In one of the final shots of Steve Jobs after another fight between the two Steves, Jobs (Michael Fassbender) and Wozniak (or Woz, played by Seth Rogen), it seemed like the final nail in the coffin for their contentious relationship. Woz steps back into the auditorium to watch Jobs’s return to Apple and his keynote speech launching the iMac. There is no explanation for why Woz returns, maybe it’s curiosity or maybe he and Jobs are that good of friends, but it is the quintessence of Steve Jobs the man and Steve Jobs the movie. There is something in Jobs that is often unquantifiable, and somewhat unidentifiable, that brings both the supporting characters and the audience into his, and the movie’s, gravitational pull.
This electromagnetism that is evident from beginning to the end of Steve Jobs is something that not many movies have, especially those that are not your typical “thrill rides.” Much of the electricity comes from the writing by Aaron Sorkin. The Sorkinese is on display throughout: the repartee sparring back and forth in quick succession, the erudite verbiage of all characters involved (even teenaged Lisa gets in on it), or the classic walk and talk – though the first between Jobs and Woz is eye-roll worthy. But Steve Jobs needs the Sorkinese, which rarely becomes distracting, because of its structure and the content of its dialogue.
The way the film is structured is almost like Sorkin had become bored with the typical biopic and challenged himself to make something convoluted but understandable. Instead of the timeline checking “journeys” where it feels like our real life character plods from one life-altering event to another, until finally the audience comes to the realization the writer/director desires, Sorkin gives none of the journey. Steve Jobs has three distinct acts, each taking place before an important computer launch in Jobs’s life – 1984’s Macintosh, 1988’s NeXT, and 1998’s iMac G3 (the original). In between acts are montages of real-life news clips explaining what has happened in between the years for Jobs.
But don’t be fooled, while there are minor problems with every launch, the launches are basically just settings for the conversations/arguments Jobs has with the aforementioned Woz, John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg), and former lover and mother of his daughter Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston). Constantly by his side is his personal assistant and main confidant Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet). It is these conversations from where the plot is derived and this causes a problem for both Sorkin and the movie. Since there is only one flashback per act, Sorkin is forced to tell instead of show the important history between Jobs and these people, but also Jobs himself. Usually telling makes for a boring movie, but because of Sorkin’s rapid fire dialogue, the intensity of each conversation, and the excellent acting across the board, these conversations are cleverly disguised. They don’t feel like explanations or a strict regurgitation of facts. While they begin as simple explications, they quickly delve deeper into the characters’ psyches and are emotionally charged. By the time the conversations end, the audience feels there is some part of understanding gained for each character.
Without the direction of Danny Boyle and the talented cast, however, Sorkin’s challenge would not have come off nearly as well. Boyle has become a premier director of talent as he is capable of getting something deeper out of anyone (watch what he does with Chris Evans in Sunshine). There isn’t much to play with for Boyle in terms of set pieces or action since most of the movie is just talking with some walking, but there are many shots that resonate because of their angle or framing. In particular there are many seemingly point of view shots from the 5arr year old Lisa during Jobs and Chrisann’s first argument during 1984. The grainy film stock/filter during the 1984 act, despite becoming a trope in today’s digital cinematic world, works. Boyle is also able to capture the cult of Steve Jobs with the filled seats at every product launch with the crowds rushing in to take their seats or doing things like The Wave as they wait. It captures the mystique and magic of Steve Jobs that seems to be the only thing both Sorkin and Boyle want the audience to come away with from the film - the inherent magnetism of Jobs.
However, there could be no magnetism without a worthy Steve Jobs performance and Michael Fassbender more than delivers. Fassbender somehow makes the largely arrogant Jobs charming; Jobs’s genius veiled and mysterious but not absent; his need for control a constant struggle; and his steadfastness and belief in himself both resolute and questionable. Sorkin and Boyle do an incredible job in not trying to give their own personal spin on Jobs – they neither try to make him a hero or villain, neither try to trumpet his genius or denigrate it – and Fassbender straddles that fence deftly. Sorkin, Boyle, and Fassbender are all of the same in how to portray Jobs, a man who has realized that not only he but everyone else is flawed and only wishes to create machines that reverse those flaws. From this realization, Jobs tries to make a conscious decision to not empathize with, or care about, his co-workers and their feelings. Fassbender plays a coldly passionate Jobs, which even the real life Woz endorsed as an accurate representation. Sure, Fassbender nails all the mannerisms and even vocal inflection but his performance went far beyond the usually much ballyhooed facsimiles offered in the usual biopic fare.
All the other performances are equally impressive. Kate Winslet as Joanna is more than capable of standing up to Fassbender’s Jobs but the two also have an interesting chemistry that portrays an intimacy without romance, an almost symbiotic relationship. Joanna may be one of the strongest female characters on the big screen in years. Her counterparts are all in some form of awed jealousy, where they want to be closer to Jobs but are personally and professionally slighted by him and his mysterious genius.
Most important to the plot is Jeff Daniels’s Sculley, who Jobs originally wanted to become CEO of Apple and a de facto father figure, but ultimately betrays Jobs. Daniels has been playing the Jobs role, though is a little less bombastic, on Sorkin’s mediocre The Newsroom for the past few years, and brings much of that to Sculley. But it is clear Jobs outshines Sculley and Fassbender outshines Daniels, which works perfectly for the film.
Seth Rogen is elevated in this company and plays the only “true friend” Jobs has in Woz. Their friendship is put into question by Sorkin and Boyle as to whether it was really a friendship or not, but Rogen shows he is capable of not shrinking in Fassbender’s spotlight, which is a far cry from his usual stoner-comedy starring roles. Katherine Waterston’s Chrisann is basically a one-note as she butts heads with him over Lisa, forced to beg for money. But she plays that one note well in her vitriolic displays towards Jobs. Also to casting’s credit, the three actresses who play Lisa at different ages. 5-year old and 9-year old Lisa are both well acted and well cast, as child actors are always a crapshoot.
And then there is Michael Stuhlbarg as Andy Hertzfeld. The trampled, much demanded of, pure soul of Hertzfeld. Stuhlbarg offers the strongest performance out of the supporting characters outside of Winslet. He is the only supporting character that feels like he has undergone a transformation in the 14 years the film portrays. His soft spoken demeanor and genuineness is prevalent throughout all acts, but it is clear his feelings for Jobs change drastically throughout the years. It is hard to be constantly stepped on by Jobs but he plays it well and grows from the experience.
Hertzfeld aside, growth is perhaps the chief complaint that can be lobbied in Steve Jobs. While Sorkin’s structure allows a divergent and interesting take on the typical biopic, there is something lost in not being able to witness the character’s journey. While Jobs seems to undergo some transformation, especially from 1988 to 1998, it lacks any weight for the movie as a whole because the audience has not been shown the reasons for this transformation. Sure, he doesn’t change much regardless, but his slight mellowing is unexplained because of the structure.
This brings us back to that shot of Woz sneaking into the back of the auditorium near the end of the movie. The audience knows how much of a jerk Jobs is and yet they are still drawn to him for whatever reason. It isn’t because his genius is overwhelming or because he is reasonable or even always right, but there is something there on the screen that engages the audience. There is no overarching plot or great character introspection and understanding by the end of Steve Jobs, but the movie is still thrilling and engrossing. Steve Jobs manages to portray the essence of its titular character and draws the audience towards that essence, much like the characters orbiting around Steve Jobs throughout. How the film achieves this is filled with as much mysticism as how the actual Steve Jobs achieved it.