“The Social Reckoning” - Thoughts
Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Reckoning (2026), his new, standalone, ‘spiritual successor’ to Fincher’s The Social Network (2010) is interesting, to say the least.
What Sorkin Means to Me
Sorkin has long been one of my favorite screenwriters. He’s a big inspiration for me. From his feature-length scripts like A Few Good Men (1992) and Steve Jobs (2015) to his television work with The West Wing (1999-2006) and The Newsroom (2012-14), he really makes me believe I can do it all as a writer.
Craft-wise, Sorkin’s writing is crisp, fast-paced, quip-heavy, and simply put, smart. He gets what makes technology and public service jobs so interesting to the people that choose them, and he truly understands how to give that feeling to the audience. His “walk and talk” shots have become a staple to his game, somehow immersing the viewer in heavy exposition and limited action without losing their interest. He does his research and nobly seeks to both educate and entertain the masses. I really don’t understand the hate he gets…
My favorite script of his is The Social Network. That movie, directed by David Fincher, is easily one of the best of the 21st century, and Sorkin’s words really give that story its vibrant, beating heart.
Light Praise, Initial Thoughts - Spoilers Ahead
But enough glazing from me, let’s get this out of the way… I knew this wasn’t going to be anywhere near the quality of The Social Network as that movie is a group effort in flawlessness on all fronts (acting, directing, sound design, score, script, etc.). But, honestly, I didn’t need it to be another The Social Network… All I wanted was to see a meaningful story, which this story is… Ish.
The Social Reckoning is about famed Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and her collaboration with investigative journalist Jeff Horwitz in efforts to expose a series of her employer’s darkest secrets. At its simplest, this is a David versus Goliath story about doing the right thing, standing up for one’s principles, and protecting the voiceless.
Our protagonists successfully stand up to the seemingly invincible members of the 1% (specifically Mark Zuckerberg), proving to the audience that its possible to land blows in the face of all odds. This is a hopeful movie, and I believe, during times like these, we need these more than ever.
The foundation and ideas for a great movie are here, but I think its execution may have been botched.
The Issues
There are a few decisions Sorkin makes that I find demeaning as an audience member. If you haven’t seen the film, the story is in two parts (two time periods). We have the investigative journalism side of the story that takes place from 2019 through mid 2020, and we have the 2021-rooted legal/backlash side of the story that revolves around Zuckerberg being prepped for a trial.
You’d think that because both parts revolve around different characters, that we wouldn’t need to tell the audience where we’re at in the story. But, Sorkin does this anyway, placing a “2019” or a “2021” everytime we switch to a different side of the narrative. It’s as if Sorkin believes the audience isn’t capable of following this basic narrative switch, and that’s mildly insulting.
Script-wise, the film is way too concerned with the investigative journalism side of this narrative and chooses to somewhat neglect the better part of the story - the Mark Zuckerberg “January 6th” part. This backlash isn’t emphasized enough, and I feel we missed out on some quality story beats because of it.
Now, I do want to praise that Mark Zuckerberg aspect to this. Everything that happens in the “2021” section is great. Watching Facebook’s higher-ups and legal team panic while Zuckerberg ego-trips is wildly enjoyable, and Bill Burr’s character constantly calling him a piece of s**t is the cherry on top.
But, the Mikey Madison/Jeremy Allen-White side of things just doesn’t have the stakes to make it interesting… It’s a real shame because I know its possible to get that kind of story right. Look at the Academy Award-winning film Spotlight (2016); it holds legitimate tension for the majority of its runtime and doesn’t fall off the gas. I don’t think I ever felt as though those two were in legitimate danger.
It’s clear Sorkin did his research, and he goes overboard with this in the dialogue. There are WAY too many statistics thrown around for the audience to both keep up with and care about. I get that it’s probably closer to reality as reporters probably need statistics more than anecdotes, but still… Add some bite to the words we hear.
Final Thoughts
Unfortunately, The Social Reckoning fails to really touch the framework and flare of its predecessor despite having a great foundation. It’s got the ingredients and shows legitimate promise, but I think Sorkin may want to stay in the writer’s chair from here on out… Mildly squandered.