Quite surprisingly, in a pre-Halloween twist, Ridley Scott’s The Martian and family entry Goosebumps are in a very close race to for the No. 1 position despite a wave of new movies, including the nationwide expansion of Steve Jobs. No one in reality talks like this, but listening to the dramatic portrayals of Steve Jobs and Joanna Hoffman (deftly played by Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet) when they’re written like conflicted heroes in a Shakespeare play is great fun. Most pivotally, there are Jobs’ cold exchanges with his ex Chrisanne (Katherine Waterston) and Lisa, the daughter he fought to deny was his, DNA evidence to the contrary. It’s refreshing to see her perspective as part of a Steve Jobs story, for once, even if it isn’t completely true to life.
Advertisement
You could call Steve Jobs a filmed adaptation of a book.
There are many such moments throughout all three acts of this film, and all of them build towards a sastisying conclusion. If Fassbender’s performance does get overlooked by the Academy of Arts and Sciences for an Oscar nod, I would be surprised. The prelude to his debut of the ill-fated Macintosh computer in 1984 introduces a cocksure but demanding Jobs, who attracts admirers for his product and marketing savvy while ostracizing those same disciples with pettiness and intransigence. And I could then dramatize these points of friction in Steve’s life with other people that I think reveal a lot more about him than, “Hey, Woz, let’s use my parents’ garage”. If Steve Jobs is indeed a painting, it is cinematic impressionism.
How did the film come together after Boyle took over as director following David Fincher’s departure? It doesn’t matter whether CEO John Sculley was actually involved with Apple at a particular time depicted in the film. Which he is. Sorkin’s ability for snark ensures several flinches at just how big a d-bag Jobs can be.
Danny Boyle also handles the source material well and gives the film a much needed solid direction, as a movie about literally three events goes for 122-minutes, and never for a moment feels boring. Meanwhile, the cult of Jobs devotees anxiously awaits his presence on stage. He is on screen in just about every scene but the audience never tires of him.
Fassbender is fantastic in the lead role. In addition to Winslet, Rogen and Daniels are wonderful as Wozniak and Sculley. He doesn’t force the film into an unnatural style; instead of imposing his will on the film obtrusively, he keeps it fairly subtle with a few visual clues and styles. Many cinema owners are refusing to play the film because of the deal between Paramount, AMC and Canada’s Cineplex to make it available in homes earlier than usual.
And it’s not like I don’t have sympathy for that inner circle of people who feel like their Steve Jobs isn’t being shown to the world. And that’s not an entirely accurate statement; Jobs was much more than a man keeping time while the musicians created the actual music.
Rick Tetzeli, editor at large at Fast Co. and co-author with Brent Schlender of the recent biography “Becoming Steve Jobs”, says that criticisms of the movie from Apple insiders are not surprising given the complicated space Jobs’ image occupies within the company.
It’s a miracle this film was ever made.
“It was a very entertaining movie, but it was largely fiction”.
Advertisement
At the center is Fassbender, who morphs through 14 years of Jobs’ reinventions – from bowtie to mock turtleneck – as he channels the ways Jobs’ professional triumphs masked personal doubts, and how his form of genius was at odds with his people skills. In interviews, such as this one with Charlie Rose, Sorkin has explained that he didn’t want to make a conventional biopic, a genre which had become its own cliche until filmmakers realized that telling a life story wasn’t as important as focusing on a certain time or event that best explained or defined the person.
