Steve Jobs was always adept at making headlines—often more about his autocratic leadership style than any of the visionary products that were released during his tenure at Apple.
He’s in the news again, and this time the controversy surrounds Danny Boyle’s new film, Steve Jobs. It’s the third feature-length film about Jobs in as many years, and they all have a different take on the man. Even in death, Jobs remains a polarizing figure, with defenders who are as rabid as his detractors.
Tim Cook, who has taken the helm at Apple, has been outspoken in his rage about the film, which opens October 9.
“The Steve I knew was an amazing human being,” Tim Cook told Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. “I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this.”
Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin argued that the Apple CEO shouldn’t pass judgment so quickly.
“Tim Cook should really see the movie before he decides what it is,” Sorkin replied, later issuing an apology.
In 2013, Ashton Kutcher portrayed him in Jobs, a film that underwhelmed audiences and critics alike. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak weighed in on the movie, saying, “I suspect a lot of what was wrong with the film came from Ashton’s own image of Jobs.”
In interviews, Kutcher revealed how he got into character as Steve Jobs.
“I started consuming the things that he consumed, I started studying entrepreneurs he admired, listening to the music he listened to, eating the food he ate and walking the way he walked,” Kutcher said.
But according to Wozniak, there were key elements missing in Kutcher’s performance, especially the drive for success that powered both him and the company.
“He didn’t bring out the thinking that makes us love Steve [and] the ideas that drove Apple forward,” he said.
The film also gave Jobs a lot of the credit for ideas that experts agree came from Wozniak. It was Wozniak, not Jobs, who first envisioned how computers could change the cultural landscape.
“The lofty talk,” said Wozniak, “came much further down the line.”
Alex Gibney’s documentary Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine turns a decidedly critical eye towards its subject. Gibney focuses on the schism between the man seen by many as a visionary with the one who was prone to tantrums and vindictiveness.
Gibney witheringly points out the irony of the “Think Different” campaign coming from a company that reportedly turned a blind eye toward appalling worker conditions in Chinese factories.
If there’s a flaw in Gibney’s approach, it’s that he goes after his subject’s defects with zeal and conviction, but outlines his enormous accomplishments and influence in a more dutiful than enthusiastic tone.
Now here comes Steve Jobs, a glossy prestige project with star power fueling its release. Sorkin’s sharp, hyper-articulate dialogue and Boyle’s kinetic energy aim to make for a fully rounded, accurate portrayal of Jobs.
This is no standard-issue biopic. Instead of telling the story of his life from his humble beginnings to his untimely death from pancreatic cancer, Sorkin dramatizes three episodes from Jobs’ life: the much-lauded release of the Macintosh in 1984, the crashing failure of the NeXT console in 1988, and his startling return with the first iMac in 1998.
Taking Sorkin’s lead, Boyle shoots the film in three different film stocks to emphasize the changing time periods. As the film moves to digital in the last act, Jobs’ delivery also gets crisper and clearer. Michael Fassbinder, as Jobs, takes him from enthusiastic beginner to the practiced master.
But did Sorkin and Boyle finally reveal the “real” man behind the myth? The new movie has already garnered criticism from both sides. One thing is clear: the question “Who was Steve Jobs?” makes for some vigorous debate.