Is the average person watching this film (1992) supposed to know the land that is being sold is swampland/desert???
I saw it when it first came out, and I thought that was pretty clear. It wasn’t made explicit, but still clear.
Ok, thanks, plus the late 80’s had a lot of that going on that was already in the news…
Yes, but the point is that it’s not really relevant what they’re selling. They don’t care about the customers or the quality of the merchandise they’re selling.
Oh, I agree with you, they are completely immoral
It was clear to me personally; so yes.
I tend to mis a lotof things in movies:D
They’re not very immoral to me; they’re just work a day types that need to make ends meet. They tell a lie that people people who can afford to lose money want to want to believe.
IMHO the type of person who is immoral is the one who doesn’t do what they can to support themselves but wants other people (family, society etc.) to ultimately support them while they sit around all day on their high horse thinking about how immoral everyone is. YMMV.
That sounds like a campaign slogan… 
Myself, I’m firmly in the “They’re immoral” camp.
I don’t think there’s anything in the film that says the lots aren’t legitimate and ready for building on. The issue are that the bad leads are people who don’t have the means to actually buy the land. The good leads (that are the movie’s McGuffin) are people who could buy the land.
One of the properties (in the play at least) was Glen Ross Farms, which is described as being very lucrative for the salespeople a few years previously. If they were selling swampland, that would have gotten them in trouble, and the firm, at the very least, would have left town.
Since it makes no difference to the plot if the land was good or not, and there’s no indication in the script that the land is swampland, there’s absolutely no reason to believe it is.
Now, they’re willing to do whatever is possible to sell the land, but it’s like the banks in a mortgage bubble ten years ago: they were out to sell the land, not to sell bad land.
It could sound like a lot worse things . . .
You make some good points about credibility and track record. I’m not sure if I agree with you, I’m not sure entirely if I disagree, but, your point is valid, it needs to be taken consideration.
I do disagree quite strongly that for the sake of the play/movie it makes no real difference. It’s the difference between being bad and being evil. Well, evil is a bit strong but you see my point. But just because I disagree does not mean I am not interested in your response. If they were selling worthless property knowingly, how could you not consider them to be anything but very very bad people?
Hmmm. I think this is a great film to discuss - I might rewatch it. I’ve watch it 2 times already and never really focused on the swampland aspect. The main thing I focused on was the effectiveness of intimidation in spurring action and also the portrayal of the various sales techniques.
And the guy who sells meth down at the schoolyard is just providing a service to people who would just buy it from someone else if they didn’t buy it from him, as is the guy who makes the meth he sells, and the under the table gun dealer who provided him with his weapons, and the cop who agrees to look the other way for a small piece of the action. All just staying off welfare, way better than thinking how immoral someone is.
The fact is, they’re all criminals.
Well, I guess you could take an absolute moralistic position and say that the extent of harm caused by the immorality has no effect on the severity of the immorality - in that case there is no difference in selling swampland (which does not destroy anyone’s life), or selling meth - which does.
I don’t judge them so harshly because I have seen various immoralities of this sort in many many work situations(none of which I participated in). If one decides to operate at a level of morality that is of a higher calibre then employment opportunities are substantially limited.
I will have to see the movie again with that focus in mind though to really be able to give a 100% accurate opinion on what I think of the characters in the movie.
They’re a boiler room operation. A low rent, real estate version of Stratton Oakmont. I watched it as a teenager and it was clear enough to me that they were screwing people over by using high pressure sales tactics, half truths and outright lies.
The bosses never told them to be dishonest, they said: “Just get it done.” knowing full well that getting it done to the extend they demanded required dishonesty.
While not explicitly stated to be worthless, the Glengarry land was “waterfront” property in Florida which would suggest very strongly to me that it was swampland given the nature of the business.
Also, even setting aside a useless-land situation, implicit in the high pressure hard-sell operation targeted at the less-than-good leads was that they would get some of those not-so-hot prospective buyers to get in over their heads, ands so what, the sales operation gets their commissions up front, and the initial financier will resell away the loans as soon as they can package them, it will be Someone Else’s Problem when someone ends out upside-down.
Under the guise of “it’s just business”, “get the job done”, the salesmen get to act amorally towards the prospects, and then of course they progress to acting amorally to each other and in the end, to themselves .
Nice guy? I don’t give a shit. Good father? Fuck you, go home and play with your kids.
Are you kidding?! The very core of the film is that these individuals have long since sold every shred of their souls. The disconnect between the motivations, intentions, emotions, wants, and needs of the salesmen versus the clients could not be greater! The entire relationship between Pacino and Jonathon Pryce is one of a vulnerable, semi-distraught man who’s marriage is falling apart and a vulture doing a ‘long con’ on him for nothing more than a cash payment and a Cadillac car bonus. And in the end, when Pryce’s character leaves in a panic, Pacino could not care less about anything other than what he’s lost.
They are the definition of narcissistic, empathy-less, amoral scumbags.