Separating fact from fiction in Aaron Sorkin's 'Steve Jobs' film
Aaron Sorkin's big screen retelling of Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography is engaging, entertaining and comes highly recommended, but I am concerned audiences will think what they see on screen is factually accurate. It's not.
Editor's note: David Greelish is a computer historian, writer, podcaster and speaker. He is the founder of both the Atlanta Historical Computing Society and the Vintage Computer Festival Southeast. He has published all of his computer history zines along with his own story in the free e-book "Classic Computing: The Complete Historically Brewed." Greelish is writing special to AppleInsider.
As a computer historian, I am particularly well versed with the history of Apple, the two Steves (Jobs and Wozniak), Macintosh, Lisa, John Sculley, so I know the real history versus that of Hollywood movies. However, your average person might not be interested in such details and is therefore likely to walk away from "Steve Jobs" assuming most of what they saw happened that way.
Does it matter? Do moviemakers have any responsibility to present historical people and events accurately? With such a well-known figure as Steve Jobs, is it OK to play with events, date-order or people's personalities?
From the number of articles piling up online, and in comments said about them, people argue that this is simply a movie inspired by true events and not a documentary, so we shouldn't expect it to be historically accurate. It's true, I don't expect everything in a movie to be 100% accurate because movie producers do not generally have access to all of the real people. Even if they did, they can't necessarily duplicate exact dialog, settings, costumes, or even looks. Many people think that while Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Jobs, his performance transcends appearances. I agree, as early in my viewing of the film, I was able to suspend disbelief and allow Fassbender to become Jobs in my mind.
"Jobs" unfolds in three acts set in 1984, 1988 and 1998, just 31, 27 and 17 years ago, respectively. I'm fine with artistic license to the degree that it produces a compelling story, but it doesn't seem right to me to play fast and loose with the facts. This same story, set during behind-the-scenes events at three significant product launches, could have been told while keeping historical facts straight.
The serious problem I have with the new movie adaptation is not with actor portrayals, but rather liberties taken with facts or misrepresented events that have been reported in the public record through magazines, books and even movies. Jobs wasn't someone who was in his prime fifty years ago, but rather a highly public figure who just recently died in 2011.
The other big problem I have is the one-dimensionality of Jobs' on-screen personality. In the past, he has been reduced to two main descriptors: jerk and genius. In "Steve Jobs" he becomes really just one, and it isn't genius. There is little indication of his brilliance, but what is more disturbing to me is that he is portrayed as a borderline sociopath with little regard for anyone except himself. The film does show Jobs display a bit of affection for Hoffman and then finally for his daughter Lisa in the third act, which by then seems rather out of character. Jobs was well known for lacking empathy, especially earlier in his life, but it is unbalanced to represent him this way.
Kate Winslet (left) plays Jobs confidant Joanna Hoffman.
I am also at odds with depictions of Steve Wozniak and John Sculley. Ironically, the film gives both a voice that highlights the truth of their roles in history, of which most people are unaware. Wozniak has already stated that he never spoke negatively as characterized in the movie, and that he never took Jobs to task about anything like what was shown. In fact, he was not even present at either the NeXT or iMac launches.
As for Sculley, Jobs never spoke to him again after his ousting from the Mac team in 1985, though the movie has the former Apple CEO show up to both the NeXT and iMac launches as well. Sorkin positions Sculley as an elder father-figure to Jobs, though it would be more accurate to say he was more like Jobs' older brother, mentor and friend.
With Wozniak, the movie actually rounds him out to show that he wasn't just some socially awkward nerd/technical genius, much like "the guy who fired Steve Jobs" has been the stereotype applied to John Sculley. The movie actually shows what really happened (mostly) to Jobs and Sculley in the boardroom showdown during 1985.
Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak.
It really is about time that Sculley got a reprieve from the false history that sees him fire Jobs and run Apple into the ground. I interviewed Sculley in December 2011 and helped set the record straight about his tenure at Apple. Sculley was hired to run Apple as its CEO. Jobs essentially forced him to take an adversarial position during an infamous boardroom clash, resulting in Jobs' departure. Sculley actually grew the company significantly before being let go himself in 1993, well before it started to seriously decline, at least in profitability.
"Steve Jobs" is an extremely thought provoking piece of cinema, so my hope is that it will inspire and promote many to seek out the full and true stories of the people and events portrayed. Those interested can start with the movie's inspiration, Walter Isaacson's official Steve Jobs biography, and move on to "Becoming Steve Jobs," co-written by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli.
Movies are like the Internet, you can't trust them and need to verify the information with at least two other independent sources. It is our burden to seek out the truth, and only in doing so can we hope to find some portion of it.
Editor's note: David Greelish is a computer historian, writer, podcaster and speaker. He is the founder of both the Atlanta Historical Computing Society and the Vintage Computer Festival Southeast. He has published all of his computer history zines along with his own story in the free e-book "Classic Computing: The Complete Historically Brewed." Greelish is writing special to AppleInsider.
As a computer historian, I am particularly well versed with the history of Apple, the two Steves (Jobs and Wozniak), Macintosh, Lisa, John Sculley, so I know the real history versus that of Hollywood movies. However, your average person might not be interested in such details and is therefore likely to walk away from "Steve Jobs" assuming most of what they saw happened that way.
Does it matter? Do moviemakers have any responsibility to present historical people and events accurately? With such a well-known figure as Steve Jobs, is it OK to play with events, date-order or people's personalities?
From the number of articles piling up online, and in comments said about them, people argue that this is simply a movie inspired by true events and not a documentary, so we shouldn't expect it to be historically accurate. It's true, I don't expect everything in a movie to be 100% accurate because movie producers do not generally have access to all of the real people. Even if they did, they can't necessarily duplicate exact dialog, settings, costumes, or even looks. Many people think that while Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Jobs, his performance transcends appearances. I agree, as early in my viewing of the film, I was able to suspend disbelief and allow Fassbender to become Jobs in my mind.
"Jobs" unfolds in three acts set in 1984, 1988 and 1998, just 31, 27 and 17 years ago, respectively. I'm fine with artistic license to the degree that it produces a compelling story, but it doesn't seem right to me to play fast and loose with the facts. This same story, set during behind-the-scenes events at three significant product launches, could have been told while keeping historical facts straight.
The serious problem I have with the new movie adaptation is not with actor portrayals, but rather liberties taken with facts or misrepresented events that have been reported in the public record through magazines, books and even movies. Jobs wasn't someone who was in his prime fifty years ago, but rather a highly public figure who just recently died in 2011.
Right or wrong, for good or bad, Jobs truly believed in both what he and his company were doing and the products they created.There are numerous, flat-out fabrications in this movie, but the most egregious in my opinion happens in the second act, set during the 1988 launch of the NeXT Computer. In this scene, Sorkin has Jobs strongly hinting to his marketing executive, Joanna Hoffman, that the creation of NeXT is simply a clever ploy to one day sell it back to Apple, facilitating a triumphant return to the company he cofounded. To anyone who has researched Jobs or read the writings of those who knew and worked for him, this plot invention is truly an insult upon his character. Right or wrong, for good or bad, Jobs truly believed in both what he and his company were doing and the products they created. This isn't a mere story contrivance, but rather a severe twisting of historical accuracy.
The other big problem I have is the one-dimensionality of Jobs' on-screen personality. In the past, he has been reduced to two main descriptors: jerk and genius. In "Steve Jobs" he becomes really just one, and it isn't genius. There is little indication of his brilliance, but what is more disturbing to me is that he is portrayed as a borderline sociopath with little regard for anyone except himself. The film does show Jobs display a bit of affection for Hoffman and then finally for his daughter Lisa in the third act, which by then seems rather out of character. Jobs was well known for lacking empathy, especially earlier in his life, but it is unbalanced to represent him this way.
Kate Winslet (left) plays Jobs confidant Joanna Hoffman.
I am also at odds with depictions of Steve Wozniak and John Sculley. Ironically, the film gives both a voice that highlights the truth of their roles in history, of which most people are unaware. Wozniak has already stated that he never spoke negatively as characterized in the movie, and that he never took Jobs to task about anything like what was shown. In fact, he was not even present at either the NeXT or iMac launches.
As for Sculley, Jobs never spoke to him again after his ousting from the Mac team in 1985, though the movie has the former Apple CEO show up to both the NeXT and iMac launches as well. Sorkin positions Sculley as an elder father-figure to Jobs, though it would be more accurate to say he was more like Jobs' older brother, mentor and friend.
With Wozniak, the movie actually rounds him out to show that he wasn't just some socially awkward nerd/technical genius, much like "the guy who fired Steve Jobs" has been the stereotype applied to John Sculley. The movie actually shows what really happened (mostly) to Jobs and Sculley in the boardroom showdown during 1985.
Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak.
It really is about time that Sculley got a reprieve from the false history that sees him fire Jobs and run Apple into the ground. I interviewed Sculley in December 2011 and helped set the record straight about his tenure at Apple. Sculley was hired to run Apple as its CEO. Jobs essentially forced him to take an adversarial position during an infamous boardroom clash, resulting in Jobs' departure. Sculley actually grew the company significantly before being let go himself in 1993, well before it started to seriously decline, at least in profitability.
I liked what Sorkin did with Wozniak and Sculley, but I am uneasy with what he did with Jobs and some well-documented events.So, I guess I'm just a hypocrite then. I liked what Sorkin did with Wozniak and Sculley, but I am uneasy with what he did with Jobs and some well-documented events. If I had to choose though, I wish the movie just stuck to the truth. Maybe "Steve Jobs" should tack on a "based on a true story" disclaimer. I think most of us see that as a signal that though based on the real stuff, some liberal artistic license has been applied.
"Steve Jobs" is an extremely thought provoking piece of cinema, so my hope is that it will inspire and promote many to seek out the full and true stories of the people and events portrayed. Those interested can start with the movie's inspiration, Walter Isaacson's official Steve Jobs biography, and move on to "Becoming Steve Jobs," co-written by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli.
Movies are like the Internet, you can't trust them and need to verify the information with at least two other independent sources. It is our burden to seek out the truth, and only in doing so can we hope to find some portion of it.
Comments
I'm really bored with the melodrama and fakery of modern cinema. Jobs' life was interesting beyond 'artistic licence', and I reckon an accurate and insightful movie would at least be more well-received if not popular.
Jaobs and Apple have created the technology that we all use today, everyday. Apple technology changed our world. This to me is amazing! Hyperbole not required.
"This is not a documentary and therefore many of the things used in this movie are for dramatic and entertainment purposes only and should NOT be taken or misconstrued as "fact" period. "
The problem with the movie is its a fictional movie with non fictional characters. Sorkin should have gone the Citizen Kane route.
It would have been a poor shadow of CK though.
Really, this is a movie based on confirmed inaccurate source material that then takes further creative license...yeah, not good.
If you want to understand how fragile historical accuracy is there’s no better example than the history of Apple. We have two distinct story lines being presented over a period of almost forty years now depending on your bias for or against the company and its founders. The first story line is that of a company started in a garage by two friends that went on to become the most important tech innovator the world has ever seen. Apple started the personal computer era and made the arcane world of computers accessible to the masses and changed the world in the process. The second story line is that of a company who was merely an also-ran, a company whose founders stole the work of unacknowledged giants, innovated nothing, was just a marketing entity run by a megalomaniac, and offers inferior overpriced junk for sale to an uneducated public.
So just take your pick of what this movie is all about, what the history of the personal computer is, and who is responsible for it. Makes you wonder what real history is and who controls it. Was the Roman Empire really what ‘historians’ say it was? Was King Tut a Pharaoh? Or was Mel Brooks’ History of the World Part One a true story.
Very well stated.
You forgot to mention the most misunderstood book of all time - the bible.
Their are so many 'myths' out there about Apple and SJ. One of the worst was that Apple doesn't innovate, that they stole the GUI from Xerox Parc. Thank god Steven Levy corrected this massive distortion (and others) in his wonderful book about the Mac, "Insanely Great".
I haven't seen the movie yet and it sounds like this nugget isn't covered anyway. But it always bugged me because the story is much more interesting than the version most people think they know.
Hopefully one day a director who lived during this period will re-read several of the earlier books that cover the Apple I and II and combine it all with some of the newer material to create a much more factual account of Jobs' life.
Poetic license isn't necessary for those with attention spans longer than 5 seconds. He was a fascinating guy and no one that fascinating lives in one dimension. He wasn't just an asshole or even an asshole + genius.
Just to illustrate how complex his brain was, feast on this video, which was featured on one of our favorite sites on all-things-apple.
It's well known that SJ was a democrat, but listen to him speak about education and how he would fix it. Those are all republican ideals - vouchers, anti-union sentiment, free market, etc. I also loved that he said he is 100% for equal opportunity, NOT equal outcomes.
In other words, it's hard to pigeon-hole someone who takes brilliant ideas from here and there and mixes it all together, repackages it, and is able to articulate it to the masses. It sounds visionary, and it is.
There's very little I've heard come out of his mouth that I haven't agreed with. Maybe in his early years, that wasn't so much true. But later on, he understood the important of close relationships and family and acknowledging this side of himself really rounded him out well. He became a much better person.
I'm shocked that the Woz was willing to have anything to do with this movie. It made me lose whatever respect I once had for him.
I'm shocked that the Woz was willing to have anything to do with this movie. It made me lose whatever respect I once had for him.
Woz got paid $250,000 to consult on the movie.
After making millions at Apple its shocking he was willing to put a stamp of approval on a film that puked on his 'friends' legacy.
$200K, but the point stands. You'd think he makes more than that for his cheesy Cadillac commercial
The movie includes Sorkin's personal take on events, which are blatantly wrong and seem fully intended not to create discussion and controversy but rather to disparage Jobs--and in turn disparage Apple. Personally, I believe Sorkin couldn't wrap his head around it all--especially the technology--and so he wrote a screenplay to please himself and focused primarily on Jobs' relationships with Chrisann and especially Lisa. (On that subject, has anyone ever pursued the train of thought that Jobs didn't like Chrisann very much, that he was fearful of what their offspring might be like, and that he thought early on that Chrisann should have aborted the child because he was not in a position at least emotionally to help raise the child? How much say did Jobs have? Would a conflict over this not generate resentment?)
[This weekend, I heard a professional movie reviewer (name unknown) who said after watching the film, he was glad he'd never bought an Apple computer. Congratulations, Aaron.]
Examples of major errors in Sorkin's revisionist history, which he would prefer we call "artistic license":
Apple/Jobs did not steal Xerox PARC's GUI. Apple bought the technology legally and for a low price, because Xerox upper management didn't know what to do with it. Jobs instantly recognized its value, though, and snapped it up. Bill Gates visited Xerox PARC 2 weeks later--guess why!--but the sale was already complete. The Xerox GUI lacked folders and pull-down menus, which everyone takes for granted since 1984; and on the hardware front, the mouse was impractical and everything required a $100K computer to function. Apple did far more than just acquire the nascent technology, it fleshed out the GUI and made it run on hardware that was practical to manufacture and purchase.
No way did Jobs or anyone else anticipate his returning to Apple when he founded NeXT. (Somebody ask Sorkin to produce the Guy Kawasaki article he suggests in the movie existed ca. 1988 that says so!) Nor does it seem at all plausible that Jobs would start NeXT (and nearly go bankrupt in the process!) with the expectation that the company would fail.
Jobs and Lisa were not estranged so late in her life as depicted. Lisa lived with Jobs during her high school years.
Steve Jobs (the man) indeed believed he was to be honored as Time's Man of the Year and consequently gave Time reporters unprecedented access to the company, which is said to have backfired when Kottke talked about the strained relationship between Steve, Chrisann and Lisa. Sorkin inserts his own opinion that Jobs should have recognized that Time never had such an intention, because the Man of the Year cover image was that of a sculpture (a man sitting at a computer), and production of a sculpture takes time. First, even if Sorkin were right (which he's not), this has no bearing on Time misleading Jobs; Second, the sculpture depicted on the magazine cover is of such poor quality that it could easily have been produced in days, if not hours; Third, if indeed it was Kottke's statements that sunk Jobs' opportunity to appear on the cover, his statements might have been acquired months in advance of the publication deadline, giving Time's management plenty of time to adjust their plans.
Contrary to Sorkin's script, NeXT absolutely did have an OS at the product launch. Avie Tevanian was an OS "guru" and one of the first employees at NeXT. The NeXTStep OS was based on the Mach OS, which Tevanian invented at Carnegie Mellon. The API for developers was perhaps not fully fleshed out at launch time, but the Cube definitely had an OS. Sorkin seems unable to comprehend such matters, though! And where did Sorkin get the idea that Tevanian would be assigned the task of finding a satisfactory shark image for the iMac launch? Furthermore, as for Jobs supposedly giving perfunctory answers to inquiries about when the Cube would be available to purchase, every biography of the man indicates that he abhorred delays.
Steve Wozniak effectively retired from Apple in 1981--3 years before the movie even begins--after suffering a tragic, traumatic head injury in a private plane crash that severely diminished his mental capacity.
Joanna Hoffmann followed Jobs from Apple to NeXT but left NeXT long before it was acquired by Apple.
btw: imho Fassbinder lacked both Jobs' charisma and intensity. This is both a function of the screenplay (which provides virtually no opportunity to portray Jobs the showman and his RDF) and the actor himself. Nothing personal about it. Steve Jobs was just an amazing personality. And Sorkin wanted to focus on the negative, tortured side of things.
For me, since the movie is so factually wrong, the take-away lesson is that to achieve greatness, one must successfully manage many, many strong personalities.
The problem with the movie is its a fictional movie with non fictional characters. Sorkin should have gone the Citizen Kane route.
Agreed. The problem is, Sorkin and the studio thought they could exploit Jobs' name to make more money off this fabricated tripe. They were wrong.
Woz seems to have delusions of grandeur over his part in the history of the tech industry. He felt burned that Kutcher's movie portrayed Jobs as the one who saw where computers were heading and how useful they could be even though by his own admission, he just wanted to make computers for his friends and for enthusiasts. That $350 Woz got instead of $2500 for his work on Breakout left a permanent scar. Get over it Woz, Jobs paid you back many times over by now. This movie has scenes where Woz stands up to Jobs and he obviously prefers that portrayal over the fat unsociable nerd with the stupid hair who sits in the corner crying about his $2150 loss.
Woz generally seems like a nice person and his attacks are usually against dishonesty, corporations, bad personality traits but he has to recognize that he was an engineer and could never have led Apple to the success it has now. If Apple hadn't bought out NeXT, it would have gone bankrupt and we'd all (including Woz) still be using Nokia phones, flip phones, stylus-based clunky tablets, PCs would all be a cable-ridden mess, power-hungry and noisy.
I don't think Woz could have controlled the direction of the writing and it's an awkward situation to be in when you get paid a lot of money to have input on something that you might not like. Daniel Craig has been doing this recently with James Bond and the people tied to the franchise are trying to get him to stop trashing the brand. It's probably down to a mixture of Woz not wanting to annoy the people who asked for his input and paid him and wanting to have a stronger portrayal of his own character but if he wants to be seen as a strong character and someone with integrity then these are the situations to do it in. The people who are leading Apple right now are demonstrating this and they have nothing to do with the movie.
The problem with the movie is its a fictional movie with non fictional characters. Sorkin should have gone the Citizen Kane route.
Agreed. I was going to cite "Dreamgirls" (loosely based on the Supremes), but Citizen Kane is a much classier example. :-)
That is correct. And studying with that idea (Citizen Kane), then the movie should have been named anything but Steve Jobs and THEN when they say "but no one would see it" THEN all those people who said they were "opportunists" would be right to begin with. Either it's a factual movie or it's a movie about fictional character. Can't have it both ways.