Prompt #5

I haven’t seen “The Social Network” myself and have no plans to see it although I’ve heard many favorable reviews. I’ve also heard some negative things about the film and its portrayal of women, and that makes me not want to contribute to any profits gained from the creation of this movie.

The hype surrounding this movie is a really interesting aspect because most movies do not have a level of expectation surrounding their immediate release. With “The Social Network,” it was expected to be a fantastic movie before anyone had seen or reviewed it, and it can be difficult to live up to that kind of hype, even though it appears to be faring just fine regardless.

All the praises being directed towards this film very prematurely can also work against society as a whole. People go into the theater expecting to see this great masterpiece because everyone else has deemed it such. Even if an individual finds a problem with the film, that person is less likely to bring it up because everyone else has been favorable towards it. The hive mind really works against the long-term impact of a film because no one wants to be the only one to criticize, and when everyone else has been so positive about it, it’s also harder to look at it in a critical light. If everyone sings its praises but very few look at it critically, is it really a great film?

I strongly dislike capitalism. Although it does create an upward mobility and helps to annihilate the caste system, it leaves extremely wide windows for greed and the downturn of a consumerist society. The “greed is good” mentality has brought us to a plateau of wealth and prosperity to the benefit of highly unlikely people; however, it also costs us the integrity of the exchange system. When deciding on a career, many young people embark on the path most likely to make them wealthy instead of the path most likely to make them happy or the one most likely to benefit others. There is a strong, possibly flawed ideal that wealth equals happiness, and anyone can achieve this standard of wealth and should not be helped. Business ventures are not geared towards the common good or helping out those less fortunate or even creating something helpful to privileged people as well. The main goal of enterprise is to make the creator money, and all other benefits are unnecessary and oftentimes undesired.

The negative portrayal of Zuckerberg could suggest that he might have all the “success” and wealth that a person could ever dream to achieve, but that fails to make him a good person. Successful business people can obtain wealth, but this arbitrary line of success does not make them a better standard of person than those with absolutely no wealth at all.

Maybe I’m a cynic, but Zuckerberg’s recent philanthropy is probably a weak attempt to not appear like a selfish, greedy capitalist. However, in this case maybe the ends do justify the means. If his wealth helped those less fortunate, it might not matter if he was guilted into making the donation.

Zuckerberg’s story can inspire people to become something bigger than themselves in a good way by encouraging them to make valid contributions to society, but it can also play on the greed and money-hungry entrepreneurs that are not at all interested in creating something to benefit any other entity other than their pocketbooks. His story can encourage anyone to exploit others for fleeting financial gain in the pursuit of an arbitrary happiness.