- From my limited experience in California federal court it seems as though California has chosen to largely abrogate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of an impenetrable series of local rules, but I'm pretty sure the deposition (or series of depositions--it's not entirely clear) that serves as a framing device aren't conducted by any version of the Federal Rules I'm aware of--seems as though witnesses are being questioned primarily by their own attorneys, witnesses freely interject insults toward other parties (present in the room), and the like. It works as a matter of drama, but it sure ain't accurate.
- Rashida Jones has a small (but significant) role in the film as the "second year associate" who's second-chairing the deposition for Zuckerberg/Facebook. In the final scene, she reveals she has a "specialty." Leaving aside the implausibility of a second year associate having a specialty at all, the specialty she references is so implausible as to make no sense at all.
- I'm a "stay till the end" moviegoer, and for lawyers, it's worth staying till the end, not for any bonus scene, but for the disclaimer, which is one of the oddest I've read. Not only does it have the "certain events are composited" language that you see in "based on a true story" films, but it winds up with a disclaimer akin to those we see on fictional films that no association should be drawn to any real business entity or people. That's particularly hard to do here, given that the Facebook name and logo is constantly used/referenced. (Even aside from that, hard case for anyone to make for defamation, since, partially due to the PG-13 edit, the primary characters aren't shown doing much "bad.")
Saturday, October 2, 2010
NO, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO FRIEND OPPOSING COUNSEL: I'm sure we will have more thoughts about The Social Network in the coming days, but I wanted to address three matters of particular interest to our audience--namely, how the film treats the law and lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)