I have to ask: Couldn't you argue that Bertie was both sympathetic and compelling?

I understand that having a sympathetic character is important, but the character should be compelling as well, correct?

Otherwise, we'd just be watching a person that struggles with every day life, just as we might do, and offer very little else to the audience.

One point I'd make on the Zuckerberg character (the film one) is that he's sympathetic for interesting reasons,

1) He obviously wants to belong to the cool clubs (a significant part of the opening is dedicated to him using his massive brain to analyze just how to get into one) and is painfully aware that, for a geek like him, it's unlikely the popular kids will invite him, as that it's invitation only ... who can't identify sympathetically with that?

2)and despite his brilliance, he's clumsy with the opposite sex, and as a result of putting his foot in his mouth, his girlfriend dumps him, right then and there, and it hurts ... it hurts because he knows he's socially stunted and doesn't know how to talk to her ...

It's painful, that kind of adolescent clumsiness, and all of us, male and female, can RELATE to it, we've all said the wrong thing and been dumped ... all of us except the prom kings and queens.

For those two reasons, I think we sympathize with Zuckerberg the film character ... Sorkin is brilliant at weaving those things in and out of the dialogue, and in particular the opening scene.

Clearly Sorkin kicks-butt as a writer.

That said, would the audience have still found the Zuckerberg character compelling if "The Social Network" was an original screenplay versus an adaptation about something we were curious about?

Is it possible that an adaptation about a famous protagonist (i.e. Zuckerberg, Martha Stewart, Oprah) gets a bit of a boost from being unsympathetic?

This Zuckerberg portrayal reminds me of Danny DeVito's character in "Other People's Money." He's a villain, in this case masterminding a hostile takeover. You feel sympathetic toward the victims of the takeover, but there's still something likable about DeVito and his Dunkin Donuts.

@Carlos: In an ideal world, yes, sympathetic and compelling is a good thing to have going on.

@Josh: I can IDENTIFY with his desire to be with the in-crowd and I can IDENTIFY with him getting dumped. But I don't think being a member of said social club is a terribly worthy ambition (granted that character dynamic does inform considerably why at least on one level it's so important for Z to succeed). Plus he gets dumped by Erica because he is being an asshole. Actually I didn't sympathize with him so much as feel sorry for him. Obviously a genius in a world where - at least for most smart folks - doesn't value intelligence as much as money, fame, and looks.

I think Zetta made a really good point: the fact that he is famous makes us inherently curious. Thus, we can follow him being an asshole for the whole movie and still be interested.

If this was just some no-name character in an original screenplay, it'd be a lot harder to follow.

Side note: I thought the parts of him talking back in the depositions were really funny and it is something that we secretly wish we all could do (talk back to a higher authority) but don't/can't.

I re-watched "Social Network" this past weekend with my wife, her first viewing. My first viewing came with a bunch of film people and we all marveled at the craftiness of the storytelling. My wife is the furthest thing from a film student, so it came with fresh eyes this time.

I found myself agreeing with my wife each time she yelled at the TV, saying she couldn't stand Zuckerberg. Take away the smartness of everything that's being said and leave the meaning: pettiness, entitlement, assumed superiority, jealousy. Erica tells us all: Mark is an asshole. He lies, cheats, and steals. While Zuckerberg's portrayal is captivating because we can't believe what he'll say next to top himself, he does absolutely nothing for us to like him.

No sympathy here. Erica doesn't leave him to trade up for a Crew guy; Mark forces her hand to break up with him, then blames her. It's pathetic that Mark hates the very clubs he so desperately wants to rule. And it's infuriating that someone who changed the way in which millions of people communicate with each other is unable to maintain any sort of meaningful relationship because he's unwilling to be a true friend.

Forrest Gump is both compelling and sympathetic. So is Han Solo when he learns the importance of friends. Hell, even The Godfather is sympathetic and we all know he's ordered the cold-blooded murders of countless people. But Zuckerberg gets everything he wants by back-stabbing and walks away with a slap on the wrist.

The only sympathetic character in the story is Eduardo. He's used by the person closest to him he presumed was his best friend, potentially screwing him out of billions of dollars. He's torn between forging his own path and living up to the heavy expectations of his imposing father. And he finally lands a girlfriend, but, whoops, she's batsh*t crazy. Eduardo is a good guy, but each time we see him, he's taking it in the shorts.

Entertaining movie, but Zuckerberg is hardly a protagonist, when defined as a "hero."

@ Chris - I don't know how anyone can come away from The Social Network thinking "Zuckerberg gets everything he wants".

Anyhoo, I'd like to add one important thing which is that, while Zuckerberg is indeed an asshole, his antagonists, Eduardo and the Winkelvii, are hardly that sympathetic either.
The Winkelvii are self-entitled silver-spoon hunks who think they have an original idea (they don't) and that they can use their influence to get some wide-eyed tech-kid to do the hard work for them while they reap the spoils.
Similarly, Eduardo comes from money. He's a bit of a spineless sap. He doesn't have a whole lot of entrepreneurial insight; he bankrolls Facebook only out of friendship, is largely disinterested in it, and continually fails to see its potential. While he's legally entitled to his billions, you'd be hard pressed to say he earned them.

I'd argue that Mark is compelling because he is an asshole. What he achieves is impressive but could also have been the result of the actions of a goody two-shoes protagonist. It's precisely because he doesn't know how to behave in social situations, is jealous, boorish and petty and even becomes treacherous, that he is compelling - so it's his flaws which make him a character you want to keep watching (though for some people these flaws may be strong enough to make them actively dislike the character).

Same thing is at work in Casablanca - if Rick Blaine were as nice, polite and together as Victor Lazlo, there wouldn't have been anything there to make him compelling.

This discussion gives me the opportunity to repeat a story I heard about Clint Eastwood - I've never been able to confirm it, but it's a great illustrative tale nonetheless, so I use it.

Supposedly Clint is shooting one of those spaghetti westerns he did way back when. In the movie, he's a vicious killer traveling to a town to get revenge on some bad guys. He's introduced in a shot where he's riding his horse across an arid stretch of plain. When he stops, we see he and horse are both covered with dust and parch dry. Clint dismounts, heads over to a small watering hole. Lips parched. Bends down. Scoops up some water in his hat -- then before he takes a drink, he gives some first to the horse.

Moral: He immediately created a level of likability re the character straight off, thereby gaining the 'support' of the viewer -- even though the character is a killer.

If anyone can verify that story, please do. If not, I'm still gonna keep on using it!

If it's been filmed, someone surely must know for sure if the above story is true.

Either way, I love it. Blake Snyder would have been proud.