I disagree completely. Not only is Zuckerberg the most complex, difficult, and interesting character this year, Eisenberg’s performance was the most subtle yet nuanced and intelligent. The Zuckerberg character in Sorkin’s script is very one-note but Fincher and Eisenberg successfully elevated that character to a whole new level. Eduardo Saverin is the heart and emotion of the movie but Eisenberg’s character is the glue that holds everything together. He is the magnetic energy of the movie. With a lesser actor, the whole movie would have fallen apart. And lots of people saw more than what you saw in Eisenberg’s performance. From your explanation I guess you prefer showy or dramatic roles/acting. I suppose you think Natalie Portman deserves Best Actress? That’s fine but I’m confused as to why your “acting” preferences should dictate the Oscars? Or why you think your criteria for acting should be the academy’s criteria.

Damn John, you’re a genius.

JJ, there is a difference between simple, and “subtle and nuanced”. JE’s character was a 1 note character… period. If you want TRUE “subtle and nuanced” performances, check out Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart in “Rabbit Hole”.

I also find it hilarious that you would say something as hypocritical as:

” I’m confused as to why your “acting” preferences should dictate the Oscars? Or why you think your criteria for acting should be the academy’s criteria.”

When you’re essentially saying that YOUR criteria should be what the Oscars use. It’s a hypocritical statement.

Jesse Eisenberg’s performances was great… for a 1 note character. People like yourself just over praise it because the movie is so good (it’s in my top 5 of the year). Andrew Garfield was twice as good as Eisenberg in that film (IMO).

This was amusing LOL. I am totally surprised why there’s so much effort put in to underestimate Jesse Eisenberg’s performance when the more logical thing to do is put in effort on who they think should get nominated.

Hey Cecille,

I’ve already posted in other places who my top picks are which started the debate with some people who wanted to know why I didn’t include Eisenberg… I got tired of answering the same question time and time again, so this post addressed it.

Oa side note, I find it amusing you’d put in the effort to smugly comment here without actually addressing the issue or commenting on the topic at hand.

The actor’s job is to make the character enjoyable to watch. The degree of difficulty in making a one-note character, who’s kind of a douchebag, enjoyable to watch is actually quite high. This kind of character is easy to play, but very difficult to play well. Like you said, you could play it, but you would do it badly. As opposed to a more complicated role, like Natalie Portman in The Black Swan, where there’s certainly a threshold of ability to be able to do it at all, but once you’ve reached that point the character will be watchable no matter what you do.

Isn’t it great we amused each other then? (cue clapping sound)

I have to agree with you. The script only called Eisenberg to play an asshole and the entire movie he was an asshole. Even when he was trying to apologize to his ex-girlfriend he was an asshole. The only time Eisenberg finally tries to come out of his shell is at the ending of the film is when Marylin Delpy (Rashida Jones) tells him, “You’re not an asshole but you’re really trying hard to be one.”

But even with a one note performance, Eisenberg still did give a great performance.

I guess we have difference in opinion. I hope you understand the character Mark in The Social Network. The character Mark is not one dimensional, he is a complicated individual who is very passionate about his creation. One thing about the character Mark is that he feels like everyone else, perhaps much more, but he can’t express it because he doesn’t know how. Unlike other characters, he doesn’t know how to express his anger, fear, or happiness. Especially the deposition performance, I saw so much performance out of Jesse. When everyone was accusing him of betrayal, disloyalty, etc.., his subtle facial movement shows that he is either indifferent, scared, regret but not sorry, etc.. Like I said before, Mark is a complicated character but he cannot express it like Eduardo does. Its a lot harder character to play because the emotion is reign in but still need to express it.

Totally agree.

There is so many ways that one can interpret human motions, be it in a movie or in real life.
Take for example a common criminal. On the outside he could be staring off into space with a smile on his face, but on the inside there are multiple active psychological and physical dilemmas. Sometimes that can be demonstrated dynamically like Eduardo’s character, or simply like Mark.

I’m not disagreeing with your assessment of Zuckerberg’s persona because you are 100% correct, but in movies, there must be something unique and dynamic about a character for it to be considered nomination-worthy.

For example, when Ellen Page was nominated for best lead actress in Juno, she deserved the nomination because she was unique and dynamic, but the character of the pregnant teen is on the same degree of difficulty as the computer nerd/loner/asshole.

Ryan Gosling?
did he even get nominated?

I realize this post is hella old, but I felt compelled to write — I’m watching TSN on cable right now and it’s all coming back to me …
I cannot fathom HOW anyone would laud Eisenberg’s performance/portrayal as complex or nuanced. And I certainly don’t see why he was deemed worthy of being nominated for an Oscar. I could only tolerate watching the movie the first time because of the performances of Garfield, Hammer, and even that guy who played the Winklevoss’s sidekick. (I find TSN on the whole to be overrated, in fact, but that’s a whole other issue.) And even after having seen the film a few times since then, my opinion hasn’t changed one bit.
I love great filmmaking and can definitely appreciate and recognize a good performance when I see one, no matter what the character portrayal demands. Eisenberg’s performance was the LOWLIGHT of the entire effing movie, in my opinion. He absolutely did end up playing Zuckerberg in an utterly and completely one-dimensional fashion. There was nothing subtle or layered about his acting at all. He was so totally uncompelling that it was flat-out disturbing to me. Isn’t a viewer supposed to feel for or towards the character in some way after watching a performance? Yeah. I didn’t experience that after watching Eisenberg’s portrayal. The praise he got for his performance made me seriously wonder about people’s judgment and taste in actors/acting nowadays. Generally speaking, the younger generations of actors seem to possess less skill and creative intelligence than their predecessors, so I guess audiences are being given no choice but to downsize their expectations and standards.