The Social Network…..Yes Facebook

socnet0824

Ok, all comments aside about me reviewing this film on facebook itself – I see the irony.  The horse is dead, no need to beat it.  Now lets walk away from that sleeping dog, and approach the subject at hand…

David Fincher is a visionary director.  I have always enjoyed his style – and taking something as dry as the creation of facebook, and making it into a meaty, interesting production is a feat unto itself.  Combining the uniqueness of David Fincher’s views cinematographly and the varied landscapes of the changing world throughout the story.  He creates a visually interesting piece of what could have been a relatively dry subject matter.  Within this, he directed a lovely piece (helped in no small part by Trent Reznor’s score, which in and of itself should bring home Oscar gold) but by shooting this in a non-linear style, it makes the subject matter not only more palletable, but increased the drama exponentially.

This, of course – was helped why a well written and organized script, that had both a build up to the drama, and an appropriate response to said drama.  Combined with a smart, fresh dialogue that was not only snappy but savvy.   The non-linear approach, as laid out through flashbacks of a mediation setting between all warring parties is a smart and fresh look at the preceding years; though non-linear In the overall story, the full timeline is smooth and without fail.  The dialogue between programers I think was probably a lot more witty and quicker in the film then in real life, as was a lot of the dialogue overall.  But – from a strictly script standpoint, it was a very strong entry.

A Best Actor nom for Jesse Eisenberg.  Was that really deserved?  Yes, he has starred in such greats as Adventureland, and Zombieland – but does that get him onto this list?  Being an “asshole” (as described in the film, not by this author) does not an oscar winner make.  Yes, his character was vulnerable, yes he was standoffish – but he had an amazingly small range, and a whole lot of sarcasm, none of which is a surprise or a stretch from an acting point of view.  He never made the character likable, nor did he make him a villian – somehow he found a middle ground covers neither, nor does it make him particularly interesting.

Up Next – Toy Story 3

Toy-Story-2-pixar-116966_1024_768

  • huphup

    Hmm, it’s not Eisenberg’s fault he didn’t attempt to make the character unlikeable. And for that I commend him. Most actors want to be liked and loved, just by playing an unlikeable character so convincingly is taxing and difficult for an actor and that alone is a standout. It’s about the compelling quality of a performance, not the sympathy factor that makes an actor magnificent.

    If you are still not convinced, read this: http://bit.ly/93yB3Q

  • Characters do not need to be likable to win an Oscar; Nor do they have to be unlikeable. Christoph Waltz won Best Supporting last year playing a Nazi – hardly a likable character. Michael Douglas won in 87 for his portrayal of Gordon Gecco, a ruthless, cut-throat insider trading businessman that was more slimy then likable. The point is – sitting on the fence does not win you an Oscar. Being neither despicable nor lovable paints you into an ambiguous corner. The Oscars are a vote – and to win, you must be either amazing and adored, or amazing and despised. Jesse Eisenberg was good, not amazing; nor was he adored or despised. He simply played a smart kid. That does not translate to an Academy Award – which was my entire point for the beginning.

  • Pingback: Booredatwork’s Pre-Oscar Selection & Contest | Booredatwork()

%d bloggers like this: