In doing so, Lessig is reviewing the film he wishes was made about the internet, rather than reviewing this film based on the story it chose to tell. (Which is a compelling story.)
This violates the first rule of movie reviewers-- we don't care how great of a film director you imagine you'd be if you were in a position to make movies, rather than just review them.
I don't like slapstick comedies, but I'd never criticize one fro not being a scream sequel.
Your premise (that Lessig's article is a movie review) is not true which makes any conclusion you make invalid.
The misleading HN headline notwithstanding, Lessig's article is a commentary on the nature of Internet and how it was missed by the movie authors.
Not to mention that nowhere in the article Lessig gives any indication that he knows how to make a better movie out of it. Quite to the contrary: whenever he talks about the movie as it is, he prises it.
Lessig faults the film for not telling the story of Chris Hughs and Sean Parker's utilization of the internet for nonprofits and the election of Obama.
This is a platform that has made democratic innovation possible—and it was on the Facebook platform resting on that Internet platform that another Facebook co-founder, Chris Hughes, organized the most important digital movement for Obama, and that the film’s petty villain, Sean Parker, organized Causes, one of the most important tools to support nonprofit social missions.
The tragedy—small in the scale of things, no doubt—of this film is that practically everyone watching it will miss this point.
I think Lessing really misses the point of the movie. What I saw was a young guy able to take VC money and not lose his post as CEO.
I didn't see Parker portrayed as a 'petty villian'.
SPOILER ALERT: In the movie, Parker first learns of thefacebook after a one night stand with a Stanford undergraduate. He asks if he can check his email on her laptop and notices the site. At that point, Stanford was one of the few university .edu email addresses allowed on the site. He is so convinced, thefacebook will be the next big thing, he needs to find the creators of the site.
Basically, Parker takes Fanning under his wing, suggesting he move to California. There is probably a 20 to 30 minute VC montage, where Parker helps thefacebook get funding, using his various connections. He also has Zuckerberg dress in his pajamas, (Parker drops him off in an Escalade and waits outside) and go to a specific VC, and has Zuckerberg tell the VC, Sean Parker says "Fuck you" and then leave.
I own Startup.com (the movie, not the domain), and also E-Dreams. Watching both too many times, neither movie had a happy ending for the founders (within the context of those specific startups).
Startup.com CTO is ousted by the CEO (the two founders were best friends). Kozmo.com's CEO got ousted by the VCs.
This movie left me feeling icky at the ending. Not "Requiem for a Dream" soul fuck, but you really don't know who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. It really isn't black and white like that.
It did, however, have one of the most cinematic uses of 'wget' I have ever seen.
Also, kind of cheap headline there. I thought it would be a movie review, not an articulated rant. I expect more from that Harvard law dude.
Also, I have never heard of Parker before this movie, I was only aware of Fanning as the Napster creator.
This violates the first rule of movie reviewers-- we don't care how great of a film director you imagine you'd be if you were in a position to make movies, rather than just review them.
I don't like slapstick comedies, but I'd never criticize one fro not being a scream sequel.