http://www.wmagazine.com/people/celebrities/2010/10/facebook_film
This article, by Lynn Hirschberg, is a mixture of how Aaron Sorkin became involved with The Social Network and a candid interview with the famous writer. The article draws strong comparisons between Sorkin and Zuckerberg, even going as far as to liken Zuckerberg’s trance at the computer to Sorkin’s writing while on a drug binge.
Sorkin was attracted to the themes he saw while reading the novel, notably the quest to be accepted and what is lost when something is won. He did not originally know of the Winklevoss twins and Saverin subplots, but when he found out he decided to base the film around them. Sorkin was struck by the fact that every individual in the saga of Facebook’s creation was adamant that they were 100% correct in their own part. Sorkin is able to brilliantly weave this into his film by deftly delivering ambiguous interpretations of events as remembered by different characters. During the interview, Sorkin philosophically quotes, “there is no truth”. This sums up the overall theme of the film succinctly.
One of the most interesting moments in the interview conducted by Hirschberg for the article is a discussion of the opening scene. Sorkin spent a considerable amount of time writing the dialogue, and he felt that it needed to set the stage for the entire film. Fincher, being aware of the importance, did 90 takes of the scene. He was not satisfied until he felt Eisenberg and Mara were no longer acting. The scene needed to be very natural and off-the-cuff.
Do you feel like the dialogue in this film felt natural as intended, or were there moments where it appeared well rehearsed. To go along with that, why do you suppose it was so important for Sorkin and Fincher to portray their characters as naturally as possible? What effect does this have on an audience?
I think the opening scene of this film is very natural. And it is very important to be as natural as possible because it helps build the characteristics of these two characters, especially Mark’s. This kind of natural dialogue makes audience feel more involved.
I think that Sorkin’s scripts are all incredibly well written and quick witted. I did feel that some of the dialogue was extremely well rehearsed and that it was somewhat robotic in a way. Nevertheless, I do not feel that it took away from the movie at all as Zuckerberg’s character was robotic too, a highly intelligent Harvard student that had a hard time picking up social cues. Portraying the characters as natural makes the audience relate to them more, and Sorkin and Finches must have wanted that. The audience will be much more involved in the plot and care about the characters and whatever may happen to them throughout the story.
Thanks for posting, Joe. This was a really intriguing read. I had no idea about Sorkin’s cocaine use, and it offered a truly interesting backstory, even to how Eduardo met the writer of the book, Ben Mezrich. They did 90 takes of that first scene to “knock the acting out of them”? I can totally see how, since they acted it so naturally and it was lengthy specific dialogue.