After reading it again, I unconsciously compared it with social networks. The main line of litigation is the same, and the whole story is constantly completed through flashbacks. I read the social network in one go and couldn't stop. Jasmine's card game was read patiently. The same biopic, the same total score structure, why does the latter look unhappy? Jasmine and Xiao Zha have almost the same speed of speech and reaction ability, the continuous dialogue and the high-intensity transmission of information, which are abrupt and incomprehensible in the game of Jasmine, but in "The Social Network", it complements the editing rhythm. There is even a feeling of watching a suspense movie.
Sorkin wants to show the charm of "persistence" in Jasmine's human nature, a woman who struggles to prove herself, a woman who chooses self-exile due to the wounds of her original family, and finally reaps the growth in her struggles and reaches a reconciliation with her father. . There doesn't seem to be any problem with this character's growth line, but it doesn't give me a sense of release, a sense of enlightenment, why?
The "want" the author sets for Jasmine is self-proof, proving that she is no worse than a man, and can even control a man. Therefore, the more oppressed she is by men in the process of "starting a business", the more she can be stimulated to open up new situations on her own. In the business of "organizing gambling", she is a member of SF Express, and even has a very professional ethics. Even after being apprehended by the FBI, she refused to disclose customer information and refused to sell accounts. She has always shown the charm of "persistence", sticking to her dignity and refusing to make deals with the FBI. All of the above, why are they still not very impressive?
Perhaps, the protagonist lacks a little "character arc" and lacks transformation. Jasmine has always been the little girl who was skiing. She was tired from skiing practice, and her father had to admit her "weakness" to take her home, but she had to hold on and row again. When she grew up, she fired her boss to go it alone, dealt with gamblers and the underworld, and dealt with the FBI. She was always the little girl who was unwilling to admit defeat. Even if he finally reached a reconciliation with his father, it was his father who explained it as a psychologist. Jasmine is always passive and guided.
The complexity of the characters is weak, Jasmine is always "just to prove herself", and it seems that she has no love for money, no sexual desire, and no interest in controlling or clinging to the powerful. And Zuckerberg in "The Social Network" is more real and interesting. He has a selfish side and a side that ignores the powerful and fights bravely. But in the end, he took the initiative to invite his ex-girlfriend, which means that after all kinds of things, he realized his own problems, opened his heart, and became more mature, the so-called "character arc".
Finally, let’s compare the similarities between the two films. Sorkin seems desperate to give the audience an explanation, an explanation for all the motivations of the protagonist's actions. Deep down, Xiao Zha wants to get revenge on his ex-girlfriend, and is jealous that his friend can join the top fraternity. However, the expressions in "The Social Network" are relatively obscure, and the judgment is left to the audience. In "Jasmine's Game", the author directly gave the conclusion, and explained it through character dialogues many times, especially the final reconciliation dialogue between the father and daughter, which is so straightforward that it can be regarded as a psychological analysis article.
The above are the opinions I got from comparing the two films. I hope other partners can leave a message for discussion.
View more about Molly's Game reviews
