Last weekend I went to see the Facebook movie, otherwise known as The Social Network. As I generally do with most overly-hyped movies, I didn't read any reviews first. The combination of Aaron Sorkin's screenwriting and David Fincher's directing was enough to draw my interest.
I am almost exactly the same age as Mark Zuckerberg and remember when Facebook first swept my own college campus. Membership spread like the bubonic plague. There was no trend to rival it and I doubt there will be for generations. The impact of the emergence of Facebook on our generation and now everyone in the world with internet access can hardly be over stated. What began as crazy fun in college has now infiltrated our lives to the point that some companies direct you to facebook.com/companyname instead of their own corporate website, but the profitization and deeper social implications of Facebook should be saved for another post.
One thing I've heard fairly consistently from people around me is "I don't want to watch a movie about a website." The thing is, The Social Network isn't a movie about a website, it's a movie about the formation of a corporation and intellectual property rights, and above all human nature. We already know that Sorkin took plenty of liberties when creating the fictional Mark Zuckerberg and the supporting cast of money/status hungry youth. What's not so important is whether or not the conversations we saw on screen actually happened as portrayed. After all, I doubt most of us speak as cleverly as Sorkin writes. What's important about the movie is the questions it forces us to ask about the role of technology in our lives, the role of venture capital in realizing dreams and loyalty.
The film opens with a less than flattering portrayal of Mark in the midst of a breakup with girlfriend. He is condescending and glib, discussing his desire to gain membership to one of Harvard's eight Final Clubs. What's remarkable about the portrayal of Zuckerberg in this scene is not that he looks like a jerk, after all, don't people generally show the worst sides of themselves during breakups? What's remarkable is the way that he articulates his goals and the reasoning behind them. He wants to be in the Clubs to gain status and because this acceptance will "lead to a better life." Zuckerberg is so analytical about it, almost as if he realizes that it is normal as a human being to want to gain social acceptance and even though he wants to be in the club strictly for status, he should want to be in it for other reasons also.
After being dumped by his girlfriend, we see Zuckerberg spiral into a minor meltdown. Dealing with his emotions the only way he can: on the internet. This is where it becomes clear that it is not ambition that is the driving personality trait in this character, but hubris. Over the following months his interactions with the Winkelvoss twins and Eduardo Saverin lead to the establishment of what was then The Facebook. Saverin is portrayed in a favorable light, which one assumes might have something to do with his willingness to cooperate with the writers of both the book The Accidental Billionaires and the screenplay. He is certainly prominent, but it does not seem to be overkill. I would argue that without Saverin's early infusion of capital, the Facebook may never have come to fruition at all.
This is where one of the great quandaries of entrepreneurship comes in. Who is the rightful inventor of something: the person who has the idea or the one with the wherewithal to realize it? This is where the invention of Facebook gets messy. It is a well-loved American myth to credit a single person with the invention of such a now-established part of life, but it is an undeniable fact that without adequate funding, even the greatest idea can fall by the wayside. Without Eduardo Saverin's early infusion of funding the website may have never gotten off the ground. That said, capital is relatively common when compared to the scarcity of original ideas. Who is to say that if Saverin hadn't backed the site there wouldn't have been another Harvard undergrad with access to funding that would?
Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. Regardless of the merits of his invention it is undeniable that Facebook has changed the way we interact with one another and our communities, both tangible and virtual. Sorkin and Fincher have fictionalized this true story into a movie that is smarter than smart and incredibly entertaining. Let the well-deserved Oscar buzz begin!
One thing I've heard fairly consistently from people around me is "I don't want to watch a movie about a website." The thing is, The Social Network isn't a movie about a website, it's a movie about the formation of a corporation and intellectual property rights, and above all human nature. We already know that Sorkin took plenty of liberties when creating the fictional Mark Zuckerberg and the supporting cast of money/status hungry youth. What's not so important is whether or not the conversations we saw on screen actually happened as portrayed. After all, I doubt most of us speak as cleverly as Sorkin writes. What's important about the movie is the questions it forces us to ask about the role of technology in our lives, the role of venture capital in realizing dreams and loyalty.
The film opens with a less than flattering portrayal of Mark in the midst of a breakup with girlfriend. He is condescending and glib, discussing his desire to gain membership to one of Harvard's eight Final Clubs. What's remarkable about the portrayal of Zuckerberg in this scene is not that he looks like a jerk, after all, don't people generally show the worst sides of themselves during breakups? What's remarkable is the way that he articulates his goals and the reasoning behind them. He wants to be in the Clubs to gain status and because this acceptance will "lead to a better life." Zuckerberg is so analytical about it, almost as if he realizes that it is normal as a human being to want to gain social acceptance and even though he wants to be in the club strictly for status, he should want to be in it for other reasons also.
After being dumped by his girlfriend, we see Zuckerberg spiral into a minor meltdown. Dealing with his emotions the only way he can: on the internet. This is where it becomes clear that it is not ambition that is the driving personality trait in this character, but hubris. Over the following months his interactions with the Winkelvoss twins and Eduardo Saverin lead to the establishment of what was then The Facebook. Saverin is portrayed in a favorable light, which one assumes might have something to do with his willingness to cooperate with the writers of both the book The Accidental Billionaires and the screenplay. He is certainly prominent, but it does not seem to be overkill. I would argue that without Saverin's early infusion of capital, the Facebook may never have come to fruition at all.
This is where one of the great quandaries of entrepreneurship comes in. Who is the rightful inventor of something: the person who has the idea or the one with the wherewithal to realize it? This is where the invention of Facebook gets messy. It is a well-loved American myth to credit a single person with the invention of such a now-established part of life, but it is an undeniable fact that without adequate funding, even the greatest idea can fall by the wayside. Without Eduardo Saverin's early infusion of funding the website may have never gotten off the ground. That said, capital is relatively common when compared to the scarcity of original ideas. Who is to say that if Saverin hadn't backed the site there wouldn't have been another Harvard undergrad with access to funding that would?
Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. Regardless of the merits of his invention it is undeniable that Facebook has changed the way we interact with one another and our communities, both tangible and virtual. Sorkin and Fincher have fictionalized this true story into a movie that is smarter than smart and incredibly entertaining. Let the well-deserved Oscar buzz begin!
Posts
