On Critical Praise and The Social Network

I am going to start this by saying for the record that I am not a film critic, I have no aspirations as such, and I would be a horrible one because I am far too harsh and I hate everything. All of this said I would like to make a proclamation about my deep frustrations with the modern “prestige picture,” critical praise, and the realm of adaptation of both of texts and real life. I focus my attention on the nearly universally acclaimed The Social Network.

First, let me say that I did not hate this film, despite that fact that I am about to complain about it. It was a perfectly pleasant film, not bad but certainly not the film of the year or “the film for a generation.” Average, and better than most crap out, is my opinion. In case this isn’t apparent: THIS IS NOT A REVIEW.

My qualms are in the film’s praise: to label a great film as it has been, implies its importance of existence as “cinema” “art” etc and some sort of greater relevance to the medium in general. To elevate a film in this way is to imply its greater cinematic value. I mean this in a simple sense, probably best explained by looking at the development of auteur theory, elevating certain directors from popular classical Hollywood. (Hawks, maker of popular genre films, is an artist! etc).

So this is from where I read The Social Network. Actually, this is from where I read all Oscar-bate type films, or films that suddenly garner grand amounts praise the way that this film has. What is its greater cinematic value, how is it contributing to the arts? Why am I supposed to care more about this film over the random fair normally in theaters?

In order to examine and answer these questions in relation to The Social Network, we need to have a greater discussion of its genre, the “based on a real story film.” With this sort of film, where one can look up the story online and know all the facts of what happened, I always have to ask Why does this film need to exist? What is it offering the viewer outside of the facts? Or is it merely documenting, or mis-documenting, what happened with prettier looking people playing the roles? This kind of adaptation should exist to portray something greater than merely what happened. Cinema is greater than real life and the viewing experience should offer some of the qualities that make it the unique art form. Give me montage! Give me long takes! Sound, score, mise-en-scene. Enthrall me! Move past the reality of continuity, you are already portraying reality.

Now, I recognize that what I have just said is an idealized vision. And many films can, will, and should be without all of the qualities, as merely fact tellers. And that is perfectly fine…for the ordinary film, not for these critically prestigious films. They must move beyond enjoyable narrative value into a new realm.

And this is where my frustrations with The Social Network begin. Where has is the director? The qualities of past David Fincher are gone, in place or ordinary camera style, continuity, fast cuts, blah blah blah boring. Only one scene, I feel, retains a Fincher-esk quality. Twin brothers row in a competition, a stylized score playing in the background, quick cuts and the thrill of competition. It feels like a violent battle a la Fight Club on screen. Yet it is jarring when compared with the ordinary tone of the rest of the film, and only serves to highlight its weakness in what I have described as the idealized based "on a true story film." Shot-reverse-shot, let’s watch the characters talk…the story does all the talking and not the filmmaking.

The original subject matter then is the star of the show, not the film. The screenplay is also the one doing the talking, but it is not my intention to get into the success of failure of the screenplay in the circumstances of the film: how Sorkin made a story from fact and if it is good. That is the job of a critic. I want to highlight how the film can be whittled down to merely its bare bones story and a screenplay to determine if it is good. Then the critic is merely writing whether or not they liked the original subject matter, nothing more. Mark Zuckerberg creates facebook, screws over some people in the process. I asked myself watching, anyone could have film this: the name on the film should be Aaron Sorkin, for making some real events into a cohesive story, not David Fincher… or simpler the film should just proclaim itself to be a group of people acting out the invention of facebook. And while I can sit in the theater and not be angry watching the results of these efforts and even be enjoying myself, when I see a unanimous praise for the film as “modern filmmaking at it’s finest” I can’t help but turn bitter.

My final question is this: is the standard for “great” films today for low because critics are willing to praise things undeserving? Films are made for money profit with the non-blockbuster type it relies favorable film reviews to garner interest (particularly films with not many a-list stars). Grand idea: what if critics were harsher, would that garner more interest in making better films, more experimentation etc? I site my beloved New Wavers for example: pre-new wave Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol etc ragged on how bad the system was and how much crap there was, only to reinvent everything. Critics I know you’ve all seen The Rules of the Game, how can you place praise on mediocrity knowing that there is such perfect possible within the medium. Cinema is a remarkable medium and it deserves to offer viewers so much more. I am not sure if this is a criticism of the critics for dulling out such praise or the filmmakers for offering merely this mediocrity. But both should know better.

-M