Originally Posted by Monotreme
I mean, I disagree COMPLETELY with pretty much everything said in this post - David Fincher not an auteur (of course he is, all of his films have the same feel, look, atmosphere and touch that is distinctly his), unlikeable characters (a character doesn't have to be LIKABLE for us to empathize with them - is Michael Corleone a LIKABLE character? Is Jake LaMotta?), relevance of this movie to Facebook at ALL except for incidental relevance (Facebook is a McGuffin, it could have been ANYTHING else and the script would still have been just as good), Fincher's "disappointment" in the film (I still think this conclusion was taken out of context; sure, he was frustrated that Zodiac didn't get any attention, but I don't think he thinks any less of THIS film because of that), etc.
But, to each his own. If you didn't enjoy the film, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, only hope that you'll give it another chance later on down the road and realize what a brilliant piece of narrative storytelling it is!
Regarding your personal definition of auteur, Cosmic pretty much touched on what I would have, but I'd also add that Fincher is probably one of the most skilled directors; that doesn't make him an auteur. He does have a set style of direction, but that doesn't make him an auteur. He has unlikable characters? Really? Panic Room, Ben Button, Seven, and I don't even know how you can say people didn't like Tyler Durden.
Thematically, the films Fincher directs are all over the place.
Something else to look at is how the films are known. For instance, Kubrick films are distinct as being Kubrick films -- I mean, when people mention 2001, they mention Kubrick. They mention Clockwork Orange, they mention Kubrick. They mention The Shining, and King gets pissed off because Kubrick owned that film.
The same could be said for any film auteur. And I don't mean people who study directors and impress their nonfilm fan friends by knowing who directed everything. I'm talking about the people who see these movies. If it doesn't take a film scholar to know who directed a film, and not just around awards time, then the film is one of an auteur.
Know, I'm sure Fincher will win the Oscar, and that is deserved because it was well shot by one of the most competent directors.
But, aside from direct accolades concerning Fincher, what do you hear most people refer to The Social Network as? The new David Fincher film?
No, that's not the case. So be real here, it's so much to the point that it inspired you to rant. Now, no I don't agree with avoiding the movie because you think a Facebook movie is silly, but I also don't agree that Fincher is the author of his films. There is though, more substantial reasoning to show why Fincher isn't an auteur than there is to show why you shouldn't see a movie because you think the subject matter is silly. I just tend to focus on the former, because despite all the evidence in everyone's face, that's the one fewer seem to get.