Next to Steve Jobs, Andy Hertzfeld is the name I most associate with the original Macintosh project. For that reason, Hertzfeld is one of the characters portrayed in the new Aaron Sorkin Steve Jobs movie, as well as someone who got to see an early unfinished cut of the film.
His take on it? That it’s almost nothing like reality in terms of the events portrayed — but a great movie all the same.
Speaking with Re/code, Hertzfeld says he met with Sorkin early on in the writing process, then later answered some of his questions via email.
“[In one email, Sorkin] asked me how Steve would react to a specific situation, involving the speech demo failing,” Hertzfeld recalls. “I pointed out that it didn’t happen in reality, and we had a lengthy discussion about artistic license, about how okay it is to diverge from reality. Basically, he convinced me it was not a documentary, so veracity is secondary to artistic considerations, and ‘it’s a painting, not a photograph.'”
Despite this, Hertzfeld describes Steve Jobs as, “a fine movie, brilliantly written and performed and full of humor and feeling,” although he reiterates that it, “deviates from reality everywhere” and is “almost nothing in it is like it really happened.”
Hertzfeld concludes:
“[U]ltimately that doesn’t matter that much. The purpose of the film is to entertain, inspire and move the audience, not to portray reality. It is cavalier about the facts but aspires to explore and expose the deeper truths behind Steve’s unusual personality and behavior, and it often but not always succeeds at that.”
Hertzfeld’s comments are interesting, especially read alongside Steve Wozniak’s appraisal of the movie. In a previous interview with Deadline, Woz praised the movie’s accuracy, saying that, “I felt like I was actually watching Steve Jobs and the others (including Seth Rogen’s portrayal of Woz himself), not actors playing them.”
To be fair, it seemed pretty clear from the moment Michael Fassbender was cast (looking nothing like Steve Jobs), that this movie was not aiming for documentary realism.
While I think the facts of Jobs’ life are intriguing enough on their own, I also don’t have a problem with Aaron Sorkin aiming for a more impressionistic portrayal of events — so long as what comes out of it feels like a genuine portrayal of all involved.
Do Andy Hertzfeld’s comments sway your thoughts on the Steve Jobs movie? Leave your comments below.
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
12 responses to “Andy Hertzfeld: Steve Jobs movie is ‘almost nothing’ like reality”
“While I think the facts of Jobs’ life are intriguing enough on their own, I also don’t have a problem with Aaron Sorkin aiming for a more impressionistic portrayal of events — so long as what comes out of it feels like a genuine portrayal of all involved.”
I had to re-read this a few times and I’m still not sure I follow…
Are you saying that you don’t care if it’s accurate as long as the film makes you feel like it’s accurate?
Hmmm… I’ll try and re-word if it’s not clear. What I meant was that I think Jobs’ life is interesting enough that you don’t have to play with facts to make it interesting in the way that you would with, say, my life. With that said, I think what a movie can do that a documentary can’t is get you inside the head of the person it’s focusing on. I don’t mind if, for example, you’ve got people talking about the possibility of the iPod at the original iMac keynote (which didn’t happen) if what you get out of it is a film that gives you a clear idea of who Jobs was and how he thought. Werner Herzog talks about the idea of the “ecstatic truth:” the idea that you can play with facts to present a greater truth. There’s a fine line, but that’s not a bad basis to proceed along.
I think the best way to explain it is the example given.
How would Steve Jobs have reacted if the demo had failed?
But it didn’t fail in real life.
But what if it had? How would he have reacted?
An accurate portrayal of how he would have reacted had a certain event happened (even if that didn’t happen) is one definition of an accurate portrayal of his character.
This is how people write internally consistent fictional characters. How would Sherlock Holmes react in a certain situation? Sherlock Holmes isn’t real, but if they throw a new mystery at Sherlock, he should react in a way consistent with the character established by the previous Holmes stories.
It’s the same thing here.
Verisimilitude.
Personally, I’d prefer seeing a scene where Jobs reacts to a real situation where something failed?
That’s much more clear, and I agree with you – and impressionistic portrayal of events, yet a genuine portrayal of the people. Thanks.
Movies are not written nor made to be any form of reality other that art. Even the most true to life documentary reflects the point of view the creative team wishes to convey. Watch the Steve Jobs movie, enjoy it as entertainment and understand that it will be every bit as real as The Martian or Batman.
I really haven’t watched any of the “Steve Jobs” movies. They all lack reality. (Or so I’m told) I would really appreciate a true to life reflection of Jobs in a movie. The facts are far more interesting than fiction. Maybe making a movie based on fact is simply unrealistic. In the meantime, I’ll just enjoy “Pirates of Silicon Valley” if I want that type of “Entertainment.” All the others just blur the lines even more.
As Hertzfeld said, it’s not a documentary so we can’t expect every situation shown in the movie to have been exactly accurate. Personally, I think no movie can do Steve Jobs justice. He was too complex a man to fit into today’s Hollywood scheme of things, or the “we want to know it all” over sharing society we live in.
R.I.P. Steve! And, no, I won’t see this or any other movie about the man.
I admire Sorkin’s work, although his dialog rarely sounds like how people actually converse, a failing of the art form in general I suppose. He’s very clever, and I can’t help but be impressed with his character’s wit.
But my admiration for Mr Jobs goes way beyond his quirks, no matter how they are portrayed. The facts of what he accomplished, how he was able to see things so clearly (even when he turned out to be slightly wrong) are what impressed me year after year of his amazing career. The fact that he was often dismissive of subordinates and occasionally in denial of certain realities have no effect on my opinion of him. his character flaws seem irrelevant when considering his achievements.
Interested in the movie,but I need to ask what is sexy about this phone! And two what is so cool about a watch that does nothin.Samaung watch is the best phone on the market because it has its own phone line,which hold on let me explain to the sheep of Mac,The Samsung galaxy Gear doesn’t need wifi! I’ve crashed IPhone Operating system every single one of them,and let’s not get on Siri,wow send you on a wild goose chase just going to the store,and last but not least Apple isn’t the only person who owns the name Siri,do your research!
Man, after reading this I must own a Samsung phone! You are the best salesman ever! And your comment about Siri, that almost makes sense, but not quite.
There are hours of actual Steve Jobs footage on YouTube, really anyone with an ounce of perception, can see who Steve really was. We don’t need Aaron Sorkin making up an imaginary life. Shall we say lying about Jobs?