The Reality of Zuckerberg versus what is presented in the film./\The Reality of Steve Jobs versus what is presented in the film. A preliminary TAKE no/ with-standing the SUPER DUPER glam.prezent.PRESENTEATED!in this AWESOME digital EFFORTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BUTjesseEIS? RENDERED more MARK ZUCKERBERG thaen MARK could ever dream of himself in fact this review is A WARNING TO ALL ACTORS to never administer 'JUSTICE'.
SO
Spend one moment considering the real-life persona of Zuckerberg: he is such a toad of a person, so boring, devoid of any soul or interesting humanity, with a single-minded focus on building his corporation and being a young CEO. What about this disconnect between what is portrayed in the film and anything one might call a reality? Is it the case that the film gets under the surface and down to anything one might contemplate:::::as reality?
Is there really anything interesting to say about these people? Is it the case that this attempt to mythologize a company CEO is a bit wrong? Such an HABILITATION(which is::::"introduction to SOCIETY, in fact") is normally reserved for people of cultural, religious, or even scientific significance. Sure, Einstein is someone worth understanding: he dedicated his life to pure theory, to expanding what the human race is capable of(in his dreams did he do that though). Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the CEO of Oracle or Uber or Facebook(the 'presentation' of hux. HE DELIVERS there at HARVARD? what a trip-down-memoryLANE….)? Seriously, what the hell is there worth understanding about these people as significant personalities in and of themselves?
In this way rendering their lives cinematically, in the form of a film like Steve Jobs or The Social Network has the unavoidable effect of glamorizing these lives, of inscribing them into the history of historically significant figures worthy of such treatment in film. More basically though, the issue is that Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs, when you consider them in real life, perhaps through some documentary footage, you get the sense that they are really ordinary, business-class trash.
This brings up something interesting: to what extent is it possible to portray ordinariness in cinema, to portray characters that lack any kind of, seemingly, performative dimension? To be performative, ironic or sarcastic, to have any of the kind of depth one might associate with a substantial human being, one must be aware of and participate in to some degree their cultural context and moment. An actor who would seek to portray a person like Steve Jobs would, for instance, be able to model their behaviour on, and define their performance in relationship to, a pre-existing cultural stereotype, to use it as a mirror image and reference. Doesn't that kind of capacity for performance as cultural citation already pre-suppose a person fundamentally different than what a person like Steve Jobs or Zuckerbberg would be in real life? And wouldn't that difference be perceptible on screen?
In this way, Zuckerberg is right to criticise the film when he says that it is just a hollywood rendition, that Hollywood doesn't want or can't really portray the reality of writing code in quiet rooms, the isolation, the sterility of it. But is his criticism for the same reason? Or is his point about the added drama of him being ABSOLUTELY!lonely in search of goals to create a motivation for creating the company, That without such a motivation that others can understand through the way in which tech-people are generally understood to be unable to connect with women, that the film wouldn't have much to fall back on apart from a persons desire to sit in silence in front of their computer and write code all day and night. Zuckerberg has said the same when he says 'can't people just want to like to build stuff?' IN THIS SENSE thenZUCK!is the film-critic AND! defender of real-life PAR EXCELLANCE?
Cinematic Rehabilitation
The second issue with these films has to do with the way in which they elevate their subjects. The decision to disown/disavow JOB's daughter is turned into a long-duration-emergence logical-problem. Job's character is rendered in the form of one who's logic is so strict that he can 'choose' not to love: the Jobs of Steve Jobs is able to apply his own vision onto the canvas of his life no matter how long it takes. The recurring theme with Woz of mentioning the Apple II team that goes on for 20-years; the issue with Scully for 15-years....each of these problems shows Jobs to be someone who is capable of managing life over the course of decades in the pursuit of his points. This isn't just a matter of control, as it's presented in the film; rather it is one of fidelity to oneself that one could bide their time and know that certain points, that seems to have 'gone cold' might still be made later. As mentioned before, this has to do with the way in which emotionality or affectiveconnection emerges at the limits of rationality. For anyone, it is always the case that logic is what separates, that the ability to rationalize a moment is also the ability to remove oneself from that moment....
However, the effect of this in the film is that a generic aspect of humanity is used to elevate this JOBS as being a prime exemplar of this core aspect. By showing such an extreme example of rationality guiding life, managing emotions and of the limits of that ability, the film is more easily able to show how* such a simple dimension of all human experience is used in Jobs to make his actions, notoriously questionable actions--seem reasonable, and in that way make them seem UBER!-human(which is JUST NOT THE CASE); AND NEITHER IS MARkfuckin' ZUCKERBERG the film-critic of all TIME(even though he may have out-sourced his brain to a fuckin' 'pot he stirred'????FUCK that that website was *EVER** useful for ANY SUCH fuckin' THANG)/
—
*pleaseNOTEthat: these 'reviews' were written in SARAjeVO.BOSNIA&herzegovina in the year 2016.