MovieChat Forums > The Social Network (2010) Discussion > Social Network vs Citizen Kane

Social Network vs Citizen Kane

posted 9 years ago by Hythlodaeus
14 replies | jump to latest

The Social Network and Citizen Kane have more similarities than might be obvious.

1.) Insecure men needing to compensate by dramatic social and material success
2.) Men becoming captains of industry using the newest technology (the web and specifically social media vs newsprint and TV)
3.) Losing all relationships due to success.

These films seem to be uniquely American like The Great Gatsby but really they could happen in any wealthy country where new industries are popping up giving unparalleled wealth to individuals. There could be a story about this in the United Arab Emirates etc.

What hump? 

[–] nocakeforyou 9 years ago

Very interesting, I like that connection.

[–] PacificPooch 9 years ago

Yes, the similarities between the two films has been written about and in fact apparently Fincher himself made some such comment.

However, I disagree with your last point. These stories would be far less likely and arguably even impossible in most other countries in the world, for two reasons:

- The US is and has been for over a century the largest economy in the world, and this allows the massive wealth accumulation you see in these films. Within the industries the two main characters competed in, it would be far more difficult to build the large enterprises they have in a small country like the UAE (even if it is wealthy).

- Even today many wealthy countries around the world don't offer the same opportunity to those historically without wealth and power. And even if a person from a lower "social class" broke through to great wealth, I think they would always be somewhat of an outsider. I'm not saying this doesn't exist at all in America, but it's relatively subdued - rich entrepreneurs regardless of their backgrounds are broadly admired in the US.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Well, this was how I was challenging myself to see if this isn't a uniquely American story as the Great Gatsby would have us think.

Does it have to be social mobility or can it just be fabulous wealth. Kane and Zukerberg don't have to be poor first to be absurdly rich - or is rags to riches the essence of this story?

What hump? 

[–] PacificPooch 9 years ago

Well, you are correct that fabulous wealth is the defining element of Kane's and Zuckerburg's success, rather than increased social stature (though of course those two things are correlated).

However, I would stand by my argument that their stories are far more likely to occur in America than in most other countries in the world (including many rich countries).

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

China is the biggest source of new billionaires next to the US.

Lei Jun is practically a chinese Steve Jobs. This story could easily take place in China

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Love your icon, Degree7. It's from one of the newer Invasion of the Body Snatchers - isn't that Donald Sutherland? Love those movies - especially those creepy parts where they'd all point and screech at the lone human(s).

What hump? 

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Why thank you Hythlodaeus. Well spotted. I like your image too. I see Sheriff Bell is still sitting on his butt drinking coffee and reading the paper, while Anton Chigurh gets away, haha.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Awe man - I love Bell - did you see him a lazy old fart?

He's supposed to be almost like the Gunslinger or Highlander - an ancient warrior who is tired and burned out but he keeps going. Chiguhr represents fate - evil without purpose, without end, without beginning.

Bell is more human than that but just as eternal - the ending tells that story. Chiguhr has no parents - no beginning no end - and even though this seems to give him strength, it is his downfall. Bell has fathers and uncles from whom he draws strength (as is described in the narration at the beginning and end of the movie as bookends to the darkness of Chiguhr) - he is a "law man" a man who like the prophets, crying out in the wilderness, fighting what seems a losing battle but fighting on and on, always tired, always beaten, but never completely giving up. In the end (like in The Road) the light will win. Bell was a beautiful character.

Do you Cormack McCarthy? I liked The Road and NCFOM but man Blood Meridian was hard to read the end to. The Judge is a lot like Chiguhr - except far worse.

What hump? 

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Don't worry, I was only joking. I know that Bell doesn't want to put his soul at hazard anymore. Subduing Chigurh would be like trying to defeat death itself, it would be impossible.

I tried reading some Cornac McCarthy, but I find his books hard to get into. His writing style is so punctual and strange. He seems like more of a philosopher than a novelist. Then again, I had a friend recommended Blood Meridian to me, so I might give that a try.

Did you like "The Counselor?" I heard a lot of people hated it, but I thought it was amazing, the dialogue, story and everything. Almost like a NCfOM spin off.

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

I absolutely did not like the Counselor - I think it represents McCarthy's inner battle - and I think the Counselor is a sign that he's losing his battle.

I hope instead maybe he's purging his darkness by writing about but - then the question is, what happens when others ingest it.

I don't at all like the direction his writing has been going and I think it's a shame and a damn waste really.

The Road had elements that were like Steinbeck's The Pearl or Hemmimgway's The Old Man and the Sea - but I think McCarthy has abandoned that in The Counselor, to his detriment.

What hump? 

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

Good comparison of movies. I think you missed one obvious point: What was Mark Zuckerberg's "Rosebud"? It was, according to this movie, Erica Albright.

(of course she may be as fictional in her importance as the childhood sled was to Hearst)

It is an interesting debate on whether this story is "uniquely American". On the one hand, there IS wealth to be made in many parts of the world.

But on the other hand, America has had an edge-up in media enterprise for the past 150 years or so. American music, movies, TV shows (and websites) have dominated the world market as no other culture has.

Yes, there is money to be made in India, China and the UAE. But you don't see Indian, Chinese or Arabic music, movies or TV shows being listened to and watched everywhere the way American media is. I have a theory on why this is so.

(In my view it is partly because of the "Melting Pot" nature of American society. But also because, unlike other wealthy, powerful nations, American culture is not primarily dictated downward by our wealthy, elite types. USA culture is built upward from the masses. The wealthy may market our music, movies and TV shows, but the content is aimed at regular people not the elite. Therefore it has the greatest worldwide appeal. Perhaps that has something to do with the appeal of Facebook. )

[–] Hythlodaeus 9 years ago

Those are all good questions.

I wonder, do you think that American (or at least Western) culture will dominate and define the emerging global culture or will it shift toward China, India or Russia etc. as it grows?

Marshall Mcluhan said, "The Medium Is The Message" and coined the term "the Global Village" (which was the name of a modem manufacturer in the 90s) - since the Internet was created by the United States (Al Gore in particular) and we still control network registration etc. Does that mean that our medium is the message and the naturally democratic nature of it (or military nature?) will dominate emerging global culture.

Will the US define the new world order the way Rome defined the West for hundreds of years?

In any event, the issue of western culture is bound up with The Social Network and Kane (Hirst) but is it uniquely american or is it uniquely pre-global?

What hump? 

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bond_98 8 years ago

Only Citizen Kane is a far far better movie.