Konrad, Alex. "What Harvard thinks of 'The Social Network'." CNN Money. n.p. Web. 1 October 2010.
This article is extremely fascinating and unique, which will enhance my argument. It is from the reliable source, CNN money about the reactions of a select group of current Harvard seniors who saw the film the week before and engaged in a Q&A with Sorkin and actors, Jesse Eisenberg and Armie Hammer. Some, but not all are members of "final clubs," which is the the private social clubs featured prominently in the film. Overall, they said that the party scenes were dramatized and extreme. Some good points that I will include in my essay is that said by Zoe Morrison "The movie makes no claims to be a definitive history of Facebook, as writer Aaron Sorkin stress at a special on-campus screening last Wednesday." I found this very valuable, because not once have I read a clear statement from a director/writer that says how it does not accurately portray the history of Facebook. But, the Harvard students did express that the students shown in the film were "pretty accurate to the overall vibe of the institution." One student pointed out the it is clear from the movie that it is not about money but the ideas of ownership. Another mentioned that "the best part is, you yourself get to decide whose story you believe, because the movie doesn't do it for you." I thought that was an interesting thought I never really dwelled upon. This is an idea I can expand upon by saying how people liked the movie because it was so much more than the "history" of Facebook, and that they did not badly portray Zuckerberg and others because it truly was not about their real story (they were fictional characters with real names and based upon those people). Lastly, the film enables you as the audience to decide what side you are on, therefore it does work to persuade you completely to one person's side. A couple other articles I read were reaffirmed by that point, being that there was no clear protagonist or antagonist therefore leaving the audience to decide. When that occurs, the audience cannot help but talk about it, therefore contributing to it being so well received.
This article is extremely fascinating and unique, which will enhance my argument. It is from the reliable source, CNN money about the reactions of a select group of current Harvard seniors who saw the film the week before and engaged in a Q&A with Sorkin and actors, Jesse Eisenberg and Armie Hammer. Some, but not all are members of "final clubs," which is the the private social clubs featured prominently in the film. Overall, they said that the party scenes were dramatized and extreme. Some good points that I will include in my essay is that said by Zoe Morrison "The movie makes no claims to be a definitive history of Facebook, as writer Aaron Sorkin stress at a special on-campus screening last Wednesday." I found this very valuable, because not once have I read a clear statement from a director/writer that says how it does not accurately portray the history of Facebook. But, the Harvard students did express that the students shown in the film were "pretty accurate to the overall vibe of the institution." One student pointed out the it is clear from the movie that it is not about money but the ideas of ownership. Another mentioned that "the best part is, you yourself get to decide whose story you believe, because the movie doesn't do it for you." I thought that was an interesting thought I never really dwelled upon. This is an idea I can expand upon by saying how people liked the movie because it was so much more than the "history" of Facebook, and that they did not badly portray Zuckerberg and others because it truly was not about their real story (they were fictional characters with real names and based upon those people). Lastly, the film enables you as the audience to decide what side you are on, therefore it does work to persuade you completely to one person's side. A couple other articles I read were reaffirmed by that point, being that there was no clear protagonist or antagonist therefore leaving the audience to decide. When that occurs, the audience cannot help but talk about it, therefore contributing to it being so well received.