It’s fair to say that there aren’t many movies in 2010 — much less in the awards race — that have earned the distinguished attention of The New York Review of Books, let alone a 5000-word essay by a superstar of contemporary literature. But such is the curious magnetism of “The Social Network,” whose queasy social currency has now been nailed, better than any film critic has managed thus far, by New York-based British writer Zadie Smith.
I’ve always thought Smith a better essayist than a novelist, and her quasi-review of David Fincher’s film is a tour-de-force, using Aaron Sorkin’s script (the verbality of which she likens to “His Girl Friday”-era comedy) as the starting point for a stinging but compassionate address to ‘Generation Facebook,’ its communicative lapses and its identity insecurities. She likes the film quite a bit, but that’s almost beside the point: it’s more of a compliment that she felt it merited this level of scrutiny in a publication dedicated to another medium entirely.
One superb passage of many addresses the film’s most blatant fabrication, and reiterates (more convincingly than most) the “Citizen Kane” parallels that have circled the film since the first reviews emerged:
Generation Facebook’s obsession with this type of “celebrity lifestyle” is more than familiar. It’s pitiful, it pains us, and we recognize it. But would Zuckerberg recognize it, the real Zuckerberg? Are these really his motivations, his obsessions? No—and the movie knows it. Several times the script tries to square the real Zuckerberg’s apparent indifference to money with the plot arc of The Social Network—and never quite succeeds.
[T]he girl motivation is patently phony—with a brief interruption Zuckerberg has been dating the same Chinese-American, now a medical student, since 2003, a fact the movie omits entirely … [W]e’re offered a Zuckerberg slumped before his laptop, still obsessed with the long-lost Erica, sending a “Friend request” to her on Facebook, and then refreshing the page, over and over, in expectation of her reply…. Fincher’s contemporary window-dressing is so convincing that it wasn’t until this very last scene that I realized the obvious progenitor of this wildly enjoyable, wildly inaccurate biopic. Hollywood still believes that behind every mogul there’s an idée fixe: Rosebud—meet Erica.
I could excerpt further chunks of the essay, but you’re better off reading it in its entirety. I’m an admirer, as opposed to an outright fan, of “The Social Network” — I love the film’s zip and swagger, while finding it simultaneously overwritten and under-expressed — but I find it immensely exciting that a popular movie is provoking this level of contemporary discourse both inside and outside of film circles.
It’s for this reason, more than my regard for the films themselves, that I find myself bothered by the growing sentiment that “The King’s Speech” — a simple prestige entertainment unlikely to prompt any equivalent level of thought or conversation — is the film to beat in this year’s awards race. If, as pundits keep suggesting, these are the two films that will be duking it out for the gold on February 27 (and as I recently indicated on the relaunched GoldDerby, I’m not yet convinced that’s the case), I find myself instinctively siding with the film that, dare I say it, matters just that little bit more.
[Photo: Columbia Pictures]
Comments
25 responses to “Zadie Smith on ‘The Social Network’”
Count me as a fan but the film is WAY over-rated, like over-praised to the heavens. The screenplay is undoubtedly one of the best of the decade, okay chuck that, the dialogue is some of the best this decade. The acting is very good with Garfield giving the BIG performance. The movie is very-well directed and yet the cumulative impact is a very good movie rather a masterpiece. The cultural perceptiveness and the zeitgeist factor that has been thrust upon the movie stems more from its association to Facebook than from what the movie inherently has to say.
As insight into a asshole’s mind as he develops an empire, the movie give us insight but does not succeed entirely. There are reasons and explanations for his behavior but not recognition by the audience. And the movie sags after the rushing freight train of the first one hour. Being a Fincher film, needless to say it also lacks a bit of heart.
But a very good movie, absolutely deserves to be in the conversation for the best films of the year, but I prefer Toy Story 3 and The Kids Are All Right. Feeling, understanding and recognition with the characters should never be under-rated.
nice read, love Zadie, havent read any of her books though. way too high brow for me. but she is definitely an interesting presence.
Her novels aren’t all that highbrow, Mike — they’re busy and chatty and steeped in pop culture. “White Teeth” is particularly brisk and funny — give it a try.
(Spoilers)
I’ve been meaning to write something about this movie but I’m still not sure how I feel about this.
I know for sure that I liked it but that I think it’s much overrated. Some of the dialogues were predictable, lame and smart-ass but I loved its rythme, the performances, the music and the script was good.
I still don’t know if it is really important or it’s just a solid Hollywood movie. I mean, besides the issue of what constitutes “copyright infrigement”, what does the movie bring on the table? Friendhip, ambition and betrayal? Yes, but, what new does it say about these things?
And why did Garfield’s girlfriend have to be a mental?
And why would a law student/intern/whatever say something as stupid as “You must erally hate…”
An how smart did Sorkin think he was when he wrote “…you’re just trying to be one”?
And how could that gut not get that it was Bill Gates??
OK, I admit I’m being as hard on the film as I can, but I said I liked it so I can nitpick, right? :p
An interesting point, but I think Erica is an exceptional motivational character. We understand why Sorkin did this so we could understand him better, or at least the film interpretation of Zuckerberg. Plus, I do think there are some scenes that show Zuckerberg as a builder just to build. He’s asked about what he had created beforehand from the Winkleboss twins and Divya, to which he replies he created an mp3 that recognizes your taste and music and put it online for free. When asked why, he didn’t have a strong response or reason why. I’m usually more up for realistic interpretations on real figures, but its a film like this where some liberations are taken and they benefit the film surprisingly.
Wait I’m confused…
“[W]e’re offered a Zuckerberg slumped before his laptop, still obsessed with the long-lost Erica, sending a “Friend request” to her on Facebook, and then refreshing the page, over and over, in expectation of her reply”
Is she referring to the scene at the end of the movie? Isn’t he trying to friend that female attorney in that last scene and not Erica? Or did I miss something?
ted – Yes! I was confused, too, when I read that. I’m not sure.
@ 2 posts above — He was definitely trying to friend Erica. Not sure why you thought it was the attorney.
Ted: You missed something — it’s Erica. Kind of cements the whole film’s structure.
ted and Jim T- Zuckerberg was definitely trying to friend Erica. I don’t know how you both missed that but if you did unfortunately you would have missed one of the major points of the movie.
i’ll take your recommendation on board Guy.
Yeah now I feel like a dope. I mean yes I know the whole Erica theme running through the movie but I could swear at the end it was the attorney he was friending. I need a 2nd viewing! … and bring my glasses this time lol.
Thanks for spotlighting this Guy. The whole thing was a terrific read.
“And why did Garfield’s girlfriend have to be a mental? ”
Because it’s a movie?
Great read, thanks Guy. This is easily one of my favorite movies of year. I can see where some people had problems with it, but I don’t share those feelings. I don’t know, something about it just connected with me.
Finally someone expresses doubt over The King’s Speech’s “frontrunner” status. Sorry, but a simple British period piece is not going to win Best Picture in 2010.
Excellent article. Long, but very good. Especially interesting about Zuckerberg’s red-green colorblindness as the reason for Facebook’s “blue” theme.
Tony: I’ve actually been voicing such doubts all along, and addressed them to some extent in a Long Shot column.
The King’s Speech, like Made in Dagenham, is not just a “simple British period piece.” It’s also a showcase for some of the most Oscar-friendly mainstream performances of this year . In the past twenty years, there have been only four instances (’90, ’91, ’99 and ’05) when there wasn’t at least one British or British-inflected film among the Best Picture nominees, and with the expansion to ten, I don’t why there couldn’t be more than two this year (like 1996), with Another Year and The Way Back also in the mix.
In any event, having seen the “simple prestige entertainment,” the “Facebook movie,” the British ’60s period piece and the Fincher, my gut gives the edge to The King’s Speech. But I still think that Toy Story 3 is a greater achievement than all of these films, and I’m expectng to be wowed by Peter Weir, Danny Boyle, Mike Leigh and the Coen Brothers.
Lead actor aside, is there anything British about The Way Back?
Glenn – I don’t understand your response. The girl was, at first, a – kind of – real person and then she just went nuts. It probably was so that 1) Garfield’s character had one more reason to leave 2) To make us laugh(?) at her craziness.
She did have some interesting lines at the beginning of the scene but then she went 100% caricature in a film that already thought women are mentally inferior.
Glenn and Jim: It’s worth noting that Eduardo’s girlfriend’s behaviour in the film is exactly as it described in Ben Mezrich’s “The Accidental Billionaires.” (Another reason I’m not buying the claim that Sorkin wrote the screenplay independently of the book.)
So her actions are not a product of Sorkin’s imagination — they may well be of Mezrich’s, given that he admits upfront to playing fast and loose with the facts, or there’s a slim chance they could be grounded in truth.
Guy, The Way Back is what I meant by “British inflected,” with Colin Farrell, Jim Sturgess and Saoirse Ronan leading the cast. Aside from Ed Harris, all the other actors seem to be Russian.
Woe betide he who calls an Irishman “British,” Paul.
;)
Ouch, ouch, ouch. So true. I guess there word I was looking for is “(Ex-)Commonwealth” (which would allow me to bring Australia and New Zealand into the argument).
Maybe? :-)