My biggest takeaway from the script was the choices Sorkin made to "Photoshop" an unlikable protagonist, mask or at least tone down character flaws that might alienate an audience. One trite and true technique would have been to insert "save the cat", "pet the pup" moments. But Sorkin did not splice one such faux redemption moment into the script. Thankfully. Another "Photoshop" technique would have been to give the protagonist a soft focus, a love interest (aka: attractor), someone to make him more presentable, perchance, redeemable. And the real life Mark Z had a girl friend during this episode in his life and eventually married her. But Sorkin chose to go the other way with a relationship that crashes beyond repair in the opening scene. I think this weaves well into one of the threads running through story, gross, rampant sexism. Sorkin did his darndest to create female characters for a story that's really all about frat guys and freak geeks. About a culture that's dominated by young adults intoxicated by booze, drugs -- and testosterone. So what "Photoshop" techniques did Sorkin use to make Mark Z more presentable? One was to counterbalance Mark Z's objectionable character weaknesses with admirable character strengths. Such as: He's smart, a code warrior, very, very good at what he does. He's passionate, he loves what he does. No career angst, no divided soul wondering if he should major in liberal arts instead of Linux. He has vision and initiative. He knows a great idea when he sees it, and he runs with it. He's gutsy, a risk taker. The odds may not be in his favor, but that never deters him. He is no respecter of office, title or status. (This strength may be a mixed bag. He lacks the social graces to masquerade this attitude. But isn't that the way most of the viewing audience feels about privilege and title? But haven't got the moxy to drop the pretense, the masquerade?) Add up these character strengths and -- voila! --you've got a compelling character, even if he isn't standard-issue likeable. But Sorkin didn't stop there. He further "Photoshopped" Mark Z by pitting him against characters who are even less likeable. He uses them as foils to make Mark Z look better -- okay, not so bad -- in contrast. The most salient foil is Sean Parker. Enough said? The Winkelvoss twins are foils, too. Their inherited wealth, privileged position in the pecking order and sense of entitlement are likely to offend most viewers, who are mere commoners. Oh, there is also the New York ad executive -- played by Sorkin himself in the movie -- who can only see Mark's ugly behavior, can't see the beauty -- and profit potential -- of his concept. For me "The Social Network" is required reading, a textbook example of how to "Photoshop" an ostensibly unlikable character.

And furtherless, I got to get in a lick on the question of the archetypal Mentor role. First of all, I've read Jung, Campbell, et al extensively and I subscribe to Jung's theory of archetypes; I believe the theory has practical applications in drama. And as I said earlier, my nominee for the role of Mentor is Sean Parker. Who also gets my nod for the Trickster. (Where is it written that a character can't work a day job and a night job when it comes to archetypes?) But just because X number roles are available in this or that paradigm (like the hero's journey) does it follow that in a film there must be X number of characters to fill out all those roles? My definitive, dogmatic answer is: I dunno, maybe. What I do know is that "The Social Network" does reflect one of the defining characteristics of the modern IT business model, culture and ethos. That is, it is created and run by kids (mostly males,alas) without proper adult supervision -- without mentors. There are plenty of adults willing to throw money at the kids as seed money. And plenty of adults willing to cash the dividends and cash in on the management and legal fees. But there are precious few adults available to offer them wisdom, the wisdom of experience -- because few of them have much experience in IT, because the technology is so new and evolving at warp speed. And because the kids are building the technology on their own -- why should they listen to the adults? The adults should just hand over the money and shut up -- be literal silent partners. I can find no Mentor -- capital M -- for the kids in "The Social Network". The mentoring -- little m -- that Sean Parker provides Mark Z, such as it is, is tainted by Sean's own immaturity. If the story is one of a loss of innocence, I suggest it is also the story reflecting the breakdown of the traditional mentor-protege relationship, the loss of an archetypal role in modern life.

Indeed. In fact, Paul, it's like Sorkin went the other way in terms of the whole 'likeability' scale, taking an actual human figure (the real Mark Zuckerberg) who ostensibly by those who know him well isn't an asshole, and turned him into one. As you note, Z didn't save the cat, he kicked the cat (Eduardo) to the curb! It's interesting to look at this Protagonist in the context of anti-hero figures from late 60s movies (Bonnie & Clyde) and early 70s (Taxi Driver) or rebels (Easy Rider) and (M*A*S*H). There, the heroes were largely defined by their rejection of conventional cultural values, which spoke to youth at the time. In TSN, Zuckerberg embraces fame and fortune against all else. I saw a study in the last few years in which the #1 value esteemed by young adults above all else: Fame. So perhaps likeability is less of an issue for the Z character because as much of an asshole as he is, the target audience is more caught up in and enamored of the "billions" lifestyle. As you note, Z is a rebel. But he's not rebel without a cause. Rather his cause is $$ and making a place in history for himself, something which contemporary youth embrace. Ha! Another thought: Compare Zuckerberg in TSN to Benjamin in The Graduate. Same age. Same life crossroads. One utterly without any goal, who finds zero meaning in a culture which is about "plastics". The other who leaps into the capitalist formula for all its worth. Talk about a paradigm shift!

I came up with the theory of five primary character archetypes in movies over a decade ago and have been exploring it in my writing and teaching ever since. The archetypes represent five dynamics present in, I would argue, most movies Protagonist: Representing that forward moving energy toward the story's main goal. Nemesis: Representing oppositional energy in effect attempting to block the P in their efforts to reach their goal. Attractor: Representing character interrelationships wherein the P explores their emotional development. Mentor: Representing character interrelationships wherein the P explores their intellectual development. Trickster: Representing challenges and tests of the P's will in preparation for the P's final struggle, doing this by switching from ally to enemy, enemy to ally. Imagine if you will the Protagonist-Nemesis relationship as a vertical line with P up at the Northern tip and N at the Southern tip. I call this the Existential Line wherein the central question is: Who are you? The issue of self-identity is key to most movies and the challenge of the N to the P is the most direct way to compel to the P to confront that question. Now imagine a horizontal line that crosses the vertical line at the midpoint. At the Western tip is the A. At the Eastern tip is the M. I call this the Behavioral Line wherein the central question is: How are you? As the P confronts their central existential question, their relationships to Attractor and Mentor figures helps shape their transformation by informing their behavior. Then draw a circle around the outer edge connecting the four tips. This is the domain of the Trickster as they are especially skilled at donning any archetype mask at any time, reflecting their shapeshifter persona. Again their primary function is to test the P, challenge their will, help prepare the P for their eventual Final Struggle. As I say, I had all this in place based on my studies with J. Campbell, watching voluminous amounts of movies and seeing this pattern over and over and over again. About 6 or 7 years ago, I started reading Carl Jung. I was familiar with him somewhat, but when I discovered Campbell had been heavily influenced by Jung, I figured I ought to read that primary source material. Well, I found all sorts of ideas there directly relevant to screenwriting, movies and storytelling in general. For example, the idea of the Nemesis being the physicalization of the Protagonist's 'shadow'. Or this notion that if we don't fully engage all aspects of our psyche, particularly our shadow self, the universe will create circumstances that compel us to. That is, to me, the essence of the Call To Adventure, the Story Universe reaching down and forcing the Protagonist out of their Old World experience into the New World to experience, confront, get in touch with and most often embrace the totality of their psyche. That feeds the process of metamorphosis which is what Campbell says is the whole point of the Hero's Journey (he calls it "transformation"). Then one day as I was reading about Jung, I hit on his embrace of painting mandalas like this and this. That is the visual representation of the character archetypes paradigm: P up North, N down South, A to the West, M to the East, and the circle for T. Blew. My. Mind. Synchronicity, yes? Subsequently I have read a lot of Jung. I wouldn't call myself a Jungian, certainly no scholar. Rather more of an alchemist, per his language. I go through his material specifically with an eye toward what I find applicable to screenwriting, literally the telling of stories as movies. I've done movie analysis from this perspective from time to time as with this August 2010 post: "Inception: Carl Jung's Wet Dream". But circling back to your question -- must there be this or that number or type of characters in a screenplay -- while I do think there is an interesting preponderance of this particular set of five archetypes in many, perhaps most mainstream movies, I'm not dogmatic about it. Archetypes, like any other tool we use for story analysis and/or development, is an artifice. Stories are organic. The latter trumps the former. That said, if a writer finds value in using character archetypes -- and in my teaching, I can tell you MANY of them do -- great! Use it to your good health. If not, go with God. As I say, there's no right way to write. Every writer is different. Every story is different. One final point about character archetypes: Some might critique them as somehow reductive in nature. Used properly, they're not. Rather they are very much like what actors do when they ask, "What's my motivation? Who am I at the core of my being?" In most mainstream movies, every character has a narrative function. It's possible, I would argue, to use the five primary character archetypes as lenses through which to explore each character's purpose and once determined, use that as the foundation to build up and out their personality in a limitless number of ways, grounded on our understanding that at the end of the day, this character is the P... this character is the N... this character is the A... and so forth. Having that 'mandala' in place can be hugely helpful in sorting through the nature of character interrelationships in a script.

I certainly agree that archetypes need not be reductive in nature. On the contrary, I find them to be expansive. And I find Jung's notion of the shadow to be indispensable in writing. (And in personal relationships!) If writers study nothing else about Jung, I would urge them to bone up on the shadow. In dramatic writing, the shadow is one of your best friends! Your discussion of the shadow in relation to nemesis in "Whiplash" was very interesting. I wish I had had time to join in the discussion. Suffice it to say, I think there is also some serious shadow boxing going on by Mark in "The Social Network". And I find Jung's theory of introversion-extroversion useful in explaining Mark's character and personality conflicts. Anyway, I agree that most of the time, the usual suspects, the core archetypes, should be hard at work in a script. When they aren't, there needs to be a good dramatic reason for it.

Concur big time re shadow. If a story involves a Protagonist going through a psychological transformation, which is the case in most movies, and that transformation is a positive one, which is also the case in most movies (at least mainstream ones), the P almost by definition starts out in what I call a state of Disunity. They are not in touch with their Authentic Self. Or are actively repressing it. Ignoring it. And if we look close enough, there is always a shadow aspect at work in their psyche. If the arc is toward Unity (or Wholeness per Jung), then we need to take into consideration as we craft a story the role of the shadow impulses / dynamics. Perhaps we should do a blog post or even series specifically on the shadow. Could easily come up with 5 movies wherein the Nemesis is clearly associated with the Protagonist's shadow: The Apartment, The Silence of the Lambs, Tootsie, spring to mind. Others?

A great idea! "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!" -- more than a memorable tagline for the pulp novels and radio series. I know you've discussed "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" before, but that scene in the swamp is such a clear cut example. It knocked me back in my chair the first time I saw it. "Silence of the Lambs" is also a good example. The crime genre always entails shadow boxing. (In my opinion and experience: once upon a time in a city far away, I worked in law enforcement.) I think crime movies offer some of the best, most clear cut illustrations of the shadow at work. "Training Day" and "L.A. Confidential" are personal favorites. As is Walter White's character arc in "Breaking Bad". And I suggest that "The Social Network" is worth further discussing. It may not be as obvious. After all, these are well-bred "gentlemen of Harvard". Haven't they checked their shadows at the door? Well...

Yes! I would absolutely be up for a shadow post or series. It's something I can't seem to grasp yet, but your thoughts and the thoughts of others have been interesting. And a big thank you to everyone who added their thoughts this week. I'm looking forward to watching the movie again with everyone's insights in mind.