I agree with those who found Z's character more sympathetic than JT did. I didn't actually find him repellant, although many of his actions were unpleasant/spiteful, and his initial motivation seemed to be revenge on his ex-girlfriend.
I thought this was one of the best films I've seen for months, largely thanks to Sorkin's sparkling, taut script. Every word of dialogue was to be savoured. I thought the thriller format worked brilliantly and, despite the obvious fact that you know the outcome in advance, I was enthralled throughout.

There is a "hidden" character flaw that could evoke some sympathy if presented in the story. Zuckerman is indeed an idiot-savant with no emotional intelligence...that is true...BUT, he is afflicted by Asperger's Syndrome with all of the characteristics of the inability to deeply "feel" emotions and compassion.

"Asshole" doesn't cut it. He too is a victim with a fatal flaw that does evoke sympathy and an explanation of human behavior. The plot was GREAT for what could have been a totally boring movie. Brilliant screenwriting!

This article like the movie, deliberately rewrites the truth of the Facebook creation story. Sorkin's script was based on a book based on 2nd and 3rd party reports (Winklevoss brothers, Eduardo, Etc). Truby seems to be mixing fiction with fact and taking it at face value. Z had had no involvement in this movie whatsoever. Sorkin is a great writer but he deliberately and frequently sidesteps the truth. It is clear that in making this movie, Sorkin felt that making Z a villain would make the movie more successful. Controversy like sex sells. But the truth of the story is that the real villains are the Winklevoss brothers for trying to get their greedy fingers into something they really had nothing to do with. Sorkin knows this and makes faint reference to it in the film for the discerning eye. Watch every interview Z did and you will see he is not the person in the film. His character is much different, his motives are not shrouded in deception. Since the film came out the Winklevoss brothers have reworked their legal case against Z, claiming the 60 million is not enough. Meanwhile, Z has donated his 6 billion personal worth to charity. That's the truth even if Sorkin and Truby don't want to openly admit it. Z is a good guy with a good soul and a good idea. Taking this movie as the truth would be the real crime.

Wow, very interesting analysis. I agree that this story must have been very challenging to write, but as I watched it all I could see was not a story developing but a screenplay hitting notes, and a very one-dimensional at that.

Overall the film felt like a legal procedural drama sandwiched between two scenes screaming out for depth and complex characterisation. But failing.

First of all the legal procedural structure is like you say, a frame, but it adds nothing dramatically to the narrative. It might as well have been written linearly and later edited as flashbacks. And not only does it distant the audience but it underplays the outcome of the story by making the events predictable. All it takes is a look at their faces to know that Eduardo has been wronged and Zuckerberg wronged him.

All the characters feel just like that, characters serving the writer's purpose and less like actual human beings. The Winklevoss twins are mere stereotypes, and are so interchangeable they almost serve Sorkin as comic relief... And Eduardo and Sean Parker are nothing but opposite personalities at both sides of Zuckerberg. Take that very uninteresting dinner meeting where the dynamic between the three is so obvious it's painful. There's no subtlety, no complexity.

And they say it's about betrayal, but how can it be when there is no loyalty in the first place? Am I supposed to care just because the film told me the characters are friends but never even bothered to show glimpses of that friendship. I mean, from the first scenes it is obvious these people have nothing in common.

So I ask... Why is Eduardo friends with this man who so clearly envies him? That first scene is great, but why was Rooney Mara his girlfriend in the first place when they seem so incompatible?

Because the screenplay is not telling a story more than just simply hitting notes, that's why.

I think Zs desire is to make Facebook a big thing in order to impress Erica, who is part of his Need: the need to be accepted and loved and acknowledged.
Which is everything the Winklevosses seem to just be granted for a lifetime...

Being something of a nerd myself (unfortunately not as genius as Z) I can understand the internal inhibitions that prevent you from "taking part" in "normal social life". So Zuckerberg to me is the perfect example of a tragic hero like Hamlet. He just cannot get out of his skin, as the lawyer at the end actually tells him.

Possibly the character change in the end is too subtle to really count as something profound and emotionally rewarding for the audience. But I like it, cause it´s just a hint that this guy could become a better person. I prefer this to a phony ending,
where Z and Erica would´ve kissed and married and
lived happily ever after....

Z is like the first Superman: he is special, therefore he can´t have the girl....

Intriguing breakdown of the script, but I can't agree with your conclusions. Maybe because I'm in agreement with those forum participants who found Zuckerberg a pathetically lonely figure; even when he's surrounded by people he's completely isolated. There are scenes where he's trying so hard to fit in - as when he throws beer bottles to Dave Morin's girlfriend and keeps missing - and it just doesn't work. Also, he's an underdog, which makes him an antihero; did anyone else not relish watching him stick it to those smug, spoiled Winklevoss twins (even though he did steal their idea)?
If Sorken had downplayed Zuckerberg's behaviour, the audience might have felt conned. As it was, we got a picture of a young man completely trapped by the limitations of his own character. Maybe it has something to do with Sorken's background in theatre, which is more forgiving of unpleasant characters and morally ambiguous endings.

Check out this analysis of the film from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVCZJ5BZGCc

Hi,

Interesting debate, and a very interesting movie. I would argue that Z. does not fulfil his moral need or his desire. His desire is not FB, it is to impress /win back the girl at the beginning. His moral need is not to win the girl, but to stop trying to be such an asshole, as an attempt to impress people (the girl, sean parker). It is not until the very last scene that Z even realises what his moral need is. He has been 'trying to be' an asshole as a way to get his desire (girl)and he never really learns that his methods do not work, but a by-product of them has been financial success. I'm loathe to say anything along the lines of how this reflects modern capitalism, where there's a fortune there's a crime etc because I don't believe such wisdom to be entirely true. I think it is more along the lines of suffering being a balloon, when it is eradicated in one area it expands in another.

Karen:

An example of Z's behaviour as revolting in a virtuos way is his witty mocking of stupidity and convention expressed for example in interactions with the twins, lawyers and corporate people. Of course you can also say that this same behaviour is immature and rude, but that's also the case with teh acts of other young rebellian anti-heroes.

As Hamlet. Even though he differ in many ways from Z, I think they both share this witty, bored, young and angry attitude, attacking stupidity and convention in brutal ways. Then they both cross the line. Hamlet kills people. Z betrays his only friend. I'm not saying that's virtous. That's tragedy. But also both Hamlet and Z are visionaries that see and create things that others don't. And that's somehow virtuos.

T.S.--

You've said two things that I'd like to hear more about:

"I think that's it's maybe easier for younger audiences to appreciate the anti-behaviour of Z as revolting and hence virtous."

revolting and hence virtuous? I can't wrap my mind around this.

And Z. like Hamlet? How? Hamlet wrestled with his conscience. I didn't get the sense that Z. had one.

K.

Karen: I think there might be different approaches to Z depending on age, but also other things. As a 29 year old myself I wouldn't go so far as calling my generation totally immoral. But maybe other values are dominant today, than say 20 years ago.

I think that's it's maybe easier for younger audiences to appreciate the anti-behaviour of Z as revolting and hence virtous.

But at the same time I recall theatre students in my age calling Hamlet a sociopath, so maybe this is more a question of personality, gender or class. (I would put Z in the same category as Hamlet).

Bob and T.S., You're right about who the protagonist is, and Bob, I think you're spot on that it's rare to see a film where the character gets what he wants but doesn't solve his need; therefore no character arc.

T.S.: I'm curious if there's an age-related bias towards or away from seeing Z. as sociopathic. I'm over 40. I've heard several people explain the popularity of the film as being related to the erosion of valuing moral integrity in our capitalistic, fame-obsessed culture. (I don't find that to be the case among the 20- and 30-somethings whom I know, but I'm just wondering...)

I strangely had more sympathy for Mark Z than you imply in your analysis. I think this is because he was fundamentally lonely, and Facebook was an effort to score with girls, and while it may have helped Eduardo get a crazy Asian girlfriend, it never did anything for Mark Z. He is just as lonely at the end as he is at the beginning.

It's a rare movie where the character achieves his desire but utterly fails to resolve his inner need. There is no character arc. Mark Z is just as pitiful at the end as he is at the beginning. But I had sympathy for him. I felt sorry for him because he cannot sustain human relationships. No amount of fame or money can make up for that.

Mark Z remains the protagonist throughout, in my view.

As always a very good breakdown! However I think you're not really right about the Zuckerberg character. Yes, he is portrayed as an asshole in many ways. But not only. I think the pic would never had been such a hit if the audience didn't find him sympathetic.
And Edourado is to much of a sidekick to really work as a lead. Besides, I think he is given weaknesses of his own. He really becoms a fake ally-opponent when he decides to stop the cash flow to the company in anger.
In the end I think many people DO identify with Z. After all he is all that today's capitalism praise: The creative genius. And according to this myth, the biggest sin is really what Eduardo expresses: Lack of faith in an original idea and conventional thinking within the box. In the end Facebook changed the life of 500 million people. After seeing this film one person stands out as responsible for this. And it's not Eduardo or the twins.

Ron,

I just saw Hereafter, and loved it. LOVED it. The content was so moving to me that I can't discuss it as art. Terrific acting. Great locations: Maui, Paris, San Francisco, London. (However, a terribly pat ending, but I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.) I have more of a passionate temperament than a sentimental one, so I'm knocked out when a film makes me cry. This one did.

Truby's analysis, as always, was very revealing. Some of the film put me to sleep. Now I know why. But it's interesting that the real rooting interest is Eduardo Saverin. Most Everyone else are variations of sophisticated scum, which is interesting. I thought the last line uttered by the attorney (quncy jones' daughter) was more sarcastic. I thought she was saying, in fact, that he was an irrideemable asshole. I viewed the film as basically a modern social tragedy where the good guys get scrwed and the bad guys end up morally adrift without a clue as to why it all occurred. There are always coventional rules to screenwriting but some stories just defy the rules and work in spite of that defiance. This is is one of them, as far as I'm concerned. Not the most brilliant film, but good. I thinke HEREAFTER is probably a better film but that's another discussion.

Great comments here.

I am a fledgling writer so these exchanges are especially helpful.

Z is a product of modern American society and an interesting study as such. His problems are a wonderful springboard for a story and a screenplay. I was fascinated throughout the film by his personality which is certainly fodder for character.

Rethinking the film and characters, I come up with six that stick in my mind. On the negative side, the Winklevoss brothers (just as annoying as Z), Sean Parker and Zuckerberg. On the positive side: the girlfriend and Eduardo Saverin.

In my opinion, the relationship Sorkin develops between Z and Parker was especially good character development and revelation. Pointed up a lot of Z's values (and lack of judgement?)

On the gossip side, I remember a rumor that went around here when Z came to a Madrid conference and refused to speak because the air-conditioning was not to his liking. Fits right in to what we see in this film.

In any case, a great film for thoughts on screenwriting.

Richard,

Thanks. I'm rethinking the film, and my conclusion is that it's less a portrait of moral decay in American youth, and more a portrait of a sociopath. Characters don't have to be entirely sympathetic for me to be interested in their stories--I prefer complex characters--but the end of this film, as you said, left you/me limp--WAS limp. And furious. (And I generally like Aaron Sorkin's writing.) [Thanks John, for this forum for mouth-frothing.]

I completely agree with John´s analysis. Two exceptions:

a) I don´t think Zuckerberg is a 100% asshole. The Rooney-Mara-subplot is very important in my view: It shows the guy has a heart, but he cannot show. He would like to be loved and he would like to be included but he´s just not capable to show. The story just vaguely touches this "love-story", but in my opinion that is just right for an uptight guy like him. Zuckerberg is his own biggest opponent and his own biggest ally. This calls for great inner conflict which is hard to show on screen.

b) the ending: although I am missing a character change and a kathartic resolving battle I think the ending is good in itself; this guy needs a therapy or some true love but: that is not the story at hand which is about friendship and loyalty - and he missed out on both.

All in all: I think this is the only really brilliant film of this year so far because it actually deals with timeless moral questions and dilemmas. It´s brilliantly directed and masterly scripted.
It´s flaws are far more forgiveable than the flaws of ... let´s say "Avatar" or "Wall Street 2".

Brilliant script, brilliant film. In my small experience of brilliant people, they lean more towards the acerbic side of things. They tend to lean away from the warm and cuddly end of the spectrum.

The simplistic assertion that Zuckerberg, as portrayed, was simply an asshole, end of story, misrepresents the film. It is entirely appropriate for Z's former girlfriend to take this stance, but we're not Z's former girlfriend.

We can step back and see that, according to Sorkin and company, Z was rude, socially inept, ambitious, visionary, rebellious, deceitful, impetuous, generous, rapacious, and loyal/disloyal as well as a workaholic, hero worshipping genius.

Why do we clamor for rich, complex protagonists and then scream bloody murder when we get them?

On a digressive note: It's a mistake to throw flawed, difficult geniuses under the bus. They may be scarce someday.

The two classic tales are -

The man who gains the world and loses his soul.
The man who loses the world but gains his soul.

This a story of a man with no soul who gains the world - and then pays a fine. Very strange.

What makes Zuckerberg somewhat sympathetic is that we as the audience know that Facebook has changed the world somewhat for the better and that Zuckerberg was in many ways a visionary and genius asshole. That's the real ending of the story. That's what he's fighting for. And that what allows us as the audience to pull for him. We know going in what he's achieved. Yes, he's an asshole. And yes, he stole part of the idea for his invention. But one could argue that without his particular brand of creativity and single-mindedness, the type of sophisticated Facebook we have now would not have ever come into existence - certainly not under the rule of the "Winkleviii." Zuckerberg's an angry, difficult genius. And under rules of what we now value in contemporary society, he gets a partial pass. It's what makes him interesting. And intriguing.

And his comeuppance is the fact that the one girl he seems to have truly loved, likely won't ever give him the time of day. She won't forgive him. His sentence is that refresh button he keeps hitting for all of eternity at the end of the film.

It was a pleasure to see a main character with a dark side who is partly redeemable. Thematically, if not totally factually, it feels true. For one to become a rich and famous world-changing billionaire, one has to have numerous morally gray areas. It's not by accident most rich and famous people get that way.

Man, I can do nothing but agree with Kaaren.

I just saw this movie and was impressed half way through. Then it all fell apart when I saw this total thief and asshole getting away with murder and billions of dollars. As audience I certainly was left limp at the end. And furious. Which might not be a bad thing but it sure makes you stop and think about morals and ethics.

Then I thought about the scripts I am working on and all the professional advice and wondering where does it all fit in? Do you really need a happy ending in film? Does your "hero" really need to meet and overcome all those "obstacles"? If the audience just feels something when it's over, haven't you got the message across?

I think Sorkin did a great job showing us moral decay in youth in America.

At least, that's what I took away.

Bull's eye! You nailed this one, John. Brilliant analysis of the story, and I couldn't agree more with your calling the protagonist repellant. That last line "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be," practically ruined the film for me, it was so lame. Zuckerberg, as portrayed here, was way worse than an asshole. He was someone with zero integrity, and nothing in the world makes up for that lack. So, I had zero sympathy for the character.