Substantially wrong

On Aug. 21, 2010, in a front page story about the upcoming film, “The Social Network” two New York Times writers offered staggeringly erroneous conclusions about the substance of two great films: “The Godfather” and “Network.”
The Times story said, “If ‘The Godfather’ was about family and ‘Network’ about rage, ‘The Social Network’ appears to be mostly about emptiness.”
I wondered if the writers had seen or thought about either "The Godfather" or "Network." So here are my corrections of their analyses:
“The Godfather” (1972) is about a criminal warlord, a Machiavellian figure who has made himself a prince of the underworld through murder, bribery, and political skills. Don Corleone is not the head of a family, but the leader of a coterie of vicious, lethal, cruel outlaws.
Paddy Chayefsky’s masterpiece, “Network” (1976) deals not with rage, but forecasts the corporatization, the corruption, the dumbing down of a significant segment of today’s television and cable shows that pretend to be delivering news, but in reality are shallow entertainments and political propaganda.
I hope that “The Social Network,” inspired by Facebook, turns out to be worth watching for substance rather than emptiness. So many films of modern times are nothing but special effects and chase scenes.

A suggestion: My novel, THE PENCIL ARTIST is available as an e-book on Smashwords, Kindle, and Barnes and Noble; as a paperback on Amazon.