‘Steve Jobs’ is worth more than it is getting
By Christopher Campbell
Go see “Steve Jobs.”
I say this because, as I chose my seat, I realized I was the only person there. I only paid $10, but it was a private screening. In fact, with no one around me to object, I took a selfie using the projector as a light source.
But back to “Steve Jobs.” I went to the Wednesday 9:15 p.m. showing. It was not $5 Tuesday or new-movie Thursday. The theater probably had less total audience members than an English 1010 class.
The fact that I was the only person in that auditorium reflects the numbers the film has been getting. According to Box Office Mojo, “Steve Jobs” came out on Oct. 23, but as of Thursday, it has made a little less than $12 million. That may sound like a lot of money to poor college students, but it was filmed on a $30 million budget. It has yet to make half its money back.
One possible reason for its under-performance is a few smaller production companies released a similar film called “Jobs” two years ago. It starred Ashton Kutcher as the billionaire tech-pioneer. That film got a lot more hate than it should have received. It was not horrible, but it was sloppy.
The difference between that film and this one is like reading a Wikipedia article versus a biographical novel. The first movie touches on the major issues of his life, but it does not explain two of the most important events very well: Why did Steve Jobs lose his position at Apple, and how did he resolve the conflict he had with his daughter? “Steve Jobs” not only explains these issues — it focuses on them.
The entire film is set at three major points in his life: One before he fails miserably, one a few years after that and one as he is about to gain a lot of success.
It unapologetically portrays him as a flawed, egotistical man, who thinks he is right about everything.
It shows how his character traits got him into trouble and ultimately how they got him out of it. It also shows how his attitude towards his daughter changed over time.
I was not surprised that it would be a great movie. The people who made it are basically all-stars: Aaron Sorkin — who is known for a similar movie about Mark Zuckerberg, “The Social Network” — wrote the script. Danny Boyle — who made an entertaining feature-length film about a man stuck under a rock, “127 Hours” — directed it, and Michael Fassbender — young Magneto from the X-Men movies — plays the title character.
These combined forces created a film that is engaging from beginning to end. There is no action in it. It is all dialogue that flows naturally, and although it is a little lengthy at over two hours, it feels short.
— Christopher Campbell has been a senior at USU for as long as he can remember. He finally graduates in December in psychology and broadcast journalism with a minor in Portuguese. You can find him on Twitter @ChrisCampbell02 or send an e-mail to christophercampbell21@gmail.com.