THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010 - Cert 12A)

I knew about The Social Network before it was released in the cinema last year. I knew David Fincher was directing and I knew Jesse Eisenberg was playing the awkward creator of the phenomenon that is Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. As far as I was concerned, as a fan of both of them, that was enough for me. However, I remember being out one night, when the film came up in conversation, and someone I didn't know that well exclaimed 'How can you make a film out of Facebook?'. The key part of that sentence was the phrase 'out of'. It made me wonder whether the film's success could be based on the fact that it was about Facebook, thus ensuring that it had one very large demographic sewn up (Facebook members - only about 600 million of them). Facebook users thought it was a cash-in. A movie version of the pages that we use as a window to our life.



The reality of course is that you can't really make a film 'out of' Facebook. This theme is something it shares with it's biggest rival for the Best Picture Oscar - you can't make a whole film (and keep it interesting) based solely on a speech impediment, much in the same way that you can't create two engrossing hours of cinema with people poking, tagging and posting on walls. The key to what is great about both films is the story behind the central ideas. The real events that unfolded around George VI are as interesting and equally as unbelievable as those that surround the creation of the social tool that defines an entire generation.

Ben Mezrich, author of the incredibly overrated Bringing Down the House (adapted for the screen as '21' - even worse than the book) is the basis for Aaron Sorkin's (The West Wing) adapted screenplay and exposes the back stabbing, deceit and selfishness of how Facebook was born. The subtitle to the book is actually A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal (not like Mezrich to sensationalise....). The narrative is full of examples of Sorkin's clever approach to storytelling as it jumps from two separate deposition rooms housing two different sets of legal proceedings against Zuckerberg, to the moments in the past that are being described by the protagonists. In one room are the Winklevoss twins, who claimed Zuckerberg stole their idea from their website The Harvard Connection, and the other is Eduardo Saverin, long time friend of Zuckerberg and co-founder of Facebook. It's a device that works very well once you get your head round it. The early scenes jump between the two rooms and the past very quickly and with the sharp-tongued, pacey dialogue it can be difficult to keep up. Hang in there though, it's well worth it.

It isn't just Sorkin's writing that helps the film zip along though, David Fincher's direction manages to make a film that consists almost completely of people typing at keyboards or talking in rooms, incerdibly exciting. The film has a real energy. The camera never seeming to keep still, jumping between speakers, sweeping across the Harvard grounds. An at times techy score pulsating underneath Eissenberg's relentless diatribe. The opening sequence sees Zuckerberg blogging while building a website called Facemash at the same time. Fincher's fast editing, brilliant use of music and a determination to always have something happening in the periphery ensures that we are not lost in the Zuckerberg's jargon and are not bogged down in the technicalities of that he is doing. Another brilliant scene involves a rowing race at Henley regatta highlights the creativity of Fincher and makes me want to go through his back catalogue, kicking off with Alien 3 (which I still think is better than a lot of people give credit).

Eisenberg is very good as Zuckerberg. I haven't seen Mr Facebook other than a picture, so I don't know whether Eissenburg's portrayal is accurate, but it is a totally convincing performance of a ludicrously clever, yet criminally awkward individual, creating a social tool that he needs with a ruthlessness that will not waver. Is Zuckerberg as he is presented in the film? I have no idea, I don't really care, I'm not watching a documentary, I'm here for entertainment, not facts. And Eisenberg entertains, but not as much as he did for me in Zombieland.

I've got to be honest though, Eisenberg isn't the standout performance. It's Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder. Its true that Saverin isn't as monotone as Zuckerberg, and that may be the reason why Garfield was more noticeable, but having watched Never Let Me Go just a couple of days before this, I am now firmly in Camp Garfield (nothing to do with a ginger cat). In a film full of people being nasty to each other, Saverin was the only one I felt any warmth towards and I'm convinced that is due to Garfield.

The Winklevoss twins are both played by the amazingly named Armie Hammer, Fincher pulling that off so well that I had to double check on IMDB afterwards that it wasn't two separate people. Hammer is perfectly decent as the angry jock brothers and gets most of the funny lines. The other member of the cast worth mentioning is Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, creator of Napster. He is all smooth talking pumped up confidence (or is it arrogance), just as I imagine him to be in real life. He is perfectly watchable, if a little underwhelming when on screen, and doesn't quite have enough in the locker to really convince when in conflict with the other characters.

It's a brilliant film, there's no doubt about it, and perhaps it's unfortunate that it falls in such a strong field at this year's Oscars. However for everything that is great about it, in my opinion it suffers from the same affliction that Blue Valentine suffered from. It's about bad people being horrible to each other. The story is fascinating - its a commentary on something that we are all so familar with (you may even be reading this blog from a post on my Facebook page), it explains how $1000 became $82.9 billion and shows the noses that were broken in the process, it may not be completely accurate but it does make for compelling and insightful viewing. It's also about someone who, no matter how hard he tries, can't connect and he builds something that will help him do so. But because all of the characters are so nasty, all the backstabbing, all the accusations, they wear us down - we don't sympathise with them and consequently we do not care. The Kings Speech, 127 Hours, Black Swan - we sided with all of the protagonists and come the end of the film we were moved, in one way or another. The Social Network may be more pessimistic, perhaps even realistic, but as the film finishes there is a distinct chill there. It shouldn't be a criticism, especially as I hate a happy ending, but as a consequence, it's as if your router packs in - it does leave you disconnected....