Like many others, I saw The Social Network this weekend. I thought it was pretty captivating as a movie. It was the most natural-sounding Aaron Sorkin dialogue I've ever heard. I'm not sure why, maybe it was because he had actual primary sources (e.g., court transcripts) to draw from. Aaron Sorkin is to dialogue what Michael Bay is to explosions. Everything is big, in your face, and wholly unbelievable, but you love it anyway because it's a movie and it's ultimately there to entertain you. The truth is that, just like nobody can outrun an explosion in real life, not everybody knows the exact perfect thing to say at the exact instant they need to say it in real life. By ignoring this, Sorkin has given us all intellectual handjob after intellectual handjob, from Sports Night all through The West Wing and up to and including The Social Network. One of my favorite underappreciated movies is Charlie Wilson's War, largely because every character in that movie is heavily Sorkinized. The consensus about the movie seems to be that it's very entertaining at the expense of being true. I agree with the 'entertaining' part but I have no insight on the 'true' part. Nonetheless, I believe it's perfectly plausible that the characters depicted onscreen are not really how those people are in real life. FOCUS: When have you met somebody that you'd heard/read about earlier, only to find out that they were not at all what you had heard/read? Conversely, have you been that person about whom people have gotten the wrong idea? Howso? ANTI-FOCUS: When did the publicity turn out to be spot-on accurate?