kayhl at 2012-07-24 17:44:59:
There is a full length four part "Making of" documentary on imdb. http://imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1594268185/
Scott at 2012-07-24 17:46:47:
To me, the single smartest decision Sorkin made about The Social Network, besides choosing to take on this project, was to use the dual depositions as a narrative device to jump back and forth from present to past, past to present. Sorkin wants the reader to be so aware of this conceit, once he establishes the second of two deposition rooms, he says flat-out in scene description [P. 27]: We’ll be back and forth between the two deposition rooms a lot. The script does a masterful job with these jumps using lines of dialogue, pre-laps, audio and visual clues to serve as touch points for each transition. As noted in comments yesterday, the narrative structure of TSN is remarkably similar to Citizen Kane with the deposition room testimony providing the same function as Thompson the reporter tracking down the variety of witnesses to Kane's past, with the past narrative timeline playing out in linear fashion while using the interviews to provide the basis for time ellipses. There's also a bit of the Rashomon dynamic here, where there is the testimony representing one 'truth,' vs. what we see in the past, sometimes representing another 'truth.' That single choice -- using the dual depositions as a device to manage time jumps and the narrative -- is a smart one, enabling Sorkin to wrangle the details of a biopic into a compelling, fast-paced drama.
Vic Tional at 2012-07-25 08:36:47:
'The Social Network' is an unwieldy beast to analyze - the length of the screenplay makes it an ostensibly arduous task. However, I took the time to note down what happens and when, scene by scene, and was surprised to find that it didn't take any longer than a 100-pager would. As Scott mentioned, the read and run times are not that far away from your classic sub-120 screenplay - the scenes just tend to be longer (and the exchanges quicker). Fortunately, the dialogue is so memorable (and the film does such a great job realizing it vis-a-vis casting etc.) that you can skim through at speed, and that's because you only need to read a few lines to remember each scene vividly - a testament to the screenplay's efficacy. When I read the screenplays of films I've seen, I always try to peek behind the curtain and see the shape of the bones under the skin, so that's what I did here. I've never read any other Sorkin scripts, so I wanted to see how many screenwriting truisms are in evidence. It wasn't that surprising to find a bunch, although there are still aspects of it that I can't quite pin down. Bookends: so frequently in evidence, so very useful for crafting self-sufficient stories that arc (as all stories, or, more to the point, characters, must). A story that ends as it starts is not a life, it's a still-life. Here, we have Mark's relationship with Erica, which is the catalyst that sparks the sequence of events we are taken through (in the film - I think Zuckerberg would have something to say about the reality) and his attempting to reconnect with her closes the narrative. This opening scene puts the fire in Mark's belly, and it's interesting to note that Erica also acts as the catalyst that drives him towards expansion around P.77-78. Her rejection of him steers him into action, creating Facemash initially, and his inability to make amends propels him into taking Facebook out wide to other campuses and decamping to California. Ultimately, it's all for nothing. The chain of events that puts Mark in that chair at the end may have made him a household name and the world's youngest billionaire, but it hasn't made him happy. Without encroaching on the 'Characters' discussion to come, I think this is an ample demonstration of internal vs external needs, and what's deemed to be more important is fairly obvious. As per Scott's previous post and Citizen Kane analogy, the bible verse “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” is bang on. To stay with the Citizen Kane similarities for a minute, the depositions as the purpose they serve are clever moves on Sorkin's part, not least because they're mass burial sites for exposition, and burying exposition is one of the hardest parts of writing in this medium. Using a courtroom, a hearing, a newsroom - i.e. environments in which exchange of information is both typical and mandatory - is a great way of keying in readers/viewers, especially in instances where there's a lot of story fat to chew. I'm sure there are many other examples of films that use a similar approach - 'The Usual Suspects' springs to mind. Back to the structure, it could be said that Erica breaking up with Mark is the catalyst/inciting incident, but it's probably more accurate to suggest that the fallout from Facemash and network crash hits that beat. Maybe I'm being a little formulaic in my approach, trying to pick out something a dozen or so pages in (more in this case, obviously) that fits the bill, but the network crash creates the notoriety that brings Mark to the attention of the Winklevi and Divya, and the rest is lawsuit history. This happens around page 20, which fits pretty well (probably because I made it fit). After Mark agrees to help the Winklevi/Divya and decides to go his own way, he speaks to Eduardo and Facebook's on its way. I don't think it's a coincidence that this sequence ends on page 41 (exactly a quarter of the way through, which is very typical for first act breaks), launching us into the new world. Also no coincidence that Sean Parker enters the mix exactly halfway through, effectively providing the B story (in addition to the C, D etc. - Mark and Erica, Eduardo and Christy, Divya and the twins, punching the Porc, Sean and the world that's out to get him). This helps provide a break from the main narrative, introducing a new world that broadens out from the first to provide a breather and show where the story's going to go. Three quarters of the way in near-as-dammit (P.117) and we hit Palo Alto, and we're not in Kansas anymore. As things wrap up, Mark's a million miles from where he started but as far as peace of mind goes, he hasn't moved an inch. There's more in there - all of the major characters are quickly introduced (Mark, Erica, Eduardo, Marylin, Dustin, Chris), and the Winklevi aren't far behind. On a thematic level, Mark and Erica's opening conversation arguably sets up the central conceit, the question that must be answered. Mark wants attention because he thinks that makes you important and that this will bring you happiness. At the end, he knows this isn't the case. Again, maybe I'm shoehorning screenwriting how-tos into this screenplay, but I like to think it helps provide insight into how writers with real chops are just aware of the grunt work and universalities of creating compelling narratives, and it's no accident that you can trace the DNA if you do a little digging.
Scott at 2012-07-25 14:18:24:
Excellent observations and analysis, Vic. Per trying to sort out the setup, using my language system: Opening: Break-up Zuckerberg-Erica Hook: Facemash crash / intersection with the W twins Lock: Z talks to Eduardo, Facebook officially begins [as you suggest on P. 41] / end of Act One Working backward, in order to get to the end of Act One [launching Facebook initiative], the Protagonist needed to do something to precipitate or focus the idea. In order to do that, he needed to intersect with the W twins. And in order to do that, he needed to do something to get the W twin's attention [i.e., Facemash]. And in order to do that, he needed to be provoked which takes us directly back to the very opening scene. Digging further, we know the Z-Erica breakup is fiction, a Sorkin creation. Sorkin knew about Facemash, knew about Z's intersection with the W twins, knew about Z's conversation with Saverin leading to start-up of Facebook. I'm guessing Sorkin was thinking he needed to give Z a specific incident to motivate him to generate Facemash and that might have led Sorkin to the break-up with Erica. Or perhaps he came up with the idea of Z having this relationship with a girl which ended, something Sorkin wanted Z to come back to at the very end to hammer home a central theme of the story [irony of a guy starting a social media company about connecting to others when he himself can't connect authentically with people], and he put one and one together: "I have this failed relationship between Z and E, why don't I show the break-up and use that as a launching point for Facemash." It would be an interesting question to pose to Sorkin. Who knows if he could even remember when he came up with the idea of the Z-E relationship or the opening scene, but it would be informative to hear his thoughts anyway. Per the larger picture: Act One in TSN is a great example of narrative drive, how one scene is linked directly to the next creating a natural propulsion to the story.
Like_A_Boggs at 2012-11-06 02:59:33:
I could not help but notice how the argument between Erica and Mark is similar to the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles, in the Iliad, both scenes beginning the story of their respective works. Both parties try to make amends and are not forgiven in either work. I could be wrong in seeing this, but it seemed striking, especially considering TSN was shot like an action movie.