Skip to content 
Sorkin
What I love most about writer-director Aaron Sorkin is his ability to structure complex subjects in an easily understandable way. Either that some good men (1992), Charlie Wilson’s War (2007), social network (2010), The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) or any of the following episodes: west wing (1999-2006), when the credits roll, you’ll understand what you just saw. As a bonus, Sorkin’s writing makes for very engaging viewing, regardless of the subject matter. he made Moneyball (2011) An interesting watch on baseball statistics. Think about that magical act for a moment. Morbid baseball fan). his latest movies, social evaluationIt’s no different.
Because I know you’re curious, social evaluation It’s not a sequel social network. Yes, Sorkin wrote both movies. Yes, both are about Facebook. Yes, both portray Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a disgusting sack of shit. But that’s where the connection ends. social evaluation Where do I not receive it? social network It has been discontinued. Sorkin’s latest film makes no attempt to tell us what happened in the 16 years between the films. Reckoning doesn’t even keep Zuckerberg as its protagonist. social evaluation It’s about algorithms. And you thought baseball statistics were mediocre.
More specifically, social evaluation It’s about how Facebook’s algorithm affects its users. To construct this, Sorkin focuses on two things. One was a journalist and whistleblower investigation, which led to the Wall Street Journal’s aptly titled 2021 series, The Facebook Files: A Wall Street Journal Investigation. The other is that Zuckerberg is preparing for his upcoming congressional testimony. The investigation will run from 2019 to 2021, and Zuckerberg’s preparation will take place on January 6, 2021. So the movie goes back and forth between the two, moving toward their respective climaxes. To avoid confusion, the film displays a timeline on screen as these transitions occur. I told you so – it’s easy to understand.
Before you start watching, you should know that it will upset you at several points. Well, it will probably make you angry. Depends on how you feel about a drunk idiot verbally accusing two cops of being guilty of stopping the car to check on the idiot because that idiot’s car was emitting tons of smoke from the engine. Especially when that drunken asshole turns her attack into extremely vicious racism. If my repeated use of the word asshole offends you, you really, really shouldn’t see this movie. Because asshole is the best word I can think of to describe her, and it’s not even the hardest scene to watch in the movie. And this scene also marks the beginning of the movie.
outline
It’s an important scene for several reasons, but its main purpose is to motivate whistleblower Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee. Frances is a real person who worked on Facebook’s Civic Integrity team to combat misinformation spread through Facebook posts. The opening scene involves the idiot recording her encounter and posting the video online. Frances recognizes the asshole as a former friend and is surprised at how radicalized the friend has become. Because you know a lot of it has to do with your ex’s online presence. Frances, a data scientist, digs into internal Facebook files and comes up with some pretty surprising statistics.
At the same time, investigative reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) is assigned to report on Facebook. His intuition tells him that there is a serious problem with Facebook (and social media in general) and he starts digging. Eventually, Frances contacts him, and the two develop a working relationship over several months. A working relationship means she spills small bits of information to him because she truly believes in Facebook’s mission (connecting people) and doesn’t want to get fired (or worse).
As the investigation progresses, we see how Sorkin uses it to explain the issues in simple terms. Horwitz has the technical acumen of marble, and Frances constantly reminds him (and us) of it. This allows the film to organically explain things like algorithms and MSI (Meaningful Social Interaction) in very simple terms and without disrupting the flow of the film. Horwitz does the same in the opposite direction, constantly trying to explain how journalism and reporting actually work.
argument
The same goes for the Zuckerberg scene. In that scene, he (Jeremy Strong) is constantly showing the aura of “I am smarter than anyone else,” even if not explicitly. Conversely, longtime friend-turned-critic Charlie Garrigan (Bill Burr) is arguing with Zuckerberg, who is trying to answer questions he expects Congress to ask. Garrigan continues to explain to Zuckerberg what he is missing or ignoring, including his refusal to stop platforming political ads containing misinformation and lies.
Like Horwitz and Haugen, we have two people with very different knowledge backgrounds, but this time it’s a political debate (Garrigan explaining to Zuckerberg) and a business debate (Zuckerberg explaining to Garrigan). And again, everything is communicated in very clear terms so the audience doesn’t get lost in all the dialogue.
Additional analysis
Of course there is a lot of dialogue. This is Sorkin’s work. He is the exact opposite of a man of few words. But this is always a good thing. Especially since Sorkin (and his peers) always seem to find the perfect actor for his script. No matter how good his writing is, it will only be effective if it produces good results. And this movie is full of great performances. Madison delivers a multi-layered performance that makes Haugen relatable, frustrating, strong, and gentle. In other words, a very human performance.
White gives us reporters who want us to succeed. He is kind and understanding, very direct in his intentions, and never makes you think he has any other motivations than helping people through journalism. Being strong is also great. All the proof you need is that you want to punch his version of Zuckerberg in the stupid, arrogant, greedy face. Just like the real Zuckerberg. And then there’s Burr, who’s so good you’ll almost forget he made a name for himself as a stand-up comedian. Like John Leguizamo OdysseyBurr deserves much consideration for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.
conclusion
At this point you probably want to know. social evaluation better, better, worse social network. Honestly, I don’t know. It’s been 16 years since I saw that movie, and I don’t remember much about it anymore. I just wanted someone to punch Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) in his stupid face by the end of the movie. It still is.
Verdict: Don’t ask for a refund, no matter what the algorithm says.
Read more Cinema Scholars reviews!
Casino Royale (2006): Reconnecting after 20 years
THE DOG STARS: Another take on Ridley Scott’s latest film
Stay up to date with Cinema Scholars on social media. like us FacebookSubscribe youtubeAnd follow us thread, Instagram, blue sky, and X.
relevant