- From my limited experience in California federal court it seems as though California has chosen to largely abrogate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of an impenetrable series of local rules, but I'm pretty sure the deposition (or series of depositions--it's not entirely clear) that serves as a framing device aren't conducted by any version of the Federal Rules I'm aware of--seems as though witnesses are being questioned primarily by their own attorneys, witnesses freely interject insults toward other parties (present in the room), and the like. It works as a matter of drama, but it sure ain't accurate.
- Rashida Jones has a small (but significant) role in the film as the "second year associate" who's second-chairing the deposition for Zuckerberg/Facebook. In the final scene, she reveals she has a "specialty." Leaving aside the implausibility of a second year associate having a specialty at all, the specialty she references is so implausible as to make no sense at all.
- I'm a "stay till the end" moviegoer, and for lawyers, it's worth staying till the end, not for any bonus scene, but for the disclaimer, which is one of the oddest I've read. Not only does it have the "certain events are composited" language that you see in "based on a true story" films, but it winds up with a disclaimer akin to those we see on fictional films that no association should be drawn to any real business entity or people. That's particularly hard to do here, given that the Facebook name and logo is constantly used/referenced. (Even aside from that, hard case for anyone to make for defamation, since, partially due to the PG-13 edit, the primary characters aren't shown doing much "bad.")
Saturday, October 2, 2010
NO, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO FRIEND OPPOSING COUNSEL: I'm sure we will have more thoughts about The Social Network in the coming days, but I wanted to address three matters of particular interest to our audience--namely, how the film treats the law and lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I concur. Also unrealistic for an attorney to concede on the record that the impeaching evidence he's using is disclaimed by his client.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Rashida Jones's monologue about how jury trials get decided on likability rather than any notion of truth-finding, and legal settlements get parceled out accordingly, is the first time I've seen Hollywood acknowledge this dynamic--even if it's unrealistic for a second-year associate to be making the observation.
On the other other hand, Rashida Jones's attorney isn't a character so much as an in-person disclaimer. It's a clumsy bit of exposition when there could have been many other ways to demonstrate that we were facing an unreliable narrator.
Movie flunks the Bechdel Test, but it's hard to blame Sorkin when he gives women a greater prominence in the story than they actually had in real life.
Any way, good enough that I forgive Sorkin for "Studio 60," but important to realize that the whole thing is fictional hooey.
Fascinating to go back and read the contemporaneous Crimson articles. (The Winklevi did whine to the papers, for example.)
I'll throw in my favorite disclaimer, from the Charles Mingus autobiography Beneath the Underdog: His World as Composed by Mingus.
ReplyDelete-- Some names in this work have been changed and some of the characters and incidents are fictitious
The boyfriend and I really enjoyed the movie---I had been concerned that it could not possibly live up to expectations, but it did. As a lawyer, yes, the legal scenes made little sense, but yup. All aspects of the film were strong.
ReplyDeletePer the Bechdel test, if Rashida Jones's character had spoken to the other female attorney about the case (where the parties are all male), would that have met the test? I take "about a man" to mean "about a man, in a romantic or sexual sense."
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed the movie very, very much despite the legal inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteAfter a complicated bit of discussion of computer coding, my husband whispered in my ear, in a surprised voice, "That was all completely accurate."
I was involved in a few of California depos, back in the aftermath of the dot-com collapse, where the clients insisted on being in the room to scowl at each other. Counsel generally kept them from insulting each other on the record, however.
ReplyDeleteI was sitting next to some folks who were apparently fairly recent Harvard graduates who ooh'd and aah'd a fair amount at the apparent accuracy of the Harvard geography/information. (Amusingly, they did not recognize Sorkin's cameo and were shocked when he showed up as an actor in the credits.)
ReplyDeleteOn point 2, the dynamic is less "likability" than it is the pure cost-benefit. Admittedly, even with BigLaw running full meter, the settlements were apparently far more than cost of litigation, but even in these complex corporate cases, a lot of cases settle for cost of litigation. (The nice thing about my area of practice? The primary relief sought is injunctive, so harder to settle--more billing.)
ReplyDeleteI loved Reznor's score. And since I am not so familiar with the nuts and bolts of lawyering, I wonder how much shit Sorkin is going to get from his sister, the former JAG lawyer, for his wanton way with the truth?
ReplyDeleteBut wasn't it filmed at Hopkins?
ReplyDeleteThe Bechdel test. I don't think you have to limit it to romantic conversations. It's still significant that most movies are simply about projects initiated and completed by men, and to the extent women are involved, that's all they talk about.
ReplyDeleteIt was filmed at Hopkins, though a couple of scenes and establishing shots were shot at Harvard. They CGI'ed in Cambridge landmarks in some scenes.
ReplyDeleteI missed Sorkin's cameo?
Sorkin plays the ad agent they meet with in NYC who puzzles over what noise Mark is making with his mouth.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything in the film to push those of us with no desire to see it over the edge? I'm on facebook, but i don't really care one way or the other about it's (a) social significance [sic] or (b) its formation.
ReplyDeleteThe score is innovative and quite striking.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the movie, but my understanding is that Sorkin was not improving the status of women in the movie v. actual story. See i.e. http://tiny.cc/75t6c
ReplyDeleteBenner, it's actually a pretty compelling story on its own, just in terms of how the characters interact. It really is more about the people than about the business.
ReplyDeleteBenner, it's actually a pretty compelling story on its own, just in terms of how the characters interact. It really is more about the people than about the business.
ReplyDeleteI second that, it is really a movie about friendship and how that affects business and about the nature of ideas and intellectual property with the framework having the intellectual property/business being facebook. Kind of like how Sports Night was not really about sports.
ReplyDeleteI see nothing in that Jezebel story that indicates that women had any role in the founding of Facebook (or in the litigation over it). If anything, it rebuts the idea that Zuckerberg founded Facebook to impress women.
ReplyDeleteZuckerberg's long-time girlfriend didn't move to California until 2007, and then only after a negotiated "contract" where he agreed to spend at least 100 minutes a week with her outside the office.
Eisenberg's performance is Oscar-worthy. Sorkin's dialogue crackles for the most part. Timberlake cements his status as a triple-threat. Prominent performances from future Spider-Man and future Girl with Dragon Tattoo. Reznor score impressive.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Eisenberg deserves a nomination, but the entire cast was very, very solid.
ReplyDelete