The polemic and long-awaited film "Steve Jobs" debut today, October 9, in the United States. Not coincidentally, the topic is on the rise this week and several people linked to the film were interviewed.
Danny Boyle, director of the film, talked to The Hollywood Reporter and made clear his position on the comment from the Apple CEO (Tim Cook called people who are exploiting Jobs?s image ?opportunists?). Here is his comment:
Today these companies (from technology like Apple, Google and Facebook) are so powerful that governments are running in fear. They have this influence around the world. They are replacing petrochemical companies, pharmaceutical companies are bigger than all of them together and have enormous, terrible power. It is important that artists and writers are not intimidated by them and if that means being accused of opportunistic, then so be it.
It is important that we put these people in the spotlight to examine their own business reasons or their views, we need to keep an eye on them.
It is difficult to disagree with Boyle's words. And, in my view, there is no problem with being ?opportunistic?. We human beings are opportunists. Apple an opportunistic company. She, for example, saw the chance to improve Jobs' image and insisted on cooperating with the authors of the book. "Becoming Steve Jobs" so that they would portray Ma's co-founder and former CEO more in line with the views of his friends and family.
Making films the work of these people (Danny Boyle, Aaron Sorkin, etc.), as well as seeing opportunities in the market and creating products that solve problems and improve our lives the work of Apple. There is nothing wrong with looking for a good story (although it doesn?t portray reality; just make it clear), just as there isn?t creating a new product as long as everything is done correctly, within the law, without hurting the other people's tactics.
Interviewed by Conan O?Brien, Sorkin it was explained again and the matter was resolved:
The screenwriter also talked to the The Hollywood Reporter and explained why the film left Sony Pictures' hands and went to Universal Pictures. Boyle basically wanted to film everything in San Francisco, which made production about $ 8 million more expensive (exceeding the initial budget stipulated by Sony). Then producer Scott Rudin asked for a week to try to sell the film to another studio, and Amy Pascal (until then co-president of Sony Pictures) agreed. Less than 24 hours later, however, when everything was settled with Universal Pictures, Pascal regretted it and said to Rudin that they could film, yes, in San Francisco. But it was already too late, even because of the friction that this clash had caused.
O Daily Beast he also spoke with the director of "Steve Jobs". The initial idea was to make a ?brother? film for ?The Social Network?, with Sorkin in the script, David Fincher in the direction and Christian Bale in the role of Jobs. Fincher, however, asked for $ 10 million in advance and total control of the film's marketing, making the settlement unfeasible.
Boyle was then chosen, but the drama in choosing the actor continued, going through Bradley Cooper, Matthew McConaughey and Leonardo DiCaprio, until finally reaching Michael Fassbender. Regarding the choice of the actor, Boyle said:
Women think he's very sexy, but I just can't see it with him. What I saw in Michael, in addition to being a great actor, was this obsessive dedication to the role, which I felt made him perfect for Jobs. Even if he doesn't look exactly like him, by the end of the movie you believe him.
There is undoubtedly a bad climate between Jobs' family / friends and the people involved in the film, as we said. Ridley Scott, who directed Apple's famous 1984 commercial, said that the producers wanted to run the commercial in the film, but that Apple did not allow it because they are not happy with the path the film took but apparently put the commercial on ?Steve Jobs " even so. Scott said the film is basically about Jobs' relationship with his daughter, which is a strange choice since he was a genius designer and a visionary. Apple declined to comment, but people close to Universal confirmed that the company was not keen to help make the film.
Asked if Apple tried to mess up production, Boyle said:
Very interesting. We had our fights and we're going to release the film, and once the film has been released, I'm sure we can talk about all of that.
Speaking about the film itself, Bolye stated:
I don't even venture to say that this is a definitive portrait of Jobs. We try to show as much of it as we can. As Raymond Chandler said, in any artistic work there is a sense of liberation. He clearly accomplishes this in his family, which we don't touch. He went on to know that although he created the most beautiful things in the world, he himself was poor. The ability to recognize this is a big step. He's our hero, if you want to call him that.
() I do not think the film is slanderous or false, but also not a series of indisputable facts. Sometimes geniuses have to sacrifice a lot and many people end up getting hurt while they seek their visions.
Sorkin also talked to WIRED, stating that he trembled before saying "yes" to the challenge of adapting Jobs' authorized biography for the cinema and that he gave up on the idea of ??a biography because this style of film does not have as much impact on the audience.
When reading about the problems they were having when making the Mac say "Ol", at the launch in 1984, I had this idea and wrote an email to Scott (Rudin) saying: "If I didn't have to answer to anyone, I would write all the film is in three scenes in real time and each one would take place behind the scenes, before a particular product launch. I would identify five or six conflicts in Steve's life and have them unfold in these behind-the-scenes scenes where they didn't happen. ?
Shortly thereafter he received the approval of Pascal's staff, after Rudin forwarded the full email to her.
Sorkin, of course, did not rely solely on Walter Isaacson's biography to build his script. People like Steve Wozniak, Joanna Hoffman, John Sculley, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, Lee Clow, Andy Hertzfeld and many others all close to Jobs at some point or throughout his life were part of his network of contacts for the construction of the film.
The screenwriter also stated that some things in the authorized biography caught his eye and could not be left out of the film: Jobs' relationship with his daughter (which bothered Sorkin a lot, since he is also a father; on the other hand, he found it very interesting see how Jobs managed to find his own way to be a father) and understanding, why Jobs is a genius.
Speaking about the Sony Pictures leak that occurred while the movie actors' choices were taking place, Sorkin joked that he never imagined that Kim Jong-un (North Korea's dictator) would somehow interfere with his life. Due to the episode, most of the decisions for the film were made over the phone, the script left the Sony Pictures CEO office, among other things.
About the film itself, Sorkin gave the following statement:
There will be people who will say that we were heavy with him, and others who will say that we were not heavy enough with him. But I think we made a good movie, and I think if you asked 10 writers to write 10 films about Steve Jobs, you would have 10 different films, which do not resemble each other.
At a recent press conference in New York, as highlighted by Tech Insider, Sorkin spoke again about the fact that people connected with Jobs were not approving the film.
Mrs. Jobs, Tim Cook, Bill Campbell they haven't seen the movie yet. They didn?t read the script. I think if they watch the movie they will have a pleasant surprise.
We have already commented on the fact that Laurene tried to prevent the release of the film. Because the Hollywood Reporter gave more details of her personal endeavor, stating that Jobs's call actually called DiCaprio and Bale insisting that they not take the paper she did too lobbying with the stadiums so that the film was not carried forward. This article, moreover, brings many backstage stories if you like the subject or simply want to know more about the trajectory of the film "Steve Jobs", it is very worth reading.
The volley of interviews did not end, no. Sculley talked to Wall Street Journal and, in short, loved the movie. Like many, he said that not everything is true or happened exactly in the period shown in the film.
Regarding the film itself, the ex-CEO of Apple commented that he thought everything was extraordinary entertainment and that it will be as successful as ?The Social Network?. Sculley also praised Jeff Daniels' performance (who played him), saying he managed to sum up a lot of what he felt at the time and feels now. However, he made it clear that it is not a matter of telling Jobs's complete personality story:
Part of his personality was a perfectionist, but there were so many other parts of Steve's personality that I knew because Steve and I were not just business partners, we were incredibly close friends for many years. I could tell you that the young Steve Jobs I knew had a great sense of humor. He was on many occasions, when we were together, a generous person. He cared a lot about the people who worked with him and was a good person. So, I think those are not the aspects that the film focused on.
If someone tries to leave (the cinema) with a complete picture of who Steve Jobs was, he would not find her in this film.
And don't think it's over. There are other interesting interviews for how the TechCrunch did with Boyle and Sorkin, and the compilation that Macworld made the information at the NYC press conference.
How about another look at the film, under the vision of the people who created it?
To conclude, if you are a fan of Sorkin and technology, here's some bad news: according to Patently Apple, the screenwriter told Trevor Noah (host of the Daily Show) that no longer write films about people or companies linked to the Silicon Valley, stating "you don't want to make these people angry with you".
, the fight was really ugly
(via MacRumors: 1, 2; Cult of Mac: 1, 2)