We watched the Social Network last night. It felt very tense, almost anxiety-producing. Definitely kept both of our attention. Performances were convincing, dialogue was clever. It's a hatchet job to some degree, like most biopics. They generally take famous people who you admire or respect or at least whose art or works you appreciate, expose all their rumored flaws, and judge them harshly.
Kind of interesting that the founder of a social network is portrayed as if he has a social disorder or maybe even Asperger's. But I guess it makes sense in a way. I wondered how much of it was true, so did some googling today. Read a lot of different perspectives, and it seems a mishmash of truth, distortion, and lie, which in a weird way winds up seeming kind of fair except maybe in one aspect (gender). I think the take away message probably is pretty close to the truth, though.
He's a painfully socially clumsy whiz kid. The blue blood twins had a great idea, but they could never close the deal. He screwed over his friend, but more from cluelessness than malice. In the end he settles. It wasn't a flattering portrait, but it wasn't unsympathetic, either. (Now the napster guy, that was unsympathetic.)
It is interesting to think of how fast social networking has grown, to consider the implications of technology. (This movie doesn't really address this, but it sparks me to think about it.)