I have mentioned elsewhere that while Sorkin is well-known for his dialogue - and certainly the dialogue in The Social Network is a notable feature - I think one of Sorkin's strongest creative choices in the script is his use of the two depositions as narrative devices to cross cut back and forth in time. It allows Sorkin to manage the sequence of events by cutting the fat from key event to key event, using the dialogue in the depositions to fill in the gaps. It's akin to a similar device in Citizen Kane, the reporter visiting with several notable people from Charles Foster Kane's past, using them to cut back to events in the past, stitched together into a narrative whole. In going through the scene-by-scene breakdown, I did something I had yet to do in analyzing this story: Track the deposition scenes. Per the designations of Nick Dykal, who did a great job with the breakdown, there are two primary depositions and one scene of the third one: Deposition 1: Zuckerberg / Eduardo / Lawyers. Deposition 2: Zuckerberg / Winklevoss Twins / Lawyers. Deposition 3: Eduardo / Winklevoss Twins Lawyers. Here are the deposition scenes: 22-24: DP1 24-26: DP2 35-36: Cross Cut DP1 / DP2 42-44: DP3 62-65: Cross Cut DP1 / DP2 73-74: DP2 95-97: DP1 107-111: DP1 Interesting to note there are 6 deposition scenes in the first half of the script and only 2 in the second half. That makes sense in that they are used primarily to stitch together events in the past. Once Sean Parker comes onto the scene, all of the major players and dynamics are set into motion. In fact, the last 50 pages of the script before the Denouement are continuous action with no interruption back to the past. Of course, some of the most memorable dialogue and dramatic moments take place in the depositions, which speaks to Sorkin's skill, not only using these scenes as narrative devices, but also zeroing in on some core conflict in each deposition scene, then exploring the conflict between the characters. Like this: Gage: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention? Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No. Gage: Do you think I deserve it? Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at Gage] What? Gage: Do you think I deserve your full attention? Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don't want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no. Gage: Okay - no. You don't think I deserve your attention. Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing. [pauses] Did I adequately answer your condescending question? Final initial comment: Much has been made about the fact the script is 164 pages long. When Fincher had Sorkin come over to first discuss the script, he suggested it would have to be trimmed. Sorkin told him, no, the story had a pace to it, like an action script. To prove his point, Sorkin read aloud the entire script to Fincher and timed it. He hit FADE OUT right at the two hour mark. And, in fact, the movie is precisely 120 minutes long. Of course, if your name is Aaron Sorkin, you can get away with a 165 page script. If you're NOT named Aaron Sorkin and an unknown to Hollywood, you had better write a damn fine script to get any reader to embrace 165 pages. But it does show that the supposed 'rule' about a script being no longer than 120, while conventional wisdom, is not, in fact, a rule. How about you? What are your thoughts on the script for The Social Network?

Yes, the dialog is an interesting point. In fact I think the high intellect motormouth Zuckerberg is an unique device in itself. It sets the film apart. It draws you in. And it gets you past scenes that might be otherwise very boring guys sitting at computers. Thanks for that insight.

I found the script well worth studying for how the story is skillfully told from 3 POV's, 1] Mark the protagonist, 2] Eduardo Saverin, and 3] the Winklevoss twins & Dviya Narendra. I was also impressed by how well Sorkin uses basic story telling techniques. Such as: 2] Callbacks. The most obvious is the last line of dialogue in the script where the lawyer Marylin calls back to Mary Erica Albright's accusing Mark of being an asshole. 2] Accentuating conflict by contrast. So many examples to choose from. One that really stood out for me is when Mark goes with Eduardo to New York City to pitch the web site for advertising. Mark is bored, detached during the meetings Eduardo has set up. But in the next scene when he meets Sean Parker, he's fully engaged and enthralled. 3] Setting up a dramatic question to be answered in subsequent scenes. For example, in a deposition scene, Eduardo explains how he was going to spend the summer in NYC while Mark and the interns went worked in Palo Alto. (p 116) "I figured... how much could go wrong in three months?" Come to find out shortly: everything. 4] Setups and payoffs. So many examples, here's one: When the Winklevoss go to meet the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, the secretary points out that "the building is 100 years older than the country it is in. So do be careful." Tyler: "Were sitting in chairs." But later as they leave, having failed to get satisfaction from Summers, Tyler angrily closes the door a little too hard and the brass doorknob comes off. He drops it on the secretary's desk. Tyler: "I broke your 335 year old doorknob."

Jon, you have to figure the high intensity and superior intelligence of the Zuckerberg character must have attracted Sorkin to the material, in addition to everything else about the story, as his [Zuckerberg] rather manic verbal instincts make for a compelling figure. And you're right: What might come across as flat exposition, in the mouth of such an intense wordsmith like Zuckerberg's character comes across as verbal machine gun. Actually Eduardo and especially Sean Parker are right there at an approximate level of verbal jabs. Again right in Sorkin's wheelhouse.

Great observations, Paul. Let me comment further on each of your points: 1. The tripartite narrative POV is precisely one of the ways the story gains its narrative energy, cross-cutting between perspectives in timely fashion, never sticking with one or the other for more than a few pages. In addition, this along with the deposition device allows Sorkin to omit any interstitial dross and focus solely on the meat of the plot. 2. The "asshole" callback is obviously intentional and a great bookend, one in the very first scene, the other in the very last scene. It offers an interesting and nuanced take on Zuckerberg's character. First scene Erica quote: "You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole." In this scene, he really IS an asshole, then doubles down with the Facemash program that makes fun of Erica's body. Last scene Marilyn (lawyer) quote: "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be." In this scene, Zuckerberg seems rather pensive as the legal case involving Facebook is about to settle. This last line of the movie lingers after the lawyer has left. And what does Zuckerberg do? He opens up Facebook, friends Erica, then hits refresh, refresh, refresh. We see the emotional need for connection that lurks beneath Zuckerberg's bluster and obsession. So we are left to wonder: Is he really an asshole or just trying to be one? 3. The dramatic irony of Eduardo's question -- “I figured… how much could go wrong in three months?” -- particularly with the hard cut to party time in Palo Alto is thick. It's a great takeaway for us as writers, a dialogue-to-visual transition with an emotional punch. 4. This is something of a Sorkin specialty, especially lines of dialogue acting as buttons on scenes. Setups and payoffs like this not only round out scenes, they also provide that nice "I see what you did there" moments. For a script reader, that demonstrates a writer who knows his/her craft. So much to learn from this script. Look forward to digging into it this week. Thanks again, Paul. Good stuff!