The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

Geez, I can't imagine who gave 'The Social Network' its first critical drubbing

Jesse_eisenberg David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin's "The Social Network" has a perfect 100 fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, but that's only because the movie review aggregation site hasn't seen Armond White's newly published take-down of the film in the New York Press. Of course, if you obsessively keep track of film critics the way I do, you'd know that the only thing more predictable than White thumbing his nose at a much-loved movie would be discovering that Sen. James Inhofe has once again derided global warming as a hoax.

Even though he's twice been president of the New York Film Critics Circle (which surely gives us a tiny indication of just how sadomasochistic critics must be), White is best known as a critic who will go out of his way to heap abuse on almost any well-liked film, not to mention a number of well-liked critical peers, such as Roger Ebert, who has been on the wrong end of White's whupping stick on several occasions. White is so famously contrarian that Jim Vorel at the has dutifully compiled looooong list of movies White has dismissed as dreck of one kind or the other, including such lauded fare as "Avatar," "Up in the Air," "Up," "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "District 9" and "Slumdog Millionaire." (Heading the roster of films White has liked: "Norbit.") 

So even though everyone (including me) has been visibly impressed by "The Social Network's" great writing and compelling storytelling, White isn't having any of it. In his review, he dumps on everyone, starting with Sorkin, saying that the screenwriter's "approach to Zuckerberg's conduct is unctuous with fake significance, letting the protagonist's eminence excuse his reprehensible misbehavior." As for Fincher, White calls him "an affectless director who disregards the emotional impact of every scene and situation." White even offers a truly tortuous account of why the movie has been getting raves from most of his peers. Here's how he puts it:

"Hollywood and the journalism industries — both cowed by the Internet breathing down their necks — have perfected a method to curtail individual response to movies, thereby dictating widespread enthusiasm for this shallowly complicated film. To Fincher and Sorkin, Zuckerberg represents a new cultural avatar who (like other snarky Internet avengers) must be worshipped, not held to account."

I think White just said that people like me are fascinated by the movie because, ahem, we're afraid of looking like old fogies? Or because Hollywood has implanted good review silicon chips in our brains? If anyone has missed the point of the film, it's White, who ends his review by saying that "in 'The Social Network,' creepiness is heroized." To the contrary. Having seen the film, I can't recall even a brief moment when Sorkin romanticizes Mark Zuckerberg. If anything, the film portrays him as the year's most unlikable hero, a modern-day cousin to Budd Schulberg's Sammy Glick. And guess what? The film's refusal to endorse or sentimentalize Zuckerberg's behavior only makes him more interesting.  

Photo: Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg in a scene from "The Social Network." Credit: Merrick Morton / Columbia TriStar Pictures

Comments () | Archives (7)

The comments to this entry are closed.

BTW, White is dead on re: 'Iron Man', and the others listed; that said, I'm sure that he wanted to weave Sorkin's mushrooming habit of old into his damnation of the writer who brought us 'You can't handle the truth!'

Mr. White, you..........can't.



Armond White compare Resident Evil to Inception and Avatar? Really?!
But he gave fresh reviews to Jonah Hex and Grown Up. He is the most despicable critic out there including for trashing down on Toy Story 3.

Armond White really belives he is a film critic. Saying what you think is a clever put down or liking an awful movie does not a film critic make. He obviously doesn't get the medium at all. I didn't even see The Social Network, but I did read the screenplay and I can tell you this is what going to the movies is all about.

It's like a guy who doesn't get rock and roll but somehow finds himself a music crtiic for rolling stone magazine. Or trying to explain the meaning of cool to someone. He is just trying to get on peoples' nerves. (I HOPE)

And I know it is all about opinion. But there are some movies so cinematic they go beyond critical opinion. You either get it or you don't.

He'd be the type of guy who saw a movie like boogie nights in the theatre and not only wouldn't know to let a movie like that wash over him, he'd be thinking of what he thinks are clever put downs while watching it. This guy's such a loser. And there comes a point when an opinion really doesn't matter.

What purpose does White serve? Being a committed contrarian doesn't help film goers decide on the best movie to see on any given weekend?

What is truly interesting about Armond White's TSN review are those nasty responses. Isn't White allowed to see things his way or is there only one way of viewing and evaluating this film? Is Armond White going to be shunned because he messes up that Rotten Tomatoes 100% rating, which is an EXTRAORDINARY RATING,worthy of a Fellini film, or Scorsese or Renoir or Kurosawa. Very impressive to be sure.

"Fincher and Sorkin fall into the predictable pattern of writing dialogue, then using actors to say words and move around in-frame, often accented by lighting or music."

A better question to be asking is why all the REST of the critics are in such lockstep, heaping so MUCH adulation on this film. I smell a critical agenda (what else is new among the cadre of arts critics?), rather than a belief this film is truly one of the greats.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:

About the Bloggers



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: