Is The Social Network Still Relevant?

It's impossible to discuss a biopic concerning the infamous neo-liberal idealist turned bad without examining the social and economic structure of the United States specifically Silicon Valley at the time. If the free market race deems you a winner, you're untouchable. in 1995, during the peak of the dot com bubble, Silicon Valley was the main catalyst for tech startups to find their new muse. The controversial movement, known as the Californian ideology, was founded on a growing belief in technological determinism and expanded on the idea that new technology will liberate people.

This confirmed the previous generations' hope and prediction that this innovative technology would help overthrow big corporations and businesses. They were known as community media activists who strived to “growing new information technologies for the alternative press, community radio stations and video collectives”. This new generation of laid-back guys, who wore hoodies, flip-flops and overthrew the business-savvy etiquette and dress attire were known as the virtual class. The creatives and artists were the new generation that would topple the established industries by designing and innovating their crafts to new frontiers. As alluring and liberal as this sounds, there was a growing danger in this contradiction lying at the heart of the Californian ideology.

Even though these revolutionists were keen on becoming the privileged part of the labour force, inventing and supplying jobs, they were also the heirs to the radical ideas of the community media activists. Through the strict and meticulous belief in technological determinism, the free market needs to be re-established as a space for artistry and constant contemporary ideas. This neo-liberal capitalist free market ideology brought to the forefront people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and of course Mark Zuckerburg.

In the earlier years of Facebook, Mark was generally seen as a somewhat socially inept genius who revolutionized the way we interact with each other in an online presence, countering the elements of individual growth and social exclusivity. but today we understand him as something very different because few could have predicted what started as a social networking site, would become an ever-looming threat to privacy and freedom of speech. A forefront to the affliction that if something is free, you are most likely the product. Several other networking sites adopted this brand of customer info sharing, whether be it to sell you more products through ads or predict your shopping and lifestyle choices based on what you browsed on the internet.

This lack of online agency led many to distrust the essence of Facebook and in turn Mark Zuckerberg. So when The Social Network directed by David Fincher came out in 2010, many of the speculations around online security and safety had not been addressed to the public yet. Mark was still the boy genius, and the film would bring attention to who he was. This film is one of my favourite movies to come out in the 2010's but upon rewatch with some of my peers, to my dismay, they did not enjoy it the way I did years prior. The general standpoint is that the social network romanticized this type of boy genius as a hero and glorified the misogynistic hyper-capitalist culture of Silicon Valley.

It was strange because I had always come out of the film with the opposite stance, viewing Mark as more of an antihero and a critique of the greed and cool image the culture wanted to portray. Takeaways from this movie over several years have differed from the film posing as a decomposing time capsule or a relic. Angela Watercutter writes that “The Social Network is something of a decoder ring for popular opinion about Facebook at any given time. Watch it in 2010 and it might feel much darker than anything associated with the company needed to be. Watch it today, it almost seems like the company got off light.” Many deem the film as a hero's journey, where Mark starts as an underdog and makes his way to the top through dedication, talent and hard work.

The film emphasizes the stuffy and elitist atmosphere of Harvard with their apathetic dean and antiquated frat culture. The Winklevoss embody this personification and act as a foil to Mark's plans, and the physical opposites of him. Mark feels a sense of inferiority compared to men like the Winklevosses as his insecurities and shortcomings are deemed as the reason for his romantic and social ineptitude. As an outsider to the perceived establishment, he breaks the rules, breeches ethical and moral policies and proves his worth and validation by gaining everything from wealth to status. In the end, we see Mark sitting alone on his computer, refreshing Erica Albright's Facebook page, ultimately solidifying the message that he is just human in search of love and connection.

When analyzed in this context, the film can be seen as propaganda for the Californian ideology. Mark frequently scoffs at authority and protests against any infringement on his sense of freedom, often mocking and belittling lawyers or businessmen who fail to grasp his ideals. This behaviour extends not only to investors but also to his best friend Eduardo, who, for the majority of the film, funds Mark's ventures and supports him through his missteps. Mark is uncooperative with almost everyone in his field—except Sean Parker, the failed billionaire CEO who is infamously still remembered. Sean embodies the countercultural ethos of Silicon Valley and personifies everything Mark aspires to be.

Sean is intelligent, charismatic, smooth-talking, and, perhaps most importantly, effortlessly cool. He is a rule-breaking bad boy who has already conquered the free market game, coming off as Mark’s biggest inspiration and a key figure in helping him reach his goals. While this interpretation of the film is valid, I’ve always viewed The Social Network as more of a character study, a courtroom drama, or a gripping thriller of power dynamics, rather than a traditional hero's journey. From the 1st few scenes we see of him with Erica, Mark is blindly ambitious and deeply insecure, not an outsider indifferent to fitting in, but someone who seems desperate to climb the social hierarchy, no matter who he betrays along the way. Mark is also a bad friend, ignoring and disparaging Eduardo, and is easily influenced by Sean Parker.

Looking at The Social Network as an anti-American dream movie, compartmentalizes all of Mark's breaches of privacy and betrayals of trust, regardless of how the film marvels at Facebook's insane rise of popularity. People like Mark and Sean don't come with any ideology other than to be perceived as cool and wealthy, which only leaves Mark alone and miserable once he achieves his dreams. It feels as if anyone who pursues channels to achieve their capitalistic American dreams will end up exploiting and betraying hundreds to do so.

Viewers can interpret this rise to the top either as a formidable critique, which is how I saw it or as a glorification of exploitative hard work and talent, a perspective I like to call the “Wolf of Wall Street effect.” That film exaggerated the wealth, excess, and extravagant lifestyles of corrupt, ambitious stockbrokers to a comedic degree, which many young men mistakenly took as a blueprint for achieving success in America. Over time, however, it has aged poorly for audiences who now view it more as a critique than a celebration. I’ve always seen the men in The Wolf of Wall Street as empty, self-destructive losers who never truly found self-fulfillment beyond their relentless exploitation of others. I find it baffling that anyone could view the film differently, even Martin Scorsese himself likely intended it as a scathing critique.

Writer Aaron Sorkin crafted this film as a courtroom drama, centring on Mark's antagonistic methods to accomplish what only someone like him could achieve. Sorkin also emphasizes Mark's ambition to revolutionize a utopian social vision aimed at bringing people closer together, only to ultimately undermine and erode genuine human connection. Where any viewers don't fully grasp the collapse of the Californian ideology, Director David Fincher aims to frame the story in a more neutral stance, revelling in the awe of characters like Mark who uses emotions like anger and revenge to rocket-fuel his ambitions from hacker to Ceo. Finchers intoxicating score, and thrilling cinematic framing can make the mistake of making Mark look cool, regardless of the context. I think both Fincher and Sorkin can see themselves in Mark to a certain extent, perceiving him as an impressive individual. However, where Sorkin's dialogue indites, Fincher's framing exonerates.

After the film's release, Mark Zuckerberg’s public strategy was to acknowledge it as little as possible. Initially, he refused to watch it and avoided commenting on it altogether. He later made a brief appearance alongside Jesse Eisenberg on Saturday Night Live to be polite, but afterward admitted he was still upset about the film. This led some viewers to believe he had been unfairly portrayed, although earlier drafts of the script included input from the Facebook team to fact-check certain details.

Remarkably, the film avoided legal trouble during Zuckerberg's prime years at Facebook, years when his unethical tactics involving privacy and security breaches had yet to be fully exposed. Over time, Zuckerberg’s public image has deteriorated significantly, as revelations about his involvement in deeper levels of corruption have come to light. In this context, the film now feels almost tame, as it fails to fully critique the scope of his actions. That said, The Social Network remains shrouded in ambiguity. While I’ve often dissected its inaccuracies, the film’s details, however, overstated, still manage to capture the archetypes, ambitions, and cultural ethos of an entire generation at that moment in time.

Whether you sympathize with Mark by the end of the film or not, it’s important to remember that The Social Network is a fictionalized biopic, crafted with narrative throughlines and character archetypes designed to tell a good story. The relevance of the true story behind it can continue to be debated, especially as we remain immersed in Mark Zuckerberg’s ongoing ventures and the social media age dominated by Facebook. But for me, the film transcended the contextual realities of Zuckerberg’s life and instead, I viewed it through the lens of the myth of the male genius. An illusion that stays relevant for decades and will do so in the future surrounded by the hyper-fixation of capitalistic ventures.

The social Network stands as one of the most important cultural artifacts of our time and a well-made film of the information age. But can we still find empathy for someone actively contributing to societal harm? The film was produced during a period when the boundary between Zuckerberg, and, by extension, ourselves, was much thinner. Yet as the delusions of tech culture, "bro" mentalities, and metaverses grow, those lines blur and thicken. Are we still able to see humanity in figures like Mark Zuckerberg? I’m not so sure. And yet, The Social Network, through its fictionalized biopic, prematurely suggests that the answer is yes.