If flaneur doesn't like visual influences then he or she is missing out on Shakespeare's plays ( one out right now has the lead on Steve jobs playing MacBeth) and plenty of high quality movies. Nor is there a compulsion to watch Hollywood at all, or to watch blockbusters or anything really. There's good television too.
What you do need to avoid is the 24 hour news cycle.
And here's a question for you. What's the unifying image in Hamlet, the thing that the main characters except Hamlet and Horatio do to harm each other, that's prefigured by The Ghost in Act One?
Anyway, you might notice there's a difference between a cinematic image and the visual element of a stage play. If you have trouble drawing the distinction, then think in terms of wattage or lumens or something. The brain processes the two kinds of images differently.
There will be those who won't be able to get Fassbender's face out of their heads when they think of Steve Jobs, watch.
Because it's bullshit, and even worse than that, because he pretends to be an elitist snob by saying that movies and TV shows are above him;
er, no, that isnt what he said. he said he doesnt watch movies because theyre visual narratives that take over the cognitive channels, that once seen those images are hard to diminish. quick -- think of Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs! who's image did you see? surely the movie's, even if you had read the book. thats the power of a visual medium.
So what. The entirety of Shakespeare's historical drama about Caesar ( I say for the 3rd time) is made up and in a different language than Caesar spoke. This isn't a documentary. As long as the speech gives the gist of what happened then that's what historical fiction does.
do people praise Shakespeare's Caesar for its "honesty", or for being good drama (entertainment)? im pretty sure the latter. yet this article is praising Steve Jobs for the former.
it's perfectly valid to criticize that. i believe AI is, like many will, confusing good entertainment with truth.
er, no, that isnt what he said. he said he doesnt watch movies because theyre visual narratives that take over the cognitive channels, that once seen those images are hard to diminish. quick -- think of Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs! who's image did you see? surely the movie's, even if you had read the book. thats the power of a visual medium.
"Cognitive channels" are "cognitive channels," and if you say you want someone's visual ideas to disrupt your "cognitive channels" well you just sound like a douche, and you're BSing because even a book, functional or not, is letting someone's ideas clog your "cognitive channels," hence calling him out for his attempt at most ridiculous elitism I've ever read, which include hyperbole does for the sake of sarcasm and humour.
do people praise Shakespeare's Caesar for its "honesty", or for being good drama (entertainment)? im pretty sure the latter. yet this article is praising Steve Jobs for the former.
it's perfectly valid to criticize that. i believe AI is, like many will, confusing good entertainment with truth.
Taking a page from a clip I already posted in this thread from Neil deGrasse Tyson on the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, perhaps we shouldn't disparage the medium but instead educate the people that a film—that isn't even a biopic—should not be your primary source for historical info. Let those that see get interested in Steve Jobs and then use that vast resource known as the Internet to find articles, books, video clips, and other info about the individual.
"Cognitive channels" are "cognitive channels," and if you say you want someone's visual ideas to disrupt your "cognitive channels" well you just sound like a douche, and you're BSing because even a book, functional or not, is letting someone's ideas clog your "cognitive channels," hence calling him out for his attempt at most ridiculous elitism I've ever read, which include hyperbole does for the sake of sarcasm and humour.
Hint: ideas are different from images, and are processed in different parts of the brain.
Some people are image people, some are idea people, some can be both. Your balance can change throughout life.
And some subjects, like a full portrait of a pivotal figure like Steve Jobs, are best done by idea-based media like books.
Because it's bullshit, and even worse than that, because he pretends to be an elitist snob by saying that movies and TV shows are above him; and yet I'm sure he'll say he's read plenty of books and listened to music despite each of those mediums are other people's ideas being pushing into your "cognitive channels."
He clearly engages in reading and posting on nerd infotainment websites like AI. I say this with great respect for AI, which I find entertaining, provocative and informative.
Keeping away from movies and tv while indulging in our own artistic endeavors and reading AI doesn't exactly square with his supposedly squeaky-clean cognitive channels.
I never trust anyone who claims absolute objective superiority. These are the claims that cult leaders, dictators and religious zealots make.
And here's a question for you. What's the unifying image in Hamlet, the thing that the main characters except Hamlet and Horatio do to harm each other, that's prefigured by The Ghost in Act One?
Anyway, you might notice there's a difference between a cinematic image and the visual element of a stage play. If you have trouble drawing the distinction, then think in terms of wattage or lumens or something. The brain processes the two kinds of images differently.
There will be those who won't be able to get Fassbender's face out of their heads when they think of Steve Jobs, watch.
Since Shakespeare has been filmed that distinction, if it exists at all, is moot. And the latest movie version of Macbeth also has Fassbender in it. I doubt if people watching that will be expecting to see a Fassbender lookalike every time they watch Macbeth from then on.
In any case you missed the point. Historical drama != documentary history.
Thank you for this review. I want to see it now. Evidently Cook should have known better before criticizing this movie that everyone is praising.
A movie can be entertaining and worthy of praise without coming anywhere near the truth. For a movie that is biographical in nature, I think it's completely acceptable for someone who knew the subject to criticize the movie regardless of how much praise it received for whatever reason.
I'm currently writing a script and seeking funding for a movie that will star Molly Ringwold playing Steve Jobs as a former "Brat Pack" 80s star down on his/her luck, trying to revive Next Computer as an Amazon.com competitor. The role of Woz will be filled with a muppet. It's a musical.
Since Shakespeare has been filmed that distinction, if it exists at all, is moot. And the latest movie version of Macbeth also has Fassbender in it. I doubt if people watching that will be expecting to see a Fassbender lookalike every time they watch Macbeth from then on.
In any case you missed the point. Historical drama != documentary history.
And you, along with nearly everybody else here, are missing the original point that started this discussion back at post #22. That is, four years is obscenely too soon to do a mini biopic "portrait" of Steve Jobs. He didn't live, work and die to end up as entertainment and a big-money draw for Universal Pictures or whoever. Oscar material even.
Tim Cook is rightly calling it opportunistc, the other Apple people around Jobs aren't even going to be able to watch this soap opera treatment, certainly not his wife, who wouldn't even be able to read the script without gagging or blowing a fuse. Those who will be entertained aren't acknowledging the flawed premise of the movie—Steve's life as "material," to hell with his family and friends—or the collateral damage that a high-wattage movie can do: twisting the general understanding of Steve's intellect and the products of his character, sealing the subject in polyurethane for a generation.
I hope some understanding gets through, and i'll be watching for it, but it's still beside the point for his survivors, who just aren't going to like seeing him exploited like this.
As far as your Shakespeare argument goes, notice that the histories and the legendary-figure plays (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Othello) are about themes much larger than the characters, and enough time has passed where Prince Hal or Henry IV can serve as allegories for the foundation of Elizabeth's reign, or Hamlet can serve as a lesson in corrupt court politics. I'll be surprised if we learn anything trustworthy from "Steve Jobs" the movie.
Great review. I'm looking forward to watching the film.
Interestingly, I never found that Newsroom was looking condescendingly own on me. It was condescending towards extremist elements of the Republican party who many agree are to blame for many of the country's ills.
I'm all for a great take on the Jobs story. I loved Silicon Valley. I liked Ashton Kutcher as Jobs too.
I'm excited for this version and to see Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin's adaptation. I hold all opinions in reserve until i see the film and will only judge on the final piece.
But, why the hell is everyone hung up on the fact that Fassbender doesn't look like Jobs? Are we such basic characters that we need to see Jobs to believe its Jobs? Since when did looking like a person mean everything?
Granted, it has to have a semblance of Jobs, but who's to say its not Jobs without seeing this? Fassbender could do the best Jobs character in his performance and you could lap it up once you sit through the film.
If the actor is good enough, you forget you're looking at the actor and see the character. That's the talent these guys have and what we hope comes through.
If Tom Hardy could be Jobs in every personality trait, you would believe you're watching Jobs. You would get pulled into the role and portrayal.
Once i see the film, i may stand corrected. But it's important to realize the actors are playing a part, and portraying levels of a character that goes beyond looks.
Great review. I'm looking forward to watching the film.
Interestingly, I never found that Newsroom was looking condescendingly own on me. It was condescending towards extremist elements of the Republican party who many agree are to blame for many of the country's ills.
I felt it was definitely condescending towards the press. The formula: Take a real-life breaking news story that the collective press dropped the ball on, and have Sorkin's fictional, near-perfect news organization cover the story the way it *should* have been covered. In the pilot episode, ACN solves the mysteries of what happened at Deepwater Horizon in hours. A few episodes later, they figured out that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, but declined to report it because they don't want to deny the country a "feel good" moment. OK.
Of course, that's my own bias as a reporter. But I also felt there was a tone of "You get what you deserve" for news viewers and the general public as well.
To be fair, I watched every single episode of The Newsroom, and even enjoyed it immensely at times. But more often than not it fell short, largely because of Sorkin's revisionist history approach to storytelling on that particular program.
And you, along with nearly everybody else here, are missing the original point that started this discussion back at post #22. That is, four years is obscenely too soon to do a mini biopic "portrait" of Steve Jobs. He didn't live, work and die to end up as entertainment and a big-money draw for Universal Pictures or whoever. Oscar material even.
Tim Cook is rightly calling it opportunistc, the other Apple people around Jobs aren't even going to be able to watch this soap opera treatment, certainly not his wife, who wouldn't even be able to read the script without gagging or blowing a fuse. Those who will be entertained aren't acknowledging the flawed premise of the movie—Steve's life as "material," to hell with his family and friends—or the collateral damage that a high-wattage movie can do: twisting the general understanding of Steve's intellect and the products of his character, sealing the subject in polyurethane for a generation.
I hope some understanding gets through, and i'll be watching for it, but it's still beside the point for his survivors, who just aren't going to like seeing him exploited like this.
As far as your Shakespeare argument goes, notice that the histories and the legendary-figure plays (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Othello) are about themes much larger than the characters, and enough time has passed where Prince Hal or Henry IV can serve as allegories for the foundation of Elizabeth's reign, or Hamlet can serve as a lesson in corrupt court politics. I'll be surprised if we learn anything trustworthy from "Steve Jobs" the movie.
I think you are confusing an argument that you made ( which didn't in fact say anything about how recent this is) with a definitive indisputable point.
I think you are confusing an argument that you made ( which didn't in fact say anything about how recent this is) with a definitive indisputable point.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.
I'll skip the next lines.
To quote Tallest Skil:
"To say that I’m at the end of my rope would imply that I remembered where I even left it."
All geniuses are "just men." When people think of geniuses as super-human figures, they're not doing themselves any favours. It prevents them from recognising such people when they actually meet them: "He can't be one, look he has a stomach! Everyone knows geniuses don't need to eat!" Also, perhaps worse (in terms of human achievement), it gives people an excuse not to do great things themselves (e.g. "I wasn't born that way").
But that doesn't mean it's ok to make a movie that focuses on those lesser aspects of the person. Because by definition a genius is someone who achieves great things, and precisely because the things are so great, any personal foibles are relatively small, to the point where it almost becomes dishonest to even mention them. It's like someone writes Macbeth and you make a 90 minute movie about the spelling mistake on page 362. How about we give these people the benefit of the doubt.
No-one who has actually seen the movie believes it is focused on the things you seem to believe it is.
Comments
Here's a little question for you. Why did HAL go insane?
Here's another question: Did he?
And here's a question for you. What's the unifying image in Hamlet, the thing that the main characters except Hamlet and Horatio do to harm each other, that's prefigured by The Ghost in Act One?
Anyway, you might notice there's a difference between a cinematic image and the visual element of a stage play. If you have trouble drawing the distinction, then think in terms of wattage or lumens or something. The brain processes the two kinds of images differently.
There will be those who won't be able to get Fassbender's face out of their heads when they think of Steve Jobs, watch.
Interesting answer. What do you think? And what do you think Clarke and Kubrick intended?
er, no, that isnt what he said. he said he doesnt watch movies because theyre visual narratives that take over the cognitive channels, that once seen those images are hard to diminish. quick -- think of Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs! who's image did you see? surely the movie's, even if you had read the book. thats the power of a visual medium.
do people praise Shakespeare's Caesar for its "honesty", or for being good drama (entertainment)? im pretty sure the latter. yet this article is praising Steve Jobs for the former.
it's perfectly valid to criticize that. i believe AI is, like many will, confusing good entertainment with truth.
"Cognitive channels" are "cognitive channels," and if you say you want someone's visual ideas to disrupt your "cognitive channels" well you just sound like a douche, and you're BSing because even a book, functional or not, is letting someone's ideas clog your "cognitive channels," hence calling him out for his attempt at most ridiculous elitism I've ever read, which include hyperbole does for the sake of sarcasm and humour.
Taking a page from a clip I already posted in this thread from Neil deGrasse Tyson on the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, perhaps we shouldn't disparage the medium but instead educate the people that a film—that isn't even a biopic—should not be your primary source for historical info. Let those that see get interested in Steve Jobs and then use that vast resource known as the Internet to find articles, books, video clips, and other info about the individual.
Hint: ideas are different from images, and are processed in different parts of the brain.
Some people are image people, some are idea people, some can be both. Your balance can change throughout life.
And some subjects, like a full portrait of a pivotal figure like Steve Jobs, are best done by idea-based media like books.
Edit: Or by well-intentioned documentaries.
Holy crap on a cracker.
He clearly engages in reading and posting on nerd infotainment websites like AI. I say this with great respect for AI, which I find entertaining, provocative and informative.
Keeping away from movies and tv while indulging in our own artistic endeavors and reading AI doesn't exactly square with his supposedly squeaky-clean cognitive channels.
I never trust anyone who claims absolute objective superiority. These are the claims that cult leaders, dictators and religious zealots make.
Since Shakespeare has been filmed that distinction, if it exists at all, is moot. And the latest movie version of Macbeth also has Fassbender in it. I doubt if people watching that will be expecting to see a Fassbender lookalike every time they watch Macbeth from then on.
In any case you missed the point. Historical drama != documentary history.
Thank you for this review. I want to see it now. Evidently Cook should have known better before criticizing this movie that everyone is praising.
A movie can be entertaining and worthy of praise without coming anywhere near the truth. For a movie that is biographical in nature, I think it's completely acceptable for someone who knew the subject to criticize the movie regardless of how much praise it received for whatever reason.
And you, along with nearly everybody else here, are missing the original point that started this discussion back at post #22. That is, four years is obscenely too soon to do a mini biopic "portrait" of Steve Jobs. He didn't live, work and die to end up as entertainment and a big-money draw for Universal Pictures or whoever. Oscar material even.
Tim Cook is rightly calling it opportunistc, the other Apple people around Jobs aren't even going to be able to watch this soap opera treatment, certainly not his wife, who wouldn't even be able to read the script without gagging or blowing a fuse. Those who will be entertained aren't acknowledging the flawed premise of the movie—Steve's life as "material," to hell with his family and friends—or the collateral damage that a high-wattage movie can do: twisting the general understanding of Steve's intellect and the products of his character, sealing the subject in polyurethane for a generation.
I hope some understanding gets through, and i'll be watching for it, but it's still beside the point for his survivors, who just aren't going to like seeing him exploited like this.
As far as your Shakespeare argument goes, notice that the histories and the legendary-figure plays (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Othello) are about themes much larger than the characters, and enough time has passed where Prince Hal or Henry IV can serve as allegories for the foundation of Elizabeth's reign, or Hamlet can serve as a lesson in corrupt court politics. I'll be surprised if we learn anything trustworthy from "Steve Jobs" the movie.
Interestingly, I never found that Newsroom was looking condescendingly own on me. It was condescending towards extremist elements of the Republican party who many agree are to blame for many of the country's ills.
I'm excited for this version and to see Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin's adaptation. I hold all opinions in reserve until i see the film and will only judge on the final piece.
But, why the hell is everyone hung up on the fact that Fassbender doesn't look like Jobs? Are we such basic characters that we need to see Jobs to believe its Jobs? Since when did looking like a person mean everything?
Granted, it has to have a semblance of Jobs, but who's to say its not Jobs without seeing this? Fassbender could do the best Jobs character in his performance and you could lap it up once you sit through the film.
If the actor is good enough, you forget you're looking at the actor and see the character. That's the talent these guys have and what we hope comes through.
If Tom Hardy could be Jobs in every personality trait, you would believe you're watching Jobs. You would get pulled into the role and portrayal.
Once i see the film, i may stand corrected. But it's important to realize the actors are playing a part, and portraying levels of a character that goes beyond looks.
Great review. I'm looking forward to watching the film.
Interestingly, I never found that Newsroom was looking condescendingly own on me. It was condescending towards extremist elements of the Republican party who many agree are to blame for many of the country's ills.
I felt it was definitely condescending towards the press. The formula: Take a real-life breaking news story that the collective press dropped the ball on, and have Sorkin's fictional, near-perfect news organization cover the story the way it *should* have been covered. In the pilot episode, ACN solves the mysteries of what happened at Deepwater Horizon in hours. A few episodes later, they figured out that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, but declined to report it because they don't want to deny the country a "feel good" moment. OK.
Of course, that's my own bias as a reporter. But I also felt there was a tone of "You get what you deserve" for news viewers and the general public as well.
To be fair, I watched every single episode of The Newsroom, and even enjoyed it immensely at times. But more often than not it fell short, largely because of Sorkin's revisionist history approach to storytelling on that particular program.
I think you are confusing an argument that you made ( which didn't in fact say anything about how recent this is) with a definitive indisputable point.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.
I'll skip the next lines.
To quote Tallest Skil:
"To say that I’m at the end of my rope would imply that I remembered where I even left it."
No-one who has actually seen the movie believes it is focused on the things you seem to believe it is.