We saw The Social Network at the weekend. We'd intended to see Red, but changed our minds at the last minute after reading reviews of The Social Network praising it to the hilt and mentioning the word "Oscar". Now that should have been a red flag. Some years ago, in the UK, we paid a visit to the cinema to see Cold Mountain, also praised to the hilt by critics - and we hated it.
We didn't hate Social Network, but certainly didn't see it as Oscar material. It was reasonably engaging and informative on the history of Facebook in a fact/fiction (which-was-which?) sort of way. The acting was decent to good, especially as most of the cast were practically unknown. Armie Hammer (right -playing dual role of twin brothers Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss) fascinated my eye due to an uncanny resemblance to UK's Prince William, when he was a tad younger than he is now.
How much the personalities of the leading characters actually match those of their real-life counterparts is what bugs me a bit. Was it all embroidered, embellished and exaggerated for the sake of selling tickets? I suspect it was, and that young Zuckerberg in real life was/is not nearly as much of an a/hole as portrayed, and Savarin not nearly as oddly inept in getting into the situation he did.
Below, scene from movie. Left: Andrew Garfield playing Eduardo Savarin. Right: Jesse
Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg)
I'm not a Facebook fan at all, quite the opposite in fact, so the subject matter of the movie wasn't much of a draw. I was more interested in the personalities of computer prodigy Mark Zuckerberg and his original business partner Eduardo Savarin. Zukkerberg came over as someone with a lightning fast mind with speech delivery to match, technologically gifted but decidedly unpleasant. Savarin was presented as far more humane, human, easy-going, generous natured and likeable.
Other astrologers and astrology bloggers have investigated Zuckerberg's natal chart already, their findings are easily accessed via Google.....that by Mary Plumb in Mountain Astrologer (with natal chart) is HERE.
Zuckerberg was born on 14 May 1984, Sun in Taurus, Moon somewhere in Scorpio (birth time isn't known), ascendant remains a mystery. His natal Mercury is in Aries, and his habit of rapid-fire speech, as portrayed in the movie, is a nice reflection of an impatient Aries mind.
Perhaps it was his social awkwardness that propelled him to use his innate gift for technology to develop a system by which the socially awkward could become socially involved, albeit remotely. What would be his likely rising sign I wonder? Saturn - which would give Scorpio rising? Uranus on the ascendant? Uranus was in Sagittarius though, he just didn't seem like a Sagittarius rising to me - quite the opposite in fact. Aquarius rising, with no planet nearby? That's a possibility.....could fit and would add some Air to his chart - an element mysterious in its absence in one so tightly bound to his intellect.
Eduardo Savarin doesn't seem to have attracted much attention from astrologers so far - this is his natal chart, set for noon.
He was born in Brazil, in Sao Paulo, on 19 March 1982.
Here's a gentler character altogether, Sun and Mercury in Pisces, with at least one planet in each sign from Pisces to Libra, rather well-balanced. Moon was somewhere in business oriented Capricorn.
Savarin was the young best friend and university colleague who first believed in Zuckerberg, and in their friendship, enough to provide initial finance needed to launch a version of Facebook. His natal chart has plenty of Airy input from Aquarius and Libra. Savarin wasn't into the techology of Facebook at all, he was keen to promote it, find backers, advertisers etc. Zuckerberg, however, initially held back on such promotion.
I'll resist going further into the plot of the movie, so as not to spoil it for anyone who intends to see it.
For a young guy as brilliant, as early, as Mark Zuckerberg I was rather surprised to see his natal chart lacking Air, and presenting little of what I'd have expected to see. He's young yet (youngest billionaire ever), his life hasn't unrolled properly, and early success isn't everything. His natal chart covers far more than teens and twenties. Astrologers should take another look at in in 20 or 30 years' time - perhaps then it might seem like a better fit. Once the Facebook phenomenon begins to fade, Mr. Zuckerberg's life story might perhaps take a different turn.
PS: A few weeks ago Guest Blogger Gian Paul wrote a post which involved Facebook - it can be accessed HERE
Gian Paul has been adrift from the blog for a while due to Blogger suddenly becoming inaccessible from his particular location in Brazil, for reasons unknown. He is trying to hook up via another route, and I'm hoping he'll be back before too long.
We didn't hate Social Network, but certainly didn't see it as Oscar material. It was reasonably engaging and informative on the history of Facebook in a fact/fiction (which-was-which?) sort of way. The acting was decent to good, especially as most of the cast were practically unknown. Armie Hammer (right -playing dual role of twin brothers Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss) fascinated my eye due to an uncanny resemblance to UK's Prince William, when he was a tad younger than he is now.How much the personalities of the leading characters actually match those of their real-life counterparts is what bugs me a bit. Was it all embroidered, embellished and exaggerated for the sake of selling tickets? I suspect it was, and that young Zuckerberg in real life was/is not nearly as much of an a/hole as portrayed, and Savarin not nearly as oddly inept in getting into the situation he did.
Below, scene from movie. Left: Andrew Garfield playing Eduardo Savarin. Right: Jesse
Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg)
I'm not a Facebook fan at all, quite the opposite in fact, so the subject matter of the movie wasn't much of a draw. I was more interested in the personalities of computer prodigy Mark Zuckerberg and his original business partner Eduardo Savarin. Zukkerberg came over as someone with a lightning fast mind with speech delivery to match, technologically gifted but decidedly unpleasant. Savarin was presented as far more humane, human, easy-going, generous natured and likeable.
Other astrologers and astrology bloggers have investigated Zuckerberg's natal chart already, their findings are easily accessed via Google.....that by Mary Plumb in Mountain Astrologer (with natal chart) is HERE.
Zuckerberg was born on 14 May 1984, Sun in Taurus, Moon somewhere in Scorpio (birth time isn't known), ascendant remains a mystery. His natal Mercury is in Aries, and his habit of rapid-fire speech, as portrayed in the movie, is a nice reflection of an impatient Aries mind.
Perhaps it was his social awkwardness that propelled him to use his innate gift for technology to develop a system by which the socially awkward could become socially involved, albeit remotely. What would be his likely rising sign I wonder? Saturn - which would give Scorpio rising? Uranus on the ascendant? Uranus was in Sagittarius though, he just didn't seem like a Sagittarius rising to me - quite the opposite in fact. Aquarius rising, with no planet nearby? That's a possibility.....could fit and would add some Air to his chart - an element mysterious in its absence in one so tightly bound to his intellect.
Eduardo Savarin doesn't seem to have attracted much attention from astrologers so far - this is his natal chart, set for noon.
He was born in Brazil, in Sao Paulo, on 19 March 1982.
Here's a gentler character altogether, Sun and Mercury in Pisces, with at least one planet in each sign from Pisces to Libra, rather well-balanced. Moon was somewhere in business oriented Capricorn.
Savarin was the young best friend and university colleague who first believed in Zuckerberg, and in their friendship, enough to provide initial finance needed to launch a version of Facebook. His natal chart has plenty of Airy input from Aquarius and Libra. Savarin wasn't into the techology of Facebook at all, he was keen to promote it, find backers, advertisers etc. Zuckerberg, however, initially held back on such promotion.
I'll resist going further into the plot of the movie, so as not to spoil it for anyone who intends to see it.
For a young guy as brilliant, as early, as Mark Zuckerberg I was rather surprised to see his natal chart lacking Air, and presenting little of what I'd have expected to see. He's young yet (youngest billionaire ever), his life hasn't unrolled properly, and early success isn't everything. His natal chart covers far more than teens and twenties. Astrologers should take another look at in in 20 or 30 years' time - perhaps then it might seem like a better fit. Once the Facebook phenomenon begins to fade, Mr. Zuckerberg's life story might perhaps take a different turn.
PS: A few weeks ago Guest Blogger Gian Paul wrote a post which involved Facebook - it can be accessed HERE
Gian Paul has been adrift from the blog for a while due to Blogger suddenly becoming inaccessible from his particular location in Brazil, for reasons unknown. He is trying to hook up via another route, and I'm hoping he'll be back before too long.
I can see some resemblance with Prince William but would say actually that he has more of a look of Prince Harry. Now the brothers are older their faces are more masculine looking. William still has a look of his mother and some of her mannerisms, which will be something he can never escape.
ReplyDeleteInteresting name Armie. I did check it out thinking I had misread it and it should have been Arnie. Wonder what it's short for?
O/T Thank you so much for your kind comments on my post about my late grandmother.
Rossa ~~~ In the only photo I could find that showed the likeness I noticed - yes, I agree. On the cinema screen though, in some shots especially his face looked a bit broader, and so like the younger William that it almost made me gasp in a couple of places.
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering how they made Armie Hammer look slightly different for each twin, and suspect they somehow adjusted the photography (as in photoshop or a version of it for the movies?) When shown as his twin he did actually look more like Harry, slimmer faced.
Accordinfg to Wiki Armie is short for Armand.
PS The photo of your grandmother is really gorgeous - a treaure for you, for always. :-)
Interesting your take on the movie, T I had intended to see it due to the Oscar hype but may not now. I had read that Z is a fairly repulsive character how true that is I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI hear Red is a bomb and to avoid.
XO
WWW
Interesting topic i think you are true that whatever we see in the movie that character is not really resemble to real life, I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteFastest Way to Lose Weight
WWW ~~~ Well, he does come over as pretty repulsive in the movie, but I read somewhere that in real life he's had the same girlfriend for 3 years - so someone finds him attractive! I doubt he's quite as bad as portrayed, and he was, and still is young with a few more lessons to learn. :-)
ReplyDeleteGlad we didn't go to see "Red" then - Helen Mirren was the attraction for Himself, Bruce Willis for me....perhaps they needed the $$$$$$$ if they've lowered themselves to involvement in a turkey. ;-)
Huh! I'll give them both a miss, then. ;-)
ReplyDelete