Steve Reviews Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs was a complicated man. He was a genius, an innovator, and a forward thinker. He's also been the subject of several films. What makes Steve Jobs (2015) different than the others and worthy of discussion during award season? The answer comes from a screenplay by Oscar-winner Aaron Sorkin and direction from Danny Boyle.

Sorkin has delivered a script that is unique and refreshing – even for him. This film essentially takes place over three days of Jobs' life. Each of the three vignettes are days in which Steve Jobs participated in a product launch – starting in 1984 at the release of the Macintosh computer. During those three days that span fourteen years, Jobs interacts with basically the same group of people, and Sorkin reveals to us a brash businessman, an unstable family man, and the kind of man who can't really keep a friend.

Jobs is portrayed by Michael Fassbender of Inglorious Basterds and 12 Years a Slave fame. He is joined on screen by Kate Winslet, who can seemingly do no wrong, as Jobs' faithful assistant and marketing manager. This film is a talkie, and both of these two do a decent job delivering Sorkin's words. They are both in the hunt for Oscars, although neither one really did much to deserve the buzz. Winslet is great at showing emotion, and that has a tendency to resonate with voters. Fassbender looks like Steve Jobs. Do we give Oscars for that now? I would give more praise to comedians Jeff Daniels and Seth Rogan, who both turn in great dramatic performances as Apple CEO John Scully and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, respectively.

Unfortunately, the film fell flat for me, despite the story-telling gimmick. Much like Sorkin's The Social Network, the film aims to give a historical reenactment so we can better understand the method to the madness of the film's subject. The problem with this one is that Steve Jobs sadly passed away in 2011, and the film is based on first-person interviews and a biography written by Walter Isaacson. The movie portrays Jobs in a pretty negative light, and I'm afraid movie-goers will leave the cinema feeling that they watched a documentary when they've really watched one person's interpretation of three days in a man's life. Who's to say that all of this dialogue is accurate? Jobs' widow has called the film "fiction" because it doesn't accurately portray the man she was married to. Even John Scully said there was more to Jobs than was depicted in the film.

Also, Sorkin's dialogue was a little overbearing at times. I consider myself to be fairly educated in the worlds of business and technology, and I thought to myself on several occasions that other people in the theatre might not know what the hell the characters were talking about. I don't believe in dialogue that holds my hand or is full of exposition. But I do believe that dialogue can talk over an audience if it's not careful, and Sorkin wasn't all that careful. Ideas and concepts relating to boards of directors and investors were likely lost to a novice. Names of people and products in Apple history may also be lost to someone who doesn't know anything about Apple history.

This kind of movie is both fascinating and infuriating. I love getting a glimpse of the past and seeing what famous figures went through to essentially make my life better. But how can I trust that anything I saw actually happened the way that I saw it? "Based on a true story" is a slippery slope. If you enjoy biopics, this one isn't the worst you'll see. Just please beware that every story has three sides. Your side, my side, and the truth. This film is one side. Steve Jobs isn't around to tell his story. It's likely the truth, lying somewhere in the middle, will never really be known.

-Steve
10.23.2015