The film is tightly attached to three press conferences separated by 14 years. The same characters appear in turn within half an hour before the start of each press conference. Among these people are Jobs' teenage lover Brennan and his illegitimate daughter Lisa, whom he was initially reluctant to accept; Joanna, a close comrade-in-arms who continued to challenge Jobs but was always trusted by Jobs; three important partners who fought side by side to part ways : Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, who was persuaded by Steve Jobs to join Apple and then kicked Jobs out of Apple CEO Sculley; the engineer in charge of Macintosh Computer Hertzfeld.
In the words of Steve Jobs in the play, "Five minutes before every press conference, everyone goes to the bar to get drunk, and then come and tell me what they really think." These characters are tasked with initiating a spat that forces the Steve Jobs in the film to explain how he views products, launches, marketing, technology, corporate strategy, daughters, and more. Audiences were also able to look for changes and constants in conversations spanning more than a decade to build their own impression of Jobs.
The movie itself is more like a three-act stage play, with all the characters confronting almost exclusively in the theater where the press conference is held. Except for the brief and restrained flashbacks that occasionally take us back to the past, the time and space in the movie are very cramped. The speed of the passage of time in the movie is basically the same as that in the real world. Contradictions erupted uninterruptedly in the first half hour of each press conference until the applause called Jobs to the podium and stopped abruptly. The movie also happened at the same time.
Under such a setting, the plot is basically only driven by the dialogue of the characters, which is exactly what caused the quarrel in perception and perception, and the lines were so dense that it was a headache. And what about the plots that cannot be put into the lines and have to be explained? The director chose to read them out through the mouth of the news anchor, and this form is only slightly better than using subtitles. Words, words, or words, the actors played happily. Fassbender, especially Winslet's performance was still so good, but the highlights of director Boyle seemed to be only some clever compositions and transitions.
"Steve Jobs", like "The Social Network," is a story about Internet madmen written by Alan Sorkin. The directors are Danny Boyle and David Fincher. Hot reviews said that these two films can fully demonstrate the gap between Boyle and Finch. Indeed, The Social Network's cinematic looks better from what I ended up seeing.
"Social Network" also has a main line of structure similar to the "press conference", that is, the process of Zuckerberg, as a defendant, being collected by his good friend and collaborator's lawyer. All episodes are "real-life re-enactments" of testimony. But because David Fincher didn't make the main line of this form too conspicuous, more of the audience saw a complete and smooth story of the birth of Facebook. Interspersed back to the conference room to collect evidence from time to time, it added a sense of narrative jump and brought about a change in rhythm.
As for why "Steve Jobs" made this choice, it made the filming more difficult. Is this an attempt by the director and screenwriter to explore character films, or there are other reasons, which probably have to be compared with these two films. the script can be judged. But we can't underestimate Boyle. After all, he has works like "Trainspotting", "Slumdog Millionaire", and the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, which I like very much, proves his directing ability.
Every time I watch a biographical movie, there is a question "Is what the movie says true?" For this, the article by Walter Mossberg, founder of the American technology news website Re/code, provides a wealth of information, and the full text is posted below.
In 2015, the well-known writer Aaron Sorkin also made a film based on the famous American business figure, the protagonist of this film is Apple founder Steve Jobs, and Sorkin also made a free play from an artistic point of view. However, the fictional entertainment was not properly labeled, and the film was directly titled "Jobs," and the film was based in part on Walter Isaacson's licensed Biography of Jobs.
So, to many unfamiliar with Jobs, Sorkin's film appears to be the truth, a comprehensive account of Jobs' life. However, Sorkin himself has admitted that this is not the case, and the film is not intended to be a biographical film.
Unlike Sorkin, I got to know the real Jobs over 14 years, the most productive and successful 14 years of his career. Over the years, I've had lengthy private conversations with him, as well as multiple interviews with him at tech industry conferences we host. The Steve Jobs depicted in the Sorkin movie is not the Steve Jobs I know.
Sorkin deliberately chose some details to exaggerate the worst parts of Jobs' character. Additionally, the film focuses on a young, immature period in Jobs' career. The film selectively highlights one of the most disgusting moments in Jobs' personal life, when Jobs denied his illegitimate daughter.
It's like you made a movie called "JFK," but focused entirely on JFK's affairs and political opponents, while eschewing the civil rights struggle and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In Sorkin's film, the story comes to a screeching halt before Jobs becomes more mature and inclusive with his most world-changing product.
If only based on the description of the movie, no one would know that Jobs had a very happy marriage, that he loved his children, and that he promoted the invention of the iPhone. The audience couldn't see how passionate Jobs was about product launches, how he got involved in product design, listened to his colleagues' advice, and resolutely ignored Wall Street. Because the movie doesn't show how Jobs ran Apple.
At the end of the film, there is a line of small print that the film contains fictional material and events. In fact, a brave movie should have such a statement at the beginning of the movie in larger font.
At least, Hearst has the ability to fight back. Rumor has it that he banned all coverage of Citizen Kane by his media. Jobs is dead and has no way to defend himself. However, some of Jobs' former colleagues have criticized the film, and Jobs' widow has tried to "kill" the film.
The film twists many facts. People familiar with Jobs told me that, before taking the stage, Jobs never had a serious conversation with an old colleague or rival. He was always completely focused on his presentation. By the time Jobs returned to Apple to launch the iMac, his early colleague Joanna Hoffman had left Apple. This is nothing like the introduction in the movie. Also, I am familiar with former Apple CEO John Sculley. In the film he is described as a kind and shrewd character. However, I and many others believe that Sculley is not being shrewd when it comes to running Apple.
What's even more disappointing is that viewers who don't know Jobs will think that the second company Jobs founded, NeXT, is just a ploy to take back Apple. Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 as Apple acquired NeXT and its powerful operating system. But in reality, NeXT is a well-run company with a 12-year history and investments from many big names like Ross Perot. NeXT may have been a commercial failure, but from a technological development perspective, it was an important company: NeXT's computers helped invent the World Wide Web.
In an interview with Sorkin, my colleague Nilay Patel raised a question about the history of NeXT. Sorkin responded: "The fact that you're speaking doesn't matter much in this story relative to how Steve Jobs returned to Apple. NeXT was the vehicle that brought Steve Jobs back to Apple."
Like other artists, Sorkin has the right to choose how people and events are depicted. And he also explained that in this film, he wanted to focus on the conflict, not the best part of Jobs' character. Sorkin also said he's a big fan of Apple products: He writes on a Mac and uses his iPhone and iPad.
I'm also a huge Sorkin fan and have watched every movie and TV series he's written, many of them more than once. In 2012, when I had the chance to interview Sorkin onstage, my colleagues laughed at me for being overjoyed. However, my fondness for Sorkin's other work doesn't mean I think he's doing well in this movie too. Because he didn't do well.
In fact, Sorkin's handling of Jobs was less than ideal relative to the fictional character. In the TV series "The White House," the fictional President Jed Bartlet concealed a serious illness in the election, sanctioned a cold-blooded assassination, and failed to achieve his goals. However, he also has a good side, such as being kind, principled, and humorous. For Jobs, Sorkin did not have such a three-dimensional description, but in fact Jobs also has his own good qualities. Without such qualities, he cannot attract the best talent and successfully change the world. Most of the Apple and Pixar executives I know are very loyal to Jobs. Some people told me that when Jobs died, they cried at their desks.
In the film, Jobs' high-end taste and focus on quality are depicted as arrogance. And ironically, two people familiar with the matter told me that Jobs' taste made him a fan of "The White House." One of them even revealed that Apple employees would avoid disturbing Jobs when the show was on.
I didn't know Jobs early in his career. He founded Apple at the time and then ran NeXT. This history occupies most of the film. Also, I'm not sure about the relationship between Jobs and his daughter Lisa.
But the Jobs I know, and the Jobs this movie doesn't mention, are stubborn and impatient, but willing to listen to others and change their perspective. In many of our conversations, he's happy to discuss product and technology issues. Yes, we sometimes yell too, but we also have more serious and calm conversations, and good times. Unlike the introduction in the movie, I have seen Jobs listening to and agreeing with the opposing views of his employees.
In almost every conversation we had, Jobs complimented his child and asked about my child. When he was battling his illness, he also asked about my health and advised me to quit cigars. Such a Jobs does not exist in Sorkin's films.
Jobs was not perfect. He was difficult, sometimes rude, and sometimes lying. However, as he grew up, he also became gradually softer. That softness coincided with the best moments of his career. Sorkin chose to hide all of this. When the "Jobs" movie came to an end, the most glorious Steve Jobs era had just begun.
View more about Steve Jobs reviews
