E senza sprezzo del pericolo, l’ha paragonato, per forza dirompente, capacità narrativa e ricerca sfuggente di una verità impossibile a Quarto Potere.
Voi direte: è un’esagerazione. Lo penso anch’io, pur non avendo ancora visto l’ultima fatica di David Fincher, che stimo come uno dei migliori della sua generazione, sin dai tempi di Se7en.
Secondo McCarthy, The Social Network “it’s a film where not only does everything come together in a way that the whole is even bigger than the sum of its brilliant parts, but where the result so resonantly reflects the time in which it was made…
“The Social Network” is a knock-out—on a first viewing, it seems almost indecently smart, funny and sexy. The second time around, with the witty intelligence of Aaron Sorkin’s script and the electrifying verve of David Fincher’s direction no longer a surprise, half the time I sat there marveling at the similarities of the story, themes and structure to “Citizen Kane.”
I advance this idea reluctantly… Stylistically and in feel, the films have nothing in common; whereas “Kane” is grandiose, the most filling six-course cinematic meal you could want, “Network” is fleet, like great tapas…
Both are about titans of a communications empire and both are told in part through the remembrances of those who knew them, “Kane” through direct old-age interviews with old cronies, “Network” through legal hearings triggered by multiple lawsuits by alienated former associates. The subjects of the two films become insanely rich at a very young age, get into trouble at elite schools and never graduate, spurn the establishment and the ordinary rules of the game, and can’t hold a woman. However, this construct by Sorkin enables the writer to create a Rosebud ending for “Network.” And, fundamentally, both Kane and Zuckerberg are men (or characters) with whom friendship may be a one-way street, as Jed Leland and now Eduardo Saverin discover to their peril.
E conclude infine:
“The Social Network” is about so many things—the primacy of an idea, the things that define a generation, ambition and drive fomented by rejection and anger, the limitations of orthodoxy versus unbridled imagination, simultaneous creative and destructive impulses, the fluidity of what’s considered an outsider and insider, rebel and establishment—that it provides almost an unlimited number of things to think about, while also providing a viewing experience of continual stimulation. Everything about it is rich.”
Attendiamo altri responsi prima di dichiarare il K.O tecnico per i prossimi Oscar, ma forse, dopo aver sottovalutato Zodiac e Benjamin Button è arrivato il momento, anche per l’Academy, di riconoscere il talento purissimo e la maturità narrativa dell’autore di Fight Club.