I realize that many people here snobbish about Sorkin.
Who cares. Speaking for myself, I can't wait for this movie. When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained even when I (broadly) know what the facts are. I want facts exaggerated, distorted, pushed, and pulled to serve entertainment value. I am smart enough -- and confident enough -- to be not bothered or offended by a writer, director, actor taking some artistic license.
If I wanted just the facts, I'd be watching documentaries. (Leaving aside the fact that even most documentaries are subjective).
I disagree with just about everything you wrote. When you use real people as your subjects, you should tell the real story.
Also, I found the recent PBS series on the Roosevelts more entertaining than any movie I've seen in years. Knowing it's actually true (though things like FDR refusing U.S. entry to Jews escaping the Holocaust were left out) added a lot to my enjoyment.
If I watch the Jobs movie, I'll be sitting there thinking about how phony it is, just as in "The Social Network." One of the greatest movies of all time ("Citizen Kane") was loosely based on Wiliam Randolph Hearst, but didn't claim to be his story, and changed all the names, so that adding the fictional "Rosebud" scene was brilliant. When Sorkin does similar things to real named people, I find it dishonest and manipulative.
Maybe Sorkin should treat this one as a recursive self-referential script (in the style of Charlie Kaufman), and make it a movie about him trying to write a script for a movie about him writing a script for a movie about a script.
Sounds great! This is going to be 1 infinite loop of a movie!
Aaron Sorkin's style is densely verbal..almost painfully so but for a movie about Steve it should be great...I agree with him...enough stuff in this life for ten movies! I for one cannot wait.
Comments
I realize that many people here snobbish about Sorkin.
Who cares. Speaking for myself, I can't wait for this movie. When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained even when I (broadly) know what the facts are. I want facts exaggerated, distorted, pushed, and pulled to serve entertainment value. I am smart enough -- and confident enough -- to be not bothered or offended by a writer, director, actor taking some artistic license.
If I wanted just the facts, I'd be watching documentaries. (Leaving aside the fact that even most documentaries are subjective).
I disagree with just about everything you wrote. When you use real people as your subjects, you should tell the real story.
Also, I found the recent PBS series on the Roosevelts more entertaining than any movie I've seen in years. Knowing it's actually true (though things like FDR refusing U.S. entry to Jews escaping the Holocaust were left out) added a lot to my enjoyment.
If I watch the Jobs movie, I'll be sitting there thinking about how phony it is, just as in "The Social Network." One of the greatest movies of all time ("Citizen Kane") was loosely based on Wiliam Randolph Hearst, but didn't claim to be his story, and changed all the names, so that adding the fictional "Rosebud" scene was brilliant. When Sorkin does similar things to real named people, I find it dishonest and manipulative.
Maybe Sorkin should treat this one as a recursive self-referential script (in the style of Charlie Kaufman), and make it a movie about him trying to write a script for a movie about him writing a script for a movie about a script.
Sounds great! This is going to be 1 infinite loop of a movie!