Posted on Thursday, September 30th, 2010 by Peter Sciretta
Okay, so it’s obvious by now that I’m both obsessed and in love with The Social Network. I’m trying not to bombard the site with posts about the film, but I’m finding a lot of cool and interesting coverage/interviews around the web that I’d love to share. And yes, I really do hope that people go see this film (I’m not sure middle America is too interested thus far). Hit the jump to see a new interview with Fincher and Sorkin on Charlie Rose, a profile on The Sound of The Social Network, and learn who didn’t love the film (yes, Armond White).
Director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin appeared on Charlie Rose for a 20 minute discussion about the film. Watch that interview embedded below:
The Soundworks Collection have released a six and a half minute profile on the sound of The Social Network:
Two members of Fincher’s talented sound team, Sound Re-recording Mixer and Supervisor Sound Editor Ren Kylce and Sound Re-Recording Mixer Michael Semanick take the viewer through the creative and technical process for crafting the audio soundscape in this exclusive SoundWorks Collection video profile.
Watch it embedded below:
As for the critical reaction to the film — it has been overwhelmingly positive. The film was riding high at 100% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer… that is until Armond White and Prairie Miller files the first two negative reviews. Here is an excerpt from White’s review:
If it is true that The Social Network defines the decade, as an ad blurb states, then that’s just an accident of its shortcomings. We need to look deeper: It inadvertently defines an era when subterfuge and reprehensible behavior are accepted as a social norm—especially if it proves lucrative. No wonder mainstream media minions have flipped for The Social Network; they recognize the fiat of technological privilege. …. Like one of those fake-smart, middlebrow TV shows, the speciousness of The Social Network is disguised by topicality. It’s really a movie excusing Hollywood ruthlessness. That’s why it evades Zuckerberg’s background timidity and the mess that the Internet has made of cultural discourse. In interviews, Sorkin brags about the multiple narrative and Fincher has even invoked Citizen Kane—both are grandstanding excuses for Zuckerberg’s repeated masturbatory request for friendship—a mawkish George Clooney ending. Here’s the truth: Kane was not about a brat’s betrayal, but about a sensitive braggart’s psychological and philosophical shift inward. The Social Network is more like Hollywood’s classic film industry selfromance The Bad and the Beautiful. Yet that Kane-lite film never excused its bad-boy protagonist’s sins and ended magnanimously by converging his three injured parties’ points of view into one beautifully clarifying narrative. It admitted our cultural compromises; this is TV-trite. In The Social Network, creepiness is heroized.
You might recall that Armond White has been featured on this site previously. He is notorious for his contrarian movie reviews he files for the alt-weekly New York Press. His list also includes unfavorable thumbs downs for Inglourious Basterds, District 9, The Wrestler, In The Loop, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince , 500 Days of Summer, Avatar, Up in the Air, The Princess and the Frog, An Education, Star Trek, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hangover, The Dark Knight, Gone Baby Gone, Iron Man, There Will Be Blood, and Zodiac. Yet, he gives films like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Jonah Hex positive reviews? Even Roger Ebert calls White “a troll.”