movie

The Social Network

I've always been a  fan of David Fincher and his exacting filmography. And if there's anyone who's completely bought in to Aaron Sorkin's verbose style and intelligent-discourse-is-sexy scripts, it's me. So the idea of the two of them doing a movie together, any movie, is automatically appealing to me. Even the idea of a "Facebook movie."

If you've seen the reviews, you don't need me to tell you that the movie's very, very good, perhaps great. It will garner a Best Picture nomination this spring, Fincher will likely be nominated for Best Director, and Sorkin's an early frontrunner for Best Adapted Screenplay. If you were torn on seeing it, do so. It's worth it.

Interestingly, the things that one would think (or, at least, I would think) should weaken the movie are some of its strongest aspects. The casual viewer might assume that watching someone create a website would be boring, or that the bickering of two college kids creating a web start-up would seem small and petty, but these are some of the strongest parts of the film, simply because the audience inherently knows the stakes of these moments. The small decisions to do something one way and not the other, the slights that slowly fester, the little disputes that that brook separation rather than compromise, all move with the weight of the audience understanding that these seemingly throwaway exchanges changed the course of these character's lives - and, by extension, our lives - in a way they can't remotely comprehend at that moment.

Sorkin noted that he would be just as unhappy as Mark Zuckerberg about the movie (Zuckerberg, Facebook's creator and CEO, has refused involvement in the film and refuted most of its content), since the decisions made at 19 years old would make for an unflattering movie for anyone. I imagine that if someone cobbled together my worst moments from age 19 to 21, you would find a tough character to root for. Especially because these battles are over business decisions made by people who aren't actually in business in any real sense of the word. They're college students. They don't understand how the world works.

I'm now 27, and I now have done enough freelance work to have some understanding of how business is done when the work is hammered out in your living room at 3 in the morning, and all contact is just quick emails and short phone calls. But I made mistakes along the way, and I was mistreated by some of the people who contracted me. These things happen when you're young and unfamiliar with business protocol.

A huge part of the film is based on the lawsuit brought by three students who had hired Zuckerberg to build a social networking website for Harvard students. However, Zuckerberg doesn't build this site, instead he builds Facebook and puts it online himself. The students maintain that he'd stolen their idea, whereas Zuckerberg maintains that his idea was different, and better, which is why his idea worked and their site doesn't exist. Sorkin strives to make sure that both points seem valid: Zuckerberg remembers it one way, the students another, and both are convinced their story is the right one.

And isn't that the way things always are? The Social Network has a clearly deliberate Rashomon quality to it. To Zuckerberg, his idea is different from the one proposed to him, because that proposal made him think "well, then, why not this?" Because his mind works ten steps ahead of most people, he misses the fact that there's a logical progression between the idea proposed to him and the site he created, and that progression means something in the business world. It's the same as a bright high school student who finds himself capable of leaping to the answer in his algebra work without working through the steps given to him in the textbook: since he didn't seem to need the steps, he doesn't realize the steps exist whether or not he's cognizant of using them.

All these mistakes and hurt feelings mean so much more because the end result is a multi-billion dollar business, one that everyone feels they have a stake in. But the weakness of the film is that in some ways, it doesn't recognize that in order to buy the emotional investment of the characters, we need to be convinced that their battles are real. The truth matters.

You would think that it wouldn't, since it's just a movie. Both Fincher and Sorkin have admitted to changing details, imagining conversations, combining multiple encounters into one more dramatic one. Sorkin even pushed to deliberately try to make things more fictional than necessary sometime, with the argument that sometime reality isn't the best choice for a story. There's a scene early in the film where Zuckerberg, the night after a bad breakup, builds a website for comparing Harvard girls against each other. In the scene, and in real life, he drinks several bottles of Beck's, but Sorkin wanted him to make a screwdriver in the film, so that it's clear that he set out to get drunk. And there's nothing wrong with that, right? People understand that this movie version of the story, not the real version.

Except that what keeps this story gripping is its ties to real life. There's only so much an audience can care when a movie character gets cheated out of a billion dollars. But if you can say "this is the story of how Eduardo, a real person and the co-founder of a website you use every day, got cheated out a billion dollars back in 2005," then all of a sudden the financial details, the small decisions carry the weight of us understanding that this guy missed out on not just a lot of money, but on Facebook, the behemoth that controls our online consciousness. That's the only reason we can get involved in this story at all.

I think, in a few years, our appreciation of the movie will fade. We'll remember that it takes place mostly in deposition hearings, we'll recognize the unlikabilty of the Zuckerberg character, and most importantly, we'll forget how important Facebook was in our lives. It'll become MySpace, Friendster, and AIM; Homestar Runner and HotOrNot.com. Something we used to do, someplace we used to spend all our time. The movie will seem dated, and maybe even a little silly. Imagine a website about the founding of any one of those sites. Who would care? Who can even remember?

But as a movie about now, as a movie primed to tap into the zeitgeist, it's damn near perfect. Get out and see it.

The 19th Best Movie I Saw In Theaters This Year

(FADE IN)

Shia LaBeouf is bored with life after his adventures with the Transformers. There seems to be no excitement now that Megatron is defeated and his body sunk to the bottom of the ocean. He and Megan Fox have split since their time together, though they both still have feelings for each other. However, a new pack of Decepticons arrive on Earth to see why the planet has yet to be conquered. They resurrect Megatron (not with magic this time, but with their new, advanced evil-robot technology) and begin to wreak havoc on the planet. There are lots of explosions and robo-fights in crowded cities, where buildings can crumble and highway overpasses cinematically destroyed. In the meantime, Megatron vows revenge on those who defeated him, and captures Megan Fox. He demands the surrender of the Autobots. Instead, using their advanced robo-intuition – combined with a little pluck from Shia LaBeouf - the Autobots and LaBeouf launch a plan to rescue Fox from Megatron.  Hungry for excitement, LaBeouf insists on coming – which only leads to him almost being captured himself. In a desperate bid to save him, one of the other Autobots is killed, but the group is able to get away safely. LaBeouf is distraught, but rallies when he discovers that Fox has learned the plans for where the Decepticons plan to attack next. Unfortunately, it turns out the plans were a trap set by the Decepticons, who let Fox get away. The Autobots try to ambush the Decepticons at this location (ideally, New York City, London, or D.C.), but instead are ambushed themselves. Much robo-fighting ensues. The day is only saved when LaBeouf and Fox sneak over to the other side and destroy some important piece of equipment that affects how the Decipticons robo-fight or robo-communicate or something. The days is saved and all the new Decepticons introduced in this movie are destroyed, though Megatron and his original Decepticons escape and vow to fight again, probably in 2011 when the next movie comes out. Content with the easy life and a lack of adventure, LaBeouf and Fox get back together while all the Autobots robo-applaud.

 

(FADE TO BLACK)

The Twentieth Best Movie I’ve Seen In Theaters This Year

#20. The Informant!

If you’re just joining the party, here’s the list of The Twenty-Three Best Movies I’ve Seen In Theaters This Year.
 
I’ve been dreading doing this review because, while I cannot seem to summon any enthusiasm for the movie, neither can I spew any vitriol towards it. It seems, even in this review, The Informant! lacks any element of life.
 
The problem with The Informant! is that it just lies there, like a dead thing (or your momma! Boom!). Is it a drama? Maybe. The stakes keep rising as the plot moves along, and there’s an implicit understanding that Matt Damon’s character is in way over his head. Is it a comedy? Maybe. There are funny parts, and Damon is consistently amusing, perhaps even exceptional, whether on screen or in his understated, off-kilter voiceovers. Is it a satire? Maybe. It seems vaguely satirical, and most of the serious roles are played by top-notch comedians, leaving the viewer to assume that it’s supposed to be satirical.
 
But that’s the inherent problem. Even after having left the theater, I didn’t really know what it was supposed to be. I don’t have to tell you what a huge failure that is.
 
Let me tell you my suspicion: director Steven Soderbergh read the screenplay and felt that it was a satire. He cast the movie accordingly, throwing ace comedians (Joel McHale, Patton Oswalt, Tony Hale, Paul F. Tompkins, Tom Smothers, etc.) into all the major roles.  Then he gave the actors plenty of rope, assuming that they would just find the rhythm as the movie went along.
 
Unfortunately, the plot structure is too disjointed to allow such a maneuver. While Damon’s in the movie enough to establish a consistent tone, the rest of the cast appears in only a three or four scenes at the most. Most of them look like they tried to find the joke, couldn't, and decided to play it straight. There's nothing wrong with playing it straight, but most of the film takes place in boardrooms with characters bickering back and forth, and if there's no joke to be played, there's no reason to watch. So while the movie chugs along acceptably, there's never any sort of narrative momentum - the situation gets neither more dramatic nor particularly funny.

Sort of like this review, which is helpless to do anything but state the facts in the face of this singularly disappointing film.

In fact, the only reason the movie has any life at all is from Damon's performance, who remains eminently watchable and explosively funny the whole film - more in spite of than because of his gigantic and wholly unnecessary weight gain for this role.

Instead, the trailer - which boils the movie down to its funniest, most on-target moments - ends up being a much better representation of how a movie like this should feel. And that's a pretty sad thing to see.

The 21st Best Movie I’ve Seen This Year

#21 Funny People

 I almost don’t want to comment on this movie because, since I saw this movie in theaters, I’ve been trying to remove it from my memory entirely.

Now, this movie is not that bad. But it’s not good, and it’s frustratingly not good, as what seems to be a good premise is combined with standout performances from both Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen into a movie that is somehow completely lousy at accomplishing any of the goals it sets out for itself.

I’ve been as stalwart a supporter of Judd Apatow as there’s been in the past few years, for several reasons:

A. His good movies – both movies he’s produced (Anchorman, Superbad) and directed (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) are hilarious and incredibly rewatchable. If you were to list the Ten Best Comedies of the Last Ten Years, that list would include at least four Judd Apatow movies. In fact, let’s make that list (Apatow movies are marked with a *):

 

Best Comedies of the 2000s

  1.  Anchorman*
  2. Old School
  3. Shaun Of The Dead
  4. The 40 Year Old Virgin*
  5. Wedding Crashers
  6. Borat
  7. Napoleon Dynamite
  8. Superbad*
  9. Meet The Parents
  10. Talledega Nights*

I’m sure everyone’s got favorites in there, as well as ones that they hated and feel shouldn’t be on the list, but just below these movies would go:

   11.   Zoolander
   12.   The Hangover
   13.   Team America: World Police  
   14.   Tropic Thunder
   15.   School Of Rock
   16.   Knocked Up*
   17.   Dodgeball
   18.   Step Brothers*
   19.   Road Trip
   20.   Van Wilder

All good comedies, but all clearly a slightly lower tier than the aforementioned movies.  Either way, Apatow was involved in six of these 20 movies as either a director, writer, producer, or all three, and so he’s earned our good graces. I’m inclined to give him a pass.

B. Funny People was a failure of trying too hard, which is the sort of failure I appreciate. I hate sloppy filmmaking. I hate half-efforts, and poorly executed jokes. I hate seeing movies where the actors didn’t quite nail the bit, but the director moved on anyway. This movie was none of those things – everyone was clearly giving it their all, it just didn’t work out.

The problems with Funny People relate more to narrative momentum than anything else. No one in this movie is particularly likable – most noticeably Seth Rogen’s character, who really needs to be – and without anyone to root for, the whole movie just sits there, limply. There’s no interplay between a cold, closed-off Sandler and a warm, awkward Rogen, because the film makes them feel like they’re sort of the same person in different situations, which totally destroys the whole point of the movie. More damningly, Apatow forgets a key element of storytelling – he never creates a protagonist. Rogen and Sandler sort of share the protagonist’s load, each of them doing just enough to make you think the movie might be about them, and not quite enough where you don’t know which one you’re supposed to identify with.

People have knocked the film’s third act as the point where the movie derails. But the truth is that movie hadn’t actually built up enough speed to derail – it just chugs along, vaguely keeping our attention. The little engine that couldn’t. </train metaphor>

The problem is plot structure more than anything: Sandler’s efforts to win back his ex-girlfriend come too late in the story – almost two hours (!) into the movie. No one’s willing to start caring about a love story at that point in a film.

 This pains me to say, but in a more capable director’s hands, this could have been a much better movie. But Apatow invested too much of himself in the movie – his wife plays the love interest, his kids play the children, his ex-roommate (Sandler) is the protagonist (maybe), and it’s loaded with videocassette footage that Apatow himself had shot – of Sandler back in the day, of his child’s performance of CATS, etc. He can’t see the difference between what’s actually moving and what’s merely moving to him.

 If there’s a good way to fail, it’s this way: trying to go deeper, trying to make a comedy that’s more emotionally compelling than your average boner joke fare (though, wow, there are a lot of boner jokes in this movie). And that’s why I’m trying to pretend it never happened. Apatow’s earned the right to have us dwell on his successes rather than failures.

 

For now.