The Social Network

Why Watching “The Social Network” is Just Like Watching a Car Accident in Slow Motion: coz it's fascinating, absolutely fascinating – but in an appalling, uncomfortable way that is nevertheless still morbidly fascinating.

What the movie says, or holds a mirror up to, about class, sexism, greed, celebrity worship (and here, like the movie, I use the term “celebrity” very loosely—almost as loosely as Sean Parker uses his morals), emotional intelligence (or lack thereof), Capitalism, American narcissism, and more is both refreshing and appalling.

And the good news is, if all of the above ills aren’t in your country already, don’t worry they’re soon to be exported to you at no charge (well, technically no charge).

While the movie is also refreshingly smart, luckily for us, the mainstream media just boils it down to a simple Facebook App: Mark Zuckerman – Good or Bad? Frankly, I’m surprised this movie is doing as well as it is—I know for many people it’s simply the “zoo” factor of wanting to see how this guy made/stole Facebook.

But the movie is also very smart, with multiple layers of “truth,” fascinating character studies, intensive & intelligent dialogue/word play (two words for you, SueLin, if you haven’t seen it yet: Aaron Sorkin), a sometimes hard-to-follow structure, etc. Frankly, I’m just surprised so many people (insert Facebook thumbs up graphic here) it.

I think one of the best things the movie did was help illustrate the difference between “book smarts” and “emotional smarts” – Mark Zuckerman is obviously very, very smart in terms of “book learnin’ type smarts.” But, my god, if there’s any person alive and not medicated or institutionalized with less “emotional smarts” I’d be scared to meet them.

And while, in the end, I do “agree” that Mark Zuckerman is an asshole, I also believe – like a typical liberal – that it’s understandable how/why he does the things he does. Does that “excuse” him from being held accountable when he does “bad” things? Of course not. And, in the end, as everyone knows, he paid a price for his arrogance—what amounts to, in Capitalist America, a fine for being an asshole. Case closed.

As for whether or not he “stole” Facebook from the Winkelvoss Twins….I’m sorry, let me pause right here. The Winkelvoss Twins! See? It’s names/characters like these that illustrate how “real life” is still more fascinating than that artificially constructed crap called “Reality TV.”

Another aside: great line from Aaron Sorkin when discussing the movie with Stephen Colbert. He said something to the effect of “Facebook is to real social interaction as reality TV is to reality.”

Anyway, back to the Winkelvoss Twins. One of the best lines in the movie is when Zuckerberg is talking to someone about whether or not he “stole” Facebook from the Winkelvoss Twins (I just love saying those two words in my mind – Winkelvoss Twins. I guess it helps that they’re attractive, God Bless America!), and he says "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

IMHO, it’s pretty obvious what happened: This brilliant kid (and he was just a kid!) took a good idea, blew it up and made it his own , fell in with a bad crowd (Sean Parker of Napster notoriety) and screwed some people over – including his only real friend apparently and made enough money to pay off the people he stepped on along the way. Well, boo hoo if you don’t like it, that’s America, baby! That’s how we roll, bitches! And if you don’t like it, you can go live in Communist China! So there!

Besides, I don’t know who said it, but there are few original thoughts these days. For instance, all “edumicated” folks these days know that the Wright brothers didn’t “invent” airplanes or flying – nor were they even the first to do either. But it’s the American way to accept the version provided by whomever puts together the best marketing job early on – for the gold standard in this type of ability see Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus (the scales fell from his eyes in the sound of “ka-ching!”).

Which brings us to the ongoing conflict in America between its role as not only the flagbearer for Capitalism but also the flagbearer for religious zealotry—and not just Christianity. While some religions (e.g., Scientology) actually embrace filthy lucre, most of them—ostensibly—have historically condemned money—or, at the very least, an unhealthy obsession with it. Particularly Christianity.

And yet here we are, the greediest populace on the planet and yet also the most heavily self-identified moralistic populace on the planet. But that’s a whole other subject that even “The Social Network” wasn’t able to address.