Graeme Robertson on why The Social Network should have won Best Picture over The King’s Speech…
The Oscars celebrating the best of 2010 are, in my view, a classic case of the Academy getting it very wrong. While The King’s Speech is far from a terrible film (it’s alright but nothing special) I wouldn’t really go as far as to say it deserved to win Best Picture, with it just being a bit too much of a traditional crowd pleaser with a very strong whiff of Oscar bait about it.
Instead, my pick for the winner of Best Picture of 2010 should have gone to the far superior albeit less crowd-pleasing biopic The Social Network, a dark and rather unpleasant tale about the cutthroat battle behind the creation of that giant social media monster whose tentacles have invaded all our lives; Facebook.
At Harvard University, Mark Zuckerberg sets about creating a website that will allow students to connect with and keep each other updated about the various goings on in their lives, with the site coming to be dubbed Facebook. As the site and Zuckerberg’s fortunes grow, he finds himself embroiled a legal war against rivals and former friends who seek to claim their credit in the creation of what has become a true social media giant.
The story about the founding of Facebook is a rather complicated business. A rather murky messy affair that is awash with rumours, allegations, legal wranglings, corporate manoeuvrings (and maybe some backstabbing) as well several boatloads of complex technical mumbo jumbo that a relative latecomer to social media (and idiot) like me can’t even begin to decipher.
However, in the skilled hands of Aaron Sorkin, this potentially boring tale of Harvard geeks and their bright idea is turned into a brutal fable of broken friendships and a legal war with lawsuits being tossed around like bombs. At the heart of the film though, is what I consider to be a cautionary tale of a brilliant but bitter man whose desperation to have the world to acknowledge how brilliant he leaves him, rather ironically for the man who invented Facebook, as the loneliest man in the room.
While the film largely consists of long scenes of dialogue between characters (often in the company of lawyers), with a Sorkin script that’s where the real gold lies. The various monologues and arguments that fly back and forth between characters are a joy to behold and are written (and performed) with such sharpness and speed that you really have to sit up and take notice lest you miss any one of the script’s many beautiful (and often vicious) exchanges. It’s a simply exquisite script that I feel demonstrates why Sorkin is regarded as one of the best in the business and he more than earned his Oscar for writing it.
While on its own Sorkin’s’ script would be a brilliant piece of writing, it’s impact would not be as hard hitting if placed into the hands of a director who lacked the critical eye needed to tell such a story. Thankfully, calling the shots is David Fincher, a man who is quite possibly one of the greatest directors working today and one who, I think we can all agree, is way overdue for an Oscar or three.
Using his distinctive visual style that seems to emphasise the darkness of sets (almost as a way of mirroring his characters), Fincher directs the boardroom battles and legal battles with careful precision, coupled with some creative editing choices that give these moments the kind of pacing you might find in an action film. I especially like during the scenes focusing on the legal proceedings, the way the film cuts back and forth between the various “recollections” of the characters, jumping between what was said and what might have “actually” been said, with it never clear which “recollection” was true.
Click below to continue onto the second page…
