Almost There: Andrew Garfield in "The Social Network"
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:30PM 
Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher are back on Oscar's radar. Sorkin's sophomore directorial effort, Trial of the Chicago 7, is set to premiere on Netflix later this week while Fincher's movie about the making of Citizen Kane, Mank, is scheduled for a December release, also on Netflix. Looking back at the last time both these men were in the awards conversation brings us to 2010 when The Social Network was the critics' favorite going into Oscar night. The drama about the creation of Facebook was the David that fought against the Goliath of Weinstein's The Kings Speech. Unlike the biblical tale, however, the giant won this battle.
The signs of trouble and pending defeat were obvious for most pundits. After all, despite the film getting eight nominations, one of its stand-out performers and expected honorees failed to make the cut. Andrew Garfield had earned great support from the precursors and reviews to match, making his absence from the Best Supporting Actor lineup a shocking snub…
The Social Network is one of those mechanically perfect films in which every ingenious element works like clockwork or perhaps the insides of a gun that never misfires. One can argue about its morality and the ideological complexity of its arguments, but there's a precision to the construction that's as undeniable as the rising sun. Clothed in a robe of electronic melancholy courtesy of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, this historical piece looks at the start of Facebook, though its perspective on the story is far from a glamourizing creation myth.
American cinema is full of inspirational "true" stories about self-made men, morality plays infused with a capitalistic devotion to those who succeed and become rich, shaping the world in their image. Sorkin's screenplay starts peeling the varnish off the mythos, but it's Fincher's assured direction that seals the deal. Mark Zuckerberg may be portrayed as a genius, but he's also a verminous traitor, ready to sell out his best friend in name of capital and prestige, a petty man, a disgusting chauvinist and social climber with no concern for ethics in whatever shape or form.
Jesse Eisenberg's Oscar-nominated performance underlines this undercurrent of malice, often sulking in the background and managing to deliver pages upon pages of rapid-fire dialogue without ever moving his upper facial muscles. It's a purposefully robotic performance that's further alienized by Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography. Notice how his eyes are regularly obscured by shadow, no catchlight reflecting in their dark pools. It's a fairly common trick to build an unconscious barrier between the audience and the character, but just because it's common doesn't mean it's any less effective.
I mention all this about Mark Zuckerberg's portrayal because, in essence, more than playing the real person that is Eduardo Saverin, Andrew Garfield's embodying a performative counterpoint to his costar. While The Social Network structures itself around two lawsuits against Zuckerberg, Saverin's, and another made by the Winklevoss twins and Divya Narendra, it's Eduardo's betrayal at the hands of Mark that shapes the tonal and emotional arcs of the movie. Rooney Mara's briefly seen Erica Albright fulfills a similar function, though her acerbic abrasiveness is closer to mirroring Eisenberg rather than complement him with canny contrast.
While Eisenberg's Mark is a monument of stillness, Garfield spends the movie in flurries of nervous movement. Even the simple act of holding a beer bottle can become a mini-performance of fidgety business. That's not to say he's imprecise or sloppy. Such things are next to impossible when one is dealing with a director like Fincher who'll do a hundred takes until he gets what he wants. Rather, it's purposeful disquiet, a needling reminder that there is a world happening at the margins of Mark's perception.
Look out for Garfield's silent reactions and aborted movements throughout the film and you'll find a painful painting of unreciprocated devotion. In any given scene, Eduardo's the only person who reacts according to the dramatic weight of whatever is happening, be it a lawsuit or a social faux-pas that Mark committed without realizing. Everyone else seems incapable of self-awareness, much less self-critique. He's a destabilizing presence, a single drop of sincerity in a sea of arrogant posturing. No wonder that Garfield, with his big Bambi eyes and cracking voice, often comes off like a lamb being readied for the slaughter.
Despite this, don't suppose that Garfield's performance is a procession of nervous ticks and martyred poses in the style of late-career Montgomery Clift. For one, he's delightfully silly and adept at mining Sorkin's garrulous character writing for droll humor. Whether dancing awkwardly to the Caribbean tunes of a miserly Harvard party or scoffing at the pretentiousness of Justin Timberlake's Sean Parker, Garfield finds space for levity in a narrative whose endpoint is a broken spirit and ruined friendship. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Garfield also delineates the steely resentment that as calcified his heart in the "present-day" scenes.
Again, he complements Eisenberg through contradiction. Mark slouches in his chair, a sullen kid who'd rather be alone in his room than discussing important matters inside cold conference rooms. Garfield's Eduardo, however, remains ramrod straight through the scenes, rarely looking or talking directly to Mark unless he wants to punctuate a particularly withering remark. Garfield ages himself without the aid of any cosmetic effect, simply by draining his character of softness and externalized affection.
You sometimes see a glimmer of the youthful petulance, like when the story of the chicken is brought up. Suddenly, he looks his age, if only for a fleeting moment. However, for the most part, the old Eduardo is dead and The Social Network is the forensic investigation by which we, the audience, get to discover how the fatal blow was handed. As the two facets of the performance and its chronology converge, tension grows within the actors' performances and the fabric of the film's dramaturgy. Garfield's final scene is the release of that tension, the moment when the twisted rope gives out and explodes in a firework of busted threads.
We see many signs that Eduardo suspects Mark's essential ruthlessness, but even he is shocked by the ultimate betrayal that's unmasked in Garfield's final scene. The actor who, up until then, had been a bottomless reservoir of vulnerability in this earlier storyline, finally gives in to the mean pettiness that every other character has been indulging in. This is a film where violence usually manifests in witty retorts and backroom dealings, making Eduardo's smashing of Mark's laptop and booming shouts a seismic violation of the norm. He's become like the other monsters, but his anger is righteous and rightful.
It's startling too and Garfield only makes the moment into an even bigger deal as he vomits Sorkin's dialogue with the kind of venom one might have thought beyond Eduardo's repertoire. The actor plays it as a drowning man hellbent on causing as much hurt as he can while his lungs give up the ghost. His fury burns our eyes, and his pain breaks the heart, feckless aggression pouring out of his tense body as lava comes out of an erupting volcano. It's almost primordial in its magnificence, a titan screaming his death rattle for the world to hear while "Hand Covers Bruise" rings in the background, a requiem for a dead man. If that's not an Oscar clip scene, I don't know what is.
Considering the movie's buzz, it's strange that Garfield wasn't able to score a nomination at the Oscars. Internal competition may be partially to blame. Armie Hammer and Justin Timberlake also managed to get good reviews and their fair share of buzz. In the end, Garfield got nominated for the Globe, the BAFTA, and the Critics Choice Award, as well as a veritable mountain of regional critics' awards. As for the Academy, the chosen five were Christian Bale in The Fighter, John Hawkes in Winter's Bone, Jeremy Renner in The Town, Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right, and Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech.
As we all know, Bale won and, of those five, Hawkes was the biggest surprise come nomination morning. One thing to point out about this lineup is that three of the men nominated could be argued to be leads instead of supporting players. I'm not saying I consider them as such, but it does underline the big problem of category fraud which makes it harder for truly supporting roles to be recognized. Garfield's part in The Social Network is big, but his narrative prominence and screen time are inferior to those of someone like Rush or Bale. Would you have nominated Garfield in 2010?
The Social Network is available to stream on Netflix. You can also rent it from several services like Amazon, Apple iTunes, and Youtube.
Reader Comments (36)
Garfield's great (borders on lead?), chuck him in there with Bale, Hawkes, Ruffalo and Ben Mendelsohn for Animal Kingdom. Or something fun, like Taika Waititi in Boy, Kieran Culkin in Scott Pilgrim, or Michael Keaton in The Other Guys. Rush shouldn't have been anywhere near this category.
I adore this performance. Easily one of my favorites from that year.
It should've been Garfield's Oscar that year not just for The Social Network but also for Never Let Me Go. He was hot that year.
A race w/ Garfield, Waititi, Keaton, Culkin, and Mendelsohn.... HOLY FUCK!!! That's a man's war. Give me that race.
Still his best work to date. Simply marvellous and a true snub. The iconic “lawyer up, asshole” is a scene for the ages
I’d take him over Christian Bale (ham) and Geoffrey Rush (showboat).
Truly one of the biggest and most baffling snubs of the 2010s. :(
Good performance, but Garfield wasn't well known then. And the supporting line-up that year was pretty great. Rush is my least favorite of the nominees (and he's unquestionably a co-lead).
It was a strong year for the category, maybe I could replace Renner
Garfield was also good in Never let me go.
It's a little disingenuous (or naive) to paint The Social Network (Sony/Scott Rudin) as a David versus a Goliath in The King's Speech (Weinstein Co./Harvey W.). Not to mention the fact that Fincher/Sorkin were Hollywood heavyweights and Hooper/Seidler were unknowns.
This film losing Best Picture and Best Director to TKS/Hooper is one of Oscar's absolute biggest jokes.
Claudio, nice writeup as always! Garfield absolutely should have been nominated...he's better than Hawkes, Renner, and Rush at the very least. A star-making performance with subtlety, comedy, intensity, and depth.
Rewatching the movie recently he totally stands out and results as the real lead
Excellent piece, thanks for writing it. His snub is probably the most egregious of the decade.
Side note - the female performances in this, though brief, are excellent. Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones, and Brenda Song are the Charlie’s Angels reboot we deserve. Can someone cast Brenda in something? She should be having Brie Larson’s career.
I still mantain that The King's Speech is even better than The Social Network. Both are masterpieces, but TKS is an instant classic, in my opinion, while TSN is too much a product of its time, so let's see how it passes the test of time (so far, so good).
I love this performance. Of the four principal players--Garfield, Eisenberg, Timberlake, and Hammer--Garfield's part is the least showy and yet he completely holds my attention. His role is closest to the "straight man." (In the comedy sense; in the other sense, the principals are all emphatically straight.) And yet, despite being given the least opportunity to chew the scenery, this performance still draws focus. The easy answer, I suppose, is that Garfield plays a more relatable character, while the others play types. But Garfield isn't just an audience surrogate and to both Sorkin's and the actors' credit, all these performances are grounded.
thevoid99 -- He's also great in NEVER LET ME GO, I agree. When composing my ballot for this year, I often find myself undecided on which performance is greater.
Working stiff -- I fully admit that my perception of that race is skewed by youthful vexation at the turn of events that saw a cold critical acclaimed work lose out to a more traditional and conventional Oscar contender. It bothered me when I was a teenager and I guess I still carry those feelings, forever philtered through some naive nostalgia. In the realm of biopics (my least favorite dramatic subgenre), I tend to see THE SOCIAL NETWORK's approach as more daring and uncommon, while THE KING'S SPEECH, while not bad, is as narratively formulaic as they come, fitting neatly into the pre-established model of an inspiring biopic. In that sense, I do see them as David and Goliath. Though, classifying any of them as an underdog considering that, as you say, both are mainstream work from big studios, is a bit disingenuous. Thanks for the feedback, and sorry for my very non-objective perspective.
EricB -- I'd still rank Hawkes above him, but both are extraordinary performances from where I stand.
PP -- I never consider him lead, to be honest. Rewatching the film, first to write notes then to screencap it, really made me see how little he's in the narrative in comparison to Mark. He complements the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg, but this is never a biopic of Eduardo Saverin. That's my opinion, obviously, and this is a debatable matter. Thanks for sharing your point of view.
Bushwick -- While relatively underwritten, the female cast members do deliver great performances. I'd have nominated Mara for her two scenes and scant reaction shots. She's brilliant, even if always at the edges of the narrative.
Jesus Alonso -- Glad you enjoy TKS better than me. I admit that post-Oscars rewatches have soured my appreciation of it, but then I may be letting the resentment at TSN's loss influence me too much.
Of course he deserved a nomination and his only 1 was for the awful Hacksaw Ridge,he has been consistently good in a lot of stuff Silence,99 Homes etc for years.
Two points: I would not consider this a battle between David and Goliath both movies are Goliaths (studio products, box office, etc.). Also Eduardo Saverin is Brazilian. Why they did not choose a latin actor for the part?
I think "mechanically perfect" is an excellent way to describe this film. I always think Garfield was nominated for this - seems bizarre he wasn't. Not only would I have nominated him, I'd have picked him as the winner over any of the men who were nominated that year. I still think Boy A featured his best performance, but I'd say this is probably his second best (although he's very good in 99 Homes and Never Let Me Go too).
Oscar prefers older men in their acting lineups. Garfield missing shouldn't be too much of a great mystery when you think of the culture bias of the majority voter bloc.
One of my favourite movies of all time, and Garfield is pitch perfect in it. Agreed that the female performances are wonderful.
Love The King's Speech too, so it's hard to begrudge its win too much. Fincher 100% should have won over Hooper though.
Thanks for another stellar piece, Claudio.
I think it's a borderline lead performance so probably not.
I firmly believe that if they simply named it "The Fighters" instead of "The Fighter" Bale would've been nominated for lead.
Anyway, Garfield absolutely should've been included. Bump Bale (and Rush) to lead and my list is...
Garfield
Hawkes
Vincent Cassell for Black Swan
Pierce Brosnan for The Ghost Writer
Nigel Lindsay for Four Lions
Yes, the performance is great and so is the writing.
But why does he get a free pass for playing a Brazilian person?
And why does he get a free pass for not doing a proper accent?
Is it because he is a white male in a high profile movie?
The latter is a rhetorical question.
Reading that this "cute straight boy" performance is better than Bale's or Rush's or Hawks' is...
beyond words.
I wonder if you all do consider the complexities of capturing mannerisms, specific body language or voice work.
Or if you just favored the cutest as the best performer.
It's crazy.
Good Lord, why does this ridiculous question come up time and time again? Andrew Garfield was perfectly suitable casting for this role because Eduardo Severin is WHITE. Just being Brazilian doesn't automatically make someone a POC. His family background is Jewish-Rumanian. And he doesn't have a strong Brazilian accent, he talks like a white guy who went to Harvard.
This is the same discussion that happens when people forget that Penélope Cruz and her husband, Ana de Armas et al are white people, as white as Marion Cotillard, Eva Green and Jean Dujardin...
Dude it just came to me recently (yeah, after 10 whole years), the reason we sympathized with Eduardo is probably because the book that the screenplay was based on was written by him. Imagine if it was written by Mark or Sean. The story would go different ways.
It's a mere theory, though.
markgordonuk -- I'm not a big fan of Garfield overall, but I do think this is his best performance. I often find him too imprecise and with a tendency towards messy inchoate emotions, something this movie's verbose screenplay and mechanically exact direction circumvent quite effectively.
Pedro -- Regarding the David and Goliath comment, I admit my bias and lack of objectivity when writing that. I apologize.
ScottC -- I haven't seen BOY A, but appreciate the recommendation. Thanks.
Matthew St. Clair -- I confess I find him a bit hard to accept as a lead. Matters of narrative importance aside, his screen time is much lesser than Eisenberg's. Mark is onscreen for over an hour, while Wardo only gets 36 minutes. Sorry if I sound a bit mulish and insistent on this. Glad to read differing perspectives though, so thanks for commenting and reading the article.
Michael Cusumano -- That's a wonderful list and I'm glad to see I'm not the only person that loves Nigel Lindsay in FOUR LIONS. I would have also nominated him.
Jon From -- Nowhere did I write he's better than Bale or Rush. I like all of those performances and would rate Bale above him, though I have some doubts about Bale's category placement. While I think Garfield should have been nominated, the 2010 lineup is quite wonderful. Even the actor I rank last, Renner, is delivering an interesting performance that's worth discussing.
I also object to your rationale that the only reason one likes Garfield's performance is that he's cute. I've never said in this piece that I consider him cute or anything of the sort and you don't know me personally to be able to say if I do or not. I try not to take these comments too seriously, but I confess that I'm a bit insulted by your words. If my argumentation for the quality of the performance were unpersuasive, that's an acceptable criticism and I must only apologize and try to do better next time.
However, to say I only value the performance because of the actor's supposed cuteness is out of line.
Meizar -- For sure, the film is tendentious. I think Fincher's directing and Sorkin's screenplay avoid moralizing too much, but their perspective on Eduardo is clearly more positive than how they see Mark.
@Working Stiff: What about Max Minghella being cast as Divya Narendra? Asking for a billion friends.
Garfield should have been nominated, no doubt about it and TSN should have won Best Picture, Best Director and (why not?) Best Actor (I know it was about time for Bridges in 2009 but Firth was more deserving in A Single Man). Pity that Assayas Best Picture, CARLOS, was deemed ineligible...it’s the only title that year that I could have imagined more deserving than Fincher’s film
@ Brevity
That casting didn't make any kind of sense. Minghella's got a fascinating heritage, but none of it is Indian. So many other actors could have played that role, including Abhi Sinha (who was actually in the movie...)
Peace out, Claudio.
I was shocked about the readers' comments. That's why I've said "you all" up there. I was not addressing you.
However, I can't deny that, after the "Tom Cruise was better than Rush in 1997", I'm a bit confused about your judgement on the performances. There is a tendencie to favor the beauty and the young. As I have pointed about before, it strikes me as ageism.
Since I'm old like a tree, I've seen all those actors almost since the cradle. Sometimes it's scary how people dismiss the work of geniuses like Close, Hopkins, Pacino, Rush, etc., and I still believe that it has something to do with age phobia.
When I see an actor play a character as simple as Garfield's in The Social Network (the guy next door, if you will) and suddenly he is blowing everyone's mind, I wonder how would you kids feel living in the 70s.
My friend, I didn't realize that a comment could cause you so much harm.
You are entitled to have an opinion. As much as I am entitled to have an opinion about your opinion. That settles it. When you write for the public or academically, that's why you do use a good bibliography, to assure yourself.
If you feel bad about critics, imagine what would Rush find about being called simplistic, manneristic or whatever in a blog, when the guy has spent his lifetime knocking out of the park on the stage and in cinemas. He would ask: Who is this guy and what does he know in order to make such call?
That's how a feel about it, all the time.
Also I would suggest you an exercise. Pick up the The Social Network screenplay and try to act it out. Then, pick up Sarah Kane's Crave and try to act it out. Then pick up Shakespeare's Richard III and try to act it out.
Of course every character has some complexity, but as far as you depart from naturalism, as far as you depart from yourself, your speech, your body, harder it gets, riskier it gets to do a good job as an actor... See what Sanford Meisner said about it, if you don't trust me. The guy had hundreds of pupils in his lifetime.
I kiss you heart - as we say in my country
Kiss you on the heart
Jon From -- Sorry, I realize you're responding to a lengthy comment I previously wrote but ended up deleting. I re-read what I wrote and thought it was too unfairly combative towards you. I apologize for it and for deleting it, unaware you had already read it and were composing a response.
It's funny you mention RICHARD III, since I did read it in an academic context and studied in-depth too, going as far as conceiving a staging for it. MACBETH, as well. I love both plays, their challenges, and poetry. Doesn't mean I don't love what Garfield's doing here, a completely different sort of dramatic premise. If Rush (which you, not I, brought up) would be offended by what I wrote before, I imagine Garfield would also be hurt by your comments. That rationale doesn't make sense to me once we get into the field of criticism.
If we're too worried about these artist's feelings, they'll never be criticized. I understand if you wish this to be a place of total acclaim with no negative write-ups. However, please understand that my writing cannot always be celebratory - not when a positive response would betray my true opinion of a performer. Whatever I write here, is a reflection of my perspective as a critic, as viewer, and cinephile.
Either way, I think it's useless to continue to go down this road. Glad you like acting and cinema, glad you read what I write here. If you don't think I'm fair in my analysis, that I'm ageist and prejudiced as I feel you previously pointed out, you can just stop reading it. Hopefully, you'll find future pieces less offensive to your tastes. I certainly hope we can find some agreement if we ever discuss cinema again.
Thank you for the feedback, as always. There's at least one Almost There piece in the near future that will deal with an older actress whose legacy is often maligned and perceived through an arguably ageist lens. I hope I do her justice and that whatever I end up writing doesn't come off as superficial or too focused on aesthetic beauty as a signifier of performance ability. After reading your comments, I'll certainly aim at being more sensitive to these matters. Again, thank you for the perspective.
I think you are a lovely and amazing writer with whom It's a pleasure to disagree.
No harm feelings.
Love Bale's win, but Garfield certainly should have been nominated. No need whatsoever for Renner in this lineup beyond residual "The Hurt Locker" acclaim.
''Sorry my Prada's at the cleaners along with my hoodie and my fuck you flip flops you pretentious douchebag''
this damn line has been an earworm for months