Johnny Ray

I was one of those people fortunate enough to join the Facebook madness back when you needed a valid college e-mail address to join the site. This was waaaaaaay back in the day – 2005. This past weekend I visited my favorite movie theatre establishment to see what “The Social Network” had to offer.

As I’m sure you’re already aware, “The Social Network” is a story based on the genesis of what we know today as Facebook. In case you’ve been under a rock, blind folded with ear plugs the past 5 years you can visit the site here. My first impression of the movie was that it was well written and directed. The dialogue was clever, witty as well as funny. My first issue is rooted in the film’s portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg (CEO – Facebook). Now, I certainly don’t know Zuckerberg but I’ve heard him speak on several occasions and the persona I got form his public appearances did not match with what was depicted on screen. I’m sure he has a public persona which is not necessarily what is presented in his public speaking events but still, the Zuckerberg depicted in the film didn’t seem to care much about public personas. The film sets Zuckerberg as – while smart – a back stabbing thief who stole the idea of Facebook and deceived his victims until the site went live – not to mention an asshole. There are so many things wrong with the premise that Zuckerberg stole Facebook it’s not even funny. First of all, for someone to lay claim to an “idea” as if any person can ever “own” something as abstract as an idea is absolutely ludicrous furthermore; the current litigation system was not and is not designed to protect against the idea of software. Two people’s software, both of which obtain the same goal, can do so by completely different mathematical and algorithmic means. But, in a court of law, if someone patents an idea, the other guy has to pay. This isn’t good enough. The battle on Facebook doesn’t truly address this but it shines light upon it.

The next thing I noticed about the movie is the lack of substance for the female characters. I observed it, but had no opinion about it initially. I read somewhere that the lack of meaningful roles for women within the story was offensive. I actually understand this but I cannot sympathize. Not because I do not believe that woman can, and are valuable assets to not only Facebook but within information technology as a whole (because I do) but because as a software engineer I can personally testify that, it’s primarily a male driven industry. I can only think of one software engineer I’ve worked with, that was a woman. She was a very smart and intelligent counter-part and I enjoyed working with her very much but she’s the only one. I do however, agree that the women that were in the film (even if it was only for a few scenes) were used as throw-away characters – sexual playthings for the male driven cast and their intellectual quests and that’s sad.

Moving right along: I take issue with how quickly this movie was released. Facebook has taken the internet by storm and has definitely changed the way we interact with each other not only online but in real life. How many times have you told someone “add me!” or “Please, no tags!” or even “these pictures must never make it to Facebook.”? How many relationships have the infamous relationship status ruined (or sparked – depending on your point of view)? That said, as of the time of this writing it has only been a few years since Facebook has really taken off. I believe the story would have benefited from a little closure. I’m aware the movie was intended to tell the story of how Facebook began, not necessarily tell the entire story of Facebook but that doesn’t stop me from feeling just a bit cheated.

Finally, I’d just like to point out how Facebook, despite the popularity and money has failed. “Wait, Johnny, what the hell are you talking about? Facebook is extremely successful!” Hold your horses, let me explain myself. Throughout the movie, there is an on-going debate about which direction Facebook should take. Zuckerberg believed that Facebook should be cool and exclusive. By cool – according to the film – Zuckerberg did not want ads littering the pages of the site in fear that it would simply become another MySpace. By exclusive, only college students would be able to take part in the site. Facebook would differentiate itself from its competitors by associating people with VERIFIABLE networks (colleges/universities) therefore, not allowing a free-for-all sign up of accounts. In that sense, the Facebook we know today is nothing like that. I won’t even get into the ads on the side of my profile. As far as exclusiveness is concerned – first came the high school kids. This may not have been TOO bad perhaps you wanted to connect with old high school friends who simply did not go to college. I think most people were open to this so long as there was a way to keep the kiddies from getting on your page. Then, all hell broke loose with regional networks. Anyone, who claimed to be anywhere in the world could simply join Facebook. Hell, I’ve seen pages where it says “No Network”. Really, no network? Who let you in here? As a result, the Facebook envisioned by Mark Zuckerberg back in 2004 is not what we see before us today. So in that regard, Facebook has failed.

Let me just say that, as a whole, Facebook has not really failed us as a people. It has certainly brought people together, kept us up to date on friends, family and that cute girl in your math class. So what if there were a few arguments started by relationship statuses, time stamps on status updates which are the smoking gun which suggests you were NOT sleeping at 12:30am and tagged photos of you taking tequila shots with that prostitute in Las Vegas. The fact of the matter is, because of Facebook, our digital lives much more robust. “The Social Network”, despite potential inaccuracies helps to fill in the gaps and give the public a sense of what it takes to make something like this happen. It’s not easy; it takes hours and hours of work. You may lose a friend or two in the process but at least you have mutual friends through which you can exploit Facebook’s privacy flaws of allowing two non-friends to view each other’s photos.

Go see the movie.

It’s been a while since I’ve written a review. This past summer has been littered with 3D madness. There have been a few comedies but I don’t really review those. I mean, it’s a comedy – it’s either funny or it isn’t. This review is for “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”.

This is a film which of course is much more enjoyable if you’re the type to follow the news and politics. The film actually takes place beginning in 2008 right before the economic meltdown which would eventually lead to what is known to some as ‘The Great Recession’. It follows the lives of a young couple in New York played by Shia LaBeouf (Jacob) and Carey Mulligan (Winnie). You can read the actual synopsis here. Oliver Stone takes you on a journey of greed, corruption and back room dealings which is liable to leave you sick to your stomach. A reoccurring theme in the movie is the notion that greed is a disease – an addiction. At first glance, it seems like a bit of a cop-out – an excuse for bad behavior. But let’s look at this a litter closer.

If you look at the parallels between the characters in the movie and those people who are actually addicted to something more tangible say, narcotics you begin to understand that notion. I’m no psychologist but please bear with me for just a second: There are different levels of addiction. There are those who are in complete denial about their addiction and feel like they could stop at the moment of their choosing. There are those people who know they are addicted and have come to terms with it – they have accepted it as a part of themselves but have not yet hit rock bottom therefore; cannot be helped. Then there are those addicts whom have hit rock bottom. They have come to see the damage and hurt they have caused to the ones around them and desperately want to be helped. This film has all 3 categories of people – I’ll let you decide who’s who.

Once you accept the assertion that greed is addictive, it becomes strikingly clear that this movie has very little to do the money at all. It’s not about obtaining money, it’s about obtaining money. Many of us may refer to it as the ‘game’ (as Gordon Gekko – played by Michael Douglas – says in the movie.). There are several instances in the movie where a normal person would simply “take the money and go” especially since everyone in the movie is pretty damn well off to begin with. But, they can’t. Not because they do not have the means by which to do so, but because of their addiction to the pursuit of money. Throw in a love story, the biggest economic recession in US history since The Great Depression, a few twists and turns and you have a solid film.

Again, if you follow the news and politics this is a must see. If not, you may find yourself a little bored. Stone does a fairly good job of not getting into too much detail as it pertains to the inner workings of the finance world simply because the average person would be completely lost. But if terms and phrases like “credit default swap” make you instantly get a headache you may want to sit this one out. Regardless, the actors put on an excellent performance and there even a few laughs in it for you if you pay attention.

This movie is not available in 3D.

I must admit. When I initially saw the trailer for ‘Inception’ I was skeptical. Upon learning that it was indeed directed by Christopher Nolan I was immediately interested. After all, how does the creator of ‘Batman Begins’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ NOT get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such things? Weeks pass and the days leading up to the premier of the movie twitter was set ablaze with the #inception trending topic. All of those who were privy to early screenings were singing its praises and telling of its epic stature. After a nice happy hour on a rather hot Friday afternoon I set for the theater to view the movie.
‘Inception’ is a movie about a group of dream thieves who team up to embark on a difficult mission. Think of it as ‘Ocean’s 11’ meets ‘The Matrix’. In the interest of not revealing spoilers, I’ll leave out details. ‘Inception’ is an action packed thrill ride with intellectual concepts that appeal to just about everyone. The movie takes many risks in the concepts explored. With so many movie-goers obsessed with the next big 3D, computer generated flick to open so they can frequent their favorite theater establishment and dawn a pair of those ridiculous looking 3D glasses while stuffing their faces with popcorn so soaked in salt in butter that it will no doubt contribute to the heart attack coming in 20 years – its refreshing to sit in on a movie with so much meticulous thought to detail and execution. Nolan delivers the goods with an almost perfect balance between action, romance, comedy and character development. The action sequences are well thought out in that although the characters are in a dream, it does not go over the top with folks flying and performing unbelievable feats of human activity. Although, if Nolan had gone in that direction, one would not be able to blame him – after all they’re in a dream. However there are rather tasteful executions of dream like sequences that really add value to the movie.
I would argue that this is indeed the best sci-fi flick to hit the big screen since ‘The Matrix’. A buddy of mine told me he believes it’s even better than ‘The Matrix’. I think only time will tell for that one. Remember, ‘The Matrix’ was released back in 1999 so the fact that we still measure the quality of sci-fi flicks to it speaks volumes about it but, I digress. No matter what your taste, there’s something here for just about everyone. If you had doubts, I advise you to set them aside and take a chance on this one – I promise you wont be disappointed. If you’ve already seen it, let me know what you think! If not, what are you doing with your life? Go today!