What justification is there to make a film about a man who leaves his wife and daughter live on welfare, while his fortune is estimated to 400 million dollars? The steadfastly refuses to recognize the merits of his employees, although he himself has never built anything? The – worse – its employees threatened, they expose the public if it does not fix a bug within minutes of time? And of his silver Mercedes turns off on the disabled parking space because that is closest to the front door of his workplace?
The justification is, there had been a genius , There is a reason that has since Steve Jobs’ death gives us the following media products: the biographies “Steve Jobs” by Walter Isaacson and “Becoming Steve Jobs” by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli that film documentaries > “Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview”, “Steve Jobs: One Last Thing” and “Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine”, Noah Wyle plays him in “Pirates of Silicon Valley”, Ashton Kutcher in “Jobs” Today, however, comes “Steve Jobs” to the cinema , which is the far most high-profile jobs-Ode. Directed by Danny Boyle, the Oscar won with “Slumdog Millionaire”. Played by Michael Fassbender, who is always with each role among Oscar suspicion. Written by Aaron Sorkin, the creator of “The West Wing” and “Newsroom”. And from “The Social Network”. In the feature film itself Sorkin had already undertaken an IT prodigy Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. This was a conventional biopic: Nerd is abandoned by girlfriend, invents social network, is being sued by rivals, is at the end of rich but lonely
An in. self success story, told from A to Z with flashbacks. Sorkin’s “Steve Jobs” acts against it as a concept construct as if a play has been made into a film, a three-act drama in which the actors constantly with words go at his throat like Richard Burton and Liz Taylor in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? “. – Act I: Jobs zofft with his intimates behind the scenes of the presentation of the Macintosh, 1984. Act II: Jobs zofft with his intimates behind the scenes of the presentation of NeXT, 1988. Act III: Jobs zofft with his intimates behind scenes presenting the iMac, 1998. There is no minute of silence. This is the schema of Sorkin’s film. In this half hour before Steve Jobs comes out on stage and assume the role of God, Sorkin packs all conflicts. Nothing is done, but it could have happened that way. Since all occur on the jobs maltreated, offended and sacked and demand justice, just a little justice. And the megalomaniac they do not want to grant them. His divorced wife, his unrecognized daughter, his outcast companion Steve Wozniak: Sorkin cites as ghosts of the past brought
“You’re just an asshole.” , Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend throws him at the beginning of “The Social Network” and lets him sit opposite. The same could rightly each character of “Steve Jobs” to the title character say, but they do not do it, but gather around the gruesome guru, because they are so hungry for an appreciative pat her head, that she for ten slaps accept.
As Fincher “Social Network” turned, Zuckerberg was a largely unknown quantity, the film could give him a face. For Jobs, however, there are two distinct and, moreover, incompatible faces that the sociopath and of genius. Each film about him is one more than the sovereignty of interpretation. Zuckerberg did not try to influence his biopic; Jobs’ widow has probably tried to prevent the Boyle film and allegedly Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale personally called to dissuade her to play her husband.
Steve Jobs has staged an icon, and to Boyle and Sorkin had behaved. Between dismantling and veneration they have chosen a middle ground, something you “morality” named in the Middle Ages: a story in which a man must first recognize his sins before allowing him salvation. The vehicle for this is his daughter, of whom he – in spite of a positive genetic tests – claiming that she was not from him. A spark of interest in her awakens only when the little girl begins to play around on his Mac, and as a great reconciliation stage Boyle and Sorkin the moment when jobs in the meantime adults promises instead of their Walkman a slim iPod: “We are you 500 songs in your your pocket. ” When he then still a “I was programmed incorrectly” afterwards murmurs, everything should be forgiven and forgotten – and the hero can rush to the triumphant presentation of the iMac. Boyle’s work is the film had become “distorted reality field”. Who has to do with jobs, it was customary to say at Apple, get into a “reality distortion field”, succumbing to his charisma, losing all sense of reality and believe anything is possible. The also seem Boyle and Sorkin to believe. They have less than two hours we Ekelpakete one of the largest in film history painted in the most repulsive colors – and then they exculpate it in five minutes. It’s the same old story of the genius, the one like looks up his bit of madness.
This is not an ambiguous end, as in the “Social Network” where Zuckerberg a friend request to his ex sends and waits in vain for an answer. There is also no end as in “Citizen Kane”, Orson Welles’ film about the newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, who has changed the communication as Zuckerberg and Jobs. There dies the lonely rich old man, a snow globe slips from his hand, and this is the solution to the mystery of what has just driven him throughout his life.
Is there a connection between the design principle of the Macintosh, and the psyche of its marketer? A statement about the issue of “brand Jobs” addition, Doyle and Sorkin do not even try. Your job is the ultimate closed system. We see him work, but we get no idea of how it hums inside its operating system. Fassbender is still good, with his dead gaze. Kate Winslet is suffering stoically, as the only one who offers her boss forehead. Seth Rogen deserve our sympathy, for all the humiliations that are inflicted on him as Wozniak. It belongs to compensate the erhellendste line: “I’m tired of having to be Ringo,” said Wozniak complained to Jobs, “but if I know I’m John.” Now, Jobs was neither Ringo nor John nor Paul nor George. Perhaps merely Brian. . A Brian Epstein
+++ –
A portrait that chooses the middle path of devotion and dismantling
No comments:
Post a Comment