Sorry i should have put more thought into my posting of this.
this link is to an article about a new film that is based on a book called "accidental billionaires" about mark zuckerberg who founded facebook. in my store, this book is on our bestseller display, but i have never given it a second thought, apart from "this is one of those empty tomes that allows us to keep less popular and more meaningful books on our shelves". the article describes the content of the film and claims that it received positive reviews.
the nature of the positive spin that this article claims reviewers are giving the story of this film, is by comparison to shakespearean tragedy. the essence of a shakespearean tragedy is popularly thought to be, conflicts revolving around and in some way issuing from a fatal flaw in an otherwise great man, and these conflicts explode to a point at which they bring about the hero's complete destruction. my opinion is that a comparison of this story to a shakespearean tragedy, and a comparison of zuckerberg to a shakespearean tragic hero, is not meaningful. to me, this comparison throws the story into relief as melodrama.
i can't really believe that anyone who makes this comparison deserves to call themselves a film critic as i don't think they can have studied drama in even the most cursory way. i think this must be deliberate bombast for the purposes of sales. i think that this whole book and film is not an art exercise but just another component of the marketing engine and money machine that is the facebook phenomenon. i feel that i am like that old guy in virtual light who can't tell the difference between news and advertising anymore.
i think this article might interest other people and i wonder what the ideas of other people on it might be.
Heh, I want the kind of tragic flaw that nets me billions of dollars.
I wouldn't call innovation complete destruction. I appreciate that the author of the article and perhaps the movie makers are trying to keep Shakespeare "relevant" for the next generation, but I think these efforts are just a classic case of trying too hard. Shakespeare will always be relevant because the stories are very human even when they are about mystical creatures and kings.
Innovative/creative genius is often misunderstood, but if they are equating it to a tragic flaw then they're doing it wrong. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't be completely sure. If this movie is about pointing out that geeks are anti-social then I'm pretty sure I can give it a pass. I can't really tell from this film critic's submission.
thanks christmas! yes, i agree rolling in cash is not utter destruction!
i think what upset me about the review is that rather than suggesting that reading shakespeare is relevant, it attempts to attract viewers with the suggestion that watching the film can supply the same sort of total experience as reading shakespeare. this may be attractive to people who would like to feel as though they have the cultural status that is attached to having read shakespeare, yet without having to make the effort of actually reading shakespeare. i think this is a very sneaky and nasty way of selling the film.
i find reading shakespeare to be rather difficult. i once spent three weeks on a sonnet for an assignment and was not satisfied that i had completely understood it. and yet the experience of reading shakespeare is highly rewarding for me. the density of meaning that is in that writing is outrageous, it's saturated with philosophy, and i agree with you that in this sense it may remain relevant to humanity. although i'm not completely sure - i can't say for sure whether it is universally relevant. but even so its foundational status in western culture is massive. i find it profoundly educational. if this makes sense, every time i read it i find that i come across something that i didn't know i knew.
there doesn't appear to be anything of great meaning or interest in this story. anything remotely shakespearean about it has been rehashed in a billion stories about a boy not getting a girl. i am ready to concede that there may (possibly) be something new in the specific twist of a communications company giant being a failure at personal communication, and i'm fine with that, but i don't think it's enough to save this film the art that the review is claiming it to be. i don't have anything against enjoying a trashy movie, but i do object to the elevation of this dull item of business biography (and more importantly the cash-grasping industry it represents) to the level of high culture.
Yes, absolutely it is a sales pitch to those who are familiar with Shakespeare, and it isn't a very good one. I can envision an editor asking a film critic to write a review of the movie to appeal to the "people who read" crowd, and this is the unfortunate result. Of course the writer may actually believe that Zuckerberg is a tragic hero of today, so I'm not entirely sure I can categorize the whole review as "sneaky." I'm willing to go as far as saying the review is a stretch of the imagination which isn't really sneaky in itself.
I wish I enjoyed reading Shakespeare as much as I enjoy seeing it performed. The sonnets I do think are still universal because I think basic human emotion is pretty universal. The language is rich, but accessible to anyone who is willing to take the time.
I'm with you that this isn't a high culture film, but I guess I don't blame the industry for trying to make it out to be more than it is. =)