I'm pretty sure that's the perspective that the film is trying to put over. Or more accurately, it's trying to suggest that the situation is really complicated. Apparently each actor when they were reading the script by themselves thought that the film was supporting their characters side of the story, and then when it all came together they became less certain.
So the film is making the point that it's a terrifying idea that Zuckerberg has control over all this information, and that he's a bit of a dick and doesn't really look at the consequences of his actions (and probably deliberately screwed the twins over). But he's also a genius who created something that hundreds of millions of people have incorporated into their daily lives and redesigned the normal social life.
His friend was more level-headed and honest, screwed over ultimately by his friends and associates, but he also never understood what Facebook could be and if he was in charge it would probably never have taken of.
The napster guy has something wrong with his head and isn't trustworthy or reliable, but he also was responsible for really pushing the vision and getting the people involved who believed that Facebook could be a great thing.
And the Winkelvoss' were fairly honourable people with a justified case, but also condescending and naturally elitest.
So I don't see the film as trying to justify Mark, it's just trying to paint a portrait of a complicated individual who did something enormous.
The movie isn't "about" Facebook. It's about how a highly intelligent and ambitious person manages to attain great success but isolates himself from his friends in the process. Zuckerberg the character is a person who has admirable qualities (such as the aforementioned intelligence and ambition) and not-so-admirable qualities (he's cold, possibly less-than-ethical, and doesn't connect well with other people).
I really think you didn't understand what it was about.
Not only you didn't seem to understand what this movie was about but I actually have my doubts about whether you actually watched it, because you contradicted yourself. I mean this: "What strangely takes a backseat in all this is Facebook itself." "the movie felt like a promotion piece to me."
How exactly was this a promotion piece if the thing it is supposed to be promoting (the movie doesn't even try to be a promotion piece for facebook or Zuckerberg, but I'm going by your own words here) takes a backseat?
Leave a Comment:
Booooooring
This is honestly one of the most boring movies ever. I think mostly because I didn't care at all about any of the characters. No matter how the movie framed the actions of Mark, nothing really conceals that he acts like an asshole, and the explanations given for his actions feel like very weak excuses. The only stand-out character in the whole mix is his best friend, but his voice is fairly muted because we barely get to know him (I'm not even sure why he has so much money to invest into the firm). What strangely takes a backseat in all this is Facebook itself...we get told multiple times how addictive it is, but we barely see it in use and there isn't really much about shown about the impact it still has.
All in all, and I say this from the perspective of someone who didn't knew anything about the history of Facebook beforehand, the movie felt like a promotion piece to me, like the feeble try to explain away the fact that its founder stepped over the backs of a lot of people to end up where he is today, including his best friend. And that I am somehow supposed to excuse the fact that he did a virtual bullying campaign against his ex-girlfriend and hacked various computers in order to put private information into the net. And isn't the idea that all the users of facebook entrust their information to a guy like this terrifying?