Deconstructing a Visionary and a Man - Steve Jobs Review and Analysis [SPOILER]

I haven't done a movie review in a long time. When I do, it's because the movie is worth reviewing and has left a particular impression to me. The last review I did is on Philomena, an Oscar nominated movie starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan.

On the Halloween weekend, my friend and I chose to see Steve Jobs, a highly un-Halloween-ish movie amidst the release of more relevantly-themed movies like Crimson Peak and Goosebumps. The long anticipated movie directed by Danny Boyle with the script penned by Aaron Sorkin.

With an ensemble cast that includes Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, and Jeff Daniels, Steve Jobs has a unique format for a biopic. Instead of following a traditional biopic format that tends to be chronogically linear, Steve Jobs features only three different acts that take place in the backstage of three product launches: The Mac in 1984, Next in 1988, and the iMac in (1998). As each of these events unfold, Jobs encountered a number of significant figures in his life. The story explores the relationship between Jobs and the following figures. As the movie builds up, Jobs' personality was tested and later on, the relationships he had with those people slowly reveals that he was a mere human being, despite of his achievement in changing the world.

First, Jobs' ex-girlfriend showed up with his daughter with them being on a welfare. Then there was John Sculley, the CEO of Apple that later on fired Jobs and acted as a father figure to Jobs. Steve Wozniak, Jobs' colleague, also demanded that Jobs acknowledge the Apple 2 team. Last but not least, there was also Joanna Hoffman, the marketing executive of Apple that acted as Jobs' confidante and most trusted colleague. She, not only acted as a coworker, but also served as a work wife of Jobs throughout the movie.

Along with those key people, Jobs also had rocky communication with his own team: Andy Hertzfeld, for example, whom Jobs had scolded and “bullied” since the first act. If you see the movie, he would be the character you'd feel most sympathetic on as Hertzfeld – despite the treatment he constantly received from Jobs – ended up doing something generous to Jobs' daughter, Lisa, at the third act.

The movie was truly engaging and an emotional roller coaster for the audience. The acting was so strong and convincing that you really felt the anger, sadness, sympathy, and hatred from the characters. You could truly feel that Fassbender had a strong chemistry with his costars and that contributed to the strong relationships his character has with the supporting ones.

However, the true star of the movie is the dialogue penned by Sorkin (and that beautiful translucent iMac at the third act). It was after all, most talked about even before the movie was released. Aaron Sorkin previously wrote The Social Network, another movie about a Silicon Valley tycoon with more youth and David Fincher-y feel to it. The conversations were so fast paced and I love the abundant reference and metaphors he put into the script, from The Beatles to Igor Stravinsky's Rites of Spring to Alan Turing. All the references with some bits of sarcasm inserted to the dialogue, along with the pace, made the movie feel less than two hours. I was surprised myself that the movie ended. Some people might not be a fan of Sorkin's dialogue and found it quite boring, but alas, it captivated me, as an audience. So it's safe to say that the entire movie was composed mainly of dialogue that built up the relationship and story.

Another highlight of the movie is definitely its unconventional format. In an interview, Aaron Sorkin stated that he didn't want to make a biopic. The movie indeed didn't feel like a biopic. It felt too surreal as a biopic, like the fact that four different key people in Jobs' life happened to confront him just five minutes before three product launches. Steve Jobs indeed has no plot, another aspect that people greatly criticized about the movie.

It doesn't follow a traditional story arc, but it does have a resolution – and that is how he becomes a better person towards the end. In the first act, Jobs (played brilliantly by Fassbender, one of my most favorite actors to date) was an asshole. He was straight up cocky and vain. There were always scenes in each act showing Jobs in front of the mirror, a subtle action that really reflects his personality. I shook my head whenever Jobs berated his team for not doing things properly and how insanely perfectionist he was (let's not forget the scene where he demanded Kate Winslet's Hoffman to bring him a white shirt with pocket just minutes before the launch). In the second act, Jobs was still stubborn, even stating that he 'played the orchestra' when Woz confronted him. It was the third act that he began to warm a little bit. Jobs in the third act would slowly become your favorite out of all three versions of Jobs in three acts. There were three turning points that made Jobs come to his realization: Hertzfeld paying Lisa's college tuition and acting as a father figure, Hoffman begging Jobs to fix his relationship with Lisa, and Lisa herself who found out about him denying her as a daughter back in 1984.

Really, what did all these characters around Jobs have in common? They all confronted Jobs with different issues to find out that the man behind the empire, was a vulnerable man. They all served as Jobs' conscience, hitting him that the reality was not as what Jobs always envisioned. Woz confronted Jobs that he was not a designer nor an engineer, but all Jobs wanted to do was treating the people working for the products nothing more than his minions. The conflict between Sculley and Jobs was also very strong and more dynamic out of all Jobs' relationships with the other supporting characters. Sculley even questioned Jobs why he felt rejected instead of selected just because he was adopted. At this point, we would realize that Jobs actually rejected the people around him first because he was afraid of people rejecting him. The supporting figures did nothing but slowly unveil the true nature of Jobs: a vulnerable human being. All the relationships led to the climax. Jobs met his now teenage daughter at the rooftop where he eventually confessed that he was 'poorly made'.

At first you might have thought that Jobs was an antihero – a villain or some sort. Biopics normally have no bad guys, but I noticed that Steve Jobs indeed does have a villain: and that is time. As mentioned before, the movie was done in a surreal way that depicted all important people in Jobs' life just turned up at the product launches and confronted him simultaneously. At one point, it was mentioned that the backstage events and conflicts actually took place five minutes before the launch. Imagine having four-five different people berating you just minutes before you had to do an important presentation.

Time, in this context, is the enemy. Jobs' challenge was not only to settle each conflict he had with each individual (which he did quite smoothly and swiftly), but also considering he was in a time crunch. You'd notice that as Jobs' ex-girlfriend was demanding him to send some money, Hoffman interfered to inform Jobs that Woz arrived. Whenever Hoffman showed up to remind Jobs about the time, that was when Jobs had to settle everything. Hoffman kept doing that for the next two sequences. She might as well represent the time itself as she'd constantly remind Jobs that he had to get on the stage as soon as possible. In all the first two acts, Jobs ever so stubbornly put so much attention to his own craft: his products, that he refused to turn up late to the presentation. But in the third act, he began to care less about his own masterpiece and chose to mend his relationship with Lisa, stating that he didn't care if he was late anyway. That last scene concluded that Jobs finally overcame the villain of the movie – time. He didn't surrender to time but instead, with all the conflicts going on around him, he conquered the time.

I also was mostly drawn to the Father and Daughter relationship depicted in the movie. Clearly, if you follow the story in a whole, you see that this movie is about a father and his estrange daughter. As the story progressed, we see that Jobs began to accept his daughter. He clearly rejected his daughter in the first round. In the second round, he began to warm a little. The second act especially ended with Lisa hugging Jobs and whispered “I want to live with you.” The third act, the relationship really won the audience's attention, with the very last scene paying an ode to the first act, where Jobs first met Lisa. In the third act, when Jobs handed Lisa the printed drawing she did back in 1984, we found out that it was a way for Jobs to express his love to Lisa. Not only that, you could feel his compassion to Lisa slowly building up when he wanted to read Lisa's essay, mending the bond between the father and daughter.

Steve Jobs had got a buzz even before it entered pre-production due to the challenges it encountered along the way: Sony Pictures hack issue (the movie ended up getting distributed by Universal Pictures), controversial casting, and even the subject matter itself. Not so many people are fond of the figure behind the world dominating technology brand. Another movie Jobs (2013) was done before, starring Ashton Kutcher that eerily resembles Steve Jobs himself. Kutcher nailed the look of the Father of Apple, the movie was panned. When this year's Steve Jobs was announced, the public whined. “Why do we need another movie about Steve Jobs?”, even if it's released within 2 years of timespan since Jobs?

Interestingly, if you are one of those people who complained, you certainly had no idea about Yves Saint Laurent case. It's even worse. You certainly had no idea what was up with the French movie industry last year: there were two Yves Saint Laurent biopics coming up at the same year. Not even within 2 years or a year, but the same year, where the two went head to head. Yves Saint Laurent was approved by the iconic fashion designer's partner himself, Pierre Berge. Yves Saint Laurent follows a traditional biopic format, as it explores how Saint Laurent became a fashion designer. The movie is essentially a counterpart of Jobs, except Yves Saint Laurent was praised and even the actor won Cesar for Best Actor. Saint Laurent really reflected greatly on Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs shared a similar cinematography and type treatment
with Saint Laurent (2014)

Saint Laurent highlights the designer when he was at the peak of his career, from 1967-1976 and explored his dark lifestyle that involved drugs. In a way Saint Laurent is more artistic that Yves Saint Laurent, the way Steve Jobs was done in a more artistic way than Jobs, obviously. Saint Laurent and Steve Jobs are quite similar, in fact. Those two movies are somewhat more dramatized versions of what a traditional biopic would portray. They both explored the titular characters as vulnerable, weak human beings despite them having changed the world from two different aspects: technology and fashion. Saint Laurent also features conflicts and events preceeding the release of Saint Laurent's seasonal collections, which was a counterpart of Jobs' product launches. Even more, Saint Laurent and Steve Jobs shared a similar type treatment to indicate the year. The similarity on that one was so uncanny (You should really see Saint Laurent before seeing Steve Jobs to see what I'm talking about).

Thank goodness the hype of Yves Saint Laurent and Saint Laurent competing at the same year for the same awards, and even having the two lead actors competing at the same category (with one winning), only happened in the French movie industry. Had that happened in Hollywood, it would've made a hotter headline than Jobs vs Steve Jobs.

However, Steve Jobs is not overall perfect. Just like everyone else, I thought Danny Boyle was a wonderful director. I just thought the movie would've been better if it was in the hand of David Fincher. This kind of movie with fast-paced dialogue and intense chemistry of the characters is a perfect fit for Fincher. He has established himself as an accomplished director from The Social Network and Gone Girl. Those movies, along with Steve Jobs, were known for its dark, claustrophobic nature. Having seen Boyle's works such as Slumdog Millionaire and 28 Days Later, Boyle would be a better fit for movies that are less claustrophobic and more focused on the environment.

Oh, plus the title of the movie is too literal. I was hoping the filmmakers would have done a better job naming the movie. Something that could be a metaphor of Steve Jobs as a person. Something - I dunno - probably 'i' that reflects not only Jobs' vain persona but the iconic naming of Apple product that has embedded the brand as well, the way The Danish Girl is a title for the movie about Lili Elbe.

Also, most people would say that Christian Bale would have been a perfect Jobs, but I had to disagree with this. Christian Bale is one of my favorite actors and just like what everyone else said, he bears more resemblance to Jobs than Fassbender. I was sceptical myself when I found out that Fassbender would be playing Jobs. He's indeed my most favorite actor with diverse roles. He always stands out in each of every role he's done, no matter he plays a bad guy or a good yet brooding guy. He's a scene stealer in movies like Prometheus. I actually wrote a post about him before, just cos he's sooo awesome. However I felt that he was too hot and muscular to play Jobs. However, after seeing the trailers, I became more convinced that Fassbender would nail the role, which got me like 'Dang, Michael, you did it again!'. Resemblance would be a second priority. It's the acting that matters (Regardless how Kutcher looks eerily like Jobs, he blew the acting part).

After seeing videos of Steve Jobs and how cranky he'd get when the audience wouldn't shut their gadgets off during the demo, I agree that Fassbender really did capture his presence, charisma, and his perfectionism. Even in an interview, Woz mentioned that he felt like he really did see his old friend through Fassbender's acting. One thing that Fassbender didn't do, and that was to mimic Jobs' gesture – something that Kutcher did. All of the other actors stole the attention too, especially Seth Rogen, who successfully made me instantaneously about his comedic roles when he did the "What do you do?" scene. Kate Winslet, hands down. My favorite actress to date.

A lot of people despise Jobs, labeling him as an asshole. But he was still a role model regardless his personality. His legacy would live on forever. 90% of modern population would be using the result of his visions. It's in your hand, it's under my fingers as well as I'm typing. He sees the world differently, hence, Think Different. Back in De Anza College, I got to watch a documentary about Steve Jobs in my Foundation Arts class, which coincidentally took place in a building right across Flint Center, the very place where Jobs released the Mac in 1984 and the following releases of Apple products as well (The movie was also shot there, and my friends who lived in Cupertino, almost went in as extras, but failed). As a designer, I understand Jobs' views who aimed to create a relationship between a human and technology, hence, user experience. I definitely felt it in the movie during a flashback when Woz and Jobs debated that 'computers aren't paintings', to which Jobs responded that they were.

Anyway, I think it's time to wrap up my long-ass review. If you ask me if I recommend this movie, the movie is certainly not for everyone. If you tend to love movies filled with quality dialogue and a lot of talking (with character building), this movie is for you. But don't expect some action-packed scenes. The reviews that came in have been quite different: one side favoring it, and the other trashing it. The movie even surprisingly flopped at the box office, which was a bummer since it got rave reviews from critics and it did fairly well on its initial limited release. I could understand why some people might not like the movie. Some just simply despise Steve Jobs figure in general. Some hates it due to not having a plot. The filmmakers chose the break the rules, which was a brilliant move.

However, I'm one of the audiences that favor it, simply because it's different. It's strangely engaging and it successfully kept me captivated for two hours straight. If you are into two hours of intense dialogue and character building, then I'd recommend you go watch it now. Otherwise, if you expect a movie with building up action, then it's certainly not for you.

Steve Jobs is overall an electrifying cinematic experience on its own, driven by the powerful direction, acting, and dialogue. I'd give Steve Jobs 4.5/5, and yes, this movie should be on its way to the Oscars by now.