The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)

[ledfloyd]

Also the woman whose hair gets cut off.

I had read people claiming it endorses Belfort's behavior and doesn't weight the costs to the victims prior to seeing it, and during the scene where he tries to run off with his daughter I could only think, "really!?" It's terrifying.

He frames the scenes as gags, sure, but that doesn't make the behavior any less horrific. If there wasn't some base appeal to a life of excess, people wouldn't engage in it. I think that is what Scorsese is struggling with in the film. It's more or less spelled out in the last shot, people like Belfort are able to commit these atrocities and get away with them because we, to some degree, get off on it.

I think to step aside and say "Hey, what these guys are doing is really terrible," is unnecessary because OF COURSE it is. There's no need to dumb it down and weaken the satire so everyone can go home feeling like the film righted some wrong. It didn't, it merely exposes the mechanism that allows such wrongs to go unrighted.

[Ezee E]

How dumb of a scene would it have been if some postal worker went up to Jordan and threatened his life because of the penny stocks he invested in, and that his life was ruined?

[Ezee E]

Plus, doesn't the final scene basically say that we all essentially supported his behavior by attending his motivational talks? The same schmucks that got fooled by him the first time are the ones putting money to go to his motivational talks anyways.

[Sven]

It gets complicated when:

“Hello, I’m Leonardo DiCaprio, and some of you may know I’ll be playing Jordan Belfort in the new film Wolf of Wall Street. What separates Jordan’s story from others like it is the brutal honesty in which he talks about the mistakes he’s made in his life. I’ve been in his company many times, but there is nothing quite like Jordan’s public speaking and his ability to train and empower young entrepreneurs. Jordan stands as a shining example of the transformative qualities of ambition and hard work. And in that regard, he’s true motivator. “

[Qrazy]

This is not true. While you never see the economic targets of the frauds, you see plenty of victims of other aspects of Belfort's life. The shoe guy who is humiliated, the midgets, even her infant daughter.

The shoe guy isn't particularly humiliated and a round table discussion which treats little people as objects is not a rigorous analysis of anything. Yeah it shows these people are ugly, much of the film does that. I don't think they are portrayed well, my point is that the ramifications of what they do for a living are never shown. Any time you make a film about someone or a group of people you need to show their legacy. How have they impacted the world. Showing him living it up conveys fuck all to me. The daughter stuff near the end is a start but it's way too little too late.

I think the slice of the audience that agrees with you is suffering from PC-itis. And this film is definitively not PC.

Or it's that section of the audience that doesn't think white collar crime ought to be a laugh riot and that Scorsese utterly failed to convey anything of substance about the world he's examining.

[Qrazy]

How dumb of a scene would it have been if some postal worker went up to Jordan and threatened his life because of the penny stocks he invested in, and that his life was ruined?

That's certainly not the only way to do it at all. How about one less waste of fucking time shot slipping and sliding around the office floor space and some images showing Jordan and his cronies out in the city and some poor people somewhere in the background, victims of the recession he's helping to create.

[Ezee E]

It was the 90s for one, and sounds just as stupid. Why would Belfort be in those areas?

[Qrazy]

Also the woman whose hair gets cut off.

I had read people claiming it endorses Belfort's behavior and doesn't weight the costs to the victims prior to seeing it, and during the scene where he tries to run off with his daughter I could only think, "really!?" It's terrifying.

He frames the scenes as gags, sure, but that doesn't make the behavior any less horrific. If there wasn't some base appeal to a life of excess, people wouldn't engage in it. I think that is what Scorsese is struggling with in the film. It's more or less spelled out in the last shot, people like Belfort are able to commit these atrocities and get away with them because we, to some degree, get off on it.

I think to step aside and say "Hey, what these guys are doing is really terrible," is unnecessary because OF COURSE it is. There's no need to dumb it down and weaken the satire so everyone can go home feeling like the film righted some wrong. It didn't, it merely exposes the mechanism that allows such wrongs to go unrighted.

The scene with his daughter is like 7 minutes max in an almost 3 hour film. You can show a life of wealth and dubious morality without thoroughly indulging in it. He did it in Goodfellas for starters. Fellini and Antonioni also did it with much greater shading. La Dolce Vita makes hedonism look appealing at times but then Fellini analyzes the end yield of such a life. This film has NOTHING to say about capitalism, materialism or greed.

[Qrazy]

It was the 90s for one, and sounds just as stupid. Why would Belfort be in those areas?

There are plenty of homeless people everywhere in New York including mid-town. Another place would be outside of one of the clubs these people frequent. There are also plenty of scenes which don't only follow Belfort around. But really just something, anything which contextualizes this world within the larger world. I don't need endless shots and sequences of them taking drugs or looking at T&A or making sales. Shots of well lit strippers doesn't tell me anything at all about what makes these people tick.

The film explicitly tells you about one crash and the recession where Belfort began robbing poor people blind before moving on to the rich.

[Bosco B Thug]

The film has value as an exposé of a lifestyle, not a psychological portrait. Though I'd say those are not so unconnected. That said, this film is preoccupied with crap.

[Ezee E]

There are plenty of homeless people everywhere in New York including mid-town. Another place would be outside of one of the clubs these people frequent. There are also plenty of scenes which don't only follow Belfort around. But really just something, anything which contextualizes this world within the larger world. I don't need endless shots and sequences of them taking drugs or looking at T&A or making sales. Shots of well lit strippers doesn't tell me anything at all about what makes these people tick.

The film explicitly tells you about one crash and the recession where Belfort began robbing poor people blind before moving on to the rich.

EXT. DINER - DAY
Jordan and Donnie, in their crack-fueled haze, run back to Donnie's apartment. Outside the door is JUBILANT JAMES.

JAMES
Oh, hey Donnie. Someone left a package at your door. I didn't want anyone to steal it. So I grabbed it. Hold on a second and I'll give it to you.

DONNIE
Ah thanks man. It's people like you the world needs more of.

JAMES
Just being a friendly neighbor Donnie!

James walks in.

PAGE 80
EXT. CITY STREETS - DAY
Donnie is flipping a quarter, whistling Nirvana until he hears a loud noise from an alley. He looks, it's Jubilant James, without a shirt, one sock, and a garbage bag for shorts. Donnie laughs.

DONNIE
Hey, James, you got a package for me man?

JAMES
Can you spare a buck Donnie, you kinda are the reason I'm here.

SMASHCUT TO:
INT. BAR
Donnie and Jordan are laughing as they snort cocaine.

DONNIE
Guess who I ran into?

JORDAN
Who?

DONNIE
My old apartment neighbor. He's broke as shit, and it's because of us!

Jordan reflects for a small second, but then laughs.

Donnie laughs.

---

FOUR STAR MOVIE.

[Qrazy]

Donnie laughs.

---

FOUR STAR MOVIE.

Straw man much?

[Pop Trash]

I don't think Scorsese and DiCaprio were as anti Belfort as they claim, at least not during the production of the film. Scorsese claims he never met Belfort before the premiere in yet Belfort is IN THE DAMN MOVIE. Did Scorsese conveniently take off that day of shooting and let his AD direct Belfort? Plus that promo DiCaprio made that Sven already noted.

But it does get slippery when there are things like the Forbes magazine piece on Belfort which acts as a mirror to the reaction of the film. Plus the last scene in the movie. These are things that make me think Scorsese is more self conscious of the movie he is making than some are saying. Not to mention the whole glorifying shallow spectacle vs. vicious broad satire that makes you choke on the length and repetition of their behavior is exactly what makes the film interesting.

[number8]

It's a nihilistic movie.

The movie is not a condemnation of one guy or one incident. It's a condemnation of an entire philosophy. It's ultimately a showcase of how there's no accountability or consequence for these guys whatsoever, since they get a slap on the wrist sentence and even that is made as comfortable as possible. That's why it's all fun and games and "glorifying" and you don't see the real downsides.

It's not supposed to be saying "This Jordan Belfort guy is a monster, look at all the people he's hurt." It's saying that our whole country's system is fucked up because it facilitates a monster like this Jordan Belfort guy to completely thrive in it, but it's always there because it feeds on desire. It's why it ends with a shot of "us" waiting to learn how to sell bullshit from Belfort. The movie shows exactly what a scumbag Belfort and his cohorts, but it indulges in excess for us to look at and say, "Be honest, are you not laughing your ass off right now and think that these guys are having a lot of fun?" The length and excess of the movie completely fits that theme.

It's why we get that shot of Kyle Chandler in the subway at the end. For all his moral superiority and heroism, he ends up exactly the way Belfort predicted: a broke schmuck riding the subway and thinking what it would be like if he'd chased dollars instead. Money will always win in America, and you're probably not gonna be able to escape this.

[number8]

In short: Scorsese does not make issue movies.

[Qrazy]

It's a nihilistic movie.

The movie is not a condemnation of one guy or one incident. It's a condemnation of an entire philosophy. It's ultimately a showcase of how there's no accountability or consequence for these guys whatsoever, since they get a slap on the wrist sentence and even that is made as comfortable as possible. That's why it's all fun and games and "glorifying" and you don't see the real downsides.

It's not supposed to be saying "This Jordan Belfort guy is a monster, look at all the people he's hurt." It's saying that our whole country's system is fucked up because it facilitates a monster like this Jordan Belfort guy to completely thrive in it, but it's always there because it feeds on desire. It's why it ends with a shot of "us" waiting to learn how to sell bullshit from Belfort. The movie shows exactly what a scumbag Belfort and his cohorts, but it indulges in excess for us to look at and say, "Be honest, are you not laughing your ass off right now and think that these guys are having a lot of fun?" The length and excess of the movie completely fits that theme.

It's why we get that shot of Kyle Chandler in the subway at the end. For all his moral superiority and heroism, he ends up exactly the way Belfort predicted: a broke schmuck riding the subway and thinking what it would be like if he'd chased dollars instead. Money will always win in America, and you're probably not gonna be able to escape this.

Right, that's exactly my problem with it. It stacks the deck to show the world it wants to show, to elicit the reaction it desires.

Instead of examining the impact integrity has on an individual (Belfort's lack of vs Denham's) the film endorses Belfort's perspective about the world. I agree with your reading of the subway scene and that's why it's the most disconcerting moment in the film for me. Denham didn't have to be in a subway car looking at a bunch of miserable people and questioning his life choices there. The film CHOSE to have him be that person and have him convey that reaction. I'm not remotely convinced that Gregory Coleman (the actual FBI agent) felt that way after bringing down Belfort and co. Why not have those two old people in the subway at the end holding hands for instance? Why show us a car full of miserable poor people? To drive home the nihilistic, hollow thesis of the film.

There are many different ways to indulge in excess. Belfort and co definitely did get many prostitutes, do lots of drugs, etc. My issue is with the tone of the film. By all means show their excess but don't constantly turn it into punchlines.

[ledfloyd]

There are many different ways to indulge in excess. Belfort and co definitely did get many prostitutes, do lots of drugs, etc. My issue is with the tone of the film. By all means show their excess but don't constantly turn it into punchlines.

But the fact that the world often turns their excesses into punchlines is exactly why the events portrayed in the film are allowed to happen over and over again.

Which I think is what number8 is saying when he says the movie is saying our country's system is fucked.

I don't think didactic moralizing would get the point across in the same way. It's a bleak view of the present, and the future.

[Qrazy]

But the fact that the world often turns their excesses into punchlines is exactly why the events portrayed in the film are allowed to happen over and over again.

Which I think is what number8 is saying when he says the movie is saying our country's system is fucked.

I don't think didactic moralizing would get the point across in the same way. It's a bleak view of the present, and the future.

I'm not calling for didactic moralizing, I'm calling for contextualization.

Also, it's the film that turns their excesses into punchlines though, not the world.

The Wire shows the way the system is broken because it actually shows the ways in which the system is broken. It doesn't say, well capitalism creates drug dealers derpeedoo, that's all folks. It takes you step by step through the process of corruption and misallocated resources. This film occupies it's running time with conversations about little people tossing, the pitfalls of non-alcoholic beer, needing ludes in the middle of a storm, etc. These scenes are played for laughs but serve little larger purpose when it comes to conveying something of nuance about the overarching story being told.

It is of zero artistic significance to me to create a film who's message is our country's system is fucked. It tells me nothing. The thesis is reductionistic. Yes money talks and the rich get away with a lot but Jordan was arrested and owes millions of dollars to the people he has wronged (even though he isn't paying his debt in a reasonable fashion). Furthermore not every broker is a criminal.

[Izzy Black]

I kind of agree with almost everything Qrazy is saying, but I still liked the movie.

[Rowland]

Hence the final shot. Scorsese has never been one for nuances. That said, I find myself empathizing more with the detractors because I don't know. I'm an appreciator of the film, somewhere between moderate and big fan because it's funny and true, nay because it's redundant and whatever make it stop.

[Grouchy]

Instead of examining the impact integrity has on an individual (Belfort's lack of vs Denham's) the film endorses Belfort's perspective about the world.

See, this is exactly where we part ways. I understand your point, but it seems to me like what you need is a message movie - a morality play. Instead, Scorsese just made an insane, committed movie about greed. I don't think it would be better if Marty had taken a higher moral ground. I simply didn't need the film to be that way - I understood who was doing wrong and why.

[number8]

It is of zero artistic significance to me to create a film who's message is our country's system is fucked. It tells me nothing. The thesis is reductionistic. Yes money talks and the rich get away with a lot but Jordan was arrested and owes millions of dollars to the people he has wronged (even though he isn't paying his debt in a reasonable fashion). Furthermore not every broker is a criminal.

This is beside the point to me. It's not really about the system's structure or the people in it per se as it is about the impetus that creates the criminals, namely the pursuit of wealth that is so celebrated in America. The same way young Henry Hill looked out his bedroom window and thought, "All my life I always wanted to be a gangster."

I've heard a lot of people who say things like the movie was a lot of fun, didn't feel like 3 hours, could go on longer, etc etc. Which is entirely the point to me. It's a movie that takes the usual media depictions of wealth celebration that we rarely bat an eyelid at anymore (office parties, dinners, vacations, hell, at several points they imitate music videos) and show the ugly sides of each. You're right that the real FBI agent who took Belfort down may not feel the same way Chandler does, but that's why he's not the same guy in the movie. Of course it's part of the movie's thesis to show him in a miserable subway ride, otherwise it wouldn't be pointing out that everyone wants to be financially happy.

[Qrazy]

This is beside the point to me. It's not really about the system's structure or the people in it per se as it is about the impetus that creates the criminals, namely the pursuit of wealth that is so celebrated in America. The same way young Henry Hill looked out his bedroom window and thought, "All my life I always wanted to be a gangster."

True enough, I just brought it up because you were saying the film was indicting a larger philosophy. I thought you were including Wall Street at large but perhaps you just meant those that make that criminal leap.

I've heard a lot of people who say things like the movie was a lot of fun, didn't feel like 3 hours, could go on longer, etc etc. Which is entirely the point to me. It's a movie that takes the usual media depictions of wealth celebration that we rarely bat an eyelid at anymore (office parties, dinners, vacations, hell, at several points they imitate music videos) and show the ugly sides of each. You're right that the real FBI agent who took Belfort down may not feel the same way Chandler does, but that's why he's not the same guy in the movie. Of course it's part of the movie's thesis to show him in a miserable subway ride, otherwise it wouldn't be pointing out that everyone wants to be financially happy.

I think there's a difference between those who want to be financially secure and those who desire unchecked quantities of wealth. There's a difference between wanting to be able to buy food and wanting to be rich. You're right that our culture and the media places great value on wealth and the worship of the rich. But if the goal of the film was to indict media portrayals of wealth it doesn't do a very good job. There's little of that on display in the film.

[Qrazy]

See, this is exactly where we part ways. I understand your point, but it seems to me like what you need is a message movie - a morality play. Instead, Scorsese just made an insane, committed movie about greed. I don't think it would be better if Marty had taken a higher moral ground. I simply didn't need the film to be that way - I understood who was doing wrong and why.

What does it say about greed though really. We're all inherently greedy and Belfort just happens to particularly excel at fostering and directing that greed?

I don't want a morality play. As Mitty noted, There Will Be Blood does a good job of examining a protagonist thoroughly consumed by greed. I'll illustrate what I wanted with a mention of Kurosawa. In High and Low near the end there's a shot in the jail with a couple of people scrubbing the floor on their hands and knees. They are not the focus of the shot and are easily ignored, but they're there and serve a thematic purpose. I wanted more of this type of thing in Wolf, less of a fixation upon crass humor (masturbating in public, extreme physical comedy) and more awareness of the world surrounding Belfort's fiction. That which he actively tries to ignore but which still bleeds into the edges of the frame.

You know upon reflection if the film were a work of pure fiction I think I would have some of these problems but I wouldn't feel as vitriolic about it. Knowing that Belfort is out there and that he's profiting off of this project though, that really pushes me over the edge in regards to my feelings about the film. This is a guy who is a self-described arch criminal. He's not just a criminal as one reporter suggested to him, he wants to be viewed as one of the most highly skilled criminals. He glorifies his actions and I don't think the film does a good enough job not following suit. Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong) his cell mate while in prison convinced him to write this book and Belfort modelled it after Hunter S Thompson's style. Thompson would have been thoroughly disgusted by this. Belfort is a symbol of everything he despises.

[Watashi]

I loved every fucking second of this movie.