Brief Thoughts on The Social Network

Note, all commentary about individuals is about the fictionalized representations from the movie. I have no personal knowledge of any individual portrayed in the film.

From the point that I first heard that a movie was being made about the creation of Facebook, I was immensely skeptical. It didn't matter that it was written by Aaron Sorkin, perhaps the only person left in Hollywood who can successfully recapture the fast-talking magic of the '40's. It didn't matter that it was directed by David Fincher, the man behind Fight Club and other amazing movies. There was no way that a movie about something as inane and torn-from-the-headlines as Facebook could be good.

Well, it's a good thing that this isn't a movie about Facebook, then. I strongly agree with Linda Holmes over at NPR's fantastic pop culture blog Monkey See that it also isn't allegory about the changing face of social interactions, which is something old-timers will know all-too-well that I've written about before.

This also isn't a movie about how Facebook was somehow "stolen". I think it's interesting that the story is told through two different sets of litigation. The case being brought against him by the "Winklevi", the case that is really about the origins if Facebook, is somewhat more ambiguous in terms of whether or not Zuckerberg is at fault. However, the twins are depicted as such utter d-bags that it's hard not to look at Zuckerberg at being at least somewhat a victim. Admittedly, I'm no fan of the frequent absurdities of IP law, but it seems that the only leg they have to stand on is the way Zuckerberg actively avoided them after agreeing to take on the project. The idea is far too broad for them to have legitimate claim over and there is no reason to suspect that somebody as smart as Zuckerberg had cause to use or even to look at their existing code-base.

What The Social Network is, then, is a story about the other legal suit, a story about the inevitable results of poor communication and self-absorbed-ness. I'm not certain if Mark realized the way Sean was working to marginalize and eventually force out Eduardo. I do know that Mark cared more about the success of this thing he was creating and that it be his creation than he did about properly including his friend, who he thought might limit him. Zuckerberg's willingness to keep information from Eduardo and his unwillingness to seriously consider Eduardo's non-monetary contributions ultimately created the rift that was used to drive Eduardo out of the company and fuel his law-suit, whether that was what Zuckerberg ever had in mind or not (and I'm in the camp that isn't sure he did). The good or bad of this is left to the individual, and while the emotional portrayal leans towards siding with Eduardo, you can't deny the fact that Mark had a better fundamental understanding of what Facebook needed to be.

All of this is compounded by the general strangeness of Mark Zuckerberg -- something that friends who have met him claim is absolutely true. This is a man with an excellent grasp of people as a group and of the social drives that motivate us, but who is nearly incapable of understanding individuals or at least or effectively communicating that understanding. His bluntness and his distractedness are shocking. He wants to do well by people, but he's unwilling to share himself with them, unwilling to let them have a say in his vision, and he can't see why they would resent that.

One of the people I went to see the movie with posed an interesting question as we were getting back to the house: How many times do you think Zuckerberg has sent Erica a friend request? How would he respond if she accepted?