not called London. We also have Rashida Jones who plays the observant junior attorney in Mark’s legal team in his legal battle against Eduardo whose role (well, major role anyways) was to be the voice of reason and the final knock on the head for Mark on his way to becoming a decent guy (i.e. sending a friend request to his ex-girlfriend and refreshing her page every 5 seconds until credit rolls) or a stalker, or whatever you choose to call it.
Of course, no mention of the cast can possibly be complete without the mention of Justin Timberlake the magnificent duo who played the two lead characters in the movie; Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, and Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin. Jesse was seemingly born to play the Mark character as it is evident from his interviews ( See, I do do [dodo, funny] research on my pieces...) that he has this air of intelligence, awkwardness, wit and slight disconnectedness that blends together so well that makes him endearing without being a jackass or an imbecile. I believe he is what Michael Cera could have potentially been. Heck, I am even reconsidering watching Zombieland because he’s in it, but we’ll see how that pans out. If nothing else, I believe that that is a mark of a great actor that he/she makes you do a doubletake on your decision to watch a certain film just because they’re in it, regardless of how ridiculous the film seems.
Then we have Andrew who although has appeared in only a handful of movies, it is evident that his career is on the up and up. From his portrayal of the rehabilitated child criminal in “Boy A” to Dr. Parnassus’ assistant in “the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” to Brazillian-borned, Miami-raised Harvard graduate Eduardo in “the Social Network”, Andrew has shown great range and talent in his profession. And his career is far from peaking as he was recently nominated for a slew of awards for his role in “the Social Network” as well as being selected for the titular role in the upcoming Spiderman reboot. In the movie itself, he managed to portray Eduardo (even though there was very little to use as a frame of reference as the real Eduardo was incommunicado [believed to be in Singapore] during the making of the movie, due to terms outlined in the settlement reached with Mark Zuckerberg) as this optimistic, at-times-goofy, trusting friend who really cared about Mark. (In fact, in some of their interviews, it seems that these two seem to have developed some sort of bromance, or a great relationship from making this movie. It’s adorable, really. Jesse and Andrew, sitting on a tree, K-I-... I’m getting beside myself...) Eduardo is a character whom life seems to be treating well. He made a large sum of money from trading oil prices, got accepted in Harvard, and later into one of the Final Clubs (think elite fraternity). He helped create and was a major shareholder in a vastly successful internet enterprise (facebook). Then, without warning, he suffered what appeared to be his first bad hand. He got cut out of the company and confirmed that his girlfriend was psychotic. Even for an actor, the transition from happy-go-lucky (not really, but I am trying to make a point here) to jaded, disgruntled person whose life seems to be crashing down to hell all within a (movie’s) day may not be an easy one. It’s almost akin to playing two characters in the one movie, and no, I don’t mean Norbit. In such cases, it is not atypical for the actor to overplay the role/emotion thus breaking the (believability of the) character and causing the audience feel a sense of disjointedness. Luckily, it did not happen here, much credit to Andrew. His jealousy towards Sean was just short of being irritating, His fit of rage justifiable (well, sort of), and his morose persona in the depositions believable. Although, even disgruntled, Eduardo still seem to have a soft spot for Mark (as a little bro, so to speak [not literally,sicko’s]) so that may have made things a little easier. Plus, the lead in to the chicken cannibalism was a nice comedic break in all the seriousness.
As a side note, I really, really want that accent of Andrew’s which is an excellent combination of American and British (as he is half of both, and holds a dual UK/ US citizenship, which again, me wants...). But how do I get it? Anyone has a voice-exchanger machine thing-a-magic? How does one spell thing-a-magic?
(Geez, sidetracked from sidetrack...)
All in all, if you hadn’t been paying attention, which is fine since this one has been a particularly lengthy article and a lot of it may not even be all that relevant to the article (as it always is), as a movie, “the Social Network” is spectacular. Brilliantly done, wonderful cinematography (and locations) and plot, an amazing cast and connects to such a vital component of modern day living in this day and age. As a book, however, “the Accidental Billionaires” barely serves its purpose as a recording of the events that lead to and surrounding the creation of facebook. Accurate, maybe, a must read, not so much. If you want to know the story, see the movie. If you want to know exactly what happened, wait until Mark Zuckerberg actually gives his side of things as well (which may very well be never).
So let’s set the scene. It was a rainy weekday evening. There was still around an hour before it started so, a coffee break after a long day at work seemed tempting. A warm mocha and chocolate cake set, on offer no less. This was nice. Watching the rain pelt the windows while enjoying a decadent dessert and a warm beverage. A sort of mental cleanse from the day’s grim before diving into a different scene. A scene whose beginning was marked by the ushering of audiences into the theatre, the dimming of lights...
(and the shoving of a multitude of advertisements and trailers into our collective throat.)
Just kidding. Well, not kidding, just needed a break sentence. The above was just the depiction of the moments before I entered the theatre to enjoy arguably, one of the most significant movie of the year, if not the decade, “the Social Network”. The movie was loosely based (more on that later) on the book “the Accidental Billionaires”, which depicts the meteoric rise of a certain little website called (the)facebook in 2003 to its necessitous status today with millions of members. Yes, who remembered that facebook only came into existence in 2003 and was only available to the public around 2004/05? Certainly not me. I mean that in the best possible way.
In fact, I enjoyed the movie so much that I went to get the book and wolfed it down just yesterday (as I had another book to get through before that). Granted, it was a light read. So, that’s how I spent my Christmas holidays. Thanks for asking. At least it wasn’t spent in academia, right?
Anyways (before my academic guilt and paranoia cripples me), here I shall review both the movie and the book in attempts to consolidate, compare, and contrast the partial stories. And I say partial, because throughout the making of both the book and movie, Mark Zuckerberg, did not want to give his input into the material because... he’s Mark Zuckerberg? I could only imagine. (If you happen to not know who he is, you really should.)
And therein lies the biggest flaw of the book, “the Accidental Billionaires”. In an attempt to record the history of this marvel, the author, Ben Mezrich, has been unable to obtain direct contact with the lead character (Mark) and quite frankly, that hardly ever works. Throughout the book, one is constantly reminded of this major flaw by sentences that begin with the likes of “We can only imagine...” or “One could see that...” when describing Mark’s actions and thoughts in solitude. The closest he (the author) could get was to Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, both of whom while being close to Mark at certain points in time could in no way have outputted what Mark went through to a satisfying level of accuracy (at least not for me). I know this flaw is not technically a fault of the author, but he did make the decision to write the book in a tell-all, biographical manner rather than exercise his creative liberty (as the screenplay writer and director of the movie did so brilliantly) in a more, for my lack of creative vocabulary (I’m not the one getting published, am I? Sad face.), creative manner based on the material he had in hand.
Also, due to the manner in which material was gathered for the book, dialogues, thoughts and opinions (particularly of Mark’s) must be taken with a
A small annoyance (of not only me apparently when researching the topic) that I noticed while reading “the Accidental Billionaires” was how (homo)erotic the few scenes of the Winklevoss twin’s rowing practices with their flaccid muscles, phallic boats, and oars. It’s just a horrific mental image parade that’s jammed into your (rather mine) mind and refuses to exit. In contrast, the movie’s most action-packed scene was the Henley Royal Regatta (think prestigious inter-continental boat race) with a beautiful landscape and a spirited soundtrack to boot.
Getting past that, and it’s not terribly easy, at least for me, the book serves as a decent chronological account of the development of facebook although edging on the side of dry. It just seems that the author got terribly lost in the arduous process of data collection (and it must have been dreadfully difficult) that the writing became so restricted and uninspired. Although, this is mere speculation as I have not had a chance to read his other works yet, one of which even inspired another favourite movie of mine, “21”.
Luckily, although loosely based on the book, the movie was anything but dry. Kudo’s to both the screenplay writer, Aaron Sorkin [A Few Good Men, The West Wing], and the director, David Fincher [Seven, Fight Club,Madonna’s “Vogue” (figured I just throw this one in as well), Benjamin Button and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy (still in production)] .
The movie begins with in a college pub where Mark’s social inaptitude leads to his (alleged) girlfriend dumping him and (he) in a fit of rage (and drunkenness) creates a websites where people could rate the hotness of girls as well as a few drunken blog posts/progress logs that eventually (lands him in minor trouble with the school and) leads the realisation that there was a void to be filled in terms of online social networking. With the funding and contacts of his friend, Eduardo, he creates the site thefacebook (the the was later dropped many thanks to Sean Parker), which at that time was Harvard-exclusive, and later expanded to other universities and eventually the whole world, which took off almost overnight.
As with any major success, evil follows not far behind. With the success of facebook came lawsuits claiming that Mark stole the idea from a Harvard trio that had previously requested Mark’s assistance in the setting up of a social website of their own, and another that claims Mark unfairly cut Eduardo out of his share of the company by diluting his, and only his, shares in the company (for which Eduardo and Mark’s legal team eventually reached a settlement). And it is these lawsuits that Aaron and David had, in a spark of genius, used to frame the movie. The tale of the founding and subsequent developments of the site were told through a series of queries and flashbacks throughout the movie which not only gave the movie a more dynamic feel, it also walked that very fine line between in-your-face-stupidity and over-the-top-complexity (as a few complained about “Inception”) beautifully. It engaged one’s mind to put in a little work initially, particularly in parsing the speedy dialogue in the beginning which I absolutely loved, and then took off by itself without one even knowing it. (I’m not sure how much sense this last sentence would make to someone outside my headspace...)
Aaron had exercised fully his creative liberty in writing the screenplay for the movie and it paid off. The rather dry recollection of the history of facebook was rewritten in such a way that it would be impossible for it not to be a motion picture success. The rearrangement of dialogues and certain scenes/trivia seem to make so much more sense (for example the initiation and the chicken cannibalism incident), and the inclusion of the additional (ultimately false) beginning and end in the movie transformed it further to include a subtle love story. And which moviegoers could say no to a good love story? And good it was. Light, gritty, imperfect, (illusive) and ultimately, hopefully uncompleted.
The main character was transformed from just a dedicated, focused, socially awkward young man into one who is also naive and a romantic. One with more room to grow and mature as the movie progresses. Another plus in terms of movie attractibility. This was made evident by the different interpretation of the business card Mark made that read “I’m CEO – Bitch”. In the book, this was just chalked up to Mark’s dark sense of humour, but in the movie, this was made to be a pivotal moment of realisation for Mark. The card reflected his naïveté and it was through the reflection, he saw. His trust in Sean Parker, which contributed greatly to the decision of cutting Eduardo out of the company, his ridiculous antics and the superficiality that is Sean Parker.
All these morphed the undercurrent of business, debauchery, and male friendship (which, lets be honest, is at least 75% stupidity, if not more) into affiliation, brotherhood, romance, redemption and the loss of innocence. It added the drama needed to boost the film from a dry documentary to an engaging tale of triumph and tribulation. Granted, the additions and modifications were a far cry from the truth (the book wasn’t an all-encompassing biography either anyways) but do we really go the cinemas for the truth? If you do, I’m sorry but gigantic blue aliens, dream inceptions and twinkling vampires are not real. Especially not the twinkling vampires... And no, werewolves don’t fare any better on the likelihood scale.
All in all, Aaron and David have managed to weave this amazing piece of cinematographic art so splendidly that it would a terribly waste not to have watch it. This is made even more so by the terrific ensemble that were cast for the movie. The cast comprised of mainly young actors, most of whom are relatively unknown, lending a fresh, indie-film-like atmosphere to the movie. From Jesse Eisenberg to Andrew Garfield to Rashida Jones to Brenda Song,everyone potrayed their characters, however minor or major, with such vividity and charm that it’s hard not to connect with. Even the (or so I thought) cheese factor that is
Brenda was absolutely convincing as the groupie turned girlfriend turned crazy, jealous, psychotic girlfriend who torches Eduardo’s bedroom. From her aloof heiress days on “the Suite Life”, that’s just what I imagine she’d eventually be like in college. Too bad her character was not called London. We also have Rashida Jones who plays the observant junior attorney in Mark’s legal team in his legal battle against Eduardo whose role (well, major role anyways) was to be the voice of reason and the final knock on the head for Mark on his way to becoming a decent guy (i.e. sending a friend request to his ex-girlfriend and refreshing her page every 5 seconds until credit rolls) or a stalker, or whatever you choose to call it.
Of course, no mention of the cast can possibly be complete without the mention of
Then we have Andrew who although has appeared in only a handful of movies, it is evident that his career is on the up and up. From his portrayal of the rehabilitated child criminal in “Boy A” to Dr. Parnassus’ assistant in “the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” to Brazillian-borned, Miami-raised Harvard graduate Eduardo in “the Social Network”, Andrew has shown great range and talent in his profession. And his career is far from peaking as he was recently nominated for a slew of awards for his role in “the Social Network” as well as being selected for the titular role in the upcoming Spiderman reboot. In the movie itself, he managed to portray Eduardo (even though there was very little to use as a frame of reference as the real Eduardo was incommunicado [believed to be in Singapore] during the making of the movie, due to terms outlined in the settlement reached with Mark Zuckerberg) as this optimistic, at-times-goofy, trusting friend who really cared about Mark. (In fact, in some of their interviews, it seems that these two seem to have developed some sort of bromance, or a great relationship from making this movie. It’s adorable, really. Jesse and Andrew, sitting on a tree, K-I-... I’m getting beside myself...) Eduardo is a character whom life seems to be treating well. He made a large sum of money from trading oil prices, got accepted in Harvard, and later into one of the Final Clubs (think elite fraternity). He helped create and was a major shareholder in a vastly successful internet enterprise (facebook). Then, without warning, he suffered what appeared to be his first bad hand. He got cut out of the company and confirmed that his girlfriend was psychotic. Even for an actor, the transition from happy-go-lucky (not really, but I am trying to make a point here) to jaded, disgruntled person whose life seems to be crashing down to hell all within a (movie’s) day may not be an easy one. It’s almost akin to playing two characters in the one movie, and no, I don’t mean Norbit. In such cases, it is not atypical for the actor to overplay the role/emotion thus breaking the (believability of the) character and causing the audience feel a sense of disjointedness. Luckily, it did not happen here, much credit to Andrew. His jealousy towards Sean was just short of being irritating, His fit of rage justifiable (well, sort of), and his morose persona in the depositions believable. Although, even disgruntled, Eduardo still seem to have a soft spot for Mark (as a little bro, so to speak [not literally,sicko’s]) so that may have made things a little easier. Plus, the lead in to the chicken cannibalism was a nice comedic break in all the seriousness.
As a side note, I really, really want that accent of Andrew’s which is an excellent combination of American and British (as he is half of both, and holds a dual UK/ US citizenship, which again, me wants...). But how do I get it? Anyone has a voice-exchanger machine thing-a-magic? How does one spell thing-a-magic?
(Geez, sidetracked from sidetrack...)
All in all, if you hadn’t been paying attention, which is fine since this one has been a particularly lengthy article and a lot of it may not even be all that relevant to the article (as it always is), as a movie, “the Social Network” is spectacular. Brilliantly done, wonderful cinematography (and locations) and plot, an amazing cast and connects to such a vital component of modern day living in this day and age. As a book, however, “the Accidental Billionaires” barely serves its purpose as a recording of the events that lead to and surrounding the creation of facebook. Accurate, maybe, a must read, not so much. If you want to know the story, see the movie. If you want to know exactly what happened, wait until Mark Zuckerberg actually gives his side of things as well (which may very well be never).
Labels: movie
Monkey J
17:15
0 commented
17:15
0 commented