Michael Fassbender in Danny Boyle's 'Steve Jobs'
About 200 years ago, Thomas Carlyle popularized a view of history which argued the grand scheme of human existence is
a story of heroes. According to Carlyle, the world as it exists today comes from the impact of "
Great Men" (or, if we update terminology for the 21st century, "Great People") over thousands of years, who were champions of their fields and whose individual contributions were so monumental they changed the direction of society. And to a certain extent, the view of history as "the essence of innumerable biographies" and the belief in the individual to move mountains still holds some sway. We
build monuments to those people who made their marks, we
celebrate holidays to honor their accomplishments, and our search for new leaders is predicated on the notion that a man or woman can lead the world to a better place through their character and will. For example, American history is usually defined by the actions of certain people of different eras, from George Washington to Barack Obama, with those leaders being the "protagonist" in the story of their particular war, struggle, or movement.
One of Carlyle's contemporaries, Herbert Spencer, thought the entire idea was preposterous, and the importance afforded to "heroes" was imaginary. Instead of the greatness of individuals changing the ebbs and tides of history, Spencer believed society itself grows into a place that can make a "great man," who then can remake the society. In this respect, it acknowledges that so-called "great men" didn't get there on their own but are defined as great through their ability to take advantage of their circumstances.
Danny Boyle's new film Steve Jobs leans more to the latter view than the former, but couches its titular character's accomplishments as an artistic endeavor. The question then becomes whether one can celebrate an artist's work, even though they may have been a mean asshole that made bad decisions. The modern Hollywood biopic tends to upend the "great man" theory by presenting historical characters that are defined not by their positive attributes but by their mistakes, and their greatness coming from the struggle to overcome. Loosely based on the authorized biography by Walter Isaacson with a screenplay adapted by Aaron Sorkin, Steve Jobs honestly recognizes the flaws of its titular character while arguing the crux of the man's personality was a need to have the perfection in his products that he couldn't have in himself.
Continue below for more.
When Apple co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer Steve Jobs died in 2011, the hagiography around the influence of his life seemed to know no boundaries. Jobs was quoted as saying that existence is about the ability "to put a dent in the universe," otherwise why exist in the first place? And even if you're not a Mac cultist in the midst of a reality distortion field, no one can deny Jobs' influence in making the personal computer and smartphone everyday pieces of modern life, being a driving force at Pixar, changing the way music is listened to and sold, and fundamentally altering the way society lives and interacts through products like the iMac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Those innovations have further democratized technology beyond wealthy hobbyists and businesses to fulfill the needs and desires of the populace.
However, that wasn't the entire story—and biographies, documentaries, and multiple biopics (including this one) have been made trying to ascertain who exactly Jobs was. The heroic portrait of a genius rising to success becomes much less so when it's dissected and held up to the light. For critics of Apple and Jobs, the success he wrought is a financial empire built upon cheap foreign labor working in less than ideal conditions. A good public relations department made Jobs iconic as a hippie-ish, new age guru merging art and technology, even though the picture painted by some who knew and worked with him was more of a temperamental capitalist asshole who alienated and betrayed friends, took more credit than he deserved, and mistreated the ones he loved.
Of course, the truth about Jobs is probably somewhere in the middle, and it's in the gap and contradictions between the deified Jobs and the despicable Jobs that Aaron Sorkin's screenplay creates a tragic figure that knows what the public wants and can create beautiful visions of the future, but can't see what the people closest to him need.
Sorkin already has experience with this sort of thing through his Oscar win for The Social Network, where his version of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg was a lonely man that created a platform for connecting people even though he couldn't connect with people himself. And like The Social Network, historical accuracy is not exactly the prime concern of Steve Jobs, with Sorkin describing Steve Jobs as a "portrait" impression, not a photograph. The movie is principally a three-act play of classical unities set in three major time periods of Jobs' life (i.e., the 1984 launch of the Macintosh, the 1988 debut of the NeXT computer after Jobs was fired by Apple, and the return to Apple culminating in the 1998 introduction of the iMac), where we see fictionalized character moments "inspired" by reality and meant to represent an abstract truth. Boyle shoots each time period slightly differently: Events from 1984 are in low-res 16mm film, 1988 goes up to 35mm, and 1998 attains high-def digital, but the merging of Boyle's kinetic style with Sorkin's pitter-patter, walk-and-talk backstage dialogue gives the movie a frenetic pacing and a claustrophobic feeling.
Among the recurring figures in Jobs' life during these three time periods are Apple co-founder Steve "Woz" Wozniak (Seth Rogen), whose relationship with Jobs is presented as that of a slighted friend/surrogate brother wondering aloud why he and others are being mistreated. Software developer Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg) is on the receiving end of Jobs' wrath when things don't go according to plan during his presentations. Former Pepsi executive John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) is Apple's first connection to the big time and corporate America, but he ultimately becomes the CEO who forces Jobs out the door. And marketing executive Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) is the devoted Jobs whisperer, the right-hand woman who does her best to give the boss unvarnished truth, no matter how ugly the situation may be.
Part of that ugly truth is the way Jobs treated his first daughter, Lisa (portrayed at age 5 by Makenzie Moss, age 9 by Ripley Sobo, and at age 19 by Perla Haney-Jardine), and her mother (Katherine Waterston). Sorkin's script depicts this, not his setbacks at Apple or the burned bridges of his professional career, as the biggest mistake of Jobs' life.
As an allegorical character study about themes of hubris, ego, and the search for perfection and the cost of the personal, the film excels. And Fassbender gives his version of Jobs a complicated methodical coldness that flashes moments of significant humanity when he's trying to imagine the next move, instead of dealing with the problems of the moment.
- The measure of a man: It should be noted that, given the time frames of the story, Jobs' widow and his other children are not depicted in the movie. Also, Sorkin's script is based on an adaptation of Isaacson's book of the same name and interviews conducted by Sorkin. Former Apple CEO John Sculley, who cooperated with Sorkin and is generally positive about the film, doesn't believe it gives a full picture of Jobs. While Isaacson's biography was an authorized one, reportedly Jobs and his family (with one notable exception that I'll get to in just a sec) gave full access and encouraged others to be open and honest about him, with Jobs having no control over the content of the final product. For his part, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak also consulted with Sorkin during pre-production, and has given interviews stating he was "shocked and amazed" by the movie, but many of the scenes depicting confrontations between him and Jobs never happened.
Wozniak: I usually go to a movie not looking for "do I like the story" as much as: "What is the quality that came out of the heads of the people that made it?" In this case the filmmakers have done an award-winning job. The acting was just so realistic. In some prior movies, I saw [the actors] simulating Steve Jobs, but they didn't really make me feel like I was in his head understanding what was going on inside of him - his personality. This movie absolutely accomplishes that, and it's due to great acting, which obviously comes from great directing.
- Laurene Jobs is not a fan of this movie: Steve Jobs' widow, Laurene Jobs, did not participate in Isaacson's biography, is said to not think too highly of it, and has reportedly done everything she could to try to make sure this film never happened. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Laurene Jobs called both Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale, who were rumored to be early favorites for the lead, and requested they not participate in the movie.
"Since the very beginning, Laurene Jobs has been trying to kill this movie, OK?" ... "Laurene Jobs called Leo DiCaprio and said, 'Don't do it.' Laurene Jobs called Christian Bale and said, 'Don't [do it].' "
Reps for Bale and DiCaprio were unable to verify that, and Laurene Jobs did not return calls. A Sony executive confirms, however, that, "She reached out; she had a strong desire not to have the movie made. But we said, 'We're going to move forward.' My understanding is, she did call one or two of the actors." Another source says that Laurene lobbied each major studio in an attempt to kill the project.
- Sony hacking: The film was originally in production at Sony, with David Fincher attached to direct. However, negotiations with Fincher collapsed over creative control and money. Then those creative battles extended into other areas, and resulted in heated barbs between producer Scott Rudin and then-Sony CEO Amy Pascal, which ended up on the internet after Sony was hacked and all the emails were published, ultimately leading to the movie finding a home at Universal.
- Apple's reaction to the movie: Jonathan Ive, Apple's Chief Design Officer who is responsible for many of the company's most influential product designs, has stated he doesn't recognize the Steve Jobs in it at all, and finds it "sad" that Jobs is "having his identity described, defined by a whole bunch of other people." Apple CEO Tim Cook has called the film "opportunistic," leading to a very caustic reaction from Aaron Sorkin (who later apologized for going "a little too far").
"Nobody did this movie to get rich," Sorkin said in response at the premiere. "Secondly, Tim Cook should really see the movie before he decides what it is." Sorkin added: "Third, if you've got a factory full of children in China assembling phones for 17 cents an hour you've got a lot of nerve calling someone else opportunistic."