The Social Network (***3/4)

It’s a little weird watching Mark Zuckerberg’s rise as a piece of history, since just seven years ago he was just a Harvard sophomore and the word Facebook was just a word referring to an online—or paper—yearbook for a social club. As the film begins, Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) ruminates—frequently in the same breath—on the number of geniuses in China, his perfect SAT score, the rowing team, and the difference between final clubs and finals clubs. Dating him is like “dating a Stairmaster” says his soon-to-be-ex girlfriend, before dumping him with a hilarious putdown. “Asshole” is the term she uses, and understandably, she doesn’t want to hang out with one. Yet there is almost no one more fun to watch on screen. What is the series House, after all?

Zuckerberg’s patter, and the putdown, are presumably the words of Aaron Sorkin, whose famously fast-paced dialogue graced the television series he created, like Sports Night and The West Wing. Sorkin’s dialogue is full of quotable lines like the above. Keeping the narrative in focus is director is David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Zodiac, Fight Club), veteran chronicler of the vagaries of human behavior. Though more or less chronological, the movie is structured around two lawsuits. One pits Zuckerberg against twin preppies, from whom, they claim, he stole the idea for Facebook. In the other the adversary is a former friend. I’ve seen courtroom dramas before, but this is a deposition drama. If the idea of watching someone get asked routine questions by lawyers in a conference room for large chunks of time is not your idea of high drama, you may be surprised. When the deponent is one as extreme as (the movie version of) Zuckerberg, it becomes a fascinating look at the character.

He’s being deposed in both cases at once, and is feeling especially hostile because, as usual, he knows he’s right. And maybe he is. Or not. The law has weighed in on both cases, but the ethics are debatable, and Fincher and Sorkin take the time to present the issues well. One is about the value of an idea. What is the idea of Facebook worth without Zuckerberg’s insights that have made it ubiquitous? The other case asks, What do we owe those who have helped us but are no longer needed?

Otherwise, the movie tells the history of Facebook, from its inception to the point at which it was already spreading globally. I’ve never used Facebook, but it’s still an amazing story. Perhaps Zuckerberg’s key insight was to see that students didn’t just want to chat with each other, but to know about each other. And so the addition of “relationship status” becomes a key moment. Zuckerberg may be an asshole, but he’s also hard not to be impressed by. And although he doesn’t really become nicer in the course of the movie, there is one thing that does make him seem more likeable, which is that Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) comes off like an even bigger asshole. Parker, the onetime founder of the mp3-download site Napster, is the Faustian character who lures Zuckerberg west. Where Zuckerberg is smug, Parker is just obnoxious. Where Zuckerberg is introverted, Parker is a party boy. Timberlake is terrific in the part.

There are a lot of terrific things in this fun, thought-provoking film.

IMDB link

viewed 9/9/10 at Rave UPenn [PFS screening] and reviewed 9/9–/10

Catfish (***1/4)

If you believe the story told in this documentary—and some people don’t— New Yorkers Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman didn’t set out to make a feature, but just to document the friendship between Ariel’s photographer brother, Nev, and an eight-year-old girl in Michigan. We’ve all heard cautionary tales of grown men and children online, but this is nothing like that, although the anonymity afforded by the Internet is part of the story. It seems that the girl had sent Nev a painting of a photo of his that had been published. And it was good, not My Kid Could Paint That good, but really good. And so, as the movie tells it, Nev began to chat online with the girl, her mother, and her older sister, who seems attractive—and age-appropriate—to Nev. More surprising developments ensue, the details of which are best unknown to anyone planning to see the movie.

Besides the storyline, the film points to the effects of technology on moviemaking and ordinary lives. The filmmakers use portable video cameras to create something that wouldn't have been possible a few years ago. Unless the film is a complete fiction, Joost and the Schulmans wouldn’t have had any reason to document the early part of the story. Yet because Facebook leaves a trail, they're easily able to re-create the history that seemed too trivial to film at the time. Much of the early part of the movie is shots of computer screens, and probably this kind of thing will become trite, but seems novel now. Later, a GPS figures into the story, and cell phones are one key to the mystery that unfolds.

Yet the reason Catfish winds up being something more than a great yarn you could tell someone at a party—no movie needed—is the humanity behind the technology. There’s a point in which the film seems like it may be a little mean-spirited, and then it becomes almost sweet. And the way that happens is really the second big surprise. No doubt the movie is better if you know less about it. But even if I had known the big spoiler everyone’s taking pains not to reveal, the last half would have still been worth a look.

IMDB link

viewed 9/15/10 at Ritz 5 [PFS screening] and reviewed 9/16–26/10