‘Visibility as Credibility’–symbols as reality, in the new social media digital age in which we all live.
News websites are buzzing with news that Hollywood beauty Natalie Portman would spill the beans on Harvard’s inner circle of who didn’t get A grades like she did, because they were doing other things on campus.
This Portman, reportedly did with the Facebook movie’s screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. The vixen! Apparently, Natalie’s gossip became the back story to The Social Network. In my hood it was called something simple, like conversations over a Jewish dinner, which is quite the norm really, over one’s matzo ball soup. But this is how it reads in Hollywood’s sensationalized hypey press this week.
Which in Hollywood speak – actually means the film had too many blokey moments, and it needed a pretty face overlay (testscreen audiences feedback revealed), in hindsight – to make it seem, less – what’s the word? oh – noninclusive of women. That’s the term.
Regardless, Natalie getting the call to be the face of this mission is proof that girl has Angelina Jolie status as a credible Hollywood queen. Remember when George Clooney’s camp got Angelina Jolie to announce that she would play Marilyn Monroe to Clooney’s Sinatra in a new film, to help generate some buzz for George. The hype worked, and George scraped in again, via Jolie’s celebrity cyphon to just make it to #1 at the box office. Although they have zero, to do with the film being marketed, it’s what girls of Hollywood are called on to do, for the boys. Teamwork.
More seriously though, what is The Social Network all about? We’ve seen people prattle on about it, saying its Oscar worthy. Here’s some thoughts from a critic or two, to share on the film, that I think are quite good.
Frank Chi says: “The Social Network is about social upheaval in the digital age. It’s about the ability of a new media class to deconstruct centuries worth of privilege and access that would’ve won in every other generation but now.”
I say: It’s really about visibility as credibility in a digital age. The fact that the ‘wealthy’ or ‘privileged’ (is anyone that these days still? – the global recession knows no class structures – it just burns) haven’t been as visible via new social media - is because: a) they’re private and b) humble.
New technology like social media – means though, that the wealthy have to be more visible as a norm too now. It’s just about, not being silenced as a voice of reason, or fun, or insight, or light-heartedness too. Speaking up is FaceBooking or blogging, tweeting etc.
Jose Antonio Vargas says: that the movie shows how much Hollywood doesn’t understand Silicon Valley.
I say: Silicon Valley follows Hollywood, (so what they talkin?) because Silicon Valley hopes to develop useful IT, based around propagating new Hollywood trends faster (those things that are recession proof worldwide), in forms, that are Hollywood fit. Hollywood sells.
Silicon Valley’s purpose in America (of stuff that works) is that they’re (S.V) on medium creation, we’re on message construction.
When the message goes into the medium (the i.t platform’s software), than the medium becomes the message (to quote McLuhan), which is precisely what Facebook means, and why Facebook has accelerated brand power in its market.
Enough about meaning. What about Geeks?
Jeff Jarvis thinks: it vilifies nerds and is the new “anti-geek movie.”
Read the rest of this entry »
