One of the consistent themes in reviews that appeared shortly before Steve Jobs opened in New York and L.A. was that it was a good movie IF you could accept the fact that it all comes through, as Josh Dickey at Mashable put it, “Sorkin’s reality distortion field.”
That got me thinking: Isn’t that true of any big name writer or director?
There are a number of directors who have wide-ranging name recognition in the general audience. Those filmmakers bring with them the same sort of audience expectations and baggage When you walk into a Coen Bros movie, for instance, you know what you’re in for more or less. It may be a comedy, it might be a drama, but you know what the tone and feel of the film will be.
The same goes, I think, for movies written by Sorkin. If you know the movie is coming from his hand then either you’re completely on board with Sorkin’s point of view and style or are willing, at least, to look past it and enjoy the movie or TV show in whatever way you can.
I don’t think the studio would be playing up Sorkin’s involvement in Steve Jobs if they felt doing so would be a liability in appealing to the general audience. Quite the opposite, I think they’re counting on his name being a draw for a good percentage of the audience who know his work on “The West Wing,” The Social Network and more.
All movies, to use Dickey’s term, are viewed through the “reality distortion field” of the filmmakers involved. That’s what gives them their voice, their tone, their appeal. That context isn’t essential to the enjoyment of the movie – you can totally dig Close Encounters of the Third Kind without being schooled in the ways of Spielberg and his entire bag of tricks – but once you get more exposure to a single point of view the more that becomes something you buy into and can’t escape.
Far from escaping this kind of context, it’s necessary.
