Newly minted Oscar nominee James Franco caused a bit of a ripple in the blogosphere the other day by casually slighting “The Social Network” — claiming the film fails to deal with the communication revolution that (to his mind) it’s supposed to be about, and further suggesting that its approach is too “classical” (read: conservative) for the subject.
Naturally, given that he’s the star of one of the film’s Best Picture rivals, he couldn’t resist drawing comparisons to his own baby, declaring “127 Hours” both “perfect” and “the most innovative movie this year.”
I’d take issue with both halves of Franco’s argument — as much as I (and I suspect Franco too) would like David Fincher’s film to focus on the politics of social networking itself, that isn’t its intent. Neither am I convinced that “127 Hours,” which uses familiar, even dated, formal flash to enliven its minimalist narrative, is as innovative as the actor claims it is.
Still, Francos’ understandable loyalty to his own film means his comments shouldn’t be taken too seriously, and while some have claimed that it’s inappropriate for an Oscar host to knock a leading contender, it represents no more severe a conflict of interests than hiring an inevitable nominee as host in the first place. Impartiality was taken off the table long ago.
More interesting, and more considered, are some recent comments on “The Social Network” from the star of yet another Best Picture nominee, “Inception”‘s Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Writing an open letter to critic Peter Travers on his blog, Gordon-Levitt expresses admiration for the “impeccable” film, but finds fault with the “story of a generation” claims that Travers (among many others) has made for it:
[O]n behalf of we who are inheriting a new earth connected by the Internet, I must raise my hand to say that while Mr. Fincher’s Facebook drama certainly nails a lot of today’s more ominous trends, this story only tells half of our tale … The Social Network sounds a pertinent alarm against some arguably unhealthy ways our culture is currently using new communication technology, but to say that this film defines a generation is to dismiss the sense of community, the shared empathy, and the collective beauty that our new connectivity has allowed us this past decade. This generation, my generation, we are reaching out to each other, communicating with one another, and creating a shared world in ways no prior generation could have.
The actor’s elegant argument ties in nicely with a discussion Kris, Anne and I had on a December episode of Oscar Talk, in which Kris also took against the idea that the film exists, or even wants to exist, as an articulation of the zeitgeist. When push comes to shove, after all, “The Social Network” is a hard character study of an abnormal, even dysfunctional, man — it’d be a mistake to read Jesse Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg as any kind of totem figure for his generation.
Gordon-Levitt’s argument is more supportive than Franco’s, but it’s still interesting that two young industry figures — each with their own horse in the current awards derby — have sought to question the weight being placed on a frontrunner’s shoulders. Now, what does Jennifer Lawrence think?
Check out the rest of Gordon-Levitt’s letter/essay here; Franco’s statements, meanwhile, are in the video below:
Comments
62 responses to “Young stars speak out on ‘The Social Network’”
David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin must be going crazy over all of this. They were just trying to make a film about success, isolation, and betrayal, and now people are drawing criticism for the film not exactly being what Fincher and Sorkin intended it to be? I admire Franco and Gordon-Levitt, but I can’t help but feel like they’re picking on the cast and crew behind the most critically successful film of the year.
People really need to take a step back and see what they have made the Social Network into. The film that defines this generation? Nada. Heaping such massive hyperbole on a film can very well snowball out of control, leaving people bewildered when the ice has evaporated away.
Was this what I was honestly thinking when I was watching Social Network, a reflection of my generation? No I saw a tale of friendship, betrayal and enterprise with the characters spouting witticisms constantly. Never did film as commentary on social media once enter my head.
Again, why are people going after the social network when they are competing against it? Why bother? Why levitt certainly is much mor elevel headed the only point in speaking against the film now is politics and I find that rather dirty myself
I doubt David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin are going crazy over anything. Their movie is still a hot topic of conversation — what more can they ask for?
To me this isn’t an issue at all solely because Social Network does not define a generation; and I truthfully don’t think that anyone involved with the movie had that goal. Fincher himself even strongly implied that it doesn’t.
It’s unfortunate that for the rest of my life, my proceeding thought to any mention of the movie will be followed by a feeling of contempt because nearly everyone has taken a good movie and given it so many characteristics that it not only doesn’t deserve, but in my opinion ones that were never even there. Sad.
I agree. Social Network has been so monstrously over-rated that henceforth many people who watch it for the first time will be left with a sour taste in their mouth.
I showed Social Network to half a dozen friends after the Oscar nominations. They were like “Best Film Of The Year? Yeah Righ”
I felt glad I hadn’t told them that it had won 67 Best Picture prizes out of 71 given out, that it had been declared the best film of the year by every major critic and every major publication and every major poll or list. And that it was probably the most widely and unanimously acclaimed film of the decade. Their reaction might have been much harsher if I had told them all this.
I think The Social Network very much defines a generation. It just happens to be the late boomers/early Xers that Fincher (b. 1962) and Sorkin (b. 1961) are a part of and it uses the contemporary story of the founding of Facebook as a smokescreen.
Fincher already went on the record that he wasn’t making some generation-defining film so this feels a bit like non-news. We’ve already heard it from the horse’s mouth.
Of course JGL likes the internet. He’s the king of internet fangirls.
I disagree with him that internet is a happy happy place anyway.
I just watched “The Social Network” again, on DVD. It’s still seems like a terrific movie to me, certainly the best I saw this year (that’s not saying much, as I live in the middle of nowhere and have access mostly to Hollywood blockbusters). It did not occur to me, when I saw the film in the theater, that the film was attempting to define a generation or expose the faults of one form of communication. This argument sort of reminds me of the discussion of “Reality Bites” back in the 1990s. Some argued that the film attempted to define Generation X, but in the end it’s just a very funny movie that happens also to be emotionally involving. The Gen X business become a non-issue rather quickly, and the movie still holds up well.
I’ve wondered, and maybe it’s something that Anne could answer, but was a film like Taxi Driver considered generational at the time? I find Social Network to be generational, but more so for the regard of one particular character that is very much present with people my age. Just as Taxi Driver may have represented a type of figure who was a product of his respective period.
I think Levitt is as wrong as he is right. Probably more so, because he choses to concentrate on the connectivity and totally ignores how the current social generation is the least likely to go outside and actually meet real people.
Given that JGL’S HitRecord thrives on his very argument, I’m sure it’s a question that’s been posed to him non-stop since Social Network’s release.
Graysmith: It’s not news, it’s perspective — and no one’s, not even the artist’s, is final.
“The Social Network” is one of my favorite movies of the past year, and I don’t think we should hold it against the movie in evaluating the film, and I do not.
But the idea that TSN really has the zeitgeist factor has been advanced frequently, and it should be subject to some assessment. I think Joseph Gordon Levitt’s is fine, but I agree that it would be great to hear what other young people both inside and out of the industry think of this question.
But Maxim, one can reasonably argue that but TSN doesn’t weigh both sides and come to that conclusion, it doesn’t consider that connectivity. The argument was in the context of the declaration that TSN defines a generation.
First to Gordon-Levitt’s point, all that theoretical hyperbole about how online social networking brings people together like never before and creates a larger sense of community has yet to materialize in my opinion. The only accomplishment that it has seemed to achieve is to bring about the realization of Andy Warhol’s prediction that in the future every will be famous for fifteen minutes. It has turned (or brought out a side of) many in my generation into narcissists completely focused only on the day-to-day happenings of their own lives.
Secondly, I disagree with you Guy that, “it’d be a mistake to read Jesse Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg as any kind of totem figure for his generation.” True, Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg is a very unique fellow who is not representative of the majority of his generation, but his motivations were very much inline with what motivates people of my generation. Everything the Zuckerberg of the film does is motivated by a desire for popularity and a desire to prove he was better than everyone else (“I’m the CEO, bitch”), and if that doesn’t define my generation, I don;t know what does. I agree Sorkin and Fincher weren’t attempting to define a generation, but by studying Zuckerbeg, they had no choice. They ran headlong into the Great Popularity Contest that is 21st Century America (and probably much of the rest of the world as well).
They come across like whining bitches who are complaining that the movie isn’t what they wanted it to be, which as was said long ago is a dreadful criticism. Fincher and Sorkin made the movie they wanted to make. Judge it on that basis alone or don’t bother.
I love Gordon Levitt but that comment is wank (though at least it is addressed at a critics rather stupid review rather than the filmmakers.)
As for Franco, it is definitely not appropriate to be comparing his movie to rivals.
“The argument was in the context of the declaration that TSN defines a generation.”
No, my argument in the context of how Gordon-Levitt’s critique is wrong because his belief that online communication brought people together has a huge hole of overlooking how much it keeps them apart.
In any case arguing with a fool like Travers is a waste of time anyway. Does anyone actually considers him an authority… on anything?
“Fincher already went on the record that he wasn’t making some generation-defining film so this feels a bit like non-news. We’ve already heard it from the horse’s mouth.”
This is defeatist. First, I do subscribe to the idea that a filmmaker’s take isn’t some virginal, pure “truth” to the film. I posted Fincher’s comments a few weeks ago because I thought it was some much-needed balance to a conversation that had, by any measure, become a bit forced (to be diplomatic).
Second, these comments, too, aren’t door-closers. I would argue the opposite. They’re door openers. And the conversation is worth having.
Often I sense that passionate movie-goers are quick to shut down a discussion and consider a thing what it is to them. But there’s much more to be taken from the overall discourse.
So, “non news” or not, it’s content worth considering.
Kris, your post about Fincher’s intentions while conceiving and making this film really opened up a new side of it for me.
Initially (and due to the Radiohead “Creep” trailer) I thought the work would be primarily attempting to define the concept of social networking.
It wasn’t, of course. And I was slightly underwhelmed and disappointed.
But with a fresh new look at it, the themes are richer when viewed in a different light. Sort of like watching a film on DVD and hooking up the commentary. Yields a new perspective every time.
For anyone who cares, Travers posted a response:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/an-open-letter-to-joseph-gordon-levitt-re-the-social-network-20110127
AdamL gets it exactly right. “Fincher and Sorkin made the movie they wanted to make. Judge it on that basis alone or don’t bother. Judge it on that basis alone or don’t bother.” Yes.
Even still, though, the film may not *define* a generation, but it absolutely encapsulates one, comments on it. I don’t understand how this can be argued. Franco and Gordon-Levitt (random much? Why is he writing a letter to Travers?) come off as smug here, quite frankly, and it doesn’t make me look upon them kindly.
Oops, repeated the last part of AdamL’s quote.
I just have to say one more thing, and that’s that Franco’s and Gordon-Levitt’s comments come off as whiny and tinged with desperation. Who the hell cares what they think? Why is this even news?
“AdamL gets it exactly right. “Fincher and Sorkin made the movie they wanted to make. Judge it on that basis alone or don’t bother. Judge it on that basis alone or don’t bother.” Yes.”
Sorry, I think this is ignorant. It has no place in a discussion about art. These aren’t absolutes.
If Francis Coppola told you he just wanted to make an exploitation film about the mafia, would you say, “Oh, got it, Frank,” and walk away?
Honestly…
And it’s almost like I’m arguing both sides. I’m not, really. But I’m arguing in favor of putting a sock in this elitist, closed-minded consideration of something that is inherently up for interpretation.
Anyway, I defer back to comment #21. No other way to say it, really. I don’t get why so many want things in black and white these days.
“Why is this even news?”
Who said it was news? Does it give you a feeling of power to so summarily dismiss an item because it doesn’t fit into your little box? Statements like this…I tell you…
Okay, fine. Either way though I think it is a film very much up to different interpretations and viewpoints, and that is why we’re talking about it so much. To say it absolutely *doesn’t* have something to say about the generation or our time is silly. Gordon-Levitt’s view is nice and optimistic, but he ignores the other side of it which “The Social Network” clearly wants to study, and by doing that is criticizing a movie for something it never intended.
I love the selective memory of the interwebs. First, The Social Network must win THE OSCAR because it is the defining film for a generation (repeat 20x till you believe it) and now The Social Network is not the defining film and the previous rhetoric that was beat to a pulp by many of the Oscar Pundits, online critics and fanboys should just be ignored because Sorkin and Fitcher were only making a movie about a simple boy with a simple dream?
Is that were we are right now? Just wanting to make sure.
Yeah, honestly we should never be surprised anymore when a frontrunner has its back turned on by the very people who initially praised it. ‘Tis the season, comes around once a year.
I think it’s a fair point they’re making. Surely, it’s never entirely fair to assume that a film is “supposed to be about” anything in particular, and the initial teaser trailer for ‘The Social Network’ (which, artful as it was, was made by someone at Sony Pictures I would guess, not Fincher) implied a more wide focus on the effects of facebook on everyday life.
And while the film itself turned out to be more of a proto-‘Citizen Kane’ character study, it wasn’t titled ‘Citizen Zuckerberg,’ was it?
And there are definite points of emphasis on isolation and the loss of privacy in the digital age- ‘farm animals,’ Sean Parker’s obsession with private detectives, the chicken… And the depositions take an unreasonable focus on mundane person details: would they really have deposed an ex-girlfriend of Zuckerberg’s on the night he made facemash, if that person actually existed? I doubt it. Or the scene where Eduardo mentions that he was using facebook to cheat in his art history class- how was that detail relevant to the case?
Clearly there’s a positive energy, out there somewhere, that represents the innovation and cultural revolution around what they’re creating- this is manifested in Zuckerberg’s initial excitement over the idea (‘I cant feel my legs.’ ‘I know- I’m excited about this too.’) and the late scene right before Parker gets busted when he’s ranting about the future (‘We lived on farms, and we’ve lived in cities, and now we’re going to live online!’). The problem is, this is right before Zuckerberg alienates everybody (and immediately after that line, Parker gets busted for cocaine possession).
So it’s definitely a theme, but explored only in terms of isolation- the only real sequence involving any action on facebook itself is the very end, refreshing the page over and over in that scene. Maybe we’d feel better about the connective power of the internet if Erica had hit ‘confirm’ before the credits rolled.
Sosgemini: That’s an unfair, and rather glib, dig to make on this site, given that Kris has been asking these questions of the film from the get-go.
There’s nothing about The Social Network that “defines a generation”. Absolutely nothing. A film is open to interpretation, but such a statement is just completely inaccurate and as such, Fincher, Gordon-Levitt, et al. are correct.
If anything, I find that it is a tale as old as time (to use some Disney-fication). Strip away the modern setting and the basics of it (power struggle, betrayal, so on) is practically Shakespearean. That’s what makes it great, not that it tangentially is about Facebook (which it really isn’t).
I called it non-news because this is the same discussion that’s been going on ever since it came out. Yes, that someone famous like Joseph Gordon-Levitt speaks up about it may make it news-worthy, but it doesn’t really touch upon anything new (the word from which “news” comes from, I believe).
Speaking English, I would distinguish between a criticism of the film per se versus praise for it.
” To say it absolutely *doesn’t* have something to say about the generation or our time is silly. Gordon-Levitt’s view is nice and optimistic, but he ignores the other side of it which “The Social Network” clearly wants to study, and by doing that is criticizing a movie for something it never intended.”
But, what about the following statements in the post? : “Mr. Fincher’s Facebook drama certainly nails a lot of today’s more ominous trends.. The Social Network sounds a pertinent alarm against some arguably unhealthy ways our culture is currently using new communication technology.”
And again, was he criticizing Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher for not taking that stuff on? “, I agree that the movie is impeccable, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I have nothing but praise and admiration for the folks who made it.”
Many can reasonably disagree with Leavitt’s Post, and Maxim isn’t entirely unfair in raising certain points. But I don’t think JGL was criticizing Sorkin and Fincher on the ground that their movie says nothing about our society today .
First of all, both these guys are like 30. Which means the facebook phenomenon happened a little after their time. Remember the first few years of facebook, it was only open to college students, which meant if you weren’t in college around 2004-2007, you probably missed the BIG craze. I can honestly say that for my graduating class (2010), facebook was absolutely a HUGE part of the college experience. The first thing that happened when you met someone new in a class is exchange names so you can facebook each other.
Second, the “film that defines a generation” thing came from a few critics who got a little too excited. Fincher said himself that it’s was never meant to blow the lid off anything. It’s kind of silly for people (who obviously have their own horse in the race) to criticize a film for a label that other people gave it.
Also, as far as that being the end of the line, I would refer you to discussions of the intentional fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy
Anna, I just finished college in December last year. There is a big complication to that point–“Facebook” was certainly a part of the college experience, but does the movie capture how or why? I saw it foremost as reimagining of the founding of facebook, with particular focus on these individuals.
I think TSN does bring up nods to that here and there, but it didn’t focus all that much on the users. There was the stuff on facemash and how people stampeded to it and Mark says, people want to see their friends. We don’t see a lot about people’s interaction on facebook, how they use it, or how that stuff differentiates us from say the class of 1998. The heart of the movie seemed to be in Mark’s rise and the price he payed to get there, not about how people all over the nation look up someone’s profile or friend them soon after they meet.
The criticism is due to the overwhelming praise by the critics. I still believe that The Social Network is the best picture of this year no matter how moved i am by the King’s Speech. But the praise, the sweeping winning, all of them by the critics are sometimes too much. So when we look back at the picture and read again the review by the critics (such as Peter Travers 4 star review), we can’t help but try to understand if it’s true.
Another fact is the discussions in the race–both commentaries and campaigning.
In Oscar Talk on Tuesday, Guy argued that recent victories have emphasized things of current importance. Scott Feinberg raised the issue of “importance” and relevance in Oscar Poker with Jeff Wells and Sasha Stone. One article online cited the “zeitgeist” factor in why TSN was well-positioned win (see film.com). Owen Gleiberman argued “The King’s Speech” won’t win in substantial part because “The Social Network” captures the zeitgeist. Finally, Scott Rubin argues that point in EW, “I’m very happy to have the movie that engages with the culture right here and now — a smart, contemporary, morally complicated look at a cultural phenomenon,” he says. “I’m a voter. Last year I had a better time at Avatar; I voted for The Hurt Locker. I thought it was the more important movie. I think people look at their ballot and they think, ‘What do I want to represent this year?’
At that point, it’s worth discussing this question.
James Franco must have forgotten about Buried. Ah, well.
Response from Peter Travers,
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/an-open-letter-to-joseph-gordon-levitt-re-the-social-network-20110127
The Social Network is not just tangentially about Facebook. Yes, it has many traditional Shakespearean themes, but from the very beginning the film lays out Zuckerberg’s motivation, which is getting the attention of the Final Clubs. Why? Because, like the invention that made him rich, Zuckerberg was motivated by status. He wanted to be cool and important. That’s why he was so desperate not too cash in too early. Facebook needed to stay cool.
And when you get down to it, Facebook more than anything is about status, which, to obviously oversimplify things is bit, is what the younger generation, my generation, cares about. Facebook is now, and even without purposeful intent, there is absolutely no way anyone could make a film about the invention of Facebook without delving into the zeitgeist of today’s generation. I’m sorry if that comes off as pretentious to some, but from my observation of many people my own age, I believe it is accurate.
Speaking English,
Gordon-Levitt wasn’t criticizing the film. He called it impeccable. He was, however, criticizing Peter Travers and other critics who basically made the film out to be something it never intended to be. Personally I think the film has a timeless story and themes, along the lines of the story and themes of Citizen Kane.
As far as Gordon-Levitt writing a letter to Travers, the two of them did a video interview right when Inception was coming out. They are apparently pretty good buddies.
I’m sorry, I just can’t really take James Franco seriously. Part of it might just be personal experience going to NYU when last year he would always make sure he was at the local Starbucks essentially so that people would come to look at him. And of course he took more classes at NYU than Columbia but he only would say he goes to Columbia on TV (like on his opening SNL monologue). Now he’s going on about all this ~refusal~ to skip class at Yale while a picture of him sleeping through an NYU lecture is circulating the internet as we speak Plus, let’s be real, it’s not like he got into any of these schools based on Academic merit alone. He got into those schools essentially because he was in Spider Man. And now he’s getting to direct literary classics…because he was in Spider Man (essentially?). Please. The man’s pretensions knows no bounds.
As far as the claims concerning The Social Network, I would agree that it could act as an effective allegory on some effects of this new globalized stage of world business, but a lot of it IS kind of “the more things change the more things stay the same” kind of thing, Aaron Sorkin has pretty much memorized a mantra about how much he did depend on classical sources of inspiration. It could have realistically taken place at any point in history. Part of why something like it would turn out to be so timeless.
I don’t know if this is “news”, but I care even less… I like that Kris & Co. made it possible for me to read these…
re: JGL’s thing… I think it’s kind of unfair to say that “TSN” fails to “define a generation”, since I don’t think that was the filmmakers’ intent. of course, I’m biased, since it was my favorite film of 2010, but still…
Needless to say, my fave film this year is “The Social Network,” and I find this post amusing because we have James Franco and Joseph Gordon Levitt, two actors I love and admire, sharing their opinions because I recall to mind what Jesse Eisenberg said about the film in an interview to promote the film’s DVD release:
“Movies don’t often have the kind of impact that this movie has had. But I think a lot of that has to do with the movie being a fun and accessible vehicle for other people to discuss Facebook and social networking. I think people have wanted to have that discussion, and this movie has allowed that to happen.”
This post just proves how much relevant this film is, regardless of whether we think it does define our generation or not.
the interview is here, for anyone who’s interested:
http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2011/01/11/jesse-eisenberg-on-the-social-network-as-dvd-streets-exclusive/
Patriotsfan, I’m mostly willing to second Guy Lodges’ argument that accuracy should not be a primary concern in evaluating these movies. But since you commented that it would be impossible to make a movie about facebook without delving into the zeitgeist. FWIW, Mark Z., himself, has singled out the motivations as something that struck him as inaccurate. Several reports indicate he wasn’t actually interested in them.
And again, the movie doesn’t really indicate rank and file users interested joining as a result of interest in status, or using it as a status symbol. At one point in the film, Marilyn asks Mark whether facemash got 2200 hits, and he answered 22k facemash hits. Does it really indicate status to do what that website entailed? Maybe, you could argue as such, that showed off status, but the movie Mark himself attributed to people wanting to be hooked into people they know. In real life, Mark Zuckerberg has talked about how people are more persuaded by endorsements with friends (advertising tie-ins related to interests and fb friends) than just ads. Hence, the importance of being tied into people who you’re at least marginally acquainted with. That’s not just a reflection of status or the pursuit of it. It’s briefly hit upon in lines, but doesn’t really feel like the core of the film.
Andre, I really loved “The Social Network”, and if I had to name a fave movie of the year, TSN would be it. I do not fault it for focusing on the founding of fb, and I find it compelling. That said, what should someone say if this zeitgeist things get repeated over and over again and they have doubts about it. Ignore it, because they love the movie? It seems one can love the film and opt not to hold anything against the makers on this score, but question this line of praise and ask questions about it.
I’m not really a huge fan of The Social Network, but I’m not sure that James Franco’s or Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s thoughts on it warrant a post like this, much as I respect the work of both of them.
so in hindsight, we all agree that the social network trailer was better than the social network film? great.
nice to see james franco speak out on this movie. honestly, its reign has been similar to a dictatorship, shoved down our throats and demanded to be great. 95 on metacritic really? smh.