Aaron Sorkin responds to charges of misogony in “Social Network”

Did you catch this news the other day?

When Ken Levine wrote his review of ‘The Social Network,’ he might not have expected Aaron Sorkin, the writer of the movie, would be one of his commenters. More importantly (and strangely), Sorkin chose this outlet to respond to the complaints about how women were portrayed in ‘The Social Network,’ and he did so at length.

That’s Ken Levine, Emmy Award winning writer whose TV credits stretch from 1975–2004 and include M*A*S*H, Wings, Cheers, Becker, and Frasier. Ken was one of the earliest TV or screenwriters to start blogging (back in 2005) and By Ken Levine is one of the first sites I linked to in my blogroll because it’s excellent.

So Ken posts a review on his blog… and Aaron Sorkin dropped by to provide an extensive response to a commenter. Here are the commenter’s (Tarraza) observations:

I love your blog!!

I also loved The Social Network, except for one thing — the lack of a decent portrayal of women. With the exception of 1 or 2 of them (Rashida Jones included), they were basically sex objects/stupid groupies. Even what you say here: 

Jesse Eisenberg is what Michael Cera aspires to be. Justin Timberlake continues to be the most talented STAR SEARCH winner ever, And Rashida Jones is just great to look at.

… kinda makes me think that Aaron Sorkin (though I love his writing) failed the women in this script. Kind of a shame considering he’s written great women characters like C.J. Cregg!

Here are some excerpts from Sorkin’s response:

Tarazza — believe me, I get it. It’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes an equal. Mark’s blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he’s sure he’s missing, came directly from Mark’s blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark’s blog verbatim. Mark said, “Erica Albright’s a bitch” (Erica isn’t her real name — I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), “Do you think that’s because all B.U. girls are bitches?” Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who’d most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren’t the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80’s. They’re very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren’t women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn’t just confined to the guys who can’t get dates.

I didn’t invent the “F — k Truck”, it’s real — and the men (boys) at the final clubs think it’s what they deserve for being who they are. (It’s only fair to note that the women — bussed in from other schools for the “hot” parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)

These women — whether it’s the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo’s psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real. (In the case of Christy, Eduardo’s girlfriend so beautifully played by Brenda Song, I conflated two characters — again I hope you’ll trust me that doing that did nothing to alter our take on the events. Christy was the second of three characters whose name I changed.)

What I take from Sorkin’s comments is a point I’ve heard hammered on again and again: A writer’s primary obligation is to the story. In the case of The Social Network, a culture of misogyny evidently existed among the males involved the creation of Facebook. And equally disturbing women willing to participate in that environment. Sorkin isn’t saying misogyny is good or bad (although one would have to think on a personal level he’s in the latter camp), in terms of this story, he’s simply acknowledging that it was: an aspect of the group-think among the key characters.

Moreover think about this: What if Sorkin had decided to be ‘politically correct’ and omit all of that? Or change characters’ behavior to reflect a ‘better’ social-sexual environment? In my view, that would have seriously undercut one of the major themes of the story: what can I guess be called for lack of a better word narcissism. For what is misogyny but an example projecting one’s own needs onto those of the ‘other’. And in its own way, the business dealings central to the plot of The Social Network reflect that dynamic.

Therefore the sexual attitudes of key participants in the story underscore how they viewed and acted in their business dealings, a great way to help define the world view of those central characters and therefore critical to telling the story.

What do you think?

For more of Sorkin’s comments, go here. And if you haven’t bookmarked Ken’s site, you should definitely do so.

UPDATE: Nikki Finke doesn’t think much of Sorkin’s explanation either.

Comment Archive