Could be interesting.

Well I did it, I went back to the cinema. The film? The Social Network, the story about the founding of Facebook. I didn’t really think much to this movie back when I saw the trailer a while ago, it didn’t seem too interesting. But I can confirm that I was so wrong. So painfully wrong. There… I said it.

It’s a good movie, mainly because the story is interesting more than anything else. Now, I went to see this movie because recently I read the book The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich, and I found it to be an amazing insight into some of their lives.

The story focuses on Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and those around him, namely his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Napster creator Sean Parker, and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. From what I can gather, Mezrich compiled the story using interviews he did with several sources, with his closest source being Eduardo Saverin. He states early on that he never spoke to Zuckerberg once, even though he persistently attempted to contact him.

So with that in mind you may have figured that this story may well end up slightly biased. But Mezrich does well to portray the facts in his own little way. It’s hard to tell how accurate he is being seeing as he produces a disclaimer before you even get to page one admitting that this story has mashed together some dialogue, moved locations and all sorts. He tries to sell the book as non-fiction, but as the reader you have to read this as if it were fiction. Because it is.

It’s just an interpretation of what happened. Some of the events are real, some are just fantasized. In his writing Mezrich delves into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. Something he obviously wouldn’t know about, with the exception of maybe Eduardo. He’s had no contact with his main character, Zuckerberg, so how does he feel he can accurately write a non-fictitious piece on him, delving into his character, things that he did and why he did them?

Likewise the movie, which is based on Mezrich’s book, is largely the same, with some subtle differences here and there to add some drama, and some changes which are done for unknown reasons. Things such as Zuckerberg’s business card reading ‘I’m CEO - Bitch’, according to the movie Sean Parker blurts out this handy tagline, according to Mezrich that was part of Zuckerberg’s sense of humour. Who’s right? Who knows? Could be neither really.

Oh yeah. Spoilers.

Some other changes in the movie include Eduardo not yet being in the prestigious Phoenix club when Facebook goes live. In the book he’s already in, and the film makes out that Mark takes advantage of Eduardo’s social stature. When in the book Eduardo offers to e-mail the website link to his Phoenix friends. The movie also makes out Mark could have set-up Eduardo in the student paper, telling them he fed fried chicken to a chicken. When the book, although it mentions the furore towards the beginning, doesn’t make a big deal of it at all. Zuckerberg did this apparently because he was obsessed with clubs and was jealous of Eduardo’s Phoenix membership, this ‘obsession’ isn’t in the book at all really. If anyone was obsessed it would’ve been Eduardo.

Mark Zuckerberg talks a heck of a lot in this movie. In the book he is a man of very few words. His catch-phrase “could be interesting” isn’t even said once in the whole movie, which I find completely bizarre. He is still awkward in the movie, but to a lesser extent, probably because it would have been a tough watch considering the movie is focussed on him.

So the movie does credit Zuckerberg with the creation of Facebook, even if it does try its utmost to make it look like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins (something the book doesn’t play up as much), and it credits Eduardo with the business side of the site. The company is split 70/30 at the beginning with Zuckerberg taking the bigger cut. All well and good but according to the book Eduardo does have some input towards the site’s features. The wall, for example, is credited to Eduardo in the book, yet Mark creates it in the film. I’m not really sure why it does this as surely it would have made the betrayal more hard-hitting knowing Eduardo did have input into the site.

Another moment in the movie that contradicts the book is the fact that Zuckerberg creates facemash.com because he was dumped by his girlfriend Erica. From what I remember he doesn’t necessarily get dumped but just rejected by some girl. The movie sets out this whole scheme that Facebook only exists because he was trying to get even with Erica. Even Sean Parker gets in on the act, talking about a girl he wanted at school, so he created Napster. Like you do. I don’t remember that in the book.

The book basically says Facebook ends up being invented because two guys wanted to get laid. The film on the other hand, makes out it’s all for revenge. Fair enough but they’re quite happy to keep the mild sex-scene part-way through, I wonder why.

Anyway, the general premise is based on the book. Which, in turn, is based on real events. So take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. The movie starts off with Zuckerberg getting himself dumped for being ‘an asshole’ so he runs off on his revenge mission to hack into all the schools’ face books, pasting female students photos up onto a comparative site called facemash.com, which becomes a huge four hour long hit. During all this we are introduced to Eduardo, and we just have to assume they are friends. Even though there is no explanation as to how they ended up as friends. Do they take the same class? Did they go to high school together? Did they take a trip to the moon with each other? No one knows. Unless you read the book of course which helpfully starts off with Eduardo at his first ‘punch’ evening at the Phoenix and later goes on to show how these two people of different backgrounds and social abilities end up as best friends.

This might seem a minor niggle, but it’s actually quite big in the grand scheme of things. The book shows their first meeting and builds up their relationship from scratch and shows how they develop and how ultimately they fall out. This is used to great effect. The film on the other hand loses that effect, firstly by not showing you how they met, and secondly by revealing fairly early on, with the use of non-linear storytelling, that Eduardo ends up suing Mark.

Obviously the movie is presuming you already know the story, or at least that Eduardo and the Winkelwoss twins sued Mark. To be fair it has been in the news, especially when the twins were in the boat race down in London a couple of years back. But I think it kind of ruins it a little. When reading the book I was wondering how it was all going to end up with Eduardo, as it was linear, and it was genuinely surprising reading what happened and how it happened. Incidentally the movie goes way over the top with the scene where Eduardo cruelly loses his shares in the company. Showing Eduardo smashing up Mark’s laptop and having a right old shout before Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake by the way, presents himself as a total pretentious arse rubbing it in Eduardo’s face and calling security. The book is a little more subtle, but subtlety doesn’t sell cinema tickets. At least not any more.

Speaking of Timberlake, I actually think he’s been cast quite well in this movie. He’s set out to portray a parasite. Latching on to Zuckerburg’s coat tails and riding along for a big cash-in. And he does it quite well. I think he played the character absolutely perfectly. His character is a bit more loathsome than he is in the book but, again, that’s to add to the movie’s drama. So even though I saw Timberlake’s inclusion in this movie and rolled my eyes, as really he’s in it to give ‘star’ factor to the otherwise no-stars movie, I do actually think he’s good in it. And no he doesn’t ‘like’ himself.

Other actors include Andrew Garfield (Eduardo), the next Spiderman in the upcoming reboots. He puts on a good performance, as does Jesse Eisenberg who captures Zuckerberg’s awkwardness brilliantly. There are some other familiar faces thrown in, Brenda Song has finally been cast in a movie that isn’t for kids, she’s the rich girl from The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and other shows sprinkled with canned laughter by Disney. She’s good, the movie didn’t really delve into her character too much though.

The director? David Fincher, of Se7en and Fight Club fame. He does a decent job directing this movie, I just wish he delved into the characters a little more. Zuckerberg, for example, is the main character in this movie, but do we learn a thing about his background? Only that he got perfect SAT scores and he made an app for mp3 players. A bit of a fail, and naturally this is the downfall for most the other characters too. Eduardo’s character is barely explored at all, it isn’t documented how he gets into the Phoenix, and we know barely anything of his past. Same for the Winklewoss twins, and Mark’s room-mates. Because of this it just takes the edge off the events that happen in the film. As you don’t really end up caring too much.

A lot of people are saying Zuckerberg comes out looking pretty awful in this movie. But I don’t really think that’s totally the case. Yes he screws over his best friend, but to be honest it looked more like Sean Parker was doing it, not him. The movie ends quite fittingly with Zuckerberg adding his ex Erica as a friend on Facebook. Which feels like a bit of a kop out. I’m not sure if they created the idea of the girlfriend at the start and said ‘let’s end it with them reconciling’ or they said ‘hey, I don’t have an ending to this, how’s about we just have him learn a lesson and make friends with a girlfriend that isn’t in the book, but that’s cool we can just add her to the start’. It just feels a bit tacked-on rather than integral.

Overall though this film is a good, dramatic watch. But it isn’t as powerful as the book. In this book vs. movie battle, the book wins. It’s more dramatic, more powerful, more in depth, and more exiting. The movie does a good job of portraying this interesting story, be it true, false, or a mixture of both. Also the book has a better title. The movie should keep the ‘The’ but drop the ‘Social Network’ and replace it with ‘Accidental Millionaires’. It’s just a better title and captures what the book is about, the accidental millionaires. That’s what they are: millionaires by mistake. The title ‘The Social Network’ suggests the film is about Facebook, when it isn’t, its about a couple of guys creating a website that ends up taking over the planet. I know why they’ve changed the title, to give it a broader appeal. But it doesn’t make it a change for the better.

I’d recommend this film to anyone. Especially a Facebooker. It’s interesting to know how one of the world’s most popular websites was born. Obviously I’d recommend the book over the film, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. It’s a solid three star movie and do you know what? I’m going to give it three and a half stars, because I think it deserves it. If you don't want to be bothered reading the book, go see the movie instead, it's a worthy alternative.

***

And if you’re wondering who the famous movie star the lawyer refers to is, it’s most likely Natalie Portman, Harvard graduate 2003.