Steve jobs 2015 plot summary movie#
Steve (and this is movie Steve, not the real life one) possibly shouldn't go to the 'heaven' Sorkin describes here (I'm going to keep referring to the Vulture article because it's so informative). There's less justification for this and you could even say it poisons the ending.īut films can condemn a character's actions. The other big empathy defect is the reason Steve does a 180 at the end re his daughter. You could compare Jobs to the American Dream-pursuing deluded protagonists of Arthur Miller plays, but even in those plays their passion isn't not quite enough (though Eddie Carbone 'not settling for half' is fairly compelling rhetorically) and instead you're drawn to something like positivism to explain those characters. It's almost revealed to us in the way his obsession is shown through the film: the whole movie is him convincing others that he's right-though many would argue that just showing obsession is not enough to justify its existence. That's stronger, but then we have the issue of why was his vision of the company so strong and therefore necessarily exclusive. Of course, a stronger reason is that Lisa (his daughter) didn't fit into his messianic vision for the company.
Just being adopted isn't enough: I'm guessing most adopted people admit the existence of their children.
Steve jobs 2015 plot summary free#
But it's not convincing (and I'm speaking on behalf of others based on reviews I've read, but feel free to disagree with any of this). Why did Steve neglect her in the first place? Sorkin cites the fact of Jobs' adoption as the primary motivator of his pathology. Although reaching out to her is the right thing to do in his situation, the empathy-which is essentially the mediator by which the audience understands the character essentially a means of understanding WHY a character acts the way they do-isn't there. However, there are aspects that Sorkinians and detractors will probably agree on, especially the idea that Jobs' character change and consequent reaching out to his daughter at the end of the film, despite years of emotional neglect, is unconvincing.
That's taste: I love those elements of his style some do not. Some people just can't abide Sorkin's smarter-than-life dialogue and his ferocious specificity and pace (whereby you cannot afford to zone out without missing crucial detail). Of course, this may be due to a vocal minority rallying against a popular figure whereas a film like La La Land may get more plaudits than it would if Chazelle were more famous and well-established. Most of the threads I can find from here are filled with complaints ( here and here), specifically complaints about Sorkin's apparent runaway writing in the film. The first thing to note about the film before the analysis is that this subreddit doesn't seem to like it very much. If you don't care for theory much, just read the last third of the post. But I've got a lot of foundations to establish first: about empathy, about form and structure, and then about iterative structure. I've never posted here, but I felt compelled to after realising something about Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs (and I say it's Sorkin's rather than Boyle's because the editing and cinematography seems to have little impact on the film's content).
0 kommentar(er)
