What the Hell Happened to Aaron Sorkin?
He can't handle the truth!
A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing" and Charlie Wilson's War) had just bought the rights to The Politician, the book from John Edwards' former campaign operative Andrew Young.
If you don't know who Andrew Young is, I'll give you a quick bio for the creep. He's the guy who helped one time VP candidate John Edwards cheat on his cancer stricken wife with a bimbo and cover it up. Young continued to help John Boy slink around his wife's back until the tabloids got a hold of the story. Then Andrew turned around and pimped his story to St. Martin's Press. Then he signed with WME's Ari Emanuel in order to get the inevitable movie deal.
Of course there was a sex tape involved. No tabloid story is complete without one these days. Young found the tape and watched it. Instead of releasing it to the public like Kim Kardashian and Ray J did, he used its details to help pimp his book. The whole mess is incredibly tawdry and actually quite boring. But here comes Sorkin to lap it up.
This seems to be where Sorkin lives these days. He tries to class these things up with his Broadway credentials and his Emmy wins. But with The Social Network and now The Politician it appears that Aaron Sorkin is merely a step away from penning that Paris Hilton biopic we've all been waiting for so desperately. Any moment now I expect to see Aaron on TMZ chatting away with the kids about what's happening down at the LAX arrival terminal.
I wouldn't find this so offensive if Sorkin had something meaningful to say about all these cultural shenanigans. But he doesn't.
I just took the time to read his script from The Social Network. The only thing that was revealed to me from reading the script was the pathetic state of Hollywood development in 2010. I don't care that it was listed at number two on the overrated Hollywood "Black List". It is terrible. Awful in fact.
I'm not sure what Sorkin is trying to say with this script. Described by the studio as an ensemble piece it is anything but. The Mark Zuckerberg "character" is in almost every frame of the movie. It isn't an ensemble piece.
The problem for the studio is that Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) is obviously the protagonist of the film and Sorkin has created a very unflattering portrait of the Facebook founder. That means Sony is either stuck trying to sell a film with an unlikable central character or claiming it's an ensemble piece featuring the next Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) and Justin Timberlake.
The sad thing is that had Sorkin bothered to do his research he could have created a very complex and heroic character. Mark Zuckerberg is a young guy, but he isn't evil. He created one of the driving cultural forces in world today. Facebook has been used to help elect our first African American President here in the US and link protestors during Iran's Green Party protests back in 2009. I find that story far more intriguing and interesting than the tale of two butt hurt preppy rowers that Sorkin tells in his script.
Another problem with Sorkin's The Social Network script. It's boring. Mind numbingly boring. Oh, and did I mention it's boring?
I know, I know. I'm going to invoke the wrath of the Fincher fundamentalist crowd. Not since Stanley Kubrick died has there been such fascistic group of hardcore fans. "Fincher's The Social Network is gonna rock." they'll say. He'll make all those detailed deposition scenes incredibly cinematic. When the lawyers endlessly depose Zuckerberg in two different law suits, Fincher will have that camera going down under the floorboards showing termites gnawing at the wood. Symbolizing the decay of Western civilization that is happening from within. He's David Fincher dammit! He wouldn't make Sorkin's script unless it was going to be brilliant! Yeah, well I saw Benjamin Button.
Back to Sorkin.
What is going on with this man? Here's a guy who battled drug addiction and got busted at the Burbank Airport for holding. He's been in the tabloids himself. Now he takes on all these Perez Hilton stories. But instead of finding the good in people he goes for the bad. And he's not even truthful about it.
A good example is his recent play The Farnsworth Invention. The play, which was once in development as a feature film, has the big, bad corporation win the lawsuit against the actual inventor of TV, Philo Farnsworth. Farnsworth then dies a broken man in abject poverty.
Actually, Farnsworth won the lawsuit and lived a long and fruitful life. That's quite a difference, Mr. Sorkin. When called on it on Facebook of all things, Sorkin blew the question off claiming that there were many lawsuits and Farnsworth lost as many as he won. Yeah, but he won the big one Aaron. And he didn't die a broken man!
His adaptation of Charlie Wilson's War was factually inaccurate. This Facebook script is complete hogwash. If Sorkin wants to write fiction he shouldn't take on all these real events. Have some cojones, Aaron. Man up and write a spec script. Have Ari Emanuel sell one of those. He's supposed to be such a hot shot.
I guess what bugs me the most is that Sorkin is always hyped as a serious writer. The thinking man's answer to the usual Hollywood tripe. Yet, he takes complicated people and situations and turns them into bland stereotypes. Sorkin's Social Network script is certainly no better.
Case in point. In his script The Social Network, Sorkin boils down a meeting between Mark Zuckerberg and Sequoia Capital. Zuckerberg knew that Sequoia had helped remove his friend and colleague Sean Parker from his position at another firm so he planned a prank.
In Sorkin's screenplay it goes down like this: Sean and Mark pull up in front of the Sequoia Capital Building. Sean tells Mark to get out of the car and go into the meeting in his pajamas and tell the partners he overslept.
Then Sean tells him that the suits at Sequoia will pitch him anyway, because they want to work with him that bad. At that point, he instructs Zuckerberg to ask which one of the partners is Michael Moritz. And when Moritz speaks up, "You tell him, 'Sean Parker says fuck you,' and walk out."
At that point, Zuckerberg goes into the building while Sean stays in the car. End of scene. The viewer never even gets to see what happens in the meeting.
In real life it went down like this according to numerous sources including the recent book "The Facebook Effect."
One of the crew's edgiest pranks in those days was a presentation made to the blue-chip venture-capital firm Sequoia Capital, known in the Valley for a certain humorlessness. Sequoia Zminence grise and consummate power player Michael Moritz had been on Plaxo's board. Parker saw him as having contributed to his downfall. "There was no way we were ever going to take money from Sequoia, given what they'd done to me," says Parker. The firm wanted to invest in Facebook, so as a joke the boys offered to pitch the partners a Zuckerberg side project called Wirehog, a peer-to-peer file-sharing program.
Zuckerberg and another partner showed up deliberately late for an 8 a.m. meeting, in their pajamas. They didn't even make a pitch for Wirehog. Zuckerberg showed a PowerPoint presentation David Letterman-style: "The Top Ten Reasons You Should Not Invest in Wirehog." It started out almost seriously. "The number 10 reason not to invest in Wirehog: we have no revenue." Number 9: "We will probably get sued by the music industry." By the final few points it was unashamedly rude. Number 3: "We showed up at your office late in our pajamas." Number 2: "Because Sean Parker is involved." And the number one reason Sequoia should not invest in Wirehog: "We're only here because [a Sequoia partner] told us to come." The partners seemed to listen respectfully, recalls Zuckerberg, who says he now regrets the incident. "I assume we really offended them and now I feel really bad about that."
See the difference? Sorkin's version shows Mark Zuckerberg to be a mean spirited, spineless patsy. The real life version shows Zuckerberg as his own man, with a sense of humor (albeit a young frat boy sense of humor), a sense of loyalty and a sense of regret. More importantly, the real life version of events is far more interesting and dare I say it – filmic, than the one presented by Sorkin.
It just seems like Sorkin takes the easy way out and the product suffers because of it. I find that development very sad. He used to be one of the most exciting voices in Hollywood. Now he seems to be on track to becoming just another high paid hack.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 56 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Wow that was just one giant ranting waste of time against a very talented individual.
I feel that if your going to write an article calling Aaron Sorkin a poor writer it would help to have the article you write at least well written. I was extremely confused why this was on this site and then realized it wasn't written by Brad which made more sense. This article is one giant opinion, and will be very embarassing if come the 2011 Oscars this very screenplay wins for best adapted.
Going by the tone of the original post it would seem there's really no point in saying anything more. The writer's mind is thoroughly made up.
Hope you feel better having got that off your chest, I guess.
Whoa! Aaron Sorkin, a bad writer? What the fuck? Aaron Sorkin is a a tremendous writer, there is a reason why he is praised for his screenplays. It is because he is a genius in writing dialog and making a seemingly boring story interesting. A wild opinion about a great writer from a wildly poor writer.
I agree…there is too much one-sided vitriol in this article for it to be considered well-written or even worthy of being posted on this site.
Whoa. You really hate Aaron Sorkin!
I have no idea who he is. I only watched "Charlie Wilson's War" but I only knew it was a Mike Nichols film with Tom Hanks.
But now I know who Aaron Sorkin is.
He is someone that Bill Cody hates with all his heart.
That's funny. I thought I made it clear my editorial was in consideration of his current work. I always liked the West Wing when Sorkin was running it. And I still watch The American President and A Few Good Men when they come on the tube. I'm not sure you can say I hate Aaron Sorkin. Sorry if it came off that way.
I'm on your side Bill, the Social Network script is awful. I cannot believe Fincher came aboard. Maybe the script has improved since that draft that is online?
Either way is far from the framework of what could be a great movie; it's just robotic "real life" characters spit-firing dialog back and forth with no real emotion, like a laundry list of the events that occurred. Zuckerberg's character is portrayed as a villain and nothing more, Disney cartoons do a better job humanizing the villains in their stories.
One reason the script might be so slanted is that it was adapted from the book The Accidental Billionaires, I believe that's the case maybe someone can check on it. Like it or not I put a lot of stock in Amazon.com reviews. The book has 3 out of 5 stars out of 89 reviews. The first review is 2-star review titled "Tabloid Quality Dramatic Narrative". Maybe Sorkin jumped the gun on the Facebook story; perhaps he should have done more research? He probably got paid a lot and cranked out the script in a few days.
I suggest the other people commenting should read the script and come back with your thoughts. Also, do some more research on his current projects in comparison to his older work. That's the point the author of the post is trying to make.
@ Guy
Thanks for that. It was hard to put the whole story in one article. Sorkin actually wrote the script based on Ben Mezrich's notes. Mezrich of course made up stories as he does in all of his books. I'm still not sure how he gets away with that.
What I don't understand is why Sorkin didn't do more research on his own. The Facebook Effect does a so much better detailing of the ins and outs of the rise of Facebook. With Zuckerberg's own acknowledgement last week that he may have signed away 84% of the company it's really quite a fascinating tale.
But like you said, they were probably rushing to get the film out. Probably to capitalize on Facebook's popularity.
haha ive seen a few articles from this guy where he rants on in a one sided bias calling someone out. I think there good from time to time, and sometimes kinda funny, although far more funny when i agree.. but considering you're yet to see this movie and have only read the script, its probably quite possible that the message could be delivered far differently through the acting and filmmakers style. Not that your rant is undeserved because i really dont know, but maybe a little premature. However the Farnsworth Invention point you brought up is somewhat troubling, if true.
Well reading that was a waste of time.
Cody, people are going to insult you, not because of your opinion, but because you have the opportunity to present your opinion on a nationally-recognized website like RopeofSilicon. Its envy and nothing more.
As for what you wrote, I never noticed how much things this man changes, but that interesting Sequoita story would have made for a great TV scene and he really screwed up by removing it. I knew this movie was going to be bad when I saw the castings for Timberlake and Brenda Song so none of this surprises me.
Aaron Sorkin is going to stay in mainstream though, and for a long time. He'll join the ranks of M. Night Shayamalan and Uwe Boll as people who I want to go away.
"Cody, people are going to insult you, not because of your opinion, but because you have the opportunity to present your opinion on a nationally-recognized website like RopeofSilicon. Its envy and nothing more. "
Really? I have no desire to be a writer on a "nationally-recognized website" and in no way envy Bill Cody. But I still thought this article was poorly written and a pointless rant.
Thanks for trying to speak for me whoever you are. Maybe next time stick with saying just how you feel about the article rather than trying to justify how everyone else feels. Its 'online community 101'.
Sincerely,
Some guy, probably on the other side of the planet, who you have not the slightest clue about.
I didn't say you'd insult him because of his opinion nor did I say everyone would, I said "people are going to insult". That doesn't include everyone, it includes just the envious ones who bash for the sake of bashing.
I don't care if your envious of him or not, all I know is that some people are and they will insult him just because of it. By you taking my comment personally and misinterpreting what I said, you're being ignorant.
when are these pretend journalist blogger idiots going to be banned from the internet? i cannot believe i wasted my time reading this. journalism is in dire straights people. these are the days i hate the internet.
and by the way. how do you know any of the stuff you read is true and not the book sorkin used? because zucker said it? yeah he hasnt been proved to be a liar and thief. and a scum bag for facebooks privacy policies. now my ranting is done. lol. god bless the internet.
Well, I did link to the article on what actually happened. The narrative was taken from a book that came out last year called The Facebook Effect. I think if you did some research you would find out that the book is considered much more authoritative than The Accidental Billionaires, which is the book Sorkin was working with on his script. But you can check my research. I have posted links in the article.
Okay, so this is what gets me: If The Social Network is an adaptation of The Accidental Billionaires, why should Sorkin be criticized for not going out and researching on his own? The screenplay is an adaptation; whether or not The Accidental Billionaires is widely inaccurate (and it absolutely appears it is), that's the book that was optioned for the movie, and so that's what Sorkin used. Would the film be stronger if it had more accurate information? Maybe. I would definitely have liked to see the PowerPoint scene as detailed in The Facebook Effect, but that's not the book that was optioned for the screenplay.
Sorkin has had misfires in his career, and maybe The Social Network will be one of them. I haven't read the screenplay, but if it's as boring as you say it is, then he has definitely messed up. And yeah, I'll give you that buying the rights to embalm a tabloid sex scandal in celluloid is not exactly a classy move, but what if Sorkin were writing a screenplay about a cheating politician that WASN'T based on a real-life event? Would it still be trashy? And at the end of the day, isn't the important thing that a movie be a well-told story with compelling characters that achieves its goal of entertaining, if not challenging you, for two hours?
So maybe The Social Network sucks. But let's not write Sorkin off as another writer who's just taking the easy way out because he didn't research past The Accidental Billionaires. You can't use the book entirely as an excuse for a bad screenplay, but you can't criticize Sorkin for not researching past the book he was ADAPTING.
So then we can criticize Sorkin for turning in mediocre product, and we can criticize him for choosing a less than savory book to option, but if he tells the story he's supposed to tell and does it well, then we should relax. I don't think we need to ask "What the hell happened to Aaron Sorkin?" just yet. After all, Malice is by far one of the worst movies ever created, and that was sandwiched between A Few Good Men and The American President.
I dont know about you… but i dont care about anything other than what brad is typing.
That was just a hardly comprehensible, terribly one-sided rant. Save it for your personal blog, not the damn movie site.
Bill when you use Kim Kardasian and Paris hilton and Perez Hilton in your entry it nullifies any weight it might have had…alright i will admit i find Aaron Sorkin's interpretation of the events ( Skewed as they may be ) to be quite entertaining. i loved Charlie wilson's war… Benjamin button i wasnt a big fan of.. Social network i am going to give it a shot anyways… dude why go call "fans" of fincher fascist or for that matter anyone by any names i just found this article to be unnecessary and very hate-filled!
Can you blame Sorkin for calling it in, though?
Studio 60 was easily the best written network show since the West Wing yet it got cancelled to subsidize the cost of Heroes. Seriously, Heroes.
Shit writers get paid. Sorkin got wise.
Funny you mention Studio 60. I found it to be a wildly frustrating show. It certainly had it's moments but every time it threatened to take off I thought it took two steps backward but that's me.
The guys is certainly talented, though. I guess that's why I find his recent work so frustrating.
I can see your point, and while I am an avid Sorkin supporter it's nice to see an article that does more than just kiss his ass. I guess I'm saying I half agree with you, and half disagree. His last few projects haven't been as good as Sports Night or West Wing, however he is also trying something different I think, especially after his understandable frustration with the television business (which was showcased in Studio 60). I didn't think your article was all that poorly written, but some comments that it was a little bit of a one-sided rant aren't too far off the mark. You clearly did your research and are a talented writer however.
The real problem, I think isn't Sorkin. It's the world we live in NOW. In a post 9/11 (wow, never thought I'd write that overused phrase) world people don't want thoughtful, heartfelt and well-meaning entertainment, apparently. I think Aaron is going where the work is, and again, away from TV execs. I hope this tide turns for him, and for us.
Is Sorkin a God? Please.
If we're going to take writers to town for taking historical facts and skewing them completely and utterly for the sake of drama, why not take a shot at William Shakespeare…?
Whoa, did you just call out "The Bard"?
Thank you for finally asking the question that has been on my mind since I first saw "The Farnsworth Invention" in previews in La Jolla in the spring of 2007.
I have tried to engage Aaron in a dialog about his bogus treatment of the Farnsworth story ever since, but, as you've observed, he really doesn't give a rip what anybody has to say on the subject. He has now reached such an exalted stated that history is whatever-the-fuck Aaron Sorkin says it is.
I pretty much had my final word on the subject with this post to my "Farnovision" blog:
http://49chevy.blogs.com/farnovision/2010/05/the-real-tragedy-of-the-farnsworth-invention-.html
Those of us who have been close to the Farnsworth story were excited at first when Aaron first came on board. But as you will gather from this post, to say things went decidedly "pear shaped" would be understating the case. For more details on where his play goes off the rails, try http://thefarnsworthinvention.com (his people didn't have enough presence of mind to get the domain before I did…)
Anyway, thanks for noticing that one of the best writers in Hollywood has left the building. He can still write, he has just lost touch with what he is writing about.
He also wrote the new version of Moneyball.
Like what you feel about The Social Newtork, I don't really understand what I'm supposed to take from this article… What a waste of time. This puts Rope Of Silicon to shame.
I must be the only one who finds the comment "what a waste of time" when refering to the article but doesn't see the irony in taking the time to comment on said article.
Is it a rant? Perhaps. Is it wrong? Who cares? It's an editorial. Find me one that isn't a rant in some form or another.
I disagree with much of what he says here but I wouldn't call reading it a waste of time simply because if it truly were, I wouldn't take the time to comment.
Very interesting all round. Perhaps Sorkin should not have gotten off the magic mushrooms, perhaps he's not meant to work sober. As far as "The Politician" is concerned there is no mystery there. I believe Sorkin was and remains a Hilary devotee. He will never forgive John Edwards for staying in the race long enough to hobble her candidacy.
I got a kick out of "Charlie Wilson's War" but the slant was hilariously obvious. After years of denying there was a Cold War, then insisting the USSR fell of it's own accord, Sorkin pivoted 180 degrees and made it look like a democrat congressman (of decidedly Clintonian personal habits, no less) won the war single-handedly. Charlie Wilson played a vital role, to be sure. He was the man who ponied up the massive sums to supply the mujahedeen but there were quite a few other people, from Ronald Reagan (who signed off on the Stingers, among other things) and DCIA Bill Casey on down.
Despite all of the backlash in the comments, I actually found this editorial quite insightful and refreshing. It's nice to see some opinions on this website to go along with all the facts that Brad presents.
You could have made your point much more effectively. You seem to want to ask Mr. Sorkin why he is wasting his talents on book adaptations. The Social Network, Charlie Wilson's War, and the future Politician were all adapted from a book. I for one am glad he took those jobs, think how horrible those movies would be without his talent.
Dude, ever heard of "The West Wing?"
Poor writer, really?
Aaron Sorkin has always been a hack.
wow, really?? Even the author if this article doesn't say that, and he is clearly pretty disappointed with Sorkin.
sorry, typo. there wasn't supposed to be an "if" in there
In the midst of all this personal strife there is a hige issue. Is truth stranger than fiction? Many virtuoso film writers say openly that truth is much more boring than THEIR fiction.
Classical examples – "Braveheart" – closely followed by "U-Boat 571".
Always great to hear from you, Paul. I have to say it's not hard to find the irony in your many, many, many scoldings about the accuracy of my play, The Farnsworth Invention, in which you've been so inaccurate. More to the point, you leave out what journalists call "important facts".
For instance, you haven't told the readers here that you joined me onstage after a performance of Farnsworth at the La Jolla Playhouse for a talk-back session with the audience during the play's pre-Broadway tryout. At that time, not only didn't you have a problem with the exact same play that opened on Broadway, you pronounced it to be "a sensational piece of work" that "for the first time brings this incredible story to life." A few days later you wrote to me and asked me if I could provide a quote to help sell your book and I did.
You haven't told the readers here that after reading the play and seeing the play and being in contact with me for the months leading up to the Broadway transfer, you never once, not even a little bit, expressed any reservations about anything in the play.
You state above that you've tried to engage me in a dialogue but that I really don't "give a rip what anyone has to say on the subject." Considering the invitation you accepted to join me onstage for a conversation after the performance, considering that you and I have e-mailed many times, considering the number of detailed and respectful posts I've put on your website and considering the fact that I'm talking to you right now, are you ready to revise that assertion?
Paul, you haven't told the readers here that you requested tickets to the Broadway opening and that your request was denied. I've apologized to you about this before. The Music Box Theater holds 1010 people. It was a big cast, a big crew a lot of producers and everybody's got aunts and uncles. We also need to make room for the several hundred members of the press who review the play on opening night as opposed to a late preview. Tickets were so hard to come by that some people whose last names were Farnsworth and Sarnoff had to be left off the list. (Speaking of people named Farnsworth and Sarnoff, any number of grandchildren, great grandchildren, nephews, nieces and other descendants of the two principal characters came to see the play and expressed not one of them expressed any of the concerns that seem to have you so upset that three years later you're still posting links to your website. I understand that people are generally polite to the author but you'd think ONE of them–certainly members of the Farnsworth family at least– would have said, "Whoa–you got some facts wrong. Let me correct you before this play goes to Broadway.")
Your readers don't know that when I heard you were upset about not getting opening night tickets (yes, you were so upset that word got back to me about it) I got in touch with you (man, I AM hard to engage), apologized and invited you to come to a preview. And I asked if you'd like to meet after the preview so I could buy you a beer. Here's where I screwed up badly. I've apologized on bended knee and I'll do it again. At the moment that I told you I'd meet you after the show for a beer, my assistant went into labor. It would be tough to blame her for not making a note of the appointment but I should have written it down and I didn't. And I didn't meet you after the show to take you for a beer (though I hope you enjoyed my house seats.) I mean it when I say I'm terribly sorry. I understand that you were very upset again as our stage manager as well as several cast members told me you were shouting backstage.
And you're not telling the readers here that it was at this point and only at this point that you began to have big, terrible problems with the play that you wrote about daily on your blog and sent around to the New York papers. (And not for nothn' but you also forgot to mention that your ex-wife wanted to be one of the producers of the play but wasn't.)
As to the substance of the argument you've been making ever since I inadvertently stood you up, Philo Farnsworth most certainly did die a broken man. He died alone (his wife and kids nowhere in sight), he was clinically depressed (he'd been hospitalized for it a few years earlier), he was an alcoholic and he was literally broke. The inventor of television had no money.
The Farnsworth Invention uses a literary device called the unreliable narrator. (In fact the play used two of them–Philo and Sarnoff narrate each others stories.) An unreliable narrator is what it sounds like–he tells us something that may not be true. This convention is set up from the first moment of the play and many times during the course of the play, one of the two–-Philo or Sarnoff–-will argue that something the other has just said wasn't true. The penultimate scene in the play–-the emotional climax–-ends with Sarnoff turning to the audience and saying "I just made that scene up–-I've never met Philo Farnsworth."
It was in this well-established context that I dramatized the verdict in the courtroom that's got you so angry. The moment the verdict's announced, Sarnoff turns to the audience and says, "I may be wrong, he may have won that one and lost on appeal. Or lost and then won and then lost again. I don't know, there were a lot of lawsuits. It didn't matter, all I had to do was run down the clock on his 17 years." Which he did. Which is why the number of RCA television sets manufactured and sold throughout the world exceeds by more than a little bit the number that were sold by The Farnsworth Television Company.
Now how in the Wide World of Sports have I deceived the audience?
Bill, I'm sorry you think The Social Network is boring. Hopefully there'll be enough people who disagree with you that I can keep earning a living.
Aaron Sorkin
Sinaju–I'd like to respectfully correct you. You posted the following–
"I got a kick out of "Charlie Wilson's War" but the slant was hilariously obvious. After years of denying there was a Cold War, then insisting the USSR fell of it's own accord, Sorkin pivoted 180 degrees and made it look like a democrat congressman (of decidedly Clintonian personal habits, no less) won the war single-handedly."
I have, in my entire life, never written or spoken publicly about the Cold War (much less deny that it existed) so I'm confused as to why you feel I "pivoted 180 degrees". Charlie Wilson's War was adapted from George Crile's bestselling book of the same name. George–who passed away a few months before production began on the movie–was an award-winning producer for 60 Minutes who spent 9 years researching and reporting the story of Charlie Wilson. The book is basically a compilation of dozens and dozens of very in-depth interviews with anyone and everyone even marginally involved in the story. The book is thoroughly foot-noted and his research is unimpeachable. As a consultant on the film we had the former Deputy CIA Director in charge of Near East Affairs–specifically covert operations in Afghanistan, and we also had Charlie Wilson. (Charlie, who you've correctly identified as a democrat and–this is unusual–liked sex, was nonetheless to the RIGHT of Ronald Reagan when it came to communists.
Thanks for coming out and seeing the movie and I hope you like The Social Network.
Best,
Aaron
One more quick note. Robert Scheer goes over the entire timeline of what actually happened in Afghanistan and the mujahideen and the CIA just a couple weeks ago on NPR's Left, Right and Center -
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr
I think it's the July 30th edition. The whole story's been well documented for years, but Scheer walks the audience through what happened. You can almost hear Scheer popping a vein as he talks about Robert Gates, who is of course out current Secretary of Defense. I think Scheer's a little concerned about the man who got us involved with the mujahideen as CIA Director being tasked to get us out of Afghanistan as Sec. of Defense.
It's a very good show if you've never podcasted it.
Hello Aaron,
Thanks for reading my piece. The only quick note I have is that my complaint regarding Charlie Wilson's War might have more to do with Crile's book than your adaptation. I mean look at the full title of the book – "Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times". That's a straight up crock.
Since Robert Gates 1996 autobiography, detailing the US's role in organizing and arming the mujahideen in the mid-70's was out long before Crile's 2003 tomb, we already knew that the CIA and the Carter administration had suckered the Russians into Afghanistan by covertly destabilizing the government there. That account was that was subsequently corroborated by Zibigniew Brzezinski in numerous interviews. Let's just say some of the larger; big picture story was missing in Crile's telling. Saying that Charlie Wilson single handedly set up the operation and changed history was not really correct. And all of this information and material was abundantly available in print and on-line long before Crile's book came out in 2003.
It did, however, make a nice convenient narrative. A little too convenient.
I guess that was the point of my article. I loved the the West Wing, An American President and A Few Good Men BECAUSE they were nuanced and well researched. Oh, and entertaining as hell to boot.
What a one sided article.
Ps Arron, you are the finest example of the modern writer. You have many fans here down under.
Aaron,
What in the heckfire is that post of yours supposed to mean? As a member of the large Farnsworth family I can tell you we're All more than a little pissed at the way you've presented our Phil's story–no matter how polite anyone was on opening night.
And just what sort of sophistry are you trying to pull with that "he died alone because his kids and wife were nowhere in sight" nonsense? You should know better. Pemmie was there up until the end, reading to him and taking him places, and if in your interviews with her she admitted to being in the next room or on an errand during the FINAL moment that is a completely different thing than having deserted him, and you know it. Anyway, she said no such thing to the family, and I knew her for almost 30 years.
Also, yes he was having business problems, but not having profited from TV and being comfortable enough to be happy are two different things. Get a little perspective, and get your head out of yourself.
Here's hoping someday there WILL be a movie made about his life. I understand a script is already circulating, and that it is generating some pretty decent buzz. I also understand that it wasn't written by you.
This is interesting. While I've always felt Farnsworth got shafted in the portrayal Sorkin did, I'm just glad his name is out there.
Brian, I appreciate the link to my site.
Quel tempest in a teacup.
What it all boils down to is that film writers and most of the general public are ignorant and afraid where technology is concerned. The whole Farnsworth claim (invention of television) hinges on very detailed arguments that can only be understood by 0.01% of the population. And the same applies to the RCA side of the case, and several strong claims from Europe.
Because of this, writers are under pressure to simplify (i.e. distort) the technical facts — so why stop there? Why not change the whole plot and the characters to what the industry thinks is the "ideal" movie.
It is increasingly difficult to get major backing for any kind of movie project these days, so writers and others are bending over backwards and it is impossible to expect any kind of grip on reality. The golden age of movies and television is long past but we can enjoy it through the DVD.
It may not be long before we find ourselves watching new movies from India and China. Cheaper and who knows, better?
Sorkin is a great writer. If you read The Social Network and cannot see where he's made the story interesting with the dialogue then I can only assume this is the first Sorkin script you've read and you have no imagination. It's a tough sell to convince everyone a movie is going to be bad, even before it comes out. Your entire opinion is based off of a leaked copy of a script that's most likely had things changed.
Furthermore, it's well known that personal accounts of the story of Facebook greatly differ between founding members, so while you claim the VC story goes as stated in one novel, there are just as many people who believe the other novel. Be that as it may, this isn't Sorkin's doing. He's adapting a story into a movie, not going through all the accounts and deciding which one is more interesting or entertaining. Plenty of people are well aware of Mark's character flaws and having read the script I feel as if it's a fair portrayal of Mark and in no way paints him as necessarily a bad guy but shows that even as a billionaire, he's human like the rest of us. While it does highlight his character flaws, I think it also does a fair job of showing the inner struggle he was going through while trying to create and foster the growth of arguably the biggest tech revolution of this century.
It's amazing how you paint Mr.Sorkin as someone interested in horning in on anyone with a media buzz. Every character you mentioned that you feel is leading to a Paris Hilton feature, I see a very complex and interesting character.
I think anytime you're working with any degree of non-fiction you're going to have people who feel things went a different way. That comes with the territory. I don't recall any piece of history that is free from disputed details…
I think the difference is in who's book and research Sorkin is using. Since he's already come on here once I'll try not to speak for him. But he has said in interviews that they tried to make a deal with the author of The Facebook Effect but weren't able to make a deal. It is also very well known that Mezrich makes things up. His own publishers have created some sort of new category of book for him, and freely admit his "non-fiction" contains fictional passages. So your comments regarding different accounts is more than a little specious. One account (The Facebook Effect) is acknowledged by all accounts as quite accurate, while the other one (Accidental Billionaires) is admittedly made up – by both the author and publisher of the book. So I don't think there's much to dispute here.
Look, I don't blame Sorkin for making a living. It's just that he should write fiction. The West Wing was obviously based on the Clinton Administration with advisors like Lawrence O'Donnel working on it, but Sorkin never claimed it was entirely accurate and that was what he should have done here. IMHO.
I also don't think the things that were added were very interesting. The story he, Mezrich and Fincher are telling is so old and dated. Whereas Zuckerberg seems so complex. Why did he turn down millions from Microsoft to go to college and then turn around and quit two years in? Why did he ask Severin for 20 thousand dollars when he could have easily got the dough from Microsoft or some other place like he ended up doing later in the game? Why did his Facemash idea catch on so fast with his Harvard classmates who were obviously as alienated socially as he was? those are interesting questions.
Turning it into a rehash of Wall Street just seems lazy and not all that interesting to me.
"Disputed details"? Like whether or not Japan and Germany won or lost World War II? It seems to me the kinds of details Mr. Sorkin is accused of playing fast and loose with are more than minor points.
The Social Network was the best movie I have seen in… well a very, very long time. As a recovering addict, and established writer.. I find Mr. Sorkin to be an inspiration.
The first scene… wow.
I just saw the movie. Its terrific. Its about risk in pursuit of a dream. Its also fascinating how the right combination of factors came together so that a somewhat socially awkward (but highly gifted) programmer was motivated to create FACEBOOK. Its also a case study about how venture capitalism, Silicon valley, and one man's vision all came to together at "the right time." Sorkin captures the energy that made it possible. Far from being boring, its an amazing, truly gripping, screenplay, with plenty of room for interesting "character arcs." He captures the beauty of being young, and the rush that comes with creativity–and an idea that, in its own way, "changed the world."
Bill — If it's any consolation or vindication from some of the scathing comments to your article, I just saw The Social Network (with no prior info/bias) and it is deplorable. While there are a handful of witty lines, the characters are vapid and the dialogue is over-dramatized like a daytime soap opera.
To further illustrate this point: every character, literally EVERY character, is over-the-top polarized. Zuckerberg is either an eager beaver or asleep in meetings; Larry Summers is annoyed and sarcastic in his 3 minute clip, Saverin scowls at Parker the second they meet. There is no subtlety or character development. Sorkin juxtaposes people as deliberately as a Disney movie.
As someone who has been in-tuned with reality for the better part of the past 6 years, I already know the plot of this movie. I think the dramatization and flow were aspects Sorkin could work with, and he failed miserably.
I found this article after running a google search for anyone criticizing Sorking's writing. I was astounded to see how many people LOVE his style, and perhaps that is because of West Wing, et al (which I haven't seen). But in a vacuum, I don't think The Social Network screenplay would be critically acclaimed.
I can see how some people are pulled into the story, fascinated by the making of a young billionaire, and impressed by Sorkin's punchy dialogue. I think it's good for TV, 40 min or less; any more and it's just a sordid waste of hard-earned free time.
Billy Cody, your envy is painfully transparent.
I just remembered this article after reading about all the awards that The Social Network's script has picked up.
To paraphrase Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood:
You look like fools, don't you, Rope Of Silicon?