Failed Oscar Campaigns: "The Social Network" (2010)

Scene from The Social Network

As awards seasons pick up, so do the campaigns to make your film have the best chances at the Best Picture race. However, like a drunken stupor, sometimes these efforts come off as trying too hard and leave behind a trailer of ridiculous flamboyance. Join me on every other Saturday for a highlight of the failed campaigns that make this season as much about prestige as it does about train wrecks. Come for the Harvey Weinstein comments and stay for the history. It's going to be a fun time as I explore cinema's rich history of attempting to matter.

The Social Network (2010)

Directed By: David Fincher

Written By: Aaron Sorkin (Screenplay), Ben Mezrich (Book)

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake
Genre: Biography, Drama

Running Time: 120 minutes

Summary: As Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg creates the social networking site that would become known as Facebook, he is sued by the twins who claimed he stole their idea, and by the co-founder who was later squeezed out of the business.

- The Movie -

There is a whole generation who will tell you that The Social Network losing Best Picture to The King's Speech was one of the biggest upsets in Oscar history. Even more than Brokeback Mountain losing to Crash, it symbolized a moment where it was argued that The Academy was out of touch, favoring safe biopics over something cutting edge and new. There's no denying that in some respects, history has proven them to be somewhat right. While the conversation continues to rage on, there's simply more conversation dedicated to the David Fincher movie on a regular basis, with many either discovering the film or exploring how everything about it was groundbreaking. From the screenplay to the special effects and score, everything felt new and reflective of a new era.

Not bad for a movie that felt at the time like a novelty, dubbed "The Facebook Movie" as some pithy joke. What made the social media service so significant that their origin story needed a whole movie, let alone from such an established cast? That was the uphill battle that needed to be fought, and it may have been everyone's finest moment culturally. Plain and simple, every step of The Social Network's existence is met with a master class in how to market and produce a movie, pushing boundaries and turning dorm room ennui into a profound reinterpretation of Greek Tragedy. Thanks to one of Aaron Sorkin's most acclaimed screenplays, it was a moment to recognize the validity of start-ups in modern America, that they would only become more prominent in the decade since.

What's amazing is that in spite of shocking events since The Social Network doesn't feel quaint. It's still a vital film and maybe, with exception to Inception or Toy Story 3, the most-discussed Best Picture movie of that year. It was a phenomenon that predicted the future on so many fronts, and it makes sense why generations since have bonded over it. While everyone involved has gone on to great careers, it's been difficult to imagine them ever topping this. It's a rare moment where everything coalesced in a fully realized vision, creating a rare universally accepted masterpiece that is likely to only grow in stature, especially since the notoriety of subject Mark Zuckerberg has gone from shocking to obvious. If anything, Sorkin's script seems a bit too nice to him.

So the question to ask in honor of its 10th anniversary is: why did it fail? How could The King's Speech possibly beat the film in a year where The Academy wanted to appeal to a younger audience? To be honest, it's a whole lot more complicated than voters simply being old white guys. In fact, it's a bit antiquated, drawing in the likes of Harvey Weinstein campaign meddling and releasing the film too early. It was the start of a new era, but it would still be another few years before The Oscars caught up to them. While they were nominated regularly, they still had to deal with an old way of thinking.

- The Campaign -

It feels like the mythology around the script is a good place to start. Sorkin claims that when he read "The Accidental Billionaire," he had gotten to page three when he decided to option the book. It was the fastest that he had ever latched onto a project. He did research by getting his own fake Facebook account and doing research. He wanted to capture the feel that even if this was meant to unite us, it was in some ways dividing. Facebook was still in its early years of public access, taking up the mantle after websites like Friendster and MySpace had failed to sustain their short popularity. By 2010, things were shifting even further as Twitter became the new hot commodity. Would Facebook even survive the next decade? Sure there were small complaints that the website was mining data, but it wasn't nearly as controversial as it would become by 2016.

With Fincher in tow, the movie began turning into what it would become. It is difficult to talk about how the film campaigned without highlighting every small thing it achieved. The opening scene famously featured brisk editing that pulled from different cuts, tightening the scene so that dialogue flowed so effortlessly, sound and speed changing as points were emphasized. Similarly, The Winklevoss Twins had cutting edge facial technology that removed Josh Pence's face while using his body for Armie Hammer's face. There were apologies made to Pence in light of this decision, though it's unfortunate that his career feels oddly lacking in upward momentum compared to Hammer's. Another aspect was the way that Fincher shot on the Harvard campus illegally by placing hidden cameras around to film the opening.

Fincher got Trent Reznor to do the score. After initial reluctance, believing that it had too much of a John Hughes vibe, he took the job having admired the filmmaker's work for decades. He was coming off of his first Best Picture nomination with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Reznor meanwhile was coming off of touring and made a score that was more "sketches" reminiscent of his Atticus Ross collaborations on "Ghosts I-IV." When Fincher said that he liked them, it was clear what direction things were going. Eventually, a five-track sampler was released for free online ahead of the soundtrack, designed like a normal album to make it more appealing.

What they wouldn't expect is for the critical praise that they would receive, kicking off a partnership with Fincher that's lasted through The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Gone Girl. At the time they were considered pioneers, kicking off a new type of score that was more electronic, experimental, and not formed in classical strings. Given that they were composed over shots of people frustrated at computers, it helped to make the otherwise dull act feel lively. Even if Sorkin claims that the drama is conventional, even becoming a courtroom drama at times, the approach felt new and reflected why this partnership was a stroke of genius, finding Jesse Eisenberg coming off of a career upswing with films like Zombieland and Adventureland. This was his prestige turn, and it helped that he did Sorkin dialogue with the best of them

The marketing alone deserves to be in the hall of Oscar campaign fame. The poster by Neil Kellerhouse was a simple design meant to emphasize the drama that came with success. The tagline, "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies" was changed from 300 million to commemorate the anniversary on Facebook around 2010. It was a striking design that made Kellerhouse into a renowned star, who also made work for I'm Still Here and The King's Speech. 

It was also present in their official trailer, which had a larger impact than even the poster did. The most noteworthy part was a choral cover of Radiohead's "Creep" by Scala & Kolacny Brothers. It gave everything a haunting, artful quality that made people see something more tragic in this story. The trailer played before films like Inception and The Other Guys and would go on to win The Grand Key Art Award in 2011. It has gone on to be considered one of the best trailers of the decade and inspired a trend of films (all varying in genres) of slowed-down covers of pop songs. Very few match the general impact of this version.

Things were turning out pretty well for The Social Network upon its release. The film did so well that it had the lowest second-week drop of 2010, beating out Inception. It was a cultural phenomenon, with many including Roger Ebert calling it the best movie of the year. There was something vital about it that was only matched by its endless memorable dialogue. People were starting to see social media as a respectful field, finding the depth to be something provocative and worthwhile. Even pop star Justin Timberlake made a strong case for an acting nomination. He would claim that he would work very hard to get one.

It's important to note that coming into the season, everyone involved was considered an underdog. Fincher had only one Best Picture-nominated film to his credit and was still known for his brutal dramas. The Social Network felt like a change of pace. Also, Sorkin had yet to get an Oscar nomination, making him a favored newcomer to the category. Considering that the film would go on to gross $224.9 million internationally on a $40 million budget, it ended up becoming the sensation that could. Many began to wonder what made the Facebook story exceptional. It wasn't entirely clear.

There would be feedback from Facebook's creators as well, who had no involvement with the actual production. Eduard Saverin would recognize it merely as entertainment, not taking any falsehood too seriously. Going one step further, Zuckerberg would appear on Saturday Night Live during the week that Eisenberg hosted to provide his complaints (in jest, of course) about how he felt about his depiction. Facebook was suddenly seen as cool, even though many accused it of being too embracing of nerd culture and were critical of Zuckerberg's misogyny. 

The early award season was doing well with the film winning four Golden Globes including Best Motion Picture (Drama), Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Original Score. It was the type of encouragement that lead many to hope for a potential upset at The Oscars. Even if they had a lot of the supporting categories in the bag, they still were considered a longshot for Best Picture. Even with endless support from critics who continually recognized its brilliance, it wasn't enough to challenge The King's Speech run of success at certain awards branches. The big fight was yet to come, and one that would far more complicated than any journey up to this point.

- The Payoff -

To understand why The Social Network lost, one has to understand where The Academy was in 2010/2011. In 2012, a report came out that suggested that voters were overwhelmingly old and white, which has been used to explain why The King's Speech won. However, one has to make the argument that it went against the grain of recent winners that trended towards more experimental winners. Looking at the winners since 2006 (The Departed, No Country for Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker), there was more of an edginess to them. They reflected something more challenging to the drama, and it made sense that every now and they would want to recognize a different movie. By this logic, The King's Speech was different because of how it approached the subject, going for something more stuffy and classical.

Though at the same time, this was the year where The Academy tried to appeal to younger audiences. This was the second year of the 10 nominee Best Picture category, and they wanted to raise viewership. This was done in a literal sense by casting Anne Hathaway and James Franco as hosts, doing more bits meant to emphasize an MTV-style approach to awards shows. The issue was that many criticized Franco for using it as another platform of an experimental theater while Hathaway simply tried to keep things in order. It has gone on to be considered one of the worst hosting jobs in Oscar history. Still, the mix of blockbusters and smaller dramas was designed to draw a crowd. It must have not worked, as good old reliable Billy Crystal was in by the following year.

Another thing to consider is that The King's Speech was a Harvey Weinstein movie. His notorious marketing definitely helped the film to hold an edge against competitors. This was also the start of a near-decade run of movies about using media to better the world, which only made The Oscars look older and out of touch as films like The Artist and Argo won. There was something compelling about Weinstein's approach, obviously, as he knew how to sway voters with a film that featured a memorable performance from Colin Firth. It was also the perfect symbolism of the old school going up against the new. Fincher had yet to fully prove himself worthy of a win. He was the new kid, the guy behind Fight Club and Zodiac. There was maybe another decade before he would be taken seriously.

That isn't to suggest that other fields would be ignored. Sorkin had proven himself with a lengthy career of noteworthy talent, making his Best Adapted Screenplay win admirable. Reznor and Ross' win was maybe the most deserved, kicking off a string of nominees and winners who would push boundaries on what a film score should sound like. The Best Editing win was also an interesting case. Up to this point, Best Editing was almost unanimous with Best Picture, making the potential upset all the more difficult. Once Tom Hooper won Best Director, it was clear where things were going. One could even argue that a montage of the nominees that aired before the announcement, set to a speech by Firth, predicted how in the bag The King's Speech winning ultimately was.

The loss of The Social Network is one that continues to ripple. On the surface, it didn't make sense why The Academy would claim to want a younger audience and then give the trophy to a perceivably dull picture. While many could argue that the film's absence of nominations for Timberlake or Andrew Garfield was just as egregious, the attention shifted to the Best Picture debacle the minute that it was announced. It was a divide that wasn't entirely unpredictable, as the track record was in line with this. The Social Network was always an underdog and it was too cynical and confrontational, looking like more of the same to voters who were trying to reflect the diversity.

The question has become whether or not this is one of the biggest upsets in history. To be honest, I think that The King's Speech is a very good biopic. I've grown to like it, though I can accept those who see it as faulty in the eyes of its win. That film suffered because of its victory. It didn't help that Hooper would go on to have a strange Oscar career where he had a successful track record up until Cats, getting at least one win for every film. Still, many have grown an animosity towards him because he's seen as nowhere near as competent as Fincher. Still, if you want to talk about 21st upsets that haven't aged well, the Brokeback Mountain/Crash headache (while logical based on rampant homophobia and tier voting) will always be a dated blight on how much still needed to change. The Social Network at least felt respected at the time as a new style of filmmaking. 

I see this trend more as inevitable. Ironically, it would happen again when The Oscars tried to appear hip with the Best Popular Film category, ending up with the divisive Green Book win over a livelier young cast. Even then, it felt like a fairer compromise. The King's Speech definitely benefited from the Weinstein of it all, who was a great manipulator when it came to awards. He even made a PG-13 cut of The King's Speech just to eek out a few more bucks. While The Social Network overall had the better campaign, Weinstein knew how to speak to voters. In a time where there was needing to be a mix-up from what a conventional winner looked like, they went for something more upbeat and positive, where heroes weren't morally complex. That's just how it was, and it makes sense after winners like The Hurt Locker and No Country for Old Men.

With that said, it's amazing how The Social Network has aged much better than almost every other nominee. It hasn't left discussion for long, if just because people still use Facebook regularly, with Zuckerberg somehow getting mixed up in global politics. It reflects how this film was predictive, even inspiring a tech boom with many citing the film as their reason for starting a company. Still, it's a great drama that reflects humanity's divide even when it's trying to connect to others, finding the desperation in Zuckerberg that earned Eisenberg an Oscar nomination. There's even a Netflix documentary in The Social Dilemma highlighting the negative impact of websites like Facebook. Producer Scott Rudin even has pitched Sorkin on doing a sequel as recently as 2019.

While the Oscar campaign failed, The Social Network won the long game. It was a triumphant achievement that stood on its own, getting close to glory and finding fans who would stick by it at every turn. Every year there's a reason to talk about the movie, and only part of it has to do with the production or performances. Sometimes it's just the narcissism of Zuckerberg, or how certain quotes have aged like a fine wine. While everyone involved has gone on to great careers, it's still interesting to see how the 2010s had a film that distilled the era so perfectly only 10 months into the decade. Now that is a real achievement that speaks better than any shortcoming that you're likely to believe its award chances actually had.