Kaya Skin Hair Laser Cost

Office: An office to write movies



we go.

"Social Network"

is a film directed by David Fincher

and written by Aaron Sorkin has adapted the book - story (nonfiction) by Ben Mezrich " Mutimillonarios by accident" (gracefully captioned: "The Birth of Facebook, a story of sex, money, talent and treachery")

. This book's main source

Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook. (Then you will understand because I extend much about this issue.)

Brief summary

Mark Zuckerberg created with the help of his friend Eduardo, a network of huge success on the road, however, lose his friend and leaving him alone. Structure

(eye espoilers all)

triggers:

Mark is rejected by his girlfriend. First act: their

Resentful girlfriend, Mark creates, with the help of Edward, a successful site with photos of female university students. Although the page carries penalties and discredit him, also lets you see a chance of success. And contact with the brothers Winklevoss

(and his partner Divya Narendra

) who proposed a similar project work but elitist. Mark agrees.

first turning point: After hearing the proposal by the Winklevoss, Mark decided to create their own exclusive social network: (The) Facebook. Edward enlisted in the project (minute 28)

Second act: While relegated to Winklevoss, Mark launched his own project, which brings him and Eduardo an immediate success. The Winklevoss accuse them of plagiarism. For this and other reasons, the first differences arise between the two friends. The entrance of Sean Parker, who captivates Mark and lost influence to Eduardo. After Mark was transferred to California, the confrontation between him and Eduardo reaches its zenith.

second turning point: Eduardo Facebook accounts frozen endangering the survival of the company (minute 93)

Act III: Thanks to Sean management, Facebook gets a billionaire investor. In the subsequent capital increase, Eduardo is the victim of a legal trick by Mark and Sean. Their participation in the company is drastically reduced. The friendship between the two over. A settlement will resolve the issue, but Mark is more alone than ever.

structure

Note: after the movie, would have bet on the sequence in which Edward signed the contract "cheat" as a second pivot point. Then think about it and noticing minute film was happening in the (late, at about the 100) I decide the moment of confrontation between Mark and Eduardo, the threat from first to second that "is going to stay the way "if not incorporated in body and soul to Facebook and the revenge of Eduardo freezing the accounts. I think the confrontation decisive, which triggers all that comes later. The contract is only a consequence for a character "secondary" Protagonist

Mark Zuckerberg (*) antagonists

raising a large social network "that mole"

Allies

Eduardo Saverin, Sean Parker, FB other workers, lawyers, etc..




What is in at least two senses. First, they are the statements of the different characters in the extra sessions that form the structure of the story: for most of the film followed the testimony of Edward (and also the Winklevoss in his "subplot"). It's kind of movie "trial" very cleverly disguised.

Secondly, I say that this is a film of lawyers because it seems to have been written between Sorkin and a team of lawyers. Writing about real events, about people living (and rich) can be a lot of legal problems. I get the impression that elude has influenced many decisions script.

usual practice to try to escape legal problems when dealing with a real event is to buy the rights to adapt a book on the subject. The script must stick to the facts that the author has investigated. Will this author who must face any legal liability if their research proves wrong. (Another option is to wait for a court ruling on the case and take the version of "proven" as the main source for the screenplay).
I'm not an expert on the subject's point of view, but even I was struck how, despite the fact that Mark is the protagonist of the story, the script adopted other views, especially at the most tricky, in fact, about two turning points in history: 1 not go to the decision of Mark to create Facebook after hearing the idea of \u200b\u200bWinklevoss (we leave the cinema without a clear idea about what led him, in that time to make that decision or what they had, indeed, its "long" to Winklevoss) and 2 also witnessed the reasons why Zuckerberg decided to build this "loophole" to Eduardo. Obviously, the writer provides information (perhaps too much, will talk about below) that we can help fill those gaps, to imagine those scenes, but the real reason Zuckerberg's performance in these two big decisions always mysterious.

By moving the point of view Eduardo is particularly striking in the last third of the film, when, in fact, the two characters separated by at least two senses. Naturally, the first part, which takes place primarily at Harvard, in which both partners were friends and lived close by, it shows this "gap": the story of Eduardo gives us a fairly complete information (with the relevant except we do not know to what extent "plagiarized and distracted" consciously to Winklevoss and Co.).. Suddenly, however, when Mark moved to California, almost all began to see through the eyes of Edward.

And, as I said in the case of "Buried

, usually much less interesting to the victim that the executioner. I guess the reasons for this decision are legal script. The immense talent screenwriter, director and the entire team make, at least in my opinion, this limitation (can not fictions important scenes on Zuckerberg's character) go quite unnoticed. Fincher Sorkin and even make a virtue and secrecy become the protagonist in another of its allure. Of course, some viewers the inability to know what Mark can prevent moves to empathize with him, and thus produce the impression that the film is too "cold."

However, I think the movie, as far as you can, it does give some clues about what happens in the mind of its protagonist. And, to coincide with what
Jonas Trueba

of this past Friday, here in Bloguionistas about his experience writing "

Alfonso, Prince damn," " count when the lives of characters that existed in Actually, look for relationships between facts, causes and effects may exist, or they may be harvesting our

. "

Sorkin (and perhaps also Mezrich, I have not read the book), not having access to cause Zuckerberg actual move (access, as stated in this post

Ana Sanz Magallón, very possibly even Zuckerberg himself have), it was decided to suggest a few possible causes of their performance. Two of them are very present in the (otherwise memorable) opening scene.

Let them:

- Zuckerberg is not able to maintain significant social-emotional relationships: being dumped by a girl leads him to create Facemash, precursor of Facebook.

- Zuckerberg is an ambitious guy who wants to climb the social ladder and is obsessed to enter elite club.

The film recalls with some frequency these two possible resentment (against women and, above all, against the "establishment" elitist) as drivers of the protagonist. I understand that writing about a real person can be very problematic and that one may have to lead to the creation of their own causal connections (do not know if I understand this need, really, but hey, let's go) I understand that Sorkin has felt this need but. .. not even the movie itself is consistent with this decision because, along the "Social Network"

- Zuckerberg never makes an attempt to flirt with a girl even calls the girl he was supposed to love (just trying to talk with it when found by chance)

- Zuckerberg does not make a single attempt to enter an exclusive club, not behave like a guy who loves the luxury and pomp when fortune smiles

Personally, there's always more a cause for the behavior of a character, I get very nervous. The character may try to deceive with some excuse, but why should be serving, in my opinion,. The writer must know and attentive viewer should feel. I think the two reasons set forth above are elements that the writer has been overemphasized (perhaps by using a version of events given by the "victims" de Zuckerberg) pero, en cambio, como explico más arriba, no son coherentes con el resto del retrato del protagonista.

En mi opinión, el verdadero motor del personaje está también en la película, es más simple y claro que los otros dos sugeridos: Mark Zuckerberg quiere crear una red social que “mole”: no le importa el dinero que pueda ganar con ella, no le importan los amigos que pueda perder para conseguirlo, no le importa el prestigio social, entrar en un club elitista, tampoco el éxito entre las chicas…

Todo lo que he escrito se refiere únicamente a la película, así que no es necesario recurrir a cómo fueron los hechos de la vida real para analizar si "Social Network" of a dramatic construct coherent or not. However, it seems that in this case, the reality, at least according to statements by Zuckerberg, follows more closely the portrait of merciless monomaniac accidental billionaire who had been "social network" if its authors had contained a little at a time to take spice to the stew.

Small note: "Social Network" is a great movie about the founding of Facebook. However, just see the operation of this network, as this hypnotic trailer seemed to announce that, in my opinion, has an evocative unfortunately absent from the film it advertises. (Incidentally, the first words of the fragment of "Creep" used say "I do not care if it hurts. I want to have control" - "I do not care if it hurts, I have control"

).