Comments

1
This is exactly the conversation I had on Wednesday night at PAC's goodbye thingy.

The choices Sorkin made reflected what he thought would be titillating- i.e. psycho asian chicks, blonde co-eds in stanford panties (note that JT was fully clothed in that scene), and a fake facemash which only included half the population (the female half).

And from everything I've read, no one who went to Harvard at the same time as Zuckerberg experienced that boys' club mentality. AND no one even gives a shit about Finals Clubs so the question of why he decided to make a Billionaire Boys Club version of the facebook story is still unanswered by his post on Levine's bog.

I really liked the movie DESPITE how marginalized it made me feel. Imagine how much I would have liked it if he had told the actual story.

/rant

2
Oh for fuck's sake. Erik, if you saw the movie twice, and sexism didn't even occur to you, the movie's probably not overtly sexist. I accept Sorkin's explanation, and this whole business about stereotyped "psycho asian chicks?" (btw Dana Stevens at Slate was also baffled this was a thing) C'mon now, is that even a stereotype?

Kiala, the movie's apparently from the subjective point of view from the asshole male leads, who apparently, act like assholes the whole time. Why do men who don't see the women around them as 3D have to be responsible for rendering their characters that way in a friggin' subjective flashback?

Also, I haven't seen the film, have no plans to, and I'm not a lady. So my opinion's a pretty valuable one to have, natch.
3
@CC the point has been raised that these men DO see women in 3D and Sorkin decided to change that in the script.
4
How is making a character sexist sexist?
5
Here. Irin Carmon explains this for you.

http://jezebel.com/5662069/the-social-netw…
6
@ Kiala: "But are casual viewers coming away from the film thinking, "Wow, I'm really troubled by the lack of a coherent character arc for Christy the psycho girlfriend"? Or do they think, how badass it would be to live the northern California version of Entourage, Victoria's Secret model in tow?"

If we're talking about sexism, why does every "casual" viewer have to be a male fratboy stereotype? Further, why do we have to give a fuck what a dumbfuck fratboy stereotype HYPOTHETICALLY might take away from this film? If they are really sexist morons already, is Aaron Sorkin's fucking Facebook movie really in a position to change that one way or the other?

I haven't even seen the movie, but from all I've read, incl. the Jezebel post, Erik's post and Dana Stevens' review, I probably agree with commenter KiloTwat at Jezebel: "The movie went out of its way to show how lonely, pathetic and destructive most its main characters were. The hardest partier, Sean Parker, was portrayed as a paranoid, unhinged loon who can't keep himself out of jail or in a job. Nothing about their lifestyle was glamorized. If you find the movie portrayal of that kind of living enviable in any way, the problem is solely yours because the filmmakers all but smeared tears and vomit into every scene."

I have no idea why I'm wandering into this prickle patch without even seeing the movie - oh wait it's because it's all anyone is friggin' talking about and I DON'T GET IT, PROBABLY BECAUSE OF MY PENIS.
7
@CC you do not get to talk about this anymore until you see the movie. #zipit
8
i did notice the almost entirely male perspective while watching the movie, but my "feminist alarm" did not go off, because i do not often watch movies through a lens of consideration of how the world REALLY is or how i want it to be. neither do i read a book that way.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.