In the post-postmodern era being fashioned by millennials, there are two ways to get rich: (1) connect large amounts of people together under a common communication platform via the Internet; or (2) hire a lawyer and become a parasite of someone who has connected large amounts of people together. While I enjoyed this film a great deal, I found it lacking in noble purpose as it castigates the inventor and glorifies the parasite.
The false premise of our "feelings matter" pop culture is that humans should be judged by the quality of their relationships rather than the degree of their contributions. This movie advances that meme by condemning Zuckerberg for being an anti-social schmuck whose single focus on the success of his fledgling enterprise kept him from the really important stuff like learning the appropriate way to interact with the people who clung to his fame because they lacked the capability or confidence to do anything remotely as great as Zuckerberg was doing.
What was Zuckerberg doing? He was making it possible for 500 million people around the world to connect with each other in a richer, more humanly way. He was making life better for hundreds of millions of people who desired to see a few more pictures of their grandchildren, or learn a bit more about their kids off at college, or ease into a relationship with a potential mate. That's a pretty big thing, and if he was paid a mere $15 billion for what he did, I'd say he was underpaid.
His reward? His best friend and financial angel stabs him in the back by closing out all the accounts he depended on to keep afloat in the early stages, then sues him. The best friend settles for an undisclosed sum, reported to be better than $1 billion, signing a non-disclosure statement in the bargain. Then the same "friend" goes to a writer and collaborates on a tell-all, tabloid-type piece of trash that violates the hell out of the non-disclosure statement, if not in fact then in spirit. And now the book has become a movie.
Yes, it's a good movie, very well made with snappy dialog and a few great performances.
But if the viewer comes away thinking that Zuckerberg is a schmuck who doesn't deserve his wealth, I'd ask him to think again.
The false premise of our "feelings matter" pop culture is that humans should be judged by the quality of their relationships rather than the degree of their contributions. This movie advances that meme by condemning Zuckerberg for being an anti-social schmuck whose single focus on the success of his fledgling enterprise kept him from the really important stuff like learning the appropriate way to interact with the people who clung to his fame because they lacked the capability or confidence to do anything remotely as great as Zuckerberg was doing.
What was Zuckerberg doing? He was making it possible for 500 million people around the world to connect with each other in a richer, more humanly way. He was making life better for hundreds of millions of people who desired to see a few more pictures of their grandchildren, or learn a bit more about their kids off at college, or ease into a relationship with a potential mate. That's a pretty big thing, and if he was paid a mere $15 billion for what he did, I'd say he was underpaid.
His reward? His best friend and financial angel stabs him in the back by closing out all the accounts he depended on to keep afloat in the early stages, then sues him. The best friend settles for an undisclosed sum, reported to be better than $1 billion, signing a non-disclosure statement in the bargain. Then the same "friend" goes to a writer and collaborates on a tell-all, tabloid-type piece of trash that violates the hell out of the non-disclosure statement, if not in fact then in spirit. And now the book has become a movie.
Yes, it's a good movie, very well made with snappy dialog and a few great performances.
But if the viewer comes away thinking that Zuckerberg is a schmuck who doesn't deserve his wealth, I'd ask him to think again.