Navigation Bar - Text Links at Bottom of Page


Production Information (Continued)
For an unfamiliar viewer, what impression will they get from Steve Jobs in this movie?

I think that he was a remarkable genius who, perhaps despite the opinions of some, possessed a tremendous amount of warmth, and I think that does come across in the film. He was passionate and determined, and he wanted the best out of people. He found it difficult working with anyone he felt wasn't working at their full potential. He often thought force would get the best out of others, which he thought he deserved, because he was giving his best. His employees were there because they were the top in their fields. He had extremely high standards that were often hard for everyone to live up to. I'm sure it was difficult working under those circumstances-but that's how Steve was. And look what he achieved.

In the computing and technical worlds, the name of Steve Wozniak is well known. Outside of those circles, when you ask someone about Apple, generally the first name that comes up is Steve Jobs.

Yes-I think it's difficult to say who was the what of Apple. I think the jury's still out. Even as we were making the movie, we hypothesized over what the characters might have been thinking during these important launches. I have to include myself in the second group-I didn't realize Steve Wozniak was as instrumental in making Apple as he was until I started working on the movie. For the purposes of my character, it seems as though Wozniak was probably the one who said, "Everyone could have a computer." It would be like today if someone said, "Everyone should have an airplane in the front yard." It would have been that ludicrous. But he wanted that, so he found a way to make an airplane for a few thousand dollars that could fit in your garage. It was that much of an accomplishment. I also think it's very telling that even though Steve Wozniak left full-time work at Apple in the early '80s, he remains the only employee of the company who has been-and still is-on the payroll since the first day Apple existed.

Today, Jobs' accomplishments are practically taken for granted- we cannot imagine life without the devices he launched. All of those things, though, would not have been possible without the two "Steves" in the Jobs' family garage.

It seemed like Silicon Valley in the '70s and '80s was like Hollywood. It felt like an insulated community of creative people, most of whom had the same skill set, the same interests. The thing about both Hollywood and Silicon Valley- they're the only two businesses literally named after where they are-so you'd imagine that everyone who was here around that time was in "the business." For me, one of the most surprising things about Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is that there is very little in the way of linear exposition, including a watershed discovery moment in the garage. It's much more a human story. I think that audiences are going to discover that Steve Jobs was a deeply flawed guy who, nonetheless, dreamed big, made other people better and...probably could have been happier himself if he didn't think that kindness and genius were binary.

Can you explain that last comment?

Steve Jobs had his own way of plowing through life and motivating those around him, who ultimately were driven to achieve the unfathomable. Jobs earned a reputation for being, for lack of a better phrase, a really difficult boss. He felt that in the service of genius, taking extra time to insert a little kindness into his day-to-day interactions with not an efficient use of time. In his universe, those two qualities, genius and kindness, existed in a binary system, where it's either one or the other-zero or one, yes or no. Woz is an extremely kind man, and that's how I chose to play him.

And how was your experience working with Danny Boyle? What impression did you come away with?

If I were going to go on an expedition into some uncharted jungle, I would definitely want Danny Boyle in charge. He's a master at keeping things moving, and finding these small opportunities to add interest or extra meaning to these little moments. It's like, in school, I remember these exercises that went with learning to speed up your reading and comprehension-so words would flash in front of you and you'd have to read and understand them really quickly. Then, they'd speed them up. And if you didn't keep up and pay attention, pretty soon, you'd miss something that was really important. Danny has taken all of Aaron's words and put them into the mouths of these constantly-moving characters, and then turned up the speed so these ideas are coming fast and furious-but not in a scary way. You get what's going on, and you think, "Okay, man, this is one super-fast ride, but it is so awesome." Danny is aware that being backstage, with people walking down a hall and talking about computers might feel constricting, but it's also what's innovative about it. He was constantly looking for ways to pump it up, keep it interesting, keep the mental fireworks popping.

One of the things that comes to light during these backstage fireworks is a confrontation between Woz and Jobs. What has led up to their disagreement?

That's one of the things that I love about this script-instead of a straightforward telling of Jobs' life story-Birth, Adoption, School, Woz, A-ha!-you get the character of Steve running a gauntlet of all of the current conflicts in his life right before a product unveiling. I mean, if the poor guy had anything near this crazy going on every time he had a new invention to launch, I don't think he would have made it to the stage the countless times he did. So Woz has a bone to pick with Steve-Danny ended up calling it "Woz's crucifix." Apple's most successful product up until the iMac was the Apple II, which was my character's machine that did not have end-to-end control-it could play well with all kinds of hardware, not just Apple-branded stuff. Steve insisted his computers have end-to-end control. And in the script, Woz usually says something like, "But it's what the consumers want!" Steve hated the Apple II, even though it was the moneymaker at that point. So in the script, my character asks for this small thing-just give a shout-out to the guys on the Apple II team for all of their hard work. They really were the ones paying the bills. But because that doesn't go with Steve's vision-this non-purebred computer-he does not want to water down his presentation with it. So it has become a standing request: "Will you please...?" "No." "C'mon, just..." "No." Woz's crucifix. And in Aaron and Danny's hands, that moment says reams about who they are and their relationship. The first read-through of Aaron Sorkin's script must have rung a few bells with you, given your past collaboration with him?

Yes, there's a musicality to Aaron's writing, to all great writers. And once you find the music, the rhythm that Aaron incorporates, it just sings. I remember when we did the reading of the script before rehearsals, before we started shooting, and you heard Michael and Kate, then Seth, everyone, just jumping in-and suddenly, it was like this orchestra, with everyone playing in the same key and all talking at once. There were these entrances and exits, duets, trios- it's the way it's written; there were no ad libs.

I was also well aware of the practice and rehearsal that getting on top of that language takes-for Michael particularly, who is at the center of every exchange on every page, it was going to be a steep mountain to climb. An orchestra does not pick up their instruments and perform a perfect Ninth Symphony right out of the gate. Danny did us all a great service by structuring rehearsals between the shooting of each act. That gave everyone a chance to get their mouths around the language, and also, to get up and moving, because no one stands still, at least, not for very long.

What is your character about, and how does he figure into the universe of Steve Jobs?

Steve Jobs lured John Sculley away from his post as C.E.O. of Pepsi-Cola to run Apple in 1983, about eight months before the famous "1984" ad and Macintosh launch at the shareholders meeting. John was brought in to run the business side of things. Steve really liked John's marketing genius-he was there during the Pepsi Generation campaign that sold so well. So, Steve basically said, "I'll be the visionary, you run the business." It was a bromance, so to speak. They really enjoyed each other's company, and it's pretty clear that in many ways, John became a father figure to Steve, the kind of father a little genius growing up in Northern California would envision himself having-smart, sophisticated, accomplished, wealthy. From what I read, Steve was a great salesman, and he sold Sculley on this. He said, "Aren't you tired of selling sugar water? You have a chance to change the world." Here's this young visionary, more or less asking Sculley if he wanted to be young again.

Sculley later said, "A genius is someone who sees 20 years down the road right now and knows how to get there." I think Sculley was thrilled with the idea of doing something that mattered, not just pushing a product so that the shareholders are happy-which is ironic, because that's really the reason he was there. But it was really the excitement of changing the world that seduced Sculley, who was happy to be doing so.

You met with John Sculley?

Yes-Danny didn't want a full-throttle impersonation, but a character, honest to the feelings of the particular situations. There are elements of Steve that Michael's brought in, and there are things of Sculley that I've added...but not to the point of impersonation. That would have been one way to do it, and there have been plenty of successful re-creations of people onscreen, but what we were doing with Steve Jobs is playing the truth of our characters, the feeling of the situations Aaron has combined into these pressurized moments in time. One of the key things for me in meeting John was to see his sense of loss that is still with him today.

Why do you think that is?

By around 1985, it was clear that some difficult financial decisions had to be made at Apple-those decisions also came loaded with emotion, for both Steve and John. They basically came to a fork in the road with one direction, the continued existence of Apple as a company, and the other, perhaps the termination of the company. The survival tack looked to the Apple II as the breadwinner, with a shift in focus to the sale of that; remember, Steve hated that computer because it wasn't his baby. Steve wanted more resources shifted toward his creation, the Macintosh, which was not performing the way the company had hoped. John pushed for the Apple II, and the board agreed. Steve then forced a vote-him and his Macintosh, or John and the Apple II- and Sculley said, "Sure, okay." The board sided with Sculley, and Steve was removed from the head of the Macintosh division-five months later, he left Apple and founded NeXT, Inc.

What came out in the press and became popular opinion-stoked by Jobs all his life, in fact-was that Sculley fired Jobs. Now, I believe John was not your stereotypical cold-hearted C.E.O. He's a guy that really liked changing the universe with Steve Jobs, and he did what he thought was right based on the fiscal situation at Apple, making what he knew to be a sound business decision. But to Steve, that became a betrayal of Shakespearean proportions. After that, John found out that he couldn't repair their relationship-and that sense of loss haunted him. By the time Steve Jobs' star had exploded and he'd become "Steve Jobs," Sculley and his family had become a lightning rod for criticism, ridicule, out-and-out malice and hatred. So Aaron has John appealing to Steve to set the record straight. And in my meeting John, I came to believe that while he has moved on, and onto other things, it still hurts. In Aaron's hands, it becomes the downfall of the king at the hands of the rising prince.

What were your impressions of the screenplay for Steve Jobs?

I had read Walter Isaacson's biography, and I was impressed that Aaron took a 570-page book and in two hours was able to convey so much information about someone's life with so much humor and humanity. It covers a lot of ground in an almost abstract way, without resorting to an A-to-B-to-C chain-of-events timeline. Instead, we learn what we do from the non-stop interactions Steve has with his colleagues-and some family-in the 40 minutes before he unveils three new products. There's the Macintosh, then the NeXT "cube" computer, then the iMac. Before each launch is an act full of rapid-fire dialogue from everyone who crosses Steve's path.

This story involves a lot of strong personalities. How does the character of Andy stand out from the pack? What do you admire most about your character?

The character of Andy is a truth-teller; he always says what he thinks, regardless of the consequences. He just puts things out there, whether they're good or bad. It's not malicious; that's just who he is. I think it's one of the things that Steve loves about him. Andy said that he usually says too much, but I find that endearing. He provides a kind of levity when he's with Steve, and I think he brings out some facets of Steve's character that others don't necessarily get to see too often.

Your character plays a crucial part in the story and in the Mac's development. Can you talk a little about that?

Andy was an original member of the Mac team. At the beginning of the screenplay, on the eve of the Mac launch, Andy's in a panic because there's an element to the demonstration that isn't working and Steve has charged him with making it happen. Previously, Steve had asked the Mac team to help out with the product demonstration, and Andy had come to help with the music part. Steve then insists that the computer needs to introduce itself and say "Hello" to the audience. It falls to Andy to make this happen. When it doesn't work, Steve uses fear to drive Andy to make it succeed. He threatens that he'll announce in front of everyone that Andy was solely responsible for the failing voice demo. I try everything I can think of, and finally land on something that does enable the Mac to say "Hello."

How would you say that the Mac reflects its inventors?

Steve was an elitist, and he wanted to be sure that his creations were as safe as they could be from misuse. To guard the Mac against anyone but Apple's employees opening its shell up-to do something like attempting to add more memory-Apple made it impossible to do so without special tools; regular toolbox tools would not work. These sorts of measures were called "end-to-end control," and it was something Steve lobbied hard for. Later, he built some of the same kind of exclusionary capabilities into his subsequent project, the NeXT computer-emails sent from a NeXT could only be received on another NeXT, at least in the beginning.

By contrast, Steve Wozniak's baby, the Apple II, did not have end-to-end control, because he said that consumers didn't want it. So yes, I believe that inventions can carry the traits of their inventors. Steve's need to be in control is a running conflict in our story-and how that kind of tight rein on others affected his relationships. Some can take him the way he is, while others are driven away. What was your experience with the real-life Andy Hertzfeld prior to the shooting? What things from your time spent with him did you incorporate into your characterization?

Aaron Sorkin had completed some interviews with Andy while he was gathering material for the screenplay. Later, Andy came in and spoke with us during our first rehearsal period. It's a very personal story for him, so I felt the weight of that responsibility in helping to tell it. During my later conversations with Andy, one of the things that keyed me into his dynamic was that Andy maintained their friendship mostly on Steve's terms. I do think that their friendship was one of mutual respect, but whenever Andy made a plan to see Steve, Steve would back out...or it would simply never happen. Steve would just periodically show up at Andy's doorstep, and they would do things together. Andy accepted Steve purely for who he was. Andy's spirit comes out in his enthusiasm for his work, and in his obsession and awe with what computers can do. He's always kept a sense of wonder about what he does, and that's been inspiring to experience.

What was your initial reaction to Aaron Sorkin's script?

I felt like I read it in five minutes, and I didn't breathe the whole time; it was so intense and exciting. Aaron has his unique writing style-all of his characters are really complicated and bright, he doesn't shortchange them and the pace is dizzying. When you read a wonderful script, it's so seductive. It just makes you want to play with it, get your hands on it, mess around in it and try to figure out how to make it sing. It's usually scary when you love a project and you hope that they'll choose you for the part, but I think I was just too excited to be intimidated. I think everyone on this production really set the bar very high, and we all wanted to rise to the occasion.

Chrisann Brennan is Steve Jobs' high school girlfriend and the mother of his first child, Lisa. Describe your character and her relationship with Steve Jobs.

If my character of Chrisann had to describe herself, I think she would say she's a mother first. So much of her identity, for better or worse, is to be an advocate and protector of her daughter. All mothers do that to some degree, but I think that the position she was put in forced her to make Lisa her sole focus. Chrisann was Steve Jobs' sweetheart and they had an on-again, off-again relationship for years, during which time she got pregnant. I think he had an interesting reaction to that; he swiftly denied paternity and didn't take responsibility for the child. At the outset of the film, we find my character very frustrated and in a dire and desperate situation. She shows up with Lisa at the launch of the Macintosh to seek his help. She's also very humiliated and angry with some of the things he has said about her publicly, so she's there to confront him about that as well.

What is Steve's relationship with Lisa in the film?

When we first see Lisa and Steve together, there's a kind of awkwardness in the way that they relate to each other-they've never spent a lot of time together. I think on the one hand, he's this fascinating figure to her, but he also intimidates her, because she really doesn't know where she stands with him. And he's not particularly, or stereotypically, parental or paternal with Lisa. What's interesting about the dynamic is that he talks to her like she's smart, like she's a person. He recognizes how bright she is, which is great, but he then communicates with her like he does every other bright person in his life-he's fairly insensitive, often callous. He can't really seem to give her what she clearly needs, which, obviously, is a little bit of attention. While we were shooting these scenes, the female part of me was nearly debilitated by what I viewed as his shocking treatment of her-the actress part of me just used it to go after Michael. What was it like being directed by Danny Boyle, and what kind of energy did he bring to the set?

Danny's energy on set is supportive and generous. He allows for collaboration, which is all you can really hope for as an artist-to feel supported in your choices and free to play. I think the thing that he brings that I value most is patience. On any studio project, you can almost hear a ticking clock-everyone knows you have a finite amount of time to capture these scenes. But with Danny, I never felt that pressure. And all the time, I knew he was spinning about a dozen plates at once, a lot of them I had no clue about. And he kept his cool the whole shoot. There's a lot to admire.

The characters of Chrisann and Steve have a very complicated and contentious relationship. What was it like playing opposite Michael Fassbender?

One of the skills you hone as a performer is the utter belief in the now and the truth of the moment. I had to remain in that truth-the second I became conscious that I was working with Michael Fassbender, this awe would overtake me. It was awe at the skill and talent he possesses. Honestly, I find him annoying, because I saw him in this indie where he wore a papier-mache head the entire film-and he was completely riveting. He brings so much to this role. I think another actor might have shied away from the more questionable darker sides of Steve Jobs, but Michael embraced those elements. He's willing to be unsympathetic. He's very courageous and just extraordinary. What do you feel is the impact in the world of the work done by this small group of people we follow in this film and how has it changed the way that people live today?

It's really astounding to think about the impact a few people had on the way we all live our lives today. Children now have almost a natural facility with technology that my generation never had. Revolutions have been made possible because of people being able to communicate on these little devices in their hands. What would our world look like if this crazy visionary hadn't shown up, hadn't followed the path he followed, hadn't believed in it so much? What would have happened if the person that did show up did not possess the skills to present this technology in a way that was so palatable, appealing, and accessible? Steve humanized these devices and made it seem like anything could be possible.

What did you think when you first read the script for Steve Jobs? What would you say the movie is about?

When I read the script, I felt a kinship with Lisa, because we're similar ages, and she likes writing; I thought we were very similar. At its core, I think the movie is about the impact one person can have. It's about Steve Jobs, a genius designing breakthrough computers, and his relationship with the people around him. You could place anybody in that dynamic, though-everybody has a group of friends and family they can affect the way Steve did. So it's about relationships, and the consequences of being myopic in the way that Steve was. Before this project, were you familiar with the story of Steve Jobs' career, or with the man himself?

I knew who Steve Jobs was, as almost everyone does, and that he was not everybody's favorite person, but I didn't have any idea that his relationships with his employees and his peers and his family were so complicated. He was really an icon, but the extent of my prior knowledge about him was that he was this genius who made these amazing products.

What has the rehearsal process been like? What's it like working with Danny Boyle and Michael Fassbender?

My favorite part has been watching the actresses who play the younger versions of my character, Makenzie Moss (Lisa at 5) and Ripley Sobo (Lisa at 9). I came to watch them rehearse, to pick up their little quirks and funny mannerisms. It was a cool experience. I've never worked on a film that had so much rehearsal, and it's really been helpful.

Somehow, Danny found the perfect balance between direction and letting you do your own thing. When I got the callback, I flew to L.A. and did this scene for him. He told me he really liked the last part and gave me direction for the first part. Then he told me to go away for a couple of hours-just to think about it, and then come back. It was amazing of him to give me that chance. I've never been allowed to sit on something like that, and I think that somehow he knew that brooding and mulling it over-and over, and over, and over-would really help me. As for Michael Fassbender, he brings a relaxed energy, but at the same time, he's meticulous. He likes to analyze his character, to go back to the root of things and ask himself, "What could have happened to cause this tension?" I like working with him because we talk a lot about our characters and their relationship-even things that aren't remotely in the script. He wants everybody to do well, and he wants everybody to know exactly why they're saying something. I appreciate that attention to detail and that clarity. What do you think drove Steve Jobs?

One way to put it is that Steve Jobs was self-centered, in the best way. He was driven by his perfectionism. Also, he had a need for validation from his peers and his family, but he had difficulties in finding it-like, he didn't have the right tools to be able to either ask for it, or receive it, if it was offered. I surmise he knew he couldn't impress people by being kind, so he took to impressing people by being exceptional.

What do you think is the legacy of the group of people the film follows, the impact they have had on the world? And what role does this technology play in your own life?

The legacy of the original Apple team is almost a monopoly on the technology industry. They built this incredible brand that's become so much more than just the Apple computer-it's a huge facet of popular culture, with people waiting in line for hours for the next new Apple product. Before Apple, people thought of computers as being for programming and designing games-things that were kind of nerdy. But now, average people look at technology as something they can utilize in a creative way-they can use these devices that once seemed so far-fetched but now can do so many things, including allowing them to stay in touch with people who are really far away.

If this team had never existed, if this technology had never existed-no iPhones, no Mac computers, no FaceTime-you'd lose a sense of being part of a larger community, of the entire world. I personally have a love/hate relationship with technology; it amazes me that we can access a wealth of information from one tiny computer, but at the same time, I recognize the detachment it brings with it. Seeing all your friends around the table looking at their phones kind of represents the danger in technology; without it, we might have a closer, more intimate society, where you interact with your peers face-to-face, or not at all... but you'd lose this connection to the world. To me, a world without technology would be a very isolated one.

What took place during your initial discussions with Danny regarding the cinematography for Steve Jobs-and how was this project going to differ from your previous collaborations with Boyle?

Right from the very first time we spoke about the film, we talked about movement, in that I would need to think beyond the customs of a "plant, point, and shoot" type of camera operating plan. The maneuvering of the cameras would be a choreographed exercise, pivoting around the character of Steve fast enough to see all of the others catapulting in and out of shot. Camera operation was crucial-it had to be directly responsive to the acting. There would need to be a constant watch on the physical distance between the actors themselves, and between the actors and the camera. Even though Steadicam is usually reserved for action sequences or chase scenes, with Jobs in perpetual motion, it was an ideal fit for this type of stand-up and walk-around film. Additionally, we discussed using zooms on Steadicam, as well as other types of lenses, so that we could enhance, slow down or speed up movements. We agreed that everything we did had to be about giving priority to the actors and setting the right platform upon which they could function.

Ironically, the further we got into shooting, the more I became fascinated with how the behind-the-scenes activity had come to mirror the action in front of the camera. In the screenplay, everybody has to keep up with Steve, who is always center and forever on the move. It's this sense of a circulating camera with people appearing in and out of the shot, just trying to keep pace with him. Danny was extremely prepared and came with very clear ideas, and so behind the camera, it became about all of the departments racing to keep up with our kinetic director.

How else did you realize this "always moving" philosophy in the film?

In many ways, I approached Steve Jobs as a thriller. There is a constant catapulting of words, with extremely smart people throwing verbiage at each other-ideas are planted, challenges thrown down. There's a racing pulse kind of energy, a ticking clock that's urging everyone to channel even more effort into the task at hand. It's a feeling of "we have got to pull this off, or else...?"

And inside of these spaces, the pressure builds. I think the energy Steve Jobs brought into every interaction pulled people into him-I think a lot of them simply came to work based on curiosity, as in "What can be achieved today?" The bombardment of ideas created an atmosphere that compelled everybody to try and top each other. Everyone was constantly "on." You wanted to be your best and brightest for Steve. The biography mentions Jobs was never static, and we take that to heart on every level. There are very few instances in this film when anyone stops to catch a breath.

Our Steadicam operator, Geoffrey Haley, turned out to be a real artist, and his work allowed us to build scenes and flow as we moved through the three spaces and acts. During his interview for the position, Geoff discussed his response to the script, to Aaron's words-he exhibited a deep respect for the language. I needed someone intensely motivated to keep up the sheer physical energy it would take be in the thick of this electrified environment of performers and words in motion. To be able to achieve what we did with the filming, a lot of the credit I would give to Geoff.

How were the three product launches going to be visually differentiated? How do the differing filming techniques support the storytelling?

We wanted the visuals to reflect the settings: Act One in 1984 is set at the very institutional-feeling Flint Auditorium at De Anza Community College, where we would be shooting on 16mm, the grit and grain signaling the rough-and-ready feel to this presentation by a harried group of sleep-deprived creatives; four years later, the grandiosity of San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House would be captured on 35mm, with its beautiful filmic qualities, playing up the operatic themes of the act, as well as Steve's growth from geek to ringmaster; and for Act Three in 1998, with the launch of the iMac at San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall, we would use the film-style digital camera system ALEXA, itself an outgrowth of technology Jobs helped to pioneer.

When we were shooting Act One, it was the most like a movie set-production was the only thing that determined scheduling. We were alone, which was a great gift, as it gave us the opportunity to become adept at our ever-moving shoot. Acts Two and Three were considerably more complex, as we would be filming inside active performance venues, with a full schedule of rehearsals, meetings, functions and performances that we had to sidestep. In the end, it was an intricately put-together battle plan-Danny said it was like production was being chased by a pack of dogs. We would have a drop-dead time to be out of one area, and in a matter of minutes, the space we just evacuated would be full of dancers, musicians, or performers. Everything we learned while filming Act One was put to the test inside the Opera House and Symphony Hall.

Adding to the challenge was the limitation on the use of lighting. For example, we couldn't hang lights in the auditorium. There were certain spaces where they would allow us to change lights, and other spaces where we could add a couple of extra lights. In some spaces, we had to bring in lights the night before. It was a very different process than anything else I've ever worked on. My gaffer had to rehearse setting up and dismantling lights with a stopwatch, and he had to continue to practice to get it done in as little time as possible-always faster, faster! In the end, we got to the level where we would not enter a space until it had been fully cleared, and we would be gone before anyone in Symphony Hall became annoyed with us!

What do you think was the most challenging-and the most singular- aspect of filming Steve Jobs?

It's a little odd, because I think the answer to both of those questions is the same. I think probably the most fantastic thing about this film is the brilliant pairing of Danny Boyle-who, one could say, is known for his visual fireworks- and Aaron Sorkin-whose hyper-intelligent, word-driven style is his calling card. Thinking in those terms, it's really somewhat of an unexpected combination, actually. But to watch their visions come together has been energizing and inspiring. That said, as I touched on earlier about the race-against-the-clock shooting schedules in the second and third was always about making sure the visuals served the words. In some cases, it may be a little more truthful to say that we needed to make sure that the visuals kept up with the words. It was brilliant and challenging at the same time.

How did you feel about tackling a project that takes place in three specific locations in three different years?

I think what I found most exciting about the script was, in fact, the visual limitation of it being in three locations-three places at exactly the same time in the mornings in three different periods-1984, '88, and '98. How do you make that work as a production designer? How do you keep an audience interested when you know you're working with an icon like Danny Boyle, who is going to expect some sort of visual texture, something special? But also, you have this extraordinary script by Aaron Sorkin, much in his famous style, which involves pages and pages and pages of brilliant dialogue. Danny read the script and decided that Steve Jobs was not a man to sit around and contemplate things. He was always on the move and would always be that way. So the rhythm of the film, in many respects, was unlike anything else I had done before-talking and walking, but three different venues. Working within parameters like that gives me the opportunity to push myself to come up with even better solutions through design.

Next Production Note Section


Home | Theaters | Video | TV

Your Comments and Suggestions are Always Welcome.

2018 8,  All Rights Reserved.


Find:  HELP!