|
Post by dave on Oct 3, 2010 12:47:38 GMT -5
Went last night and was pretty impressed, even though I thought it was gonna be completely stupid when I first heard about it.. Reznor's soundtrack is topnotch, the acting is pretty good and it's shot incredibly well. Overall, probably about an 8/10.
So who else has seen it?
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 4, 2010 0:48:35 GMT -5
solid movie. not visually astonishing, but great script, great acting, great music.
|
|
|
Post by mandate of heaven on Oct 4, 2010 1:30:21 GMT -5
Loved it.
|
|
|
Post by leoz maxwell jilliumz on Oct 4, 2010 1:54:25 GMT -5
lol zuckerberg comes off as such a piece of shit
great acting by jesse whatshisface.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 4, 2010 11:20:49 GMT -5
I kind of feel like he comes off a lot more sympathetic than, say, the twins.
really, the "good guy" in the movie is Eduardo Saverin.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 4, 2010 13:14:02 GMT -5
I've heard a lot about all the women in the movie being pretty ridiculous stereotypes of either the slutty bimbo or the giant bitch. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 4, 2010 13:31:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I keep hearing it's basically two hours of "girls are worthless sluts," so I'll be skipping it. No1curr how white boys get rich.
|
|
|
Post by katherinej on Oct 4, 2010 17:04:21 GMT -5
I've heard a lot about all the women in the movie being pretty ridiculous stereotypes of either the slutty bimbo or the giant bitch. Thoughts? I've heard a lot of this too. And aside from this being a movie about Facebook, it makes me really not want to see it. This is like, the 4th review with this sort of criticism that I've read in the last week or so. jezebel.com/5654633/the-social-network-where-women-never-have-ideas?skyline=true&s=i
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 5, 2010 10:17:06 GMT -5
actually, there are only three decent people in the whole movie. two are women (the initial girl that rejects Mark, and the young attourney he's talking to throughout the latter half of the film.), the other's a latino male. the patriarchal, moneygrubbing bastards are all painted exactly as such.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 5, 2010 11:11:02 GMT -5
To you, yeah, but I think for most people Mark Zuckerburg is still the hero.
I'm just glad Steven Colbert said something about the misogyny in the movie, lord knows no one would pay attention if it were just women talking about it so to have the King of the Liberal Dudes back it up is nice.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Oct 5, 2010 11:33:39 GMT -5
Unfortunately no matter how good people say this is, I will not be watching a film about facebook.
|
|
|
Post by katherinej on Oct 5, 2010 13:47:34 GMT -5
To you, yeah, but I think for most people Mark Zuckerburg is still the hero. I'm just glad Steven Colbert said something about the misogyny in the movie, lord knows no one would pay attention if it were just women talking about it so to have the King of the Liberal Dudes back it up is nice. This is exactly the problem with movies and shows that try to make a statement by portraying unequal relationships relationships between men and women without explicitly stating that they are inherently bad. Now, I haven't seen this movie, so I'll try not to project too much of what I feel on the subject on to it (something I frequently get myself in trouble with), but it seems like its basically the same problem that Mad Men had when it started. I can remember the number of Facebook groups and magazine/internet reviews that lauded Don Draper for the way that he drank and schmoozed and landed all these beautiful women without being held accountable for his actions at work or at home, and talked about how he was bringing "real masculinity" back to TV or whatever. And this is all despite the fact that giving Don's character a pass is like, the exact opposite of the point of the show. I think that sort of commentary goes over the heads of about 70% of the viewing audience, and when these characters are portayed as badasses or heros or whatever, I think a lot of people internalize the behavior they've seen as an appropriate way to act if they want to be seen as cool or sucessful. It takes thinking and familiarity with this subject to be able to parcel out why that sort of stuff is bad, and I think that a lot of people haven't been exposed to it, or aren't willing to put in the work that's necessary to be able to think critically about that type of subject matter. And from what I saw in the Colbert interview, Aaron Sorkin still doesn't seem to quite "get it" in terms of why people are angry about the portrayal of women in this film. He admitted that there were two substantive woman characters, but then he went on to say that the other women were just "prizes" anyway, so it didn't really matter if they had any story or character development. Ummm...yeah, that still doesn't strike me as a satisfactory explanation. I don't know. If anyone else has read interviews where he explains more about this I'd be interested to read it. I love Colbert for that interview.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 5, 2010 15:22:33 GMT -5
I just feel like you're complaining that a movie which is meant to be dark and ugly is succeeding at being dark and ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Pillars of Aaron on Oct 5, 2010 15:29:16 GMT -5
"Re: The Social Network" a movie which is meant to be dark and ugly
|
|
|
Post by katherinej on Oct 5, 2010 15:35:37 GMT -5
I just feel like you're complaining that a movie which is meant to be dark and ugly is succeeding at being dark and ugly. And I feel like I'm making a pretty valid point about how people do not understand the subtexts of how misogyny is used in popular storytelling and media, and how I think the creators of these movies, shows, whatever have a responsibility to explain why they're using this tactic so that people are clear about the message. You apparently think the other aspects of this particular movie outweigh the negatives that people have been bringing up, or don't think that there is a need to explain anything further, and that's fine. You're entitled to that. Please don't just dismiss me as "complaining" about it being dark and ugly, or imply that I don't "get it". It implies that what I have to say on the subject is not credible. I am allowed to comment on the way that other women are portrayed in these circumstances because it affects public opinion on this issue. Casey pointed out that women are often excluded from this type of public discussion already, it doesn't need to happen here. I will reserve any further comment on this until after I've seen the movie and not just read reviews. I was trying to refer to a trend that I've also noticed in other movies and TV shows.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Oct 5, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Well said, Katherine. I've noticed the Mad Men thing too. A lot of men are idolizing Don Draper as some kind of paragon of masculinity without looking at the deeper subtext, and it's disturbing.
Disclaimer: I do want to be kind of like Draper, but only because I want to be able to drink scotch at work.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Oct 5, 2010 15:58:49 GMT -5
Colbert sorta let Sorkin off the hook by going on that sing-song tangent.
It was a rather impressive tangent, though.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 5, 2010 18:31:23 GMT -5
the characters of Mad Men are bags of shit. I thought that was understood...
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 5, 2010 18:33:23 GMT -5
I just feel like you're complaining that a movie which is meant to be dark and ugly is succeeding at being dark and ugly. And I feel like I'm making a pretty valid point about how people do not understand the subtexts of how misogyny is used in popular storytelling and media, and how I think the creators of these movies, shows, whatever have a responsibility to explain why they're using this tactic so that people are clear about the message. You apparently think the other aspects of this particular movie outweigh the negatives that people have been bringing up, or don't think that there is a need to explain anything further, and that's fine. You're entitled to that. Please don't just dismiss me as "complaining" about it being dark and ugly, or imply that I don't "get it". It implies that what I have to say on the subject is not credible. I am allowed to comment on the way that other women are portrayed in these circumstances because it affects public opinion on this issue. Casey pointed out that women are often excluded from this type of public discussion already, it doesn't need to happen here. I will reserve any further comment on this until after I've seen the movie and not just read reviews. I was trying to refer to a trend that I've also noticed in other movies and TV shows. Fuck yes, holy shit. I mean, I think we get that the movie is supposed to be dark and gross, but you can't expect us to be into something that shows how awful these establishments are and then doesn't offer any insight into what's wrong. As if the critiques are just like, our opinions man. The critique isn't there because the people making these movies have no fucking clue what there is to critique, which I probably wouldn't say about Mad Men because I learned recently that something like 7 out of the 9 writers are women, so they know what's going on with their show. And I think Mad Men offers more critique in the actual show than moves like this one do, but I've only seen up to season two. It's far from perfect and it relies on the viewer too much to dig deep into the race/class/gender issues brought up but it's better than most.
|
|
|
Post by Gabtron on Oct 5, 2010 19:01:25 GMT -5
I liked the movie, even though the way they portrayed most of the women did annoy me greatly. However, I still thought it was a good film regardless of that. But y'all are bringing up really good points. I wish I could comment more on those issues, but I kinda just wanted to add my "review" of it.. which was barely even that. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by leoz maxwell jilliumz on Oct 5, 2010 19:57:30 GMT -5
the characters of Mad Men are bags of shit. I thought that was understood... this is the no. 1 thing about Mad Men and a lot of people who watch the show are educated enough to know this. Like Katherine said, the problem of airing a show like Mad Men is that some people who don't understand the context (illiterate viewers, we call them) idolize the wrong people. Not that many people are illiterate viewers, though. And as the series comes to a close, you'll see less of those people as Don starts destroying everything he loves (that'll be the series' ending arc, unless he turns it around). The stupidest shit in the world is people who see a character like Skyler on Breaking Bad and call her a cunt. Seriously? She's a strong woman who doesn't take bullshit from her husband or son. That's not a cunt, that's a good human being. As for Social Network, I understand the complaint. To play devil's advocate, Nick has a point, most of the people are just bad people. it's a character drama that involves mostly men and how facebook started from a site that allowed viewers to rank women at Harvard's campus. At what point do you draw the line on reality and fiction? On top of that, the guys' relationships with women define their flaws. Mark has complex feelings toward women he never investigates and he still hasn't gotten over his ex from years earlier; Sean is a piece of shit user beginning to end; Eduardo, who's the only decent person, receives abuse from his girlfriend and his best friend. In fact, their relationship to women is the exposure of their flaws. And no, Mark is a huge piece of shit, completely unsympathetic and unbearably smug. He creates facebook to become cool. He completely discounts other peoples' emotions. He has one real friend in this world and after undermining him for months, he cuts 'Uardo out. The ending scene is of him trying to "friend" the one girl who actually liked him, like some retarded "Rosebud." I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that walked out of that movie thinking Mark was a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 5, 2010 20:09:30 GMT -5
he's relatable on the level of trying to maybe treat her less like shit, but that is it. and when i said I felt less sympathy for the Winklevosses, that only speaks to what bastards they are, that they make out worse as people than Mark.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 5, 2010 20:19:02 GMT -5
At what point do you draw the line on reality and fiction? I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that the character of Mark's long time Asian girlfriend was replaced with two Asian girls whose purposes are just to do him and his friends. So really, it makes it seem like they went out of their way to make the women even more stereotypically bimbo-ish than was necessary. And nobody gains from the whole thing but Zuckerburg and everyone else that gets rich. So why would a girl want to see a movie that leaves them feeling objectified and used? So what if all the guys look like douchebags. That doesn't really make anyone feel better.
|
|
|
Post by katherinej on Oct 5, 2010 22:01:55 GMT -5
the characters of Mad Men are bags of shit. I thought that was understood... this is the no. 1 thing about Mad Men and a lot of people who watch the show are educated enough to know this. Like Katherine said, the problem of airing a show like Mad Men is that some people who don't understand the context (illiterate viewers, we call them) idolize the wrong people. Not that many people are illiterate viewers, though. And as the series comes to a close, you'll see less of those people as Don starts destroying everything he loves (that'll be the series' ending arc, unless he turns it around). Not to turn this into a Mad Men thread, but I will add that I think the writers realized how their show was being misunderstood and made a conscious effort to give more context to what they were airing, and show more repercussions for the character's actions as the seasons went on. The characters on that show are all very complex, multi-faceted people and I think that explanations for the mindset that they subscribe to are found in that, and also in the period in which the show was set. I do think that it got better at providing context between the first and second seasons (Or even just between the beginning and ending of the first season). From what I read in that Jezebel review it seems that in the film, they took quite a few artistic liberties with the sort of personal relationships that took place between the real people involved in the founding of Facebook like Tanya stated(presumably to make it more...dramatic? Sexy? Marketable? I don't know). That, I think, is part of what lead to the upset about the film, not necessarily whether or not everyone involved in the real events were saints.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 5, 2010 22:13:32 GMT -5
Yeah I mean it's not like I don't see the merits in showing real life how it is. If a guy is a sexist douchebag and they make a movie about him, portray him as such. But why make up new characters just to make it even worse? And a lot of positive reviews are calling it a movie that defines our generation and all this stuff like that. Is that my generation? Girls who do nothing but sleep with men in power and men who treat them like they're worthless if they're not putting out? I should hope not.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 5, 2010 22:44:12 GMT -5
(presumably to make it more...dramatic? Sexy? Marketable? I don't know) It's exactly this. It all seems to be added in just for drama. The majority of people would, for example, rather see the scene with Eduardo's girlfriend lighting the trash can on fire than an accurate depiction of Mark and Eduardo's love lives because it's probably infinitely more dramatic and entertaining. I'm certainly not going to defend how they portrayed the female characters through most of the movie, though, and I really don't see how anyone could try to justify it. Unfortunately no matter how good people say this is, I will not be watching a film about facebook. This is how I originally felt, but it's really not about Facebook at all, it's about how greed and power corrupt and just fuck everything up. And no, Mark is a huge piece of shit, completely unsympathetic and unbearably smug. He creates facebook to become cool. He completely discounts other peoples' emotions. He has one real friend in this world and after undermining him for months, he cuts 'Uardo out. The ending scene is of him trying to "friend" the one girl who actually liked him, like some retarded "Rosebud." I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that walked out of that movie thinking Mark was a hero.I agree with pretty much all of your post, but this part is especially true. Sidenote: Was anyone else annoyed by the last scene where he was clicking in the middle of the screen and it was refreshing? They didn't even make an attempt to put the cursor on the refresh button or make it seem like he was hitting F5. Not like it's a huge plothole or anything, but it just annoyed the shit out of me. Sidenote 2: I hope this post made sense. Also, I love Stephen Colbert, goddamn.
|
|
|
Post by kiltmaker on Oct 6, 2010 14:04:13 GMT -5
Unfortunately no matter how good people say this is, I will not be watching a film about facebook.
|
|
silas
Fail Whale
Whack-A-Trope
Posts: 9
|
Post by silas on Oct 8, 2010 0:30:48 GMT -5
The quality (and salience) of analysis in this thread reeks as if some of you just finished a freshman course on feminist theory and are now playing "whack-a-trope" wherever you can.
Context matters, as does picking your battles. Otherwise you're working against your own interests. You're never going to reach those "illiterate viewers" who misread Mad Men and live by Jersey Shore or whatever other objectifying media are out there.
Crying about female portrayal in The Social Network, especially since it can be cogently argued that there's a point to that portrayal, hardly seems constructive. I suppose we can always focus on the paternal patronizing going on in the Lion King... or Toy Story... or Wall E...
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Oct 8, 2010 0:34:13 GMT -5
Oh, I hope you post more.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 8, 2010 0:38:51 GMT -5
I wish I could change his user title but Tanya stripped me of my powers The ban button is tempting, but I think having a new mansplainer around will be kind of funny for a while.
|
|