The Wolf of Wall Street [open spoilers]

[Leo_Bloom]

@medstar

That bothered me as well. I remember seeing Donnie Azoff holding his head in his office, watching the FBI come in and arrest all of the other brokers in the office while he was undisturbed. I was wondering why that napkin wasn’t explored further.

…

Yes. Simply, shitty writing/editing (directing). Ditto the climax of the entire movie–the rapid destruction of Belfort’s life by a totally confusing thrown-together something or other about the Swiss banker and Benihana. More jokes on Benihana than on what happened and how it went down, which also annoyed me, and which is one of the many brilliant things that he cheapened, retroactively, GoodFellas (including cinematographic style and narrative [freeze frame, fourth wall]) that it showed with the breakdown and collapse of the Boeing gang.

[Omar_Little]

@Enderw24

By the way, I looked up The Equalizer on IMDB. Apparently Steve Buscemi was in it for a single episode in 1987. So the timelines match up, and I assume Scorcese put him in for shits and giggles.

Screenplay was written by Terence Winter, creator and producer of Boardwalk Empire, starring… Steve Buscemi and co-produced by… Martin Scorcese.

[Bijou_Drains]

Winter wrote or co wrote a bunch of Sopranos episodes. Which also starred Buscemi for a season.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Leo_Bloom

Yes. Simply, shitty writing/editing (directing). .

Not sure what was so shitty about the napkin scene. It’s pretty clear that Azoff took the note with him afterwards (you see him putting his own napkin over the yellow paper), which is why he is sitting in his office and not arrested when the FBI rounds everyone else up. What else should have been added to that?

[Bijou_Drains]

Danny (3 years) and Steven Madden (2 yrs) both did prison time . And rumor is Jordan is now getting a reality TV show.

[alphaboi867]

@Bijou_Drains

Danny (3 years) and Steven Madden (2 yrs) both did prison time . And rumor is Jordan is now getting a reality TV show.

Also in real life Jordan only had a 22 month prison sentence, no 36 months like n the movie.

[chinchalinchin]

@alphaboi867

Also in real life Jordan only had a 22 month prison sentence, no 36 months like n the movie.

I wonder why they would change such a minute detail.

[drastic_quench]

@jrepka

I thought the same thing. Except for McConaughey’s introduction to trading at the beginning, there’s no addressing of the fact that what these guys are doing is stealing from people. The excesses are portrayed as excesses, but come off as fun indulgences. There’s an undercurrent of “gosh, if he hadn’t been a drug addict, if he’d stayed faithful to his wife, it would all have been OK.”

In this way, it’s not much different than stories about the mob – This one is very similar to Goodfellas in many ways.

Scorcese has a good sense of what makes an entertaining movie, and I’m sure that on some level he wants to make a cautionary tale. But in the end, you need to make the victims much more than a disembodied voice on the other end of a couple of early phone calls…

Boiler Room (2000) does just that with the same story to its detriment, I think. The example they choose for the victim - even though his financial and personal life are implied to be destroyed - in the end it just feels like small potatoes compared to the arc of the larger story. It’s a profile that a TV newsmag like 20/20 would do. It came off as like the schmaltzy Kent Brockman human interest story that it is.

[Lakai]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Three hours of asking “what’s the point going to be?”

Scorsese can do individual scenes but they added up to nothing. We’ve seen Wall Street greed repeatedly. What did this add? The only thing that worked were the motivational speeches which, unlike the motivational speeches in almost all movies, made me think that real human beings would respond to them.

Seeing this right after American Hustle was destructive to the movie. Same time period, same hustle. But American Hustle was all about the characters and WoWS had no characters, just cliches. And not one single decent part for a woman. Not one.

I did like DiCaprio’s performance and could only think that if he had played Gatsby with a little of that hustle the film might have come close to working.

Maybe they should call it The Waste of Wall Street.

I had to revive this read after reading this post. Film Critic Hulk had the exact opposite opinion about American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street. He writes in all caps:

THERE’S BEEN MUCH COMPARISON MADE LATELY BETWEEN AMERICAN HUSTLE AND THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. THIS IS FOR GOOD REASON. THE SCORSESE FILM HAS COME UNDER IMMENSE FIRE FROM THOSE WHO EITHER A) DID NOT LIKE ITS PENCHANT FOR NUDITY, DRUGS AND GENERAL DEPRAVITY OR B) DID NOT LIKE IT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT GLORIFIES ITS MAIN CHARACTER. BUT WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE MISSING IS THE ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FILM IS NOT ADVOCATING JORDAN BELFORT IN THE SLIGHTEST. IT ACTUALLY THINKS HE’S RIDICULOUS AND HORRIBLE (MARTIN SCORSESE PRACTICALLY FEELS LIKE HE’S POKING HIS HEAD OUT AFTER EACH SCENE AND SAYING “CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE ASSHOLES?”). THE “PROBLEM” WITH WOLF, IS THAT IT HAS THE GALL TO RECOGNIZE OUR SOCIETY’S COMPLICITY WITH THIS BEHAVIOR AND ALL THE WAYS WE HELP IN PROPITIATING THESE MONSTERS AND CON ARTISTS BY GIVING THEM A PASS OR MAYBE EVEN WORSHIPING THEM. IT’S NOT THAT THE FILM DOESN’T PUNISH BELFORT. IT’S THAT WE DON’T. WE LET OUR HEROES RIDE THE SUBWAY WHILE BELFORT LAUGHS ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK. SCORSESE IS JUST SHOWERING US WITH THE COSMIC RIDICULOUSNESS OF ALL THIS. AND WE DON’T LIKE THAT. WE LIKE OUR MOVIES TO PUNISH BAD GUYS BECAUSE WE DON’T DO IT IN REAL LIFE. WE WANT THE INDULGENCE. WE WANT THE UNREPENTANT CON ARTISTS TO PAY, DAMMIT!.. WELL, EXCEPT WHEN OUR MOVIES TELL US TO LIKE THEM. BECAUSE AMERICAN HUSTLE IS A MOVIE THAT WORSHIPS THE CON ARTIST. AND UNSURPRISINGLY, PEOPLE LOVE IT. BUT THAT’S THE THING ABOUT MOVIES AND SOCIETY: PEOPLE LIKE TO BE INDULGED, NOT PUNISHED. AND BETWEEN THE TWO FILMS WE SHOULD BE AGREEING WITH THE THEMES OF WOLF OF WALL STREET (WHICH ACTUALLY SECONDS OUR RAGE AT THE UNFAIRNESS OF IT ALL, BUT ASKS TOUGH QUESTIONS OF THE AUDIENCE ABOUT WHY WE DO NOTHING), BUT AMERICAN HUSTLE IS THE ONE THAT HOLDS UP THE MOVIE-GOING AND SOCIETAL STATUS QUO. AND THUS IT’S THE ONE WE WORSHIP. THE ONE THAT GETS AWARDS THROWN AT IT. THAT’S THE ONE THAT PROVES EVEN OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST FILM-LOVERS JUST LIKE TO BE INDULGED. HULK EVEN HEARD SOMEONE SAY THE FILM “OUT-SCORSESE’S SCORSESE,” WHICH MUST BE A STATEMENT DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT IT SETS THE RECORD FOR LOW-ANGLE ZOOM-INS OR SOMETHING. BECAUSE THERE COULD NOT BE A MORE PERFECT ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO MOVIES: SCORSESE IS A GUY WHO IS ALL ABOUT PURPOSE.

For those that think this movie had no purpose, what do you guys think the final shot of the film was about?

[Charlie_Wayne]

Why would he write in all-caps?

It’s just so annoying and serves no purpose when it’s a very long post.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@HULK

THERE’S BEEN MUCH COMPARISON MADE LATELY BETWEEN AMERICAN HUSTLE AND THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. THIS IS FOR GOOD REASON. THE SCORSESE FILM HAS COME UNDER IMMENSE FIRE FROM THOSE WHO EITHER A) DID NOT LIKE ITS PENCHANT FOR NUDITY, DRUGS AND GENERAL DEPRAVITY OR B) DID NOT LIKE IT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT GLORIFIES ITS MAIN CHARACTER.

I can’t speak for other people, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the first to suggest that the film has interesting individual scenes that never cohere into anything more that would justify its length.

BUT WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE MISSING IS THE ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FILM IS NOT ADVOCATING JORDAN BELFORT IN THE SLIGHTEST.

This is wrong.

IT ACTUALLY THINKS HE’S RIDICULOUS AND HORRIBLE (MARTIN SCORSESE PRACTICALLY FEELS LIKE HE’S POKING HIS HEAD OUT AFTER EACH SCENE AND SAYING “CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE ASSHOLES?”).

No, it doesn’t.

THE “PROBLEM” WITH WOLF, IS THAT IT HAS THE GALL TO RECOGNIZE OUR SOCIETY’S COMPLICITY WITH THIS BEHAVIOR AND ALL THE WAYS WE HELP IN PROPITIATING THESE MONSTERS AND CON ARTISTS BY GIVING THEM A PASS OR MAYBE EVEN WORSHIPING THEM.

Wishful thinking.

IT’S NOT THAT THE FILM DOESN’T PUNISH BELFORT. IT’S THAT WE DON’T. WE LET OUR HEROES RIDE THE SUBWAY WHILE BELFORT LAUGHS ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK. SCORSESE IS JUST SHOWERING US WITH THE COSMIC RIDICULOUSNESS OF ALL THIS.

If any of this were true then why did Scorsese lengthen Belfort’s sentence to 36 months from the real world’s 22 months? Reducing it would have made this point far better.

AND WE DON’T LIKE THAT. WE LIKE OUR MOVIES TO PUNISH BAD GUYS BECAUSE WE DON’T DO IT IN REAL LIFE. WE WANT THE INDULGENCE. WE WANT THE UNREPENTANT CON ARTISTS TO PAY, DAMMIT!.. WELL, EXCEPT WHEN OUR MOVIES TELL US TO LIKE THEM.

Movies are not real life. that’s why we go to movies.

BECAUSE AMERICAN HUSTLE IS A MOVIE THAT WORSHIPS THE CON ARTIST. AND UNSURPRISINGLY, PEOPLE LOVE IT.

They love it because it’s foremost a film about character, with better writing and more interesting scenes and an actual plot.

BUT THAT’S THE THING ABOUT MOVIES AND SOCIETY: PEOPLE LIKE TO BE INDULGED, NOT PUNISHED. AND BETWEEN THE TWO FILMS WE SHOULD BE AGREEING WITH THE THEMES OF WOLF OF WALL STREET (WHICH ACTUALLY SECONDS OUR RAGE AT THE UNFAIRNESS OF IT ALL,

It doesn’t.

BUT ASKS TOUGH QUESTIONS OF THE AUDIENCE ABOUT WHY WE DO NOTHING),

It doesn’t.

BUT AMERICAN HUSTLE IS THE ONE THAT HOLDS UP THE MOVIE-GOING AND SOCIETAL STATUS QUO. AND THUS IT’S THE ONE WE WORSHIP. THE ONE THAT GETS AWARDS THROWN AT IT. THAT’S THE ONE THAT PROVES EVEN OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST FILM-LOVERS JUST LIKE TO BE INDULGED.

It doesn’t.

HULK EVEN HEARD SOMEONE SAY THE FILM “OUT-SCORSESE’S SCORSESE,”

People say all sorts of moronic things. Look at HULK, for example.

WHICH MUST BE A STATEMENT DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT IT SETS THE RECORD FOR LOW-ANGLE ZOOM-INS OR SOMETHING.

See above.

BECAUSE THERE COULD NOT BE A MORE PERFECT ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO MOVIES: SCORSESE IS A GUY WHO IS ALL ABOUT PURPOSE.

If so, then what is the purpose of the second half of the movie? The first half tells us everything we will ever know about these people. The second half pounds that into the ground at enormous length. Nothing new is said or learned or implied. None of it is necessary to make a point that had already been made. The second half of the movie is absolute proof that all the things you’ve been saying about the movie can’t possibly be true.

Lakai, I have no idea what the final shot of the movie was.

[drastic_quench]

The exact same arguments could be put forth about Goodfellas - which is structured extremely similarly. I think it’s a better film only by virtue of its originality, music, and the characters being somewhat more endearing than off-putting.

[Lakai]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Lakai, I have no idea what the final shot of the movie was.

Belfort is teaching an audience how to get rich. He’s asking each person in the audience to sell a pen to him. The movie ends with a shot of his captivated audience.

Why? I think it’s to point out that the only reason Belfort exists is because the American public is just as greedy and hedonistic as he is. His sales pitch only works because the people buying stock are too greedy to think twice about spending their family’s savings on risky stocks. The reason the public doesn’t ask for harsher laws for his behavior is because it’s the same public that wants to be rich one day. The reason the FBI agent rides the train every day and Belfort takes a limo is because the public rewards Belfort, but not the FBI agent.

The movie is about a tornado of avarice and hedonism that does not stop for three hours. The purpose of the movie is to get you to ask why. Why can Belfort keep going like this with very little consequences? The length of the film adds to the question of how he can keep this up for so long without anyone stopping him.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Lakai

The length of the film adds to the question of how he can keep this up for so long without anyone stopping him.

No, it adds to the question of how Scorsese can keep it up for so long without anyone stopping him.

That’s flip, but Scorsese has been deified for so long that he will be defended no matter what he does. Some of the writing about the film clearly falls into that category.

If you liked the picture and saw positive things in it, good for you. My not liking it is irrelevant. We saw the film through different filters. For me it didn’t even rank as an interesting failure; it was simply empty and not worth the effort to continue discussing. If all you want is to repeat an argument already made you’ll have to find someone else to battle with.

[Lakai]

I did not know we were battling.

I was just interested in your point of view. I wanted to know why you thought TWOWS was empty, but not American Hustle. And I wanted to know if you had that opinion because you missed what the movie was saying about the public enabling Belfort.

Now that I know what you think, I do disagree with you, and I think your logic makes very little sense. But since you don’t want to battle, I’ll just leave it at that.

[don_t_ask]

I think this review nailed it for me.

The Wolf of Wall Street is Martin Scorsese’s Scarface – and that isn’t meant as a compliment.

I watched Brian De Palma’s 1983 film again recently. I had been looking forward to it: the Blu-ray edition on the nice TV with the surround sound. I had only seen it once before, and on pokier equipment.

I couldn’t wait to fully experience De Palma’s festival of 1980s excess, to wallow in the mire of bacchanalian indulgence that is Tony Montana’s cocaine-fuelled rise from Cuban-refugee-camp underpass-dwelling-street-thug, to international-drug-king-pin-mansion-dwelling street thug.

On re-watching, Scarface turned out to be a hollow disappointment for the same reasons The Wolf of Wall Street is. It turns out too much is actually more than enough – and excess quickly becomes wearing and depleting.

and

Scorsese is doing what Belfort did: slapping a veneer of respectability on some junk and peddling it to a public who might not be savvy enough to know the difference. It worked, too. He got my money, and I’m old enough to know better. Might Jordan Belfort posters replace Tony Montana posters on the bedrooms of undergraduate boys? There’s every chance.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Lakai

I did not know we were battling.

Battle purely in the sense of one of those endless back-and-forths with both sides repeating themselves and talking past the other. We obviously are. So what if the public is an enabler? Hasn’t that been said a thousand times in the last decade?

@don_t_ask

I think this review nailed it for me.

Wonderful. I’ve said it myself (although not here) that Belfort’s best and most lasting con was of Martin Scorsese.

[don_t_ask]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Wonderful. I’ve said it myself (although not here) that Belfort’s best and most lasting con was of Martin Scorsese.
[/QUOTE]

That is a clever thought.

All of his big movies are about assholes. The main character is never anyone we can admire. Who would model their life on Travis Bickle, Jake La Motta, James Conway, Henry Hill, Sam Rothstein, Nicky Santoro, Bill “The Butcher” Cutting …

[Moonchild]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Three hours of asking “what’s the point going to be?”

Scorsese can do individual scenes but they added up to nothing. We’ve seen Wall Street greed repeatedly. What did this add? The only thing that worked were the motivational speeches which, unlike the motivational speeches in almost all movies, made me think that real human beings would respond to them.

Seeing this right after American Hustle was destructive to the movie. Same time period, same hustle. But American Hustle was all about the characters and WoWS had no characters, just cliches. And not one single decent part for a woman. Not one.

I did like DiCaprio’s performance and could only think that if he had played Gatsby with a little of that hustle the film might have come close to working.

Maybe they should call it The Waste of Wall Street.

+1, right down to the fact that I saw it right after American Hustle (saw them back-to-back).

Like Casino, a poor man’s Goodfellas.

I did like a great many scenes, but the overall story, not so much. I am conflicted as to whether DiCaprio being so… DiCaprio – which made me like him more than hate him – did an injustice to the film or justice to it by showing us how we can be tricked by such a, for lack of better words, devil.

[asterion]

@Lakai

Why? I think it’s to point out that the only reason Belfort exists is because the American public is just as greedy and hedonistic as he is. His sales pitch only works because the people buying stock are too greedy to think twice about spending their family’s savings on risky stocks. The reason the public doesn’t ask for harsher laws for his behavior is because it’s the same public that wants to be rich one day. The reason the FBI agent rides the train every day and Belfort takes a limo is because the public rewards Belfort, but not the FBI agent.

Finally got around to watching it and I’m glad that I just rented it and watched it at home instead of a theater. Not that it’s a terrible movie, but too long at 3 hours and didn’t really hold my attention.

Anyway, the reason I quoted Lakai for this post is that he’s right. You see it all the time with biotechs. People who stick all their available cash into these risky biotechs and then spend time on the Internet blasting financial columnists that say these are bad companies to buy.