Steve Jobs was (is, if you want to get really strangely technical on posthumous tenses) a cultural icon unlike many others. His legacy will continue for generations, and will perhaps be one of the most-known figures of history who wasn’t a global leader (or was he?). So, it should come of no surprise that there are two movies written about him.
Jobs (2013), hereafter referred to as the Kutcher film, took on the story of the titular figure first, approaching the story of the man’s life in a very linear fashion. Steve Jobs (2015), or the Fassbender film, took on the man’s life in a far more artistic, compelling, and cinematic way, choosing to depict the man at three separate product launches, in 1984, 1988, and 1998. The two movies are also completely different in quality and perceptive accuracy. One is a golden portrayal of a man who was frequently acknowledged to be harsh, unyielding, and unkind to his fellow man. The other is a withering critique and analysis of a troubled genius.
It is easy to look at these two movies in terms of specs (budget, cast, writer, director) and chalk up the quality of story presented to the disparity in these two things. Matt Whiteley, the writer on the Kutcher film, has the austere and horrific task of being matched against Sorkin, a screenwriting genius who oft takes the public opinion medal for one of the best dramatic writers ever. The budget on the Kutcher film was half that of its Fassbender counterpart, and each member of the cast of the Fassbender film carries more acting caché than even the leading man of the Kutcher film.
However, I wish to look at the actual storytelling choices made, which will attempt not to touch on the writer’s skill. Whiteley was indeed fresh to the game, whereas Sorkin had years of experience before tackling his Fassbender film.
First, let’s approach the Kutcher film. What we see is almost a made-for-TV movie, primarily in simplicity of story. The Kutcher film begins at Reed college, and ends with the release of the iPod. It is, in most cases, a step-by-step retelling of Jobs’ adult life. However, in doing this, it is unable to paint the complicated picture that any human life is; full of mistakes, successes, darkness and light and everything in between. It paints the auteur as a deity-inspired artist, who just “happy-accidents” his way into major decisions that would define the evolution of computing. His inspiration is often portrayed as a muttering and mumbling wisdom of the future. In the scene where he sits down to design the Macintosh, he is portrayed almost like Jesus Christ in Christian home movies; a soft-spoken messiah who has come to save humanity with clunky dialogue and moments of self-referencing speech. Honestly, watching this movie took me three days of chunking it out, with frequent pauses to rant to my wife about how rose-colored the glasses were on this story. Jobs was a flawed man. I was eleven when he died and even I knew that. It is okay to portray the deceased as they were in life.
Now to the Fassbender film. This movie is, truly, one of my favorite pieces of media I have ever watched. Fassbender and his counterparts in Winslet, Rogen, Stuhlbarg, and Daniels put in breathtaking performances, all around, and each scene of dialogue breathes so much life into the scenes. And it doesn’t pull any punches. Fassbender’s Jobs is genius, precise, calculating, but also a horrible, abusive boss who mistreats his staff, his daughter and her mother, and his friend Wozniak. He is condescending, self-important, and sometimes delusional. But we root for him all the same.
The Kutcher film performs a cardinal sin of biopics; too much realistic accuracy. I understand that, as a writer/director of a biopic, especially one of a man so prolific, the inclination is to write with documentary level accuracy. Make a piece documenting the man’s life, and the audience will enjoy watching no matter what. However, the reason we watch documentaries is because of the flaws therein; we see the life of this person, with real dialogues with peers, albeit edited ones for watchability. Or, we see the factually accurate depiction of events from primary sources. Many times we get interviews with the true source, the subject of the documentary.
The same isn’t possible in biopics. A documentary is rarely as dramatically intense as a fictional story. The biopic, out of necessity, has to retain viewer’s attentions. The Fassbender film has been outcried as historically inaccurate, and therefore not a true biography. However, I believe those outcriers have missed the purpose. The plan when writing and shooting this film was never pitch-perfect accuracy to the way things went down. The job of writing a Jobs film (‘scuse the pun) is to portray the MAN, not his life.
The Fassbender film, based on reports from many who knew him, including the real-life Woz and Hertzfeld, shows its accuracy in the portrayal of Steve Jobs’ attitude, mannerisms, behaviors. Kutcher may have got his speech and walking correct, but Fassbender nailed the man’s spirit and mind, as did the writing on his film.
I argue that this should be the goal of any biopic. Audiences can, and will, search online for the details of the lives that they just witnessed snippets of. That’s okay. Portray what it was like to be around the subject, what it felt like to work for him, how he grew into a more mature, though still much the same, man. Give us a taste of what Jobs was like, and immortalize HIM, not his LIFE. That’s what history books are for. Not $15 million dollar movies starring Ashton Kutcher.
Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoy your week!