Friends who are too lazy to read the text can still click to watch the video version to get a first look at the film: http://v.qq.com/cover/a/atrm30dn0k72il5.html?vid=q017173bx3f
The story structure of the three lives of all things
Steve · Jobs' life is too rich, colorful and controversial. Some people love him crazy, and some people hate him. It’s no wonder that the film has experienced twists and turns, such as substitution storms, hacking incidents, etc., from the beginning of the project. The original producer Sony simply quit in angrily. In the face of the embarrassment, Panxia Universal was also in a dilemma, and finally decided to simply let it go. Strike, use an extremely rare story structure to tell the story of Jobs. This
film discards the traditional way of biographical filming, but creatively selects the three milestones in Jobs’s life, namely the three key points. Product launch conferences-respectively the advent of the first Mac computer in 1984, and after Steve Jobs left Apple in 1998, he set up a separate portal to establish NeXT Computer Company and develop the product "Black Cube" and the 1998 iMac conference. The film is based on this. As a slice to reflect his complicated and colorful life.
Three stories were shot using three different media. The first segment of the picture has a strong graininess and obvious noise, which is quite documentary. The second part uses the 35mm film with the strongest color and texture, which complements the opera hall where the NEXT conference is located. With the majestic symphony, it also coincides with the saying that Qiao Gang’s main film often says: musicians play. Music, I will conduct the orchestra. In the third part, I finally used the digital images that are widely used today, and the images are sharp and clear.
The three scenes make up a movie like a three-act drama. The structure and content of each scene are extremely similar. It is how Steve Jobs fought against the confucians, and his family and colleagues did not let it go, and the noise was so dark. And most of the disputes took place in the corridors, arguing and strutting, and the chattering was a sense of rhythm. As for the identities of these "opposing friends", it is reasonable to say that Jobs has been ups and downs for decades, and his opponents and friends have changed one after another. They should be able to form a star-studded All-Star lineup, at least the dead opponent Bill Gates. But the screenwriter only selected 5 or 6 of them. And these five or six people don't know what the secret "anti-Jobs alliance" formed, and they will be there every time before the press conference, and they will inevitably make a lot of noise. You have discussed it, right? Of course, the screenwriter’s idea is to use these 5 or 6 people to represent several major conflicts in Jobs’s life. For example, when Kate Winslet plays the role of marketing director, every time he uses cold market data to fight against Jobs’ unruly fantasies, it is obvious that he has to show the magic of the famous "reality distortion field"; and this GEEK computer engineer with full of temperament, let I have seen Jobs's ruthlessness and strictness to his subordinates; and the several confrontations with former Apple CEO John Sculley are more of a fuss on the background of his identity under the fence of Jobs.
When the line madman meets the technology madman,
this movie now bears the title of Steve Jobs. In fact, the strongest is the style of the screenwriter Alan Sorkin. Five years ago, the same controversial "Social Network" came out of his handwriting, and he also won the Oscar statuette in one fell swoop. Growing up in a Broadway theater, he learned a variety of artillery skills by observing his family and friends bickering since childhood. Foreign media have named this unique style "sorkinism". Simply put, it uses tornado-like lips, guns, tongues and swords throughout the film. It seems that all the characters have participated in the debate competition since they were young, and each of them speaks according to the classics. By oppressing the actors to speak infinite lines with a limited length of film, they have completely turned the actors into a machine that accurately speaks Sorkin's subtle lines. It's no wonder that film critics criticized Sorkin's film and television works for the same style, because all the actors actually play the same role, Sorkin himself!
Of course, another advantage brought by such a highly consistent mechanized style is that as long as the complicated and lengthy lines can be memorized, all of them can be turned into the best debaters of lotus. Fassbender, who played Jobs, had previously been criticized for having nothing to do with the appearance of the Joe Clan leader himself. The father of the leader of Joe’s is an Arab, but Fassbender is of Irish-German descent, so letting him play is simply a scumbag? Or maybe after watching the slave owner played by Fassbender in "Twelve Years as a Slave", I feel that the temperament is similar to that of Jobs? Until Kate Winslet revealed the truth, Fassbender didn't need a script for rehearsal. It turned out to be a generation of crazy demons who recite lines! Seth Rogen, who plays another Steve, that is, Steve Vosniak’s entrepreneurial partner, Steve Vosniak, used to play a cute LOSER man in a comedy. Mainly, but when I read Sorkin's lines, the old scumbag male attributes were wiped out, as if he immediately ate the elixir of tenfold increase in acting skills. With this film, Seth Rogen has become one of the biggest hits for next year's Oscar for best supporting actor. Recalling that Jesse Eisenberg in the previous "Social Network" was also transformed from a youthful little fresh meat to a high-IQ black-bellied maniac, Jeff Daniels in the "News Room" was never a brainless comedy man Sublimation to become a knowledgeable social critic is really breaking the role stereotype, which is the best one. Hollywood in the United States is looking for Alan.
Under the Sorkin system, the role of the director is weakened. Danny Bauer once became a young filmmaker idol for directing "Train Guessing", and won an Oscar for "Slumdog Millionaire". But if the "Social Network" five years ago and the current "Steve Jobs" swap directors, would the two movies be very different? I guess it is unlikely. It is true that different directors have different methods of interpreting scripts, but they are always the same. As long as there is Alan Sorkin's iconic dialogue battle, any director's personal style will take the second place.
It is a very tangled thing to rate this film. How to evaluate this film depends entirely on the viewers themselves. If it is the fan of Feng Qiao’s gang, such as a god’s fan, of course, there is no room for a grain of sand in the eyes. The demon character immediately shouted negative points. In particular, the film also shows the plot of Jobs's refusal to admit the illegitimate daughter. This is a taboo for the majority of fruit fans. It even alarmed the current CEO of Apple and the widow of Jobs. They all publicly opposed the film, believing that the screenwriter was pure. Grandstanding. At the beginning, Alan Sorkin made facts and reasoned, saying how he obtained the insider information of Jobs’ illegitimate daughter Lisa. Later, he simply responded domineeringly, "Objective truth is the responsibility of the journalist, and subjective feelings are my right." .
Movie fans who like to watch long talks about lipsticks, tongues, and swords may admire the lotus-spitting characters. Movie fans who like visual stimulation in pursuit of action scenes are estimated to have seen half of them drowsy.
Because of this, the judge gave me 3 tokens that were not lost.
View more about Steve Jobs reviews
