I'm not normally one to give Sorkin a pass on sexism, but I'm inclined to agree with his explanation in this case. I think the fact that these guys are actually too misogynist for smart strong women to choose to be around them is about as good an explanation you're going to get for a movie lacking in smart strong women characters. While of course it would be really great (and does not seem too much to ask) to see a lot more strong female characters in the movies in general, this at least is saying something about sexism in our culture.
(To what was he referring in his reference to an apology for something in 2005? When he railed against bloggers for pointing out his comedy-within-a-dramedy wasn't funny? Wasn't that 2006-2007-ish?)
The world is misogynist, so it's very important to portray the creation and litigation over Facebook as devoid of the influence of women who are real persons? Do I read him right?
I think the response is more "Facebook was itself born out of misogyny, at least in part, and to the extent Zuckerberg is our narrator, he's oblivious to that fact."
But the premise that FB was born out of misogyny is authorial fancy. Being mad at a girl who rejects you might lead to the formation of a campuswide "Hot or Not" (featuring men and women). It doesn't mean that women don't exist in one's world, especially at a campus that is at least half female. It also doesn't make one's girlfriend disappear and create legions of sex-crazed standins to populate the universe.
I'm sure Sorkin *meant* to add a strong, smart woman to the movie, he just couldn't make sure she was neurotic and boy crazy and keep the movie within an appropriate running time.
I don't think it is--the blog posts that permeate the narrative in the late night "FaceMash" scene are apparently taken word for word from what Zuckerberg posted that night.
But they're not. The most damning movie dialogue isn't in there. It's not even clear from the journal entry that FaceMash has anything to do with the lady in question. Sorkin largely invented the misogyny creation myth, and then has the gall to say that's why there's no real women in the movie. It's a post hoc rationalization that doesn't make any sense.
Criminy. The misogyny-as-a-rationale is fictional, but it's the basis of the fictional movie. Where was the woman character supposed to be shoehorned in? They already made a point of making half the lawyers women, and make the fictional Rooney Mara character a strong character. The movie flunks the Bechdel Test, but all the major players were men in real life.
Awesome.
ReplyDeleteI'm not normally one to give Sorkin a pass on sexism, but I'm inclined to agree with his explanation in this case. I think the fact that these guys are actually too misogynist for smart strong women to choose to be around them is about as good an explanation you're going to get for a movie lacking in smart strong women characters. While of course it would be really great (and does not seem too much to ask) to see a lot more strong female characters in the movies in general, this at least is saying something about sexism in our culture.
ReplyDelete(To what was he referring in his reference to an apology for something in 2005? When he railed against bloggers for pointing out his comedy-within-a-dramedy wasn't funny? Wasn't that 2006-2007-ish?)
The world is misogynist, so it's very important to portray the creation and litigation over Facebook as devoid of the influence of women who are real persons? Do I read him right?
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with Christy.
ReplyDeleteI think the response is more "Facebook was itself born out of misogyny, at least in part, and to the extent Zuckerberg is our narrator, he's oblivious to that fact."
ReplyDeleteBut the premise that FB was born out of misogyny is authorial fancy. Being mad at a girl who rejects you might lead to the formation of a campuswide "Hot or Not" (featuring men and women). It doesn't mean that women don't exist in one's world, especially at a campus that is at least half female. It also doesn't make one's girlfriend disappear and create legions of sex-crazed standins to populate the universe.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Sorkin *meant* to add a strong, smart woman to the movie, he just couldn't make sure she was neurotic and boy crazy and keep the movie within an appropriate running time.
I don't think it is--the blog posts that permeate the narrative in the late night "FaceMash" scene are apparently taken word for word from what Zuckerberg posted that night.
ReplyDeleteBut they're not. The most damning movie dialogue isn't in there. It's not even clear from the journal entry that FaceMash has anything to do with the lady in question. Sorkin largely invented the misogyny creation myth, and then has the gall to say that's why there's no real women in the movie. It's a post hoc rationalization that doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteCriminy. The misogyny-as-a-rationale is fictional, but it's the basis of the fictional movie. Where was the woman character supposed to be shoehorned in? They already made a point of making half the lawyers women, and make the fictional Rooney Mara character a strong character. The movie flunks the Bechdel Test, but all the major players were men in real life.
ReplyDelete