Skip to main content

Steve Jobs (the movie)

NeXT logo.svg


I recently saw the latest biopic about Apple co-founder and re-fashioner of industries Steve Jobs.

 It was a fine movie. The Rolling Stone reviewer calls it brilliant. But it hasn't been a commercial success. 

Why not? I don't know, but I'll make the simple observation that it is the antithesis of an action film. It isn't even a very visual film, it could almost have been done on the radio. Everything depended on the dialog. Still, that dialogue was very well-written and acted by a world-class cast.

It is written as a three act play, and each act is a product launch. Various backstage dramas each time precede the moment when Jobs walks on stage to unveil a new product to the world. We also get some quick flash back scenes to events the characters are talking about, and some very brief news anchor narration in inter-act transitions.

The essentials of the familiar story are conveyed through this structure. Job and Woz co-founded Apple. As it outgrew them, Woz became associated with the Apple II and Job with other products, more innovative but less remunerative. Also, as the company grew, the founders had to bring in a professional CEO as 'adult supervision.' That was John Scully, a veteran of Pepsico. Scully and the board eventually rebelled against Jobs' high-handedness and fired him. Later, in deeper troubles, the board fired Scully and brought back Jobs. All that, as I say, will be familiar to most of the audience interested enough to go to this movie.

What was surprising to me was that the movie made NO MENTION OF PIXAR AT ALL. The "Elba" period in Jobs' life is represented in this movie, and within the 3-act structure, by the launch of the Cube, the key product of NeXT, a company Jobs later sold to Apple as part of his own triumphant return to its executive suite. If you followed the above link to the Rolling Stone rave you may have noticed that the critic there mentioned Pixar near the top, as one of the reasons Jobs was worth making a movie around.

But ... more dramatically relevant, Pixar was at least as important a part of Jobs' work during the Elba period as was NeXT. And Toy Story was a success whereas the NeXT Cube was largely a flop. I've also mentioned the Jobs/Pixar connection in this blog before, and I have to admit that I understand the problem. Jobs' work with Pixar wouldn't have fit within the three-act structure. A movie's grand opening doesn't look at all like a computer's product launch. Still, to consign it to the memory hole seems a bit much.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more