When you picture a villain in your mind, I guess the most convenient way is to think up a hideous face, and put the many undesirable qualities in your opinion behind that face, so he would speak the same awful languages you've come to be familiar with. I wouldn't be surprised if the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in this movie was come up in this fashion.
With 95/100 on Metacritic, 3 Oscars and so much hype, The Social Network can be called a monumental success in Hollywood. David Fintcher may have again proved that he is not only a storytelling master, but also a mastermind of medias, as evidenced by the convoluted nature of the Social Network project, and the explosive media coverages after-wards. I believe this movie will be discussed, analyzed and staying in its controversial status for the next decade. I, for one, am totally compelled to find out about the real Zuckerberg. However, such interests only garnered me more curiosity in digging deeper about him. After all, the aftertaste of watching a big screen villainous main protagonist is strong, especially if such a figure feels like your unfriendly neighbor who is in possession of similar, uh, admirable qualities.
Liked I said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real-life Zuckerberg is quite friendly, and easy to get along with. However, the real issue here, is how I should live with the fact that, as a fellow geek/nerd, would what Zuckerberg wants to say be similar to what I want to say? Having been following the discussion board here, I cannot help but notice that people are generally offended and raging out against Mr. Z portrayed in this movie, pulling no punches in calling him "douche-bag" "self-absorbed" and so on. Some also said he's probably autistic and even aspergers. Moreover, some went on to say that being autistic doesn't justify what Mr.Z has done in the movie, which I totally agree. But still, under all these fancy terms, these extravagant wrappings, what would Zuckerberg feel? Is he really comfortable with being a modern day Butch Cassidy, aka a role model for renegades and rebels?
Thus I remembered a time where all people felt compelled to justify themselves to their subjects. The rich wished to justify his wealth either by appearances of hard-working or good heritage; the religious would wish to justify themselves by their deeds, as holy as possible; while rebels generally overlooked, or lived in the limbo created by other people's justifications. If Mr. Z was a 1st-century Jew (actually he's a 21st-century Jew), he would most likely end up as someone like the prodigal son in the Bible's "Prodigal Son Parable", instead of the billionaire he is now. The sheer difference of these two outcomes drives me to ask, if Mr. Z in the movie, a rebel and a billionaire, felt the need to justify himself? Or more personally to us commoners, would he feel totally free and more-evoluted if he reaches a point of completely no need to justify himself, when he's crowned with all these paramount achievements? To my disappointment, when I saw his business card, which said, "I am Mark Zuckerberg, Bixxx", I knew instantly he was still compelled to justify himself and his legacy, just like the old-fashioned religions. This business card is essentially saying, "I am the Lord of this business, and this is my Ten Commendaments for you, which is actually only One-commandments, that I AM Mark Z, and you're my Bixxx." Why is that? Aside from raising more brows and attract more medias, wouldn't 2 Billion dollars have made him feel safe already, that he needs stunts like this? That's when I realized that, the sheer irony for people like Sean Parker and Mr.Z in the movie, is that they went so far in denying their religious nature, and the fact that by saying something like "This is our generation, our rules", they're essentially creating new religions, for both themselves and the others . The prodigal son in the Bible, despite his rebelliousness and reckless, childish behaviors to destroy himself, saw no point in gratifying his own namesake, or writing down his own legacy and epics. However, we modern people are so into raging against the old values and creating our own, that when something backfires at us to make us feel there are after all something wrong with the whole idea, we are only left in a position to regret (or like Mr.Z did in the movie, expressing his contempt to the judge and jury).
The movie ended with the friendship between the two lead roles presumably broken forever, while the lawyer got some insight into Zuckerberg's deeply troubled self, which he seldomly leak to his 500 million Facebook friends. Once a friend of mine told me that, justification is for reconciliation, at least that's what happened in the Prodigal Son parable that the Father reconciled beautifully with his prodigal son. The Bible told me that whether you're an authentic A-hole or just someone who tries very hard to be one, you're welcome to accept Jesus' love, and be reconciled with him. I truly wish Mr. Z and Saverin can be reconciled in a graceful fashion, too.
With 95/100 on Metacritic, 3 Oscars and so much hype, The Social Network can be called a monumental success in Hollywood. David Fintcher may have again proved that he is not only a storytelling master, but also a mastermind of medias, as evidenced by the convoluted nature of the Social Network project, and the explosive media coverages after-wards. I believe this movie will be discussed, analyzed and staying in its controversial status for the next decade. I, for one, am totally compelled to find out about the real Zuckerberg. However, such interests only garnered me more curiosity in digging deeper about him. After all, the aftertaste of watching a big screen villainous main protagonist is strong, especially if such a figure feels like your unfriendly neighbor who is in possession of similar, uh, admirable qualities.
Liked I said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real-life Zuckerberg is quite friendly, and easy to get along with. However, the real issue here, is how I should live with the fact that, as a fellow geek/nerd, would what Zuckerberg wants to say be similar to what I want to say? Having been following the discussion board here, I cannot help but notice that people are generally offended and raging out against Mr. Z portrayed in this movie, pulling no punches in calling him "douche-bag" "self-absorbed" and so on. Some also said he's probably autistic and even aspergers. Moreover, some went on to say that being autistic doesn't justify what Mr.Z has done in the movie, which I totally agree. But still, under all these fancy terms, these extravagant wrappings, what would Zuckerberg feel? Is he really comfortable with being a modern day Butch Cassidy, aka a role model for renegades and rebels?
Thus I remembered a time where all people felt compelled to justify themselves to their subjects. The rich wished to justify his wealth either by appearances of hard-working or good heritage; the religious would wish to justify themselves by their deeds, as holy as possible; while rebels generally overlooked, or lived in the limbo created by other people's justifications. If Mr. Z was a 1st-century Jew (actually he's a 21st-century Jew), he would most likely end up as someone like the prodigal son in the Bible's "Prodigal Son Parable", instead of the billionaire he is now. The sheer difference of these two outcomes drives me to ask, if Mr. Z in the movie, a rebel and a billionaire, felt the need to justify himself? Or more personally to us commoners, would he feel totally free and more-evoluted if he reaches a point of completely no need to justify himself, when he's crowned with all these paramount achievements? To my disappointment, when I saw his business card, which said, "I am Mark Zuckerberg, Bixxx", I knew instantly he was still compelled to justify himself and his legacy, just like the old-fashioned religions. This business card is essentially saying, "I am the Lord of this business, and this is my Ten Commendaments for you, which is actually only One-commandments, that I AM Mark Z, and you're my Bixxx." Why is that? Aside from raising more brows and attract more medias, wouldn't 2 Billion dollars have made him feel safe already, that he needs stunts like this? That's when I realized that, the sheer irony for people like Sean Parker and Mr.Z in the movie, is that they went so far in denying their religious nature, and the fact that by saying something like "This is our generation, our rules", they're essentially creating new religions, for both themselves and the others . The prodigal son in the Bible, despite his rebelliousness and reckless, childish behaviors to destroy himself, saw no point in gratifying his own namesake, or writing down his own legacy and epics. However, we modern people are so into raging against the old values and creating our own, that when something backfires at us to make us feel there are after all something wrong with the whole idea, we are only left in a position to regret (or like Mr.Z did in the movie, expressing his contempt to the judge and jury).
The movie ended with the friendship between the two lead roles presumably broken forever, while the lawyer got some insight into Zuckerberg's deeply troubled self, which he seldomly leak to his 500 million Facebook friends. Once a friend of mine told me that, justification is for reconciliation, at least that's what happened in the Prodigal Son parable that the Father reconciled beautifully with his prodigal son. The Bible told me that whether you're an authentic A-hole or just someone who tries very hard to be one, you're welcome to accept Jesus' love, and be reconciled with him. I truly wish Mr. Z and Saverin can be reconciled in a graceful fashion, too.