@Scott - Just browsing SlashFilm and was psyched to see this fantastic series get a mention on /Film's "Page 2" today.

http://www.slashfilm.com/page-2-136/#more-98023

Few down from the top.

Sorkin also used flashbacks very well during his stint on The West Wing.

What he did there, as well as The Social Network, is create a specific setting for each time period. He never leaves the deposition rooms. Each room has its own set of characters, and so we always know where we are in terms of the timeline.

In The West Wing, he'd have the Flashback take place all at night, and the Present take place during the day, so we knew exactly where we were.

@Nate: Well, look at that. The good folks at SlashFilm pimping GITS. Cool! See if I get a spike in site traffic today.

Sorkin's script for Moneyball uses a similar device. He cuts back in forth between Billy Beane's failed baseball career to support his obsessive motivation to avoid failure at all costs.

From script to movie, it also appears Fincher had a hand in this effect as well. The script I read had Zuckerberg literally leave one court case to walk into the next.

Fincher's take actually intercuts the two cases that works as both a humorous effect (that isn't present in the script) and gives the same "exposition" without ever needing a setup.

The setup is literally, talking about the other case and its defendant/witness in one room, cutting to it, seeing a piece of that case, and then coming back.

While not exactly the same, the opening to SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION has a similar effect. The court case, a supposed affair, Andy Dufrane in the car with booze and a gun, are all written as completely separate scenes, but when assembled are part of a retelling of the court case --

I always find this process of intercutting to be interesting as it seems that film captures it quite well, but illustrating it on the page can be somewhat problematic.

That and I think it points out one universal truth. Court cases are boring. What we really want to see are the actions and relationships behind the case and not the deliberation in the court room. They are almost always framing devices.

@James: That is excellent insight. If you don't mind, I'll update the OP with your entire comment.

BTW I noted the same thing re the opening to Shawshank. In fact I did a post here about how the movie is cut differently than the script to show how valuable intercuts / cross cuts can be. Make the story much more cinematic.