I’ve been puzzled over the lavish praise heaped upon The Social Network, and as I held the DVD case in my hand today, I suddenly realized what the big deal was.
The front of the case is adorned with snippets from positive reviews of all kinds, including buzzwords like “Landmark” “Revolutionary” and “Mammoth” and thought to myself, “What other biopic has received this kind of attention?” Why Citizen Kane, of course! I called up Brian all in a fluster and shared my revelation with him.
“Check it out! It’s a biopic, told in a retrospective fashion about a ruthless businessman who alienates all those around him in the pursuit of something he can never recapture. The movie ends with him sitting at his computer refreshing Facebook, waiting for a response to a friend request – a guy with all the “friends” in the world and all he wants is the one he blew off at the beginning of the film.”
“Wow Steve!” said Brian. “Truly yours is an astute intellect unparralled in this world. I’m so lucky to know you. Would you like some of my milkshake?”
Well, the second part didn’t happen, but I did have that wicked brain jolt which we’ll be following up on this weekend’s show when we review the impending release of The Social Network on DVD.
Loading ...
How thin is the air in Victoria?
THE SOCIAL NETWORK is much more like a new WALL STREET than it is a new CITIZEN KANE.
You’re kidding, right? Too much choking down the smog in the T-dot. From the retrospective way the story is told, to the one mysterious piece of the puzzle that might have explained all of Mark’s behaviour – it’s the CK, baby! Not as textbook an adaptation as Velvet Goldmine, but still follows the structure. Wall Street? The character relationships don’t even come close. Sure, there’s the greed factor, but Mark Zuckerberg is Gordon Gecko? No way! Charlie Kane!
Except that Kane wanted something back that he was taken away from against his will…Mark lost Erica because he was a selfish twit who decided to take out his frustrations with Erica by posting ‘em online and objectifying every other woman on campus at the same time.
Given Mark’s nature, I’d say he had just about as much choice about driving Erica away as Charlie had in being sent off to live with Thatcher. Regret is a “surprise” theme in both Social Network and Citizen Kane and while the timeline is much shorter, Social Network portrays Mark as someone with trouble letting things go – his seemingly insignificant personal problems bubbling up into his business affairs.
Ironically, Citizen Kane was slammed when it first came out … and it got little press due to the clear Randalph Hearst parrallel… it only built up credability a few years after the release!
The Social Network has garnered a fair bit of praise and it seems quite possible that, in due course, it will become less ‘classic’…
I didn’t know that… and I would agree that Social Network won’t enjoy the same kind of longevity as CK. I can see it being played in a classroom, although not one related to filmmaking.
I’m not quite sure how to respond to this. Are you joking, Steve?
I am not joking. In fact, after just having finished watching it for a second time, I’m more convinced than ever about the parallels between the two films. I’ve got some great little bits to share about it, but you’ll have to wait until the show to hear them… (Now that’s showmanship!) But if you’re asking if I think they are equal in merit as the title would indicate, I thought I’d use tabloid style journalism to get some attention. (More showmanship!)
Yeah, I don’t mean to be a dick, but the reason I asked is because that’s been the one film it’s been compared to since day 1. Like coming to a revelation that the sky is, in fact, blue. Had you not heard that comparison before?
Not once. And considering how clever Brian had said my observation was (what he actually said), neither had he. Makes me wish for a sarcasm emoticon, which might have tipped me off on Hatter’s comments I suppose too. Well, that takes me down a peg. This is what I get for not watching a “Mammoth” film until 3 weeks ago.
That was part of the reason I got my back up…it got me grumpy when I heard it back in October, and I couldn’t believe that Steve was repeating it.
(Plus I still think it’s a stretch of a comparison)
I totally shunned the film when it was released, didn’t read anything about it, hoping to just wish it out of existence. The love it was getting just seemed to me to be like “Hey, I totally love Facebook, and here’s a movie that gives credence to my obsession.” For older, fartier critics, it also gave them a chance to prove they were still current, or possibly a chance to make light of how out of touch with current trends they were.
Well, the fact that you’re still nay-saying has at least convinced me to still talk about it on the show today. Gonna make the best darn case for it I can, you know to prove that I’m still current and all. So cheers for that!
I’m not even on Facebook, but I was really interested to see it – if only because everyone was raving about it. I don’t know, I guess I just figured that David Fincher would give us more than “Facebook: The Movie”.
I don’t know if I wrote this down anywhere before, but the first time I watched the film I got so bored at one point I was actually on Facebook rather than watching the movie about it being founded. Fincher’s star is on the wane – he needs a different kind of challenge, something less austere than Panic Room, Zodiac or Social Network.
I wonder how many of the people using the “Citizen Kane” analogy have actually seen the film. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never had a chance to see Citizen Kane, but I’ve found there are a lot more of us than you might expect.
Citizen Kane is like a rite of passage for movie people, like ritual circumcision, and I think a lot more people have seen it that didn’t want to, than say they’ve seen it and really haven’t. I’ve watched it twice myself – both times for school credit.
Steve, you’re still wrong, but you’ve inspired me. Keep your eye on The matinee over the next week or so for a post once and for all comparing CITIZEN KANE and THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
PS – There’s a lot to love in ZODIAC. I triple-dog-dare you to watch it again.
Well, the point I really wanted to make was that the conspicuous amount of praise being lavished upon the film could be explained by the structure it shares with Citizen Kane, even if critics were only perceiving the similarity on a merely subconscious level – something drilled into them at the film schools the critics all dropped out of. But I’m game, Hatter.
As for Zodiac, I was more fascinated with the story than I was with the film – if that makes any sense. It doesn’t strike me as the kind of movie you’d watch more than once, but I might give it a try.
Not sure I see that much of a similarity in terms of structure. I think the reason that critics (and let’s be honest, much of the film-going collective) were losing their minds is because it feels very much like a film “of the moment”. But I digress.
Do watch ZODIAC again – there are a lot of great filmmaking elements in play that come across beautifully during second and third watchings. Might find that you like it more than you thought!
PS – Got through re-watching ‘Social’ and 1/3 of the way through ‘Kane’ for my post. I’ll grant you one spot where they are similar: the scripts for both are fast and loaded. Surprised I didn’t burn out the pause and rewind buttons on my blu-ray player.
Nothing from the retrospective structure of the story? Nor from him all alone with his precious, precious Facebook at the end of the film? The cramminess of the script is what kept me from wanting to see it, Sorkin can create some really frenetic dialogue and I’m getting to be an old man that can’t keep up anymore… With that in mind, and how the public pooh-poohed two of Sorkin’s TV projects (well, West Wing lasted for a while, but it fell off quickly) I couldn’t explain people flocking to a film so clearly emblazoned with his signature. There had to be something more than the subject matter to get people so excited about it… what could it be?
You know what my real problem with Zodiac was? No conclusive resolution to the plot. To make my way through the film and getting no sweet relief, only more questions… turns the film into “a bunch of stuff that happened” instead of a story. That’s just me.