Jeremy Rowley
jrowley1@uwyo.edu
“Steve Jobs” is not a biopic. It does not try to tell the story of the much-beloved Apple Computers. In fact, the film does not even really try to tell a story at all. But, when the credits started to roll, I found myself upset that the movie was over.
Rather than allow events to unfold in a quick and typical fashion, writer Aaron Sorkin chose instead to focus on the moments leading up to three specific events in Steve Jobs’ life: the launch of the 1984 Macintosh 128K, the 1988 launch of the NeXT Computer and the 1998 launch of the iMac. Each third of the movie details numerous conversations between Jobs and his various coworkers, associates and family.
This comes in stark contrast with the 2013 movie “Jobs” starring Ashton Kutcher. “Jobs” functions much more like a typical biography, summing up a majority of the events in Jobs’ life from 1974 to 1997. However, while “Jobs” provided much more detail than the new film, the script and performances in “Steve Jobs” make it a much more compelling watch.
Ashton Kutcher may have had the advantage of looking like a carbon copy of the Apple co-founder, but Michael Fassbender’s tremendous performance, paired with Sorkin’s script, feel much more grounded. Though the historical accuracy of the film has been both applauded and questioned by various people from Jobs’ past, it is undeniable that the film feels real.
With this in mind, it becomes apparent that “Steve Jobs” is more of a character piece than a biopic. Sorkin’s long, dialogue-heavy scenes reveal more about the man than the things he did. As such, moviegoers hoping for a background on some of the most influential computing devices of our time will find the film lacking. However, the growth we see in Fassbender’s portrayal as he prepares for each individual launch provides an insight into the humanity of the man that grows more and more interesting with every scene.
Along with Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs” features a terrific cast, all of whom give unparalleled performances. Kate Winslet plays Joanna Hoffman, an original member of the Macintosh and NeXT teams, as well as Jobs’ only confidant in the film. In addition, Seth Rogan played Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Incorporated and Jeff Daniels played John Sculley, former CEO of Apple. All the performers are simply outstanding.
On the whole, “Steve Jobs” executes every one of its aims perfectly. The dialogue is some of the best that has been put to film in years. The cast is spectacular. The film transports the audience to each of the three time periods as if by magic. Jobs’ arc in the film is simply great. Every focus of the film is as perfect as it could have been. But, despite my fierce love of film, it seems as though “Steve Jobs” became constrained by the medium.
As I mentioned, when the movie came to a close, I was upset. This is because the film did not feel complete. By splitting the film up into thirds, the movie felt more like three separate episodes than a wholly contained film. This is not necessarily a bad thing–It is always nice to see somebody shake up the formula–But it left me wanting more episodes.
With a runtime of less than ninety minutes, it is hard not to feel shorted. There is so much to Steve Jobs’ story that it is a crime that we did not get to see more of it. The biggest flaw of the film is that there is not enough of it.
That being said, the scope of the film is not its only issue. Because of the nature of the film–One in which there is next to no story–“Steve Jobs” is not a film I can see myself watching a second time. While I am glad to have seen it, there is not enough substance to bring me back, further revealing just how shallow the film is.
There is a lot of good in “Steve Jobs.” In fact, it is doubtful that this film, with this script, could have been any better than it became. But, if you happen to be hoping for more story than character development, or that the film comes to a conclusive end, this might not be the film for you.
