By: Keaton Marcus

PREFACE:

David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin's The Social Network is a film that I watched twice several years ago to appreciate it on re-watch recently fully. I had always thought it was "good," but never had it impacted me as much as it did a few nights ago. The nearly universal opinion on this movie is that it's an absolute masterpiece, and I have zero regrets about joining that bandwagon. One significant aspect that makes the film so exceptional is its timelessness. Typically, one would expect a biopic to rely on recency bias. In this case, the success of Facebook, but this work of art transcends expectations and ultimately holds up today. Obviously, at its core, it tells the tale of Mark Zuckerberg and his immediate rise to fame but peeling the layers reveals so much more that may have led to it exceeding initial predictions. This is a movie about obsession, Shakespearean betrayal, the lack of emotional intelligence, relationships, and how these themes conform to our mainly digital age. It uses social media as a building block for far more profound meanings, and that's the genius of Fincher's direction and Sorkin's unforgettable screenwriting. To further my observation about how extraordinarily unique this is from other biopics, I will focus more on the actual character of Zuckerberg rather than the actual person, facilitating its originality.

WHAT IS A DISTINGUISHABLE PERSONALITY?

We, as humans, all want to feel different. Face it, readers, we have a hungry drive to be anything special or unique from the general population. Adhering to normality and banality are things everyone fears, and having the spotlight put on you is something we may dream of. This is what our main character, Mark Zuckerberg, is desperately infatuated with—not being the same as everybody else. The entire roots of the screenplay and film itself are built upon the idea of this promising concept. One of the most extensive parts to take away from the whole experience is how striving for individuality can affect friends, family, or even enemies. It's thrown at audiences from the very first scene intentionally. Zuckerberg explains to his girlfriend (who's about to dump him) that he wants to distinguish himself from the students and the public around him. He doesn't just need to be clever or even a genius; he needs to change the world, and that's what he does. Mark doesn't have inherently malevolent intentions, but in his greed, he alienates the person talking to him, and therefore, he's kind of an asshole unintentionally. He can't take a simple jab or loss, and when someone gets to him, it's time to insult or hurt them back. Remember, Mark must be dominant, and getting demeaned by another person is absolute hell for him. Being a bully to others is how this man stays in control, and as a result, he comes off as a pretty unapproachable human being.

NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE?

One would expect to conclude that Fincher and Sorkin would portray Zuckerberg in a wholly negative light, but they hurtle over these tropes once again. Although his actions are never justified, it's the comparisons of those around him that topsides expectations. For example, let's take the impeccably directed and edited hacking scene, set to a mind-boggling soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Zuckerberg, drunk and impulsive after being dumped by Erica, compare women to farm animals on his blog before proceeding to create a website that ranks female students based on hotness. He's objectifying the opposite sex, using them for his gain, but editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall cut to various instances of similar events around the school. These include women objectifying themselves and being shipped around like the animals he compared them to. It's these seemingly meaningless cuts that portray this group's mentality of bad behavior. Mark isn't a good person, but that doesn't mean that the people surrounding him are perfect. Conditions build character, and the environment around Mark is what, unfortunately, influenced him to the point of poor decision-making here.

DEVELOPING CHARACTERS/RELATIONSHIPS:

Generally, people, including me, pay to see movies that take time to develop the main character and the ones that surround them. Their motivations, traits, and past are all critical things to crafting someone compelling, and that is what The Social Network so brilliantly avoids. Mark himself is the only person in the film that we know anything substantial about, and what would usually be a criticism should be turned into praise here. The rest of the characters, mainly Eduardo and Sean, are treated as mere objects. Mark uses the two of them as chess pieces in his own game of future success, and his little ploy works out in the end. He becomes the youngest billionaire on the planet, and he wouldn't have without his toys. The relationship between Eduardo and Mark is supposedly a friendship initially, but is it? Every conversation they have, regardless of the fights, is dunked in artificiality. The basis of these talks always seems to be about Mark using him to achieve something for his gain. But it isn't only him. He manipulates and uses the Winklevoss twins, agreeing to help them only betray and capitalize on their original idea. No, it isn't strictly plagiarism, but it's a very extreme form of inspiration. Nonetheless, it leads to an all-out war between the three. Ultimately what I'm getting at here is that all supporting characters and usual archetypes are treated less as human beings and more as items in the journey of accomplishment. However, I would argue that the Sean mentioned above Parker has somewhat of a character arc, but it's kept to a generic minimum.

THE ENDING:

Mark has been no less than a crook for the entire film, using toxic administration and ignorance to control anyone that cared about him. Underdevelopment in surrounding characters and immense focus on only his perspective has made that so. After the long and arduous legal battle with Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins, however, everything changes. Sorkin gives him a subtle sign of development when he decides to send a friend request to Erica, his now ex-girlfriend. It may not seem like much, and she may never accept it due to how he treated her before, but it's a small step to the greater good. He's reaching out to someone he feels for, and that's likely the most, and perhaps only, human thing he's done during the entire film. Maybe Mark hasn't fully learned how to become a better person in general, but the environment he had recently been in (the court) has molded him once again, just like the college has. Recall my point about how "conditions shape character." I believe Fincher and Sorkin have fully exemplified this message with the conclusion of their masterpiece. There's something beautiful to seeing a man who previously treated others with such malice switch to a never before seen empathetic side of personality.