Framing “127 Hours” and “The Social Network”
127 Hours star James Franco and “The Social Network” star Jesse Eisenberg recently appeared on THR’s Awards Watch Actors Roundtable. Zuckerberg in David Fincher’s “The Social Network.” Both films have generated quite a bit of buzz at the Oscars, and both Franco and Eisenberg are likely to receive best actor nominations at next year’s Academy Awards for their respective performances.
At one point in the hour-long discussion, both actors were asked to share their approach to playing a real-life character. Director Danny Boyle was closely involved with Aron Ralston throughout the creation of “127 Hours” as he wanted to ensure that Aron’s situation was accurately and faithfully portrayed. As James Franco said at the roundtable, he spent some time with Ralston, but relied primarily on Danny Boyle to steer him in the right direction with acting.
Also, an interesting point that James made is that no one really knows how Aron Ralston acts in real life; the general public is not familiar with the way he talks or the mannerisms of him, so this gave James the freedom to make the character his own in some way, but at the same time honored the fundamentals of the character. Ralston’s story.
On the other hand, it’s pretty well known at this point that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t put his stamp of approval on Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of him in Fincher’s “The Social Network,” or the movie itself. In fact, Zuckerberg has gone on record that many aspects of Fincher’s film are misleading or simply made up. This is surely not Eisenberg’s fault, as he stated at the roundtable that he really wanted to meet Zuckerberg before shooting the movie, but the producers wanted none of this.
Needless to say, Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerberg shouldn’t evoke many positive feelings about the guy. Aaron Sorkin, screenwriter, basically boils him down to being a socially inept, greedy, selfish jerk. Sure, Sorkin uses Zuckerberg to personify capitalism and corporate America, and I guess he’s making the point that Zuckerberg functions more like a computer with all its mechanicalness and social malaise. However, this narrow perspective offers little or no sympathy or redeeming characterization for the boy.
Speaking of Aaron Sorkin’s script, it’s actually quite brilliant in a lot of ways. Fincher is obviously a great filmmaker, but in this case I give more credit to Sorkin, who really made it easy for Fincher. The story is quite gripping from the first shot to the end credits, no matter how skewed it is. The pacing is wonderful, and the dialogue is so crisp it’s reminiscent of the rhythmic, cynical “Mamet Speak” from David Mamet’s brilliantly written “Glengarry Glen Ross.” By the way, that movie also has a major capitalist/corporate American subtext.
That said, I do have a few small gripes with Sorkin’s script, which basically reflect a general problem I have with the film itself: a feeling that the film doesn’t know whether to glorify or condemn Zuckerberg’s behavior. It’s a pretty one-dimensional portrayal, and for my part, I wasn’t very emotionally invested in the character. However, I can’t help but feel that Fincher and Sorkin might want us to side with Mark Zuckerberg’s cool, hipster wit instead of the jerk-behaving Harvard twins who Zuckerberg viciously screwed up. We certainly feel sorry for Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), but I really can’t root for anyone else.
Much has been said about the way Danny Boyle chose to approach the subject in “127 Hours.” Knowing that Boyle has a unique cinematic style that often involves lots of cuts and very kinetic camerawork, it’s not a total surprise that he stuck to it with this one. I absolutely admire the fact that he has dared to take on a project like this after his recent success at the Oscars. It’s a bold move, and it certainly could have been disastrous had the project not been in his hands. It is a testament to his greatness and his bold personality as a filmmaker.
Boyle’s leading man in “127 Hours” is Aron Ralston, superbly played by James Franco. Interestingly, Aron also acts as the film’s antagonist. He is characterized as a young man out of step with the social world and especially out of step with the relationships he has with those closest to him. Aron seems to be only interested in his relationship with the outdoors. While hiking in a remote part of Utah, he trips over the wrong rock crevice and ends up with his arm caught between a literal rock and a hard place. He remembers the old metaphorical expression, “if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword”; only in Aron’s case, his sword is nature. One could see this rock that has immobilized his arm as a rehabilitation device, as it eventually leads Aron to see the meaning of human relationships. Ultimately, Aron is overwhelmed by the desire to reconnect with his loved ones and does something pretty drastic to ensure he gets a chance to be with them again.
The prevailing theme of the film relates to the resistance of the human spirit and Ralston’s will to be alive. Boyle’s camera reinforces this theme by moving everywhere. The audience is right on the crack with Aron, but the camera wants to take us elsewhere, whether it’s through a flashback or a hallucination. Even when Ralston is stuck in the middle of nowhere, he is imagining (and at times re-imagining) his life as he exists outside of that rift. This theme and the way Boyle expresses it is probably often overlooked or not fully understood, but it really is a fresh, effective and unique way to tell this story.
The emotional value of the film is slightly compromised as a result of Boyle’s hyperactivity, and there are some dull moments within some of the hallucinations and flashbacks. The film clocks in at a cheap ninety minutes, but could have benefited from having five or ten minutes cut from its running time. However, the film’s triumphs certainly outweigh any shortcomings, and it is a testament to Boyle and screenwriter Simon Beaufoy that such narrative limitations can be overcome to engage an audience for eighty or ninety minutes.
Boyle’s directing style in this film completely epitomizes Aron Ralston. He is goofy and selfish, with boyish charm and a reckless mindset. James Franco completely captures all of these things. Give him credit for being able to add the necessary emotional punch, and also give Boyle credit for believing in Franco to pull off such a grueling and random task.
While “127 hours” manages to faithfully and precisely frame its theme, “The Social Network” manages to captivate the public at the expense of its protagonist. The general public is probably not concerned with what is truth vs. fiction, but to me, there is something ethically wrong about an unauthorized, unflattering, and ultimately biased portrayal of a living person. The film is perhaps a masterpiece when viewed simply as a work of fiction; The only problem is that I know it’s not just that.