Mal Higgins with a film review that takes to task the ethics of Wall Street.
The Wolf of Wall Street is not a film I would normally go to see, on my own bat, but for some strange reason I was dragged to it by my teenage daughter. I half expected it to be good considering it came from the stable of Martin Scorsese who has produced such classics as The Departed, Mean Streets and The Last Temptation of Christ - and the list goes on.
The leading role is taken by Leonardo DiCaprio who plays the real life character of self-made multi-millionaire stockbroker Jordan Belfort. Belfort starts up his business by phone selling “junk bonds” of start-up companies that only exist in the gardens of someone’s house. As the business begins to expand and he climbs the corporate ladder so does the excesses of his lifestyle from orgies on a plane to regular office dwarf throwing competitions.
The selfishness and stupidity that exists in Wall Street and especially junk bond trading is laid out for everyone to see and embodies the principle that to succeed in free capital America “you have to stick it to the other guy before he sticks it to you” and in business there is no such thing as a nice guy/gal. The only pings of guilt displayed in the film are by Jordan’s first wife Leah when she complains that he’s selling his “junk bonds” to working class smocks who can’t afford to lose their money instead of to the rich who can which he then proceeds to do with great enthusiasm.
By far the film’s most funniest incident is when Belfort drives home in a drug induced stupour in his Lamborghini and proclaims that he is surprised that he has not had an accident only to discover the next day, when he sobers up, that this is not the case.
I would not consider myself a prude but I was surprised by the film’s open sexual context and strong language. However, maybe this is the normal everyday behaviour of the spivs that occupy the Wall Street corridors of power. If you have some spare cash and want a night out, by all means go and see it otherwise wait until the video comes out. However, if want a better insight into the life and not often profitable aspect of telephone hard selling then I would suggest Glengarry Glen Ross.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I loved it! A great feel good movie. It showed bankers for what they were. Wanting to get rich with no care or thought for their victims. But it was a great flick.
ReplyDeleteMal,
ReplyDeletethanks for sending this to us. Pleased to have got it.
I thought it was great movie. I've seen it 3 times..
ReplyDeleteMal if you where a bit shocked at the sexual content, then the 4hr+ directors cut has a lot more sex, drugs and rock'n'roll..
One thing I like about Scorsese's movie are his sound tracks.
If you have some spare cash and want a night out, by all means go and see it otherwise wait until the video comes out
Or watch it online. For example install XBMC (for windows, click windows, MAC, click MAC etc..
You'll need a package called super repo, which can be found here. Simply scroll down until you see the link for the zip file 'repository.superrepo.org.frodo.all'..
There are lots of videos on youtube to help anyone to install it...
Or you can buy a set top box from ebay, amazon etc (costs between 50-100)...
I didn't like it at all.
ReplyDeleteIt was just a gratuitous excuse for glorifying the guilty who got away with massive fraud.
They're still rich after learning to play tennis for a short time in Federal country club pens for crooked Congressmen.
A clear case of crime pays for some which is nothing for most of the rest of us to revel about.
It reminded me of foolish tee shirts in Las Vegas that said: "I lost my ass in Vegas, ho, ho, ho."
Sorry, but there is nothing funny about carnivorous capitalists with deeply disturbing narcissistic personality disorders.
They are a pox on the world.
Besides the serious nature of the film such as the excesses of the rich...and it was the rich who brought him down for they didn't like how he inadvertently exposed their lives or the shallowness of it....besides all this it was very, very funny....great comedy!
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't the rich who brought him down, it was the many small working class investors who he and his crime partners preyed upon who brought him down with all their complaints to the SEC and FBI forcing the government to act and prosecute them. It would have been funny if at the end of the movie and in real life the little people rose up and hung these crooks by their heels in public squares and beat them like Mexican pinata bags.
ReplyDeleteOwen
ReplyDeleteThe small working class investors were the tools of the Establishment. The Establishment never directly involve themselves...they, like their secret services never willingly reveal themselves but manipulate from afar.....as the excesses became more and more depraved he inadvertently began to reveal their own immorality to the public at large....stealing is acceptable as long as it appears legitimate and done discreetly...he became a threat to their very existence and had to removed
Niall,
ReplyDeleteI didn’t like the film because it glorified guilty criminals and their drug fueled narcissism versus…
You liked it because it was “…very, very funny …great comedy!”
So if I rob you and then buy drugs with your money to get
high …you’ll laugh?
Not likely… so why laugh at their victims and blame them as “…being tools of the establishment”?
Stratton-Oakmont was put together by a few working class kids from Long Island to rip off same.
The so called establishment had nothing to do with starting or running that particular fraud.
But yes the government (which like all governments is a tool of the establishment) did shut it down.
Maybe the government did so for noblesse oblige reasons or because they didn’t like the competition.
But the excesses of this rotten bunch did not threaten Wall Street and only revealed their own mortality.
Proof: Wall Street never went out of business and never has despite even bigger frauds.
Therefore, I don’t know what the artistic or social redeeming significance of this movie was.
And I’m willing to bet that Martin Scorcese didn’t intend it to be a comedy.
Although I did chuckle at the end watching the protagonist teach students to sell a pen.
As if that’s all he was ever doing. Psychologists call this rationalizing.
At least if I buy a pen from someone then I will have actually bought something.
However he was in the business of knowingly selling nothing to people by always lying to them.
And he and his coterie of crooks made millions doing this and did little time for it all.
Sorry…but I know people who are still in jail for doing a lot less.
Finding it funny as you do is really just an implicit way of being system supportive.
No different really than people wearing tee shirts in Las Vegas celebrating their losses.
Snap out of it and stop being an unwitting tool for the establishment.
I don’t really think it glorified the guilty and I don’t believe Scorsese intended this film to be that.
ReplyDeleteAll he done was to present the facts as he saw them in a film mode. As Niall rightly says the film showed the excesses of the rich. However, having said that I don’t believe it was a comedy.
It may have some funny scenes in it but that does not make it a comedy. Because the subject matter was too serious to be treated as a comedy.
Mal
Words have meaning:
ReplyDeleteglo•ri•fy [glawr-uh-fahy, glohr-]
verb (used with object), glo•ri•fied, glo•ri•fy•ing.
1. to cause to be or treat as being more splendid, excellent, etc., than would normally be considered.
2. to honor with praise, admiration, or worship; extol.
Synonyms
2. venerate, praise, worship, celebrate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glorify?s=t
And if all Scorsese was doing was presenting the facts…
Then where is his presentation of the defrauded?
You know the people who lost their savings, homes and retirement and ended up poor or dead.
They're not there because they’d only distract from his celebration of these little rascals (aka scumbags).
The whole purposeful premise of the movie was prurient envy.
Because why no sex scenes of the less attractive first wife?
Therefore Scorsese wasn’t just presenting facts as he saw them.
He was promoting a wishful fantasy of economic and political values that support a corrupt status quo.
A better ending, my kind of fantasy, would have had all the crooks marching to a guillotine in a public square.
People enjoy (or don't) films for different reasons. If Niall and Mal got something out of it that they liked and Eoghan something else entirely that left a bad taste in his mouth, fine. I would not advise watching movies through ideological lenses. Often a movie is watched for sheer entertainment value. I love The Walking Dead - all bollix from start to finish but it is compulsary viewing here. I can't get the kids to bed when it is on. They simply refuse to go.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete'I would not advise watching movies through ideological lenses. Often a movie is watched for sheer entertainment value.'
I have given up on attempting to explain the escapism element to the 'program coordinator' in our house!
We don't have that problem here Robert - our problem is escaping from the demands of an 8 year old for soccer and sport. I have to put up with the Winter Olympics as I type this
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete"When I was a child the world was a totalitarian state run by adults - and now that I'm an adult the world is a totalitarian state run by children!"
Can I recommend distraction and inducement!
AM said: “I would not advise watching movies through ideological lenses.”
ReplyDeleteThat really can’t be done by anyone.
The best anyone can do is recognize that they have a bias and so view the world through their own filters.
That said: how can anyone not watch films or read books or articles through ideological lenses when they’re shown and written through the ideological lenses of the author and producer?
Reference the scholarly work on this subject by American Political Scientist Michael Parenti:
Parenti’s treatment of entertainment media (movies and television) continues the argument that the media are not neutral and favor elitist interests. Exploring a wide range of films and programs, he has attempted to demonstrate that the entertainment media do more than entertain; they indoctrinate by propagating values in keeping with their corporate ownership and corporate advertisers.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti#cite_note-18
Eoghan,
ReplyDeleteParenti has an opinion whch he is entitled to and which the less pedantic are entitled to hold or not to. I don't know about others but I could never live in that sort of ideological straijacket where we are told what to think by ideologues.
I like to put photos out of me wearing a Pasta strainer on my head as part of the FSM religious piss take. Don't take ourselves too seriously is the point.
Owen Sullivan
ReplyDeleteScorsese was presenting the facts as he say but that does not mean he condoned such activities. Was he condoning the Vietnam War when he produced Born on the Fourth of July or advocating vigilantism with Mean Streets?
Yes, you are correct when you say some people may have lost their life’s savings but does anyone with abit of sense expect to make a fortune because of a telephone conversation.
Over the last few days I have received emails, from all over the world, saying I have inherited several fortunes and all I have to do to collect these fortunes is to send my bank account details. Good luck with that one.
His film was about the people who operated these scams, showing how shallow they were, and not the people who were conned by them and the terrible thing about that is there won’t be a film about them.
I got one of those email scams from somebody called Prince Bertie Ahern of Drumcondra. He had no bank account and said he wanted my account so he could put his money in it.
ReplyDeleteWhereas, I would most likely not have watched this film, after reading the above review and the bit of controversy it generated it is now a must see.
AM said: “Parenti has an opinion whch he is entitled to and which the less pedantic are entitled to hold or not to.”
ReplyDeleteParenti’s scholarly opinion is based on evidence he has marshalled which can be detrimentally ignored.
AM said: “I don't know about others but I could never live in that sort of ideological straijacket where we are told what to think by ideologues.”
Bit of leap here since no one was telling you what to think. I was simply stating what I think of the movie. Go watch it yourself and draw your own conclusions.
AM said: “I like to put photos out of me wearing a Pasta strainer on my head as part of the FSM religious piss take.“
Terrific!
AM said: “Don't take ourselves too seriously is the point.”
That’s what I think Scorcese, like Las Vegas casinos, was foolishly promoting here. It was more: Ha,ha,ho,ho aren’t these narcissistic personality disordered scumbags funny & adorable? No, I don’t think so…t'was not one of his better movies in my opinion.
AM said: “Whereas, I would most likely not have watched this film,
Why not? Don't tell me you're ideologically predisposed.
AM said: “…after reading the above review and the bit of controversy it generated it is now a must see.”
If you like watching a lot of sex, drugs and venality….you may find it entertaining. Otherwise Margin Call with Kevin Spacey is a much better film about Wall Street corruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_Call_(film)
MH said: “Scorsese was presenting the facts as he say but that does not mean he condoned such activities.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree since there was no transformative comeuppance or display of victims. It would seem at the very least that Scorsese has a sneaking regard for these scumbags. You know….nothing succeeds like success.
MH said: “Was he condoning the Vietnam War when he produced Born on the Fourth of July or advocating vigilantism with Mean Streets?”
Don’t know…different movies…different times…different messages. That said though many pro-Wall Street millionaires like Scorsese are also anti-war and anti-Mafia.
MH said: “Yes, you are correct when you say some people may have lost their life’s savings but does anyone with abit of sense expect to make a fortune because of a telephone conversation.”
This is the kind of blame the victim nonsense that Jordan Beaufort and Martin Scorsese promote too. Recall that Jordan Beaufort was an SEC Series 7 License holder with Wall Street experience. This license, like any professional license, is government’s way of assuring the public of his investment competence. That is he had the legal right to hold himself out as an investment expert that investors (according to the government) could rely upon.
And like a crooked Solicitor or Chartered Accountant he abused that right and made millions doing so. That’s how the government (FBI & SEC) was able to shut him down…they simply revoked his license.
Nothing really to celebrate or be fascinated about given the thousands of victims he and his took.
MH said: “Over the last few days I have received emails, from all over the world, saying I have inherited several fortunes and all I have to do to collect these fortunes is to send my bank account details. Good luck with that one.”
Read above one more time.
MH said: “His film was about the people who operated these scams, showing how shallow they were, and not the people who were conned by them and the terrible thing about that is there won’t be a film about them.”
That’s not what I saw…I saw what a wild and crazy good time they had ripping people off. And that they got away with it… in the end even learning to play tennis in Federal Country Club Prisons for a few years. Scorcese should be selling tee shirts that say: “Ha,ha,ho,ho I got ripped off by Jordan Beaufort!”
Owen,
ReplyDeleteParenti's scholarly opinion is based on evidence he has marshalled which can be detrimentally ignored.
As most academics seem to think of their own opinion.
Bit of leap here since no one was telling you what to think. I was simply stating what I think of the movie.
Bit of a leap here as I was talking about Parenti and ideologues, not you.
Go watch it yourself and draw your own conclusions.
I intend to but will most likely forget to.
Don't tell me you're ideologically predisposed.
Partisan about what I watch shaped by hedonism – if that is ideology ....
If you like watching a lot of sex, drugs and venality....you may find it entertaining.
Not being a puritan I do.
Otherwise Margin Call with Kevin Spacey is a much better film about Wall Street corruption.
Which I will watch (if I don’t forget) if for no reason other than the brilliance of Spacey’s performances. Have never seen him in a bad movie. Favourite movie ever - Usual Suspects.
Parenti wasn't telling you what to think...just what he thinks based upon the evidence he gathered. Reasonable minds can disagree and while I don't think hedonism is an ideology per se being partisan is usually an indication of ideology. And that's understandable since we are all partisan or ideological about things. Me, I hate blue cheese and movies that celebrate scumbags at home or abroad:
ReplyDeletepar·ti·san1 [pahr-tuh-zuhn, -suhn; British pahr-tuh-zan] Show IPA
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partisan?s=t
Started watching this movie - thus far a great show about greed and sleaze.
ReplyDeleteTo each his own but an even better movie about Wall Street greed is "The Big Short".
ReplyDeleteAnd it also has Margot Robbie in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_(film)