oscar death march: 3 more
Feb. 6th, 2011 04:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
verbicideAlso, I now feel like I have to suck it up and watch 127 Hours. I really would like to see all the Best Picture nominees.
The Social Network
I had many thoughts on this one. Also, it felt surreal to finish the movie and then go look at my computer screen with Facebook on it.
Aaron Sorkin said in an interview: "I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling. What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy’s sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?"
I don't think anyone can argue that Sorkin is a brilliant storyteller, and that's why I personally really enjoyed the movie. It was riveting, the acting was flawless, and the dialogue was as thrilling as everyone has been saying. But, I disagree with his point and this is often why I struggle with 'biographies' of most kind. (It's also why I can't stand fan fiction--I don't like people taking liberties with the "TRVTH" as it stands.)
And maybe for him, sticking to the truth in a movie = boring and thus != good. But it's going to be at the expense of the person whose life you're lying about. And well, that sort of sucks. Because people will too often just believe what they see. And this movie says that Mark Zuckerberg cheated his best friend and some business partners for petty revenge, jealousy, and to show off for his ex-girlfriend. And none of that strikes me as true. And it makes those points at the expense of how a genius like Zuckerberg handles the process of explosive creation. (I'm wording this all in really dippy ways, but I can't think of a better way to put it.) It doesn't really matter if one hates or loves or is neutral about Facebook. It's a incontrovertible phenomenon.
And even before I read the Wikipedia page on The Social Network and read some articles about it, it was pretty clear that the movie was heavily slanted with things that were pretty unsubstantiated. And I have a problem with that. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg sleeps fine without my compassion. I think I would go apeshit if someone wanted to make a movie about my life, let alone one that made up all kinds of crazy shit. (This is why I have never, ever yearned for fame. Not worth my privacy.)
But to frame it so heavily as 'geek does ANYTHING (even betraying his best friend!) in pursuit of chicks and money' ---it rang hollow to me in the movie and I don't believe it's accurate in reality. The mere fact that Zuckerberg's been with the same woman since before his Facebook fame completely nullifies the movie's entire premise. The movie seemed to also keep winking things at us ("He's jealous about the Final Clubs..." "The twins are in CREW, just like Erica and Mark talked about...")
After watching the movie and reading some articles, I don't think the Winklevoss twins and Narendra deserved a penny. Is it shitty and immoral to take someone's idea and develop it for yourself? Sure. But is it illegal? I don't think so--not unless you've stolen code, materials, or violated a contract. The Winklevoss' didn't come up with the concept of social networking. They didn't come up with the concept of a face book--which was something most colleges had. The fact that the Winklevoss' are now trying to launch another suit to get even more money is pretty reprehensible. I can't imagine them winning a further case at this point.
I do think that Saverin was robbed and tricked, and thus deserved some money. Yes, I think he was foolish to have not read the contract he was signing, but he also thought that the lawyers handing him the paperwork were his lawyers, too. If they'd been on the up and up, they would have told him to get his own counsel.
I thought it was fascinating that Ebert came away with the notion that Zukerberg didn't realize that Saverin was being cheated. I didn't have that impression. I thought he was just passive. I think something as enormous as the launch of Facebook...I think there is always collateral damage. In the movie, at least, we see Zuckerberg warn Saverin that he doesn't want to see him left behind. And I found that very believable--that he wanted Eduardo to be there with him, but Eduardo's caution and anxiety was holding them back and so Zuckerberg finally let him be cut loose. In the douche-y depiction of Sean Parker, I didn't see Zuckerberg wanting Parker's connections to Victoria Secret models, but it seemed very much like he felt Parker understood and believed in the width and breadth that this Idea could have. And so, he let him. Parker's role in bringing Zuckerberg to Silicon Valley undoubtedly had a big part in the success and expansion of FB.
Of course I don't know the truth of what happened--I wasn't there either. But as much as I genuinely enjoyed the movie from a storyteller's perspective, I'm a bit uncomfortable with having that enjoyment at a 25 year old's expense. I don't mind being led to like or dislike a character in fiction, but I object to it when it's about a real person.
The Fighter
I totally forgot that this was about real people, too. And there's less bite for me in this since the real people were actively involved to the point of being on set to advise.
I was initially peeved to see Geoffrey Rush lose the Best Supporting Actor at the Golden Globes, but seeing Bale's performance took the sting out of that. Jesus Christ. Bale seems like such an intense guy, and the performance he brings always drops my jaw. A performance you really get to see as being as close to reality as possible because the movie ends with a brief interview with the real Dickey Eklund. (Apparently Bale stayed in character for the course of the filming process, which I think would be both exhausting and exhausting to be around.) But it heartbreaking and cringe-worthy at times. The redemption at the end was such a relief because you really wanted the character to triumph and show the good he had in him.
I can totally see why Mark Wahlberg wasn't up for Best Actor. He did a fine job, and the physical challenge he took on (training for like 12 years while working on other movies, refusing a double and nearly getting his nose broken as he took shots in the ring). But, it's a quiet role and he did it fine, but nothing to write home about. Not that different from his performance in Invincible.
I actually don't understand why Amy Adams is up for an award. I generally like her, and she, like Wahlberg, did a great job, but it was a pretty standard role of plucky girlfriend. Melissa Leo's character as the mom was much more nuanced and intense.
Overall I enjoyed the performances, was glad to have seen it, but boxing stories aren't so much my thing, and the film dragged a bit for me.
True Grit
I love being surprised by a movie. I really didn't see this one. I'm not a huge Western aficionado, I dislike violence, and the trailer just looked grim when I saw it last year. But this movie was freaking hilarious. Yes, there are a few gross parts, and snakes--which made my cousin Mo audibly shriek and leap back up into her chair (while I laughed at her). But this is a very funny movie. And Hailee Steinfeld's performance is fan-fucking-tastic.
The dialogue is just awesome, man. We laughed through most of it--and intentionally, not AT the movie. And for the genre in particular, it didn't seem all that violent.
It was nice to see two movies about young women taking the lead role in helping their families when they can't count on anyone else. I kept getting this movie confused with Winter's Bone (before I saw either of them, obviously), and there are definitely parallels here that I rather like.
There's not a whole lot to say. The story is pretty simply outlined in the trailer and outside from the surprising humor and your developing admiration for Our Heroes, there's not much that goes beyond expectations. It was a fun one to watch.
The Social Network
I had many thoughts on this one. Also, it felt surreal to finish the movie and then go look at my computer screen with Facebook on it.
Aaron Sorkin said in an interview: "I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling. What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy’s sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?"
I don't think anyone can argue that Sorkin is a brilliant storyteller, and that's why I personally really enjoyed the movie. It was riveting, the acting was flawless, and the dialogue was as thrilling as everyone has been saying. But, I disagree with his point and this is often why I struggle with 'biographies' of most kind. (It's also why I can't stand fan fiction--I don't like people taking liberties with the "TRVTH" as it stands.)
And maybe for him, sticking to the truth in a movie = boring and thus != good. But it's going to be at the expense of the person whose life you're lying about. And well, that sort of sucks. Because people will too often just believe what they see. And this movie says that Mark Zuckerberg cheated his best friend and some business partners for petty revenge, jealousy, and to show off for his ex-girlfriend. And none of that strikes me as true. And it makes those points at the expense of how a genius like Zuckerberg handles the process of explosive creation. (I'm wording this all in really dippy ways, but I can't think of a better way to put it.) It doesn't really matter if one hates or loves or is neutral about Facebook. It's a incontrovertible phenomenon.
And even before I read the Wikipedia page on The Social Network and read some articles about it, it was pretty clear that the movie was heavily slanted with things that were pretty unsubstantiated. And I have a problem with that. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg sleeps fine without my compassion. I think I would go apeshit if someone wanted to make a movie about my life, let alone one that made up all kinds of crazy shit. (This is why I have never, ever yearned for fame. Not worth my privacy.)
But to frame it so heavily as 'geek does ANYTHING (even betraying his best friend!) in pursuit of chicks and money' ---it rang hollow to me in the movie and I don't believe it's accurate in reality. The mere fact that Zuckerberg's been with the same woman since before his Facebook fame completely nullifies the movie's entire premise. The movie seemed to also keep winking things at us ("He's jealous about the Final Clubs..." "The twins are in CREW, just like Erica and Mark talked about...")
After watching the movie and reading some articles, I don't think the Winklevoss twins and Narendra deserved a penny. Is it shitty and immoral to take someone's idea and develop it for yourself? Sure. But is it illegal? I don't think so--not unless you've stolen code, materials, or violated a contract. The Winklevoss' didn't come up with the concept of social networking. They didn't come up with the concept of a face book--which was something most colleges had. The fact that the Winklevoss' are now trying to launch another suit to get even more money is pretty reprehensible. I can't imagine them winning a further case at this point.
I do think that Saverin was robbed and tricked, and thus deserved some money. Yes, I think he was foolish to have not read the contract he was signing, but he also thought that the lawyers handing him the paperwork were his lawyers, too. If they'd been on the up and up, they would have told him to get his own counsel.
I thought it was fascinating that Ebert came away with the notion that Zukerberg didn't realize that Saverin was being cheated. I didn't have that impression. I thought he was just passive. I think something as enormous as the launch of Facebook...I think there is always collateral damage. In the movie, at least, we see Zuckerberg warn Saverin that he doesn't want to see him left behind. And I found that very believable--that he wanted Eduardo to be there with him, but Eduardo's caution and anxiety was holding them back and so Zuckerberg finally let him be cut loose. In the douche-y depiction of Sean Parker, I didn't see Zuckerberg wanting Parker's connections to Victoria Secret models, but it seemed very much like he felt Parker understood and believed in the width and breadth that this Idea could have. And so, he let him. Parker's role in bringing Zuckerberg to Silicon Valley undoubtedly had a big part in the success and expansion of FB.
Of course I don't know the truth of what happened--I wasn't there either. But as much as I genuinely enjoyed the movie from a storyteller's perspective, I'm a bit uncomfortable with having that enjoyment at a 25 year old's expense. I don't mind being led to like or dislike a character in fiction, but I object to it when it's about a real person.
The Fighter
I totally forgot that this was about real people, too. And there's less bite for me in this since the real people were actively involved to the point of being on set to advise.
I was initially peeved to see Geoffrey Rush lose the Best Supporting Actor at the Golden Globes, but seeing Bale's performance took the sting out of that. Jesus Christ. Bale seems like such an intense guy, and the performance he brings always drops my jaw. A performance you really get to see as being as close to reality as possible because the movie ends with a brief interview with the real Dickey Eklund. (Apparently Bale stayed in character for the course of the filming process, which I think would be both exhausting and exhausting to be around.) But it heartbreaking and cringe-worthy at times. The redemption at the end was such a relief because you really wanted the character to triumph and show the good he had in him.
I can totally see why Mark Wahlberg wasn't up for Best Actor. He did a fine job, and the physical challenge he took on (training for like 12 years while working on other movies, refusing a double and nearly getting his nose broken as he took shots in the ring). But, it's a quiet role and he did it fine, but nothing to write home about. Not that different from his performance in Invincible.
I actually don't understand why Amy Adams is up for an award. I generally like her, and she, like Wahlberg, did a great job, but it was a pretty standard role of plucky girlfriend. Melissa Leo's character as the mom was much more nuanced and intense.
Overall I enjoyed the performances, was glad to have seen it, but boxing stories aren't so much my thing, and the film dragged a bit for me.
True Grit
I love being surprised by a movie. I really didn't see this one. I'm not a huge Western aficionado, I dislike violence, and the trailer just looked grim when I saw it last year. But this movie was freaking hilarious. Yes, there are a few gross parts, and snakes--which made my cousin Mo audibly shriek and leap back up into her chair (while I laughed at her). But this is a very funny movie. And Hailee Steinfeld's performance is fan-fucking-tastic.
The dialogue is just awesome, man. We laughed through most of it--and intentionally, not AT the movie. And for the genre in particular, it didn't seem all that violent.
It was nice to see two movies about young women taking the lead role in helping their families when they can't count on anyone else. I kept getting this movie confused with Winter's Bone (before I saw either of them, obviously), and there are definitely parallels here that I rather like.
There's not a whole lot to say. The story is pretty simply outlined in the trailer and outside from the surprising humor and your developing admiration for Our Heroes, there's not much that goes beyond expectations. It was a fun one to watch.
