A Critique of the Social Network movie through Stuart Hall's Lens

 

While watching this movie, my eyes were open to quite a number of things, some of which we’ll be exploring in the course of this review. So hop on and enjoy the ride. The Social Network movie is a captivating one in the sense that it has a way of drawing the attention of the viewers in a special way while taking us through the creation of Facebook and the quite complex life of its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The movie was released in 2010 and it not only highlights the emergence of social media but also reflects the tech culture in the early 2000s where both innovation and ambition clashed with the personal relationships people had with others. As we go further in the movie, we see how Mark navigates his journey and how his drive for success affects his friendships, particularly with his best friend Eduardo. This whole tension in the movie somewhat reveals to us the negative side of seeking ambition in a competitive environment.

In this review, I’ll be using Stuart Hall’s Lens of Encoding and Decoding to critique the movie(The Social Network), focusing on how different messages/concepts have been encoded in the movie by the Producer through the editing, performance, Mise-en-scene, dialogue and other elements. By examining the film through this perspective, we can gain deeper insights into the various ideas about vision, power, gender and class in tech culture.

In the Social Network, the editing and narrative structure are used in a clever way to shape how we see the characters and the world of tech. In the opening scene of the movie an editing technique called ‘Parallel editing’ was adopted through ‘cross-cutting’. The scene shows Mark having a conversation with his girlfriend Erica in a bar, while at the same time, he was having an internal monologue even in the middle of the conversation. Parallel Editing was used here to cut between the dialogue between Mark and Erica and the rapid flow of thoughts in mark’s mind. As Mark’s mind roams, the editing cuts back and forth between his conversation with Erica and his internal monologue, creating a sense of tension and growing sense of alienation in their relationship. This technique helps to demonstrate Mark's inability to truly connect with others emotionally, a theme that plays out throughout the film. This editing style sets the tone for the rest of the film because it shows how Mark’s ambition to join the Phoenix social club, creating Facebook and his focus on technology overpower his abilities to form and also maintain meaningful personal relationships which is a central theme of the movie.

Also, Cross-cutting and parallel editing was used almost throughout the movie by shuffling us between the present scenes where they had court sessions between Mark, Eduardo and the Winklevoss family with the law suits and the past scenes when they were still students at Harvard University. This editing structure allows the film to avoid linear storytelling and keeps the audience engaged by gradually revealing the backstory as it becomes relevant to the legal conflicts. Because the flashbacks are often tied to individual testimonies and perspective, the editing highlights how memory and truth play an important role. Each version of the story may differ slightly, subtly suggesting that no one is fully reliable, and the "truth" lies somewhere in between. By cutting between Mark’s rise and the eventual lawsuits, the film underscores the emotional and relational costs of ambition, success, and betrayal. The juxtaposition intensifies the irony—while Facebook is a tool for social connection, the protagonist becomes increasingly isolated. The dual timelines mirror the film's themes of duplicity, regret, and consequence. The past explains how things happened; the present reflects on what it all meant and who got hurt.

The closing scene of the film, another editing technique used is slow-motion and this shows Mark, alone in a room, repeatedly refreshing Erica’s Facebook profile, after all the lawsuits have been settled and he has become the world’s youngest billionaire, fulfilling all he has ever chased; Power, ownership and attention. Slow-motion is used in this scene to draw attention to Mark's loneliness and obsession. As he refreshes the page, time seems to stretch, allowing the audience to feel the emotional weight of the moment. The slow-motion effect underscores the idea that, despite his incredible success, Mark is still empty and disconnected. His success is almost not beneficial because it hasn’t brought him the emotional fulfillment he craves. This final moment, coupled with the editing technique, highlights the central theme of the film—the cost of ambition and the price of success.

Furthermore in Stuart Hall’s lens, we’ve learnt that there are three readings as to how different viewers of the movie will agree with the encoded message of the filmmaker. We’ll be starting off with the Dominant Reading. A dominant reading of The Social Network is when the audience accepts the filmmaker’s intended message without questioning. In this case, viewers might watch the film and interpret it as a celebration of tech innovation and the power of visionary thinking. They may admire Mark Zuckerberg’s brilliance and ambition, seeing him as a successful entrepreneur who turned an idea into a global phenomenon. The portrayal of Facebook as a platform that connects people globally could reinforce the belief that tech leaders are the new heroes of the digital age. In this reading, issues like betrayal or manipulation are seen as side effects of the cutthroat world of business, rather than moral flaws. The audience here might be okay with the film’s focus on the predominantly male, elite world of tech, accepting that these are just the dominant players in the industry today.

The second reading in this lens is called the Negotiated Reading. The negotiated reading is more like a middle ground where the viewer accepts and agrees with some aspects of the film’s message but also challenges some others. For example, a viewer might acknowledge Zuckerberg’s genius and the power of his vision but also recognize that his treatment of friends and collaborators is problematic. They could see the film as a reflection of how power works in tech but also criticize the film for not addressing the full scope of gender and class issues. These viewers might feel conflicted about the way the tech industry is portrayed—admiring the innovation but uncomfortable with the lack of diversity and inclusion. They could appreciate the film's storytelling while also feeling that it misses the opportunity to present a more nuanced view of the people behind the tech industry.

Thirdly, the Oppositional Reading. An oppositional reading takes a completely different stance, where viewers reject the encoded message and create their own interpretation. Some might see the film as a critique of tech culture, focusing on the greed, manipulation, and lack of ethical consideration in the rise of big companies like Facebook. They could interpret Mark Zuckerberg as a symbol of a ruthless tech industry that values success above all else, even if it means stepping on others along the way. From a gender and class perspective, viewers might criticize how the film portrays women as secondary characters, and how it focuses mainly on wealthy, privileged white men. These viewers might argue that the film overlooks the broader societal issues of inequality in tech and the harmful effects of giving too much power to a small, elite group. Each of these readings show how people’s backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences shape the way they understand and interpret the filmmaker’s message in the Social Network movie.

In Closing, the Social Network movie was an interesting one, the filmmaker did a great job in using elements like Mise-en-scene, editing, performance and so on to encode different ideas/messages like Power-craving, relationships, competition in telling the story of how one of the most-used social media platforms (Facebook) came into existence.