I read the comments on this article, and really it made me mad:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-social-network-is-a-pack-of-lies-that-conveys-nothing-about-our-time
One of the biggest criticisms of The Social Network that I have found over the past couple of days is that it’s not the true story about Facebook, which is really starting to make me angry. Think about it: people were skeptical about a movie on Facebook when they saw the trailer; now the movie’s out, and people are “it’s not the true story.” So wait, you actually WANTED to see a movie about Facebook?
I love this movie. Love it. I think it is an amazing movie that was well done on numerous accounts; so why the hate? It really is a good movie in terms of performance, writing and directing. But all of you who are legitimately sensitive on the “liberties” implied, think about this:
Macbeth, Shakespeare’s most famous drama, is about a real king of Scotland who actually existed, but none of the things that happened in the play were true. Macbeth never met witches, he never killed Duncan to take the throne, and wasn’t killed by a man named Macduff. Where’s the constant backlash about that, huh? It’s still heralded as Shakespeare’s greatest piece of drama. Why? Because the writing is good, and the character’s themselves are so powerful and haunting that you can’t help but feel a level of amazement.
Ray, the biopic on Ray Charles that got Jamie Foxx his Oscar for best actor, also played with certain liberties. In the movie, it said Charles was banned from playing in Georgia because of his refusal to perform in a white-only concert for civil rights reasons, where in real life that wasn’t the case. He wasn’t banned from playing in Georgia but rather that concert hall. But, of course, it adds for dramatic appeal.
300, the movie about the Battle of Thermopylae, was also heavily romanticized. The Spartans didn’t fight with that get-up, nor did King Xerxes look like the pierced androgynous giant that the movie portrayed him as. It was all a matter of replicating the comic book, but that didn’t stop it from being the first blockbuster of 2007 and one of the ultimate man-movies.
Braveheart, considered one of the greatest movies of all time, played a lot with historical inaccuracies. For example, kilts weren’t worn at that time, nor did the great William Wallace seduce Isabella of France because she was really three at the time and didn’t give birth until years after his death. But still, it motivated that anyone can take your lives but never your freedom, and that’s all that matters.
The Runaways, a movie about the all-girl punk band that gave us the likes of Cherrie Currie and Joan Jett, changed the name of one of the members to Robin because she wouldn’t allow any depiction of her in the movie. There was never really a member named Robin. Oops.
And yet, so many people are pissy because there wasn’t really a girl named Erica Albright? Here’s a question: did you really want to see a movie about how a website got founded, or are you just looking for any reason to destroy this movie because it’s getting so much accolade and recognition that Inception isn’t getting? This really isn’t the first time that a movie played heavily with the facts, even though a good number of things in the movie did actually happen, such as the court cases. Sure, Zuckerberg had a girlfriend for a while and still does, but that really isn’t the point. Facebook was just a plot scapegoat if you really think about it.
So for all you “fact-checkers” of this movie: leave the movie alone. If anything, this serves as creative nonfiction and should be looked as fiction. Just forget about the facts and see it as the movie it is and appreciate it for everything that everyone else appreciates it. Sure, it’s based on events that happened, but there is such a thing as “creative nonfiction”, and if all you care about is fact and not fiction and feel as if for some reason you got pure entertainment as opposed to education, then maybe you should reconsider the History Channel or Biography as opposed to Hollywood because Hollywood can and will do anything to make an entertaining movie, even if it means playing with the liberties.
January 20, 2011 | Categories: Movie news and commentary | Leave a comment
The O-Critic
The O Stage 
Macbeth in a Facebook Movie
I read the comments on this article, and really it made me mad:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-social-network-is-a-pack-of-lies-that-conveys-nothing-about-our-time
One of the biggest criticisms of The Social Network that I have found over the past couple of days is that it’s not the true story about Facebook, which is really starting to make me angry. Think about it: people were skeptical about a movie on Facebook when they saw the trailer; now the movie’s out, and people are “it’s not the true story.” So wait, you actually WANTED to see a movie about Facebook?
I love this movie. Love it. I think it is an amazing movie that was well done on numerous accounts; so why the hate? It really is a good movie in terms of performance, writing and directing. But all of you who are legitimately sensitive on the “liberties” implied, think about this:
Macbeth, Shakespeare’s most famous drama, is about a real king of Scotland who actually existed, but none of the things that happened in the play were true. Macbeth never met witches, he never killed Duncan to take the throne, and wasn’t killed by a man named Macduff. Where’s the constant backlash about that, huh? It’s still heralded as Shakespeare’s greatest piece of drama. Why? Because the writing is good, and the character’s themselves are so powerful and haunting that you can’t help but feel a level of amazement.
Ray, the biopic on Ray Charles that got Jamie Foxx his Oscar for best actor, also played with certain liberties. In the movie, it said Charles was banned from playing in Georgia because of his refusal to perform in a white-only concert for civil rights reasons, where in real life that wasn’t the case. He wasn’t banned from playing in Georgia but rather that concert hall. But, of course, it adds for dramatic appeal.
300, the movie about the Battle of Thermopylae, was also heavily romanticized. The Spartans didn’t fight with that get-up, nor did King Xerxes look like the pierced androgynous giant that the movie portrayed him as. It was all a matter of replicating the comic book, but that didn’t stop it from being the first blockbuster of 2007 and one of the ultimate man-movies.
Braveheart, considered one of the greatest movies of all time, played a lot with historical inaccuracies. For example, kilts weren’t worn at that time, nor did the great William Wallace seduce Isabella of France because she was really three at the time and didn’t give birth until years after his death. But still, it motivated that anyone can take your lives but never your freedom, and that’s all that matters.
The Runaways, a movie about the all-girl punk band that gave us the likes of Cherrie Currie and Joan Jett, changed the name of one of the members to Robin because she wouldn’t allow any depiction of her in the movie. There was never really a member named Robin. Oops.
And yet, so many people are pissy because there wasn’t really a girl named Erica Albright? Here’s a question: did you really want to see a movie about how a website got founded, or are you just looking for any reason to destroy this movie because it’s getting so much accolade and recognition that Inception isn’t getting? This really isn’t the first time that a movie played heavily with the facts, even though a good number of things in the movie did actually happen, such as the court cases. Sure, Zuckerberg had a girlfriend for a while and still does, but that really isn’t the point. Facebook was just a plot scapegoat if you really think about it.
So for all you “fact-checkers” of this movie: leave the movie alone. If anything, this serves as creative nonfiction and should be looked as fiction. Just forget about the facts and see it as the movie it is and appreciate it for everything that everyone else appreciates it. Sure, it’s based on events that happened, but there is such a thing as “creative nonfiction”, and if all you care about is fact and not fiction and feel as if for some reason you got pure entertainment as opposed to education, then maybe you should reconsider the History Channel or Biography as opposed to Hollywood because Hollywood can and will do anything to make an entertaining movie, even if it means playing with the liberties.
January 20, 2011 | Categories: Movie news and commentary | Leave a comment