Tuesday 24 November 2015

Film: 'Steve Jobs'

Goodness me, but this is a 'talkie' film!
I wasn't at all keen to see it because of the subject matter, computers - which, if it doesn't go above my head (and much does), I find that what I can understand is deadly dull. Part of that will be my resentment in having to be dragged into this particular technological world at an advanced age which, although it has opened up my life in positive ways, at the same time gives me more frequent headaches than I care to have.
I was persuaded to go see by it having the ever-charismatic Michael Fassbender in the title role, as well as it being directed by Danny Boyle, who has the ability to lift virtually any subject into being interesting enough to hold my attention. And this he largely achieves here, though, as I suggest, virtually all the action is verbal, and, in terms of comprehension, it didn't take very long to lose me.

It's in three 40-minute segments, 1984, 88, and 98, each dealing with the late CEO of Apple (who died four years ago at the age of 56) making a big-splash public launch of the latest developments in personal computers. (Please don't expect me to elaborate!).
All three parts take place in the minutes before a major unveiling while the large, eager audiences are assembling, hungry to hear the latest advancement. 
Kate Winslet plays his hard-boiled, fiercely loyal assistant (and one-time relationship?) who isn't afraid to stand up to him and tell him what she thinks. 
There's also Jeff Daniels as his former boss with whom he had serious disagreements, as well as a previous affair which resulted in a daughter, though Jobs has doubts that she's his. The impecunious mother (Katherine Waterston) resents being stranded by Jobs and having to rely on welfare for herself and her girl, while he is now a multi-millionaire, later a billionaire. We see the daughter, first at the age of five, then nine, and lastly at nineteen, by which time she has become somewhat alienated from her father, influenced by her mother's grievances.
You might correctly imagine that arguments abound on all sides, which they always do just as he's due on stage (much to the exasperation of the Winslet character, who's trying to keep Jobs on schedule), and that's the three foci of the film, not exactly 'shouty' but always very disputatious. 

Screenplay is by Aaron Sorkin whose biggest success to date was another computer-based film, 'The Social Network', one which I'd found the dialogue so indecipherably mumbled that I just couldn't work out what the hell was going on. No such problem here, and I must admit that the script is pretty sharp.

When this film opened in America recently, initial box-office takings were so depressed that the venues screening it were drastically scaled back. I don't think it's entirely the film's fault in itself, but it's not a film for everybody. Those who go looking for more action than mere words will feel let down. Danny Boyle does his best and manages to make it absorbing enough, though it's not one which I'd care to sit through for a second time................................6.

14 comments:

  1. Ray,
    I read the book "Jobs" and enjoyed it immensely. I was looking forward to seeing the movie but when I found out that Michael Fassbender was cast in the title role, I lost interest. While I like Fassbender (and of course enjoyed his full fontal nudity in another film), I was vastly disappointed. With all the actors out there, couldn't they at least get someone who sort of has the hawk like features of Steve Jobs? And Alan Sorkin doesn't impress me at all. I couldn't finish watching "Social Network" at all and was thus less inclined to subject myself to another of Mr. Sorkin's scripts. Even though I am interested in computer (and I have all the Apple products), I will definitely pass on this miscast movie. Oh, and one more reason. Seth Rogan cast as Steve Jobs first partner. I despise Seth "Just me and party boy James Fanco" Rogan. They have their own in joke going on which I don't find funny at all.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron, I didn't know, or had forgotten, that you have an aversion to M.F. so can understand your going cold on this. However, for me he was the star attraction, and without his presence there I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered. He's one of those actors who completely takes over the entire screen for me. But even that aside I thought that facially he didn't look as dissimilar to the real Jobs as you suggest, though I'd confess to thinking that the real one was (even) better looking.
      As for Seth Rogan, I've always regarded him as something of an unattractive slob - but on the other hand I do still have the hots for Mr Franco.
      And 'Social Network' - well, I don't get it when everyone is so full of praise for it - that is everyone other than you and me.

      Delete
    2. Ray,
      Oh, I don't have an aversion to M.F. Actually, rather I like him. He is an excellent actor and I agree with you that he is very watchable. I just don't see him in the Steve Jobs role, especially since Jobs had such unique facial features. I absolutely agree with you that Seth Rogan is an "unattractive slob." I used to like Mr. Franco he quickly lost his appeal to me once he teamed up with his frat buddy Rogan and played the inside joke roles for which they're paid millions. Plus, I heard Franco give an interview with Howard Stern. Lots of "umm, ahs, and you knows." Apparently Franco can't talk without a script. And another "plus", he constantly brags on himself. Probably what sealed my negative opinion of Franco was his drug induced stint as cohost on the Oscars. What a self-involved bore. Have to agree with you on "Social Network." I never got it and I also don't like Jesse Eisenberg. I don't "get" him either. Just another mumbling actor with his head up his ass.
      Ron

      Delete
    3. Glad to be put right that you do actually like Mr F, Ron. Join me in the fan club. He always has an easy presence with fluid, confident movements - and I can usually hear what he's saying. In the recent unfortunate 'Macbeth' with him in the title role he was the only one I had no problem listening to. Oh, and he's pretty hot as well.

      I didn't know some of what you've said about Mr Franco. It looks like I'll have to be having some reservations about him, or at least remembering what you say next time I see him.

      Delete
  2. I also think it failed her because ... didn't we already have one other film about Jobs?

    The only thing I find interesting about this one is Fassbender and that's a purely Hot Man level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't off the top of my head think of another feature film about Jobs, Bob. If there's been one then it makes the presence of this less valuable, though this makes no attempt to tell his life story, being just three pivotal episodes.
      As I say above, the main reason for my going at all was the presence of Mr F - and in no way does he disappoint. He just drips with sexiness!

      Delete
  3. It'll be a DVD for me Ray. I think the flaws in Job's character (of which there were apparently many) is what makes the story so interesting. His early death and business success have elevated him to almost God like status amongst some but it's the other (personal) traits which I think are the most telling and fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if it's flaws your after you'll find them here, Craig. He's portrayed as a man of clay, rather at odds with his own feeling of self-certainty.
      You won't lose much by watching this on DVD - and you'll have the option of giving your ears an occasional rest from all the jabber-jabber!

      Delete
  4. I almost went, but I thought not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A film of moderate interest only, methinks, Dr Spo. If the subject rings your bell catch up with it on small screen.

      Delete
  5. Even as I blog from one of Mr. Jobs devices, I'll probably be passing on this one unless I find it as a 99 cent rental on iTunes for a cross country flight. As far as Mr. Franco and Mr. Rogan, I'd do 'em both and preferably at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You can keep Rogan, F.B., while I take Fassbender in his place - and, of course, keep Franco.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You were just nominated for a Liebster award over on FearsomeBeard.

      Delete
    2. WTF?! Never heard of the Liebsters, F.B., but must investigate before I get all teary and start shouting "You love me! You love me!"

      Delete