Readers react to ‘Steve Jobs’ and what (mostly) didn’t sit well with them

An old colleague used to say that the only public personality who earns a journalist more reader feedback than Michael Moore is Oliver Stone. As someone who’s written about both, I (and my inbox) can testify to the claim.

But the two figures may have competition from someone else when it comes to the polarizing public-figure department: Steve Jobs.

SIGN UP for the free Indie Focus movies newsletter >>

After a new piece ran that looked at what kept moviegoers away from the film about the Apple co-founder, the comments came flooding in. Many readers expressed indifference to the idea of a movie about Steve Jobs from the start, while some questioned the particular execution.

×

And while the group of those who chose to weigh in can be self-selectedly skeptical — surely there were fans of the film, as many critics were — the resistant responses nonetheless offered a snapshot of how consumers feel about the movie and its subject. (Keep the feedback coming; we’ll update accordingly.)

The film examine three discrete chapters in Jobs’ life, and some believed that, whatever narrative expediencies it provided, that structure could be a liability.

“[T]he movie was set up, curiously and strangely, like a theater chamber piece. Movies should have some sort of kinetic movement (simply move, hence a movie), usually, or if not they must connect emotionally on some level with an audience,” wrote reader Kayvan Gabbay. “But mostly the film discarded any semblance of having an emotional entry point for audiences.”

Kevin McGill of Chula Vista was in agreement on that last score — he thought the film was “detached and decidedly heartless.” And though “Steve Jobs” was purposefully impressionistic, McGill felt that didn’t give it license to take some of the liberties it did.

“When I first heard of the Jobs movie I looked forward to watching it. But then I read reports describing it as not ‘fact-based’ at all. Many events and dialog were made up, attempting to portray the man as the writers and producers wanted to portray him, rather than how he truly was,” wrote McGill “I do not know why others chose not to view it, but knowing the movie was masquerading as factual when it was actually and deliberately fictional caused me to lose all interest.”

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has said that he had a different aim than pure history: “‘Steve Jobs’ doesn’t fall into the same genre” as other fact-based films, the screenwriter told The Times. “It’s not meant to be a dramatic re-creation of actual events.” Rather, he said, it’s meant to show larger truths about how Jobs went about his life and work.

Some readers noted the physical attributes of the film’s main character, which they said could be jarring.

“I loved [Sorkin’s] ‘The Social Network’ and ‘Moneyball’ and liked Michael Fassbender in The Counselor. But I don’t know if I’d had gone to see Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ if Daniel Day Lewis had portrayed him looking like, well, Daniel Day Lewis,” said Tony Castro, an author who has written a book about Mickey Mantle. “ For crying out loud, couldn’t Fassbender given some of us who need the pretense at least the appearance of trying to look like Jobs at that period of his life? Silly as that may sound, that was it for me, and we see a lot of movies at theaters.”

He added, “I mean, if there’s not going to at least be an attempt to physically look like Steve Jobs, then why not just cast Meryl Streep?” (Both Fassbender and director Danny Boyle have said they wanted to capture the “energy and essence” of Jobs as opposed to offering a more literal impersonation.)

A film this time of year can rise or fall depending on whether viewers feel it has a new story or style to offer (operative phrase “this time of year” — summer is another matter.) John Jordan, who has worked in Silicon Valley, said that there was a dog-bites-man quality to the film.

“The reason the Steve Jobs movie isn’t popular is because most people don’t know or care about Steve Jobs,” Jordan wrote. “He’s a media and techie darling. But viewed from outside that bubble, he’s a successful corporate CEO. Which means he’s driven and knows how to get what he wants; i.e, he can be charming and a nasty… What exactly new is there to say about that line of work?”

Follow me on Twitter @ZeitchikLAT