The Wolf of Wall Street

[Angelica]

Scorsese is still embarrassingly inept with female roles.

Age of Innocence? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore? Cybil Shepherds character in Taxi Driver? Cathy Moriarty in Raging Bull?

You've mentioned four films out of thirty something. And Betsy in Taxi Driver isn't much of an example, the tween hooker is given a lot more depth. You can't honestly assess his work without recognizing that women are not his strong suit, anymore than you can ignore that Woody Allen's New York sure has different racial demographics than, you know, New York. The majority of his films sideline the female characters to madonna/whore/nagging wife stereotypes that occaisonally pick fights with or make dinner for the male protagonist.

When forced to deal with actually developed female characters (Alice, and Age of Innocence, which I still consider his definitive masterwork), he does fine, but you can't deny he doesn't do it very often.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Angelica

[wasted]

Cause beating your wife and almost killing your child don't qualify as 'lows'?

The film itself predicts it, the last scene with that roomful of guys gazing at him in slack-jawed wonder as he does his motivational speaking bullshit is Scorsese's condemnation of that part of the audience, IMO.

His wife struck him and he struck her back. Does that really constitute 'beating her up'?

He didn't nearly kill his child. Sure he reversed his car into a pillar, but the only thing his child seemed to endure was trauma. That's my point, the commentary is too careful. Nothing creates a prolonged sense of repulsion. Everything that could be percieved as a criticsm are ultimately undone by pseudo acts of redemption.

I agree with you when you say that Scorsese subtly criticizes how these sharks can keep going. That's captured by Belfort posing the same question that he posed to table of his associates, "sell me this pen". Scorsese is asking, how is this person free to ask such a question? My point Angeles, is that Scorsese had a great opportunity to nail monopoly capitalism with this piece. Instead of just providing a balanced commentary, it would have been nice to see him aggressively expose Belfort. I know that's not Scorsese's style, but unfortunately that indecisiveness has inadvertently created a lot of false glamorization. Not necessarily by Scorsese, but by an extremely naïve audience.

He punches her in the stomach, yes I would say that counts. He also clearly intends to rape her until she turns the tables on him out of desperation with her 'one last time' speech.

I completely disagree, there's scarcely a moment he's on-screen where he's not blatantly being presented as repulsive and pathetic. That Belfort has a cameo, can also be viewed as being the absolute last joke on him. (Although he's such a delusional prat, he'll never get it). Do we *really* need someone to sound out for us that the top tier wall street guys got there by being cunts? Does a movie that contains a scene where a bunch of adults gleefully discuss the prospect of dwarf tossing need to further underscore that these people are titanic assholes? Scorsese has spent his entire career bestowing a certain tattered humanity upon psychotics and murderers, he has none for Belfort. Just a series of jokes at his expense.

Charismatic counts though. As much as I hate these guys that I've come across (Marcus Tandy, he even has a dick name, sales guy banned from every bar in town, drunken coke head, but he knew sales he was sales and could work a whole room of losers into a frenzy. Everyone was hypnotized and thought he was a dick, but they loved him too, they wanted to be him. real life) Do you think he launched dwarves at a target because that was his personal thing or because that's basically what lowest common denominator people want, cash and dwarves. So on one side you having the working stiffs, these guys who work 20 hours a day who need a release, whatever works, and us the liberal leaning audience, include Marty at the bottom line, we abhor yet we are fascinated, like Scorsese is. He's an asthma kid who wants to be a bad boy.

You can overstate how much Marty loathes him because he's just a completely average bigoted misogynist, only the liberal pod sees him as some threat to society. He's not, he's barely noticeable in the ocean of sharks.

I don't see where in his other movies he's given them all more humanity. Not in Goodfellas or Departed the most comparable movies or Casino. I don't see the humanity in those characters. Maybe they humbled but no quarter is given, they kill each other to survive. Also all pure ego and survivalism. That's the truth, that's why we respect Marty.

I see it more in Belfort, he's really ready to tell the FBI to screw themselves until he realizes it's futile. He slips Jonah Hill a note "don't incriminate yourself". He's right too as well about his wife being a "money grubbing whore". Her answer is much more callous "well you knew who I was when you married me". No honor amongst thieves I guess.

He was a degenerate conman amongst other degenerate conmen, in a world that fucks the little guys over. I think the movie exposed corruption for what it is, kind of not that big a deal if you are rich. If you have the money the swiss banks will hide it for you. If you have money prison is tennis and a movie deal. That's the message that I took away from it, not this guy is like pure evil. He's not a nun let's be realistic though.

I think it's a very non-judgmental movie. It's kind of like Catch Me If You Can. Here's this guy, what does he say about us. Not, like this guy is a prick let's just show him being a bad guy. The final destination for Marty is probably like most us, this is unnecessary, it's not healthy.

The audience sees parts of themselves in him, then Marty's job is to tease those out and make us ask the questions. The ending for me is like "And here we go again" look at the intensity on those peoples faces, they are ready to do anything to make that money. It's ravenous Capitalism, it's unstoppable, it's human nature, we're animals for the dollars.

Just to take the high moral ground is to sell the movie short. The point of the movie isn't as simple as this is bad, it's like this is bad but is it avoidable, is this who we are?

I think also Marty sees himself in Belfort. The things you have to do to make money have hit movies, and Marty was a lude expert for a while in the 70s his parties were 24/7. But he knows you have to dance in the fire to make it.

Edited January 15, 2014 by wasted

[Guest Len B'stard]

Scorsese is still embarrassingly inept with female roles.

Age of Innocence? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore? Cybil Shepherds character in Taxi Driver? Cathy Moriarty in Raging Bull?

You've mentioned four films out of thirty something. And Betsy in Taxi Driver isn't much of an example, the tween hooker is given a lot more depth. You can't honestly assess his work without recognizing that women are not his strong suit, anymore than you can ignore that Woody Allen's New York sure has different racial demographics than, you know, New York. The majority of his films sideline the female characters to madonna/whore/nagging wife stereotypes that occaisonally pick fights with or make dinner for the male protagonist.

When forced to deal with actually developed female characters (Alice, and Age of Innocence, which I still consider his definitive masterwork), he does fine, but you can't deny he doesn't do it very often.

Sorry, i meant Jodie Fosters character Iris, as a character there's as much compelling about her as there is about Travis. Point being i dont think its that he can't, its just that he doesn't.

[DieselDaisy]

I have heard similar criticisms also about Kurosawa, that his female characters are inept. They are usually submissive Japanese female archetypes apart from the scheming 'Lady Macbeth' roles in Throne of Blood and Ran.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Pretty accurate too if you think about it.

[Facekicker]

Wolf is driving the feminazi's crazy. Brilliant.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I think people get way too wrapped up in 'what is this movie trying to say'.

[Facekicker]

Yeah who gives a fuck? If I want deep and meaningful there is plenty of that bollocks elsewhere. It is nice to see a testosterone and cocaine fuelled three hour debauched frenzy with tits and ass and a expletive laden script that outdoes Oliver Stone. Bonus points for not bowing to the politically correct arseholes and Jezebel feminazi's. Fuck em all.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Not only that but…every tale isn't necessarily reflective of some kind of moral or amoral point the director or creator is trying to make. It doesn't necessarily mean in every situation where if a film is made where you interpret it to have particular message or if a director does this, this and this then those things could only have one meaning, like he's sending out a socialist message or celebrating capitalism or…y'know, what have you. It COULD be but it doesn't necessarily always have to be the case and it's important to guard against that kind of mentality because sometimes you end up shooting someone down for sending a message that they haven't sent.

Not agreeing with your interpretation of what the message behind a particular piece is doesn't necessarily make it a bad film.

Edited January 19, 2014 by sugaraylen

[wasted]

I don't think Scorsese really makes those kind of points. Nowhere near as obvious as Stone.

It really casts the Wall Street Trader as rock star and working class hero first and foremost. Belford gets a pass bcos he's one of us.

I can't really see the point of the movie as a moral lesson, the way it plays out is just the entertainment of the wild excessive ride, where he has out smarted the Feds. King for a day fool for a lifetime maybe.

It has the same wry irony of Taxi Driver. As in Travis tries to change things but its a waste of time and ultimately life goes on.

This review seems to sum it up.

http://www.examiner.com/article/martin-scorsese-accused-of-glorifying-jordan-belfort-wolf-of-wall-street

It's like this guy is an asshole but he's a fascinatingly entertaining asshole. Personally I think maybe Scorsese is playing a very knowing game. Maybe that's why the Oscars don't flood in. His fall back is it opens up a dialogue. I don't really think that is how people enjoy the movie.

There's an element of us attaching Belfort on to the bigger financial crisis and it's moral complications. He's small fry compared to the organized crime that's been going on in the banks. This is more of a character study which has peaked the interest of consumers in the current climate.

Edited January 20, 2014 by wasted

[Facekicker]

It's not getting oscars because he went outside the studios to finance it, the main characters are degenerate jews and women are depicted as whores throughout.

It pissed off the Hollywood old guard, apparently a number of them walked out of a screening in Hollywood.

Fuckin dinosaurs.

[DieselDaisy]

Pretty accurate too if you think about it.

Yes, although understandable as Kurosawa came from a patriarchal old Samurai family steeped in Confucianism and you have to remember, feminism was - is still to a certain degree - about fifty years behind in Japan than it is in the west. Mizoguchi is a director with incredibly strong female roles (cf. Oharu, Street of Shame, Sisters of Gion) which is understandable as he was rescued from an 'Oliver Twist' existence by his sister, who had been sold into Geishadom, and obtained a job for the young Kenji stitching Kimonos. You could not envision a more different background than Kurosawa's if you tried! Incidentally, I have often wondered if Life of Oharu influenced Loach's Cathy Come Home. There are some remarkable similarities between the two films.

Scorsese is better than the Oscars. Who cares about the oscars? I am a movie fanatic yet I have never watched one ceremony yet! If I was to put credence in a film festival, it would be Venice or Cannes.

Edited January 20, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Guest Len B'stard]

Yeah, same here Dies', never watched no Oscars, never gave a shit about them, just the industry congratulating itself for being...itself.

And you're right about Scorsese being better than The Oscars.

[wasted]

Sundance is hilarious. Smoking blunts on a mountain. Yes this film is good.

[bacardimayne]

Just watched this. Absolutely loved it. 3 hours of endless entertainment.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fuck me, was it 3 hours? Sailed by

[bacardimayne]

Also I can't believe I recognized

the real Jordan Belfort's cameo at the end

That was awesome.

[Guest NGOG]

working class hero

But Belfort was never anything but middle class - that is actually stated in the opening monologue - so how can he be a working class hero? He stole from the working class to get where he was.

I made a mistake analyzing this film because it's not an accurate depiction of Belfort, it's just entertainment.

Edited January 20, 2014 by NGOG

[Angelica]

working class hero

But Belfort was never anything but middle class - that is actually stated in the opening monologue - so how can he be a working class hero? He stole from the working class to get where he was.

I made a mistake analyzing this film because it's not an accurate depiction of Belfort, it's just entertainment.

Agreed, Belfort was not working class and he was not portrayed as such in the film.

IMO, it's obviously a satire. And a great, brutal one at that. I get your take on the film though, I just disagree with it. Some of the replies in this thread sort of validate your criticisms, though.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Angelica

[Guest Len B'stard]

working class hero

But Belfort was never anything but middle class - that is actually stated in the opening monologue - so how can he be a working class hero? He stole from the working class to get where he was.

I made a mistake analyzing this film because it's not an accurate depiction of Belfort, it's just entertainment.

IMO, it's obviously a satire. And a great, brutal one at that.

This.

[Guest NGOG]

IMO, it's obviously a satire. And a great, brutal one at that. I get your take on the film though, I just disagree with it. Some of the replies in this thread sort of validate your criticisms, though.

Indeed.

Many people are entranced by the prospect of "doing a Belfort" themselves; instead of considering the morality of stock broking. Yes you have a chance of becoming momentarily rich beyond belief, but it's a vicious cycle that will ultimately see you reduced to nothing again.

There's also a bit of Gordon Gecko ending in the sense that Belfort never loses his relationship with money. If you've seen the sequel to Wall Street, Gecko immediately seizes the opportunity to get rich again. It's been reported that Belfort has made in excess of 1 million from motivational speaking.

Edited January 20, 2014 by NGOG

[Daedalus]

Also I can't believe I recognized

the real Jordan Belfort's cameo at the end

That was awesome.

Yeah, that was cool.

[GivenToFly]

IMO, it's obviously a satire. And a great, brutal one at that. I get your take on the film though, I just disagree with it. Some of the replies in this thread sort of validate your criticisms, though.

Indeed.

Many people are entranced by the prospect of "doing a Belfort" themselves; instead of considering the morality of stock broking. Yes you have a chance of becoming momentarily rich beyond belief, but it's a vicious cycle that will ultimately see you reduced to nothing again.

You get the same thing with gangster movies. How many guys have Scarface posters on their walls or idolize Henry Hill or Michael Corleone? I wonder if they simply don't understand the 'fall' part of the 'rise and fall' nature of these stories or they simply think it's all worth it.

[dalsh327]

Scorsese likes doing "American Dream" stories, DiCaprio did a character study on someone he wanted to understand the motivation behind doing something horrible to people, and why he let himself get consumed by it. He understands better than anyone what that lifestyle is like, but not the way Belfort went about it.

They know money can make for a potentially boring topic, so they have to get into the sex, drugs, and excess.

Piers Morgan's talking to Belfort tonight on CNN.

Movie review from an interesting perspective.

http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2013/12/29/my-wolf-of-wall-street-review/

Edited January 21, 2014 by dalsh327

[wasted]

working class hero

But Belfort was never anything but middle class - that is actually stated in the opening monologue - so how can he be a working class hero? He stole from the working class to get where he was.

I made a mistake analyzing this film because it's not an accurate depiction of Belfort, it's just entertainment.

Agreed, Belfort was not working class and he was not portrayed as such in the film.

IMO, it's obviously a satire. And a great, brutal one at that. I get your take on the film though, I just disagree with it. Some of the replies in this thread sort of validate your criticisms, though.

I was talking more about how audience views Belfort and why these books are best sellers. It's escapism for the working class, of a life they will never have. It's a fantasy. And in that way he becomes a hero for doing what needs to be done. That's why heist movies popular.

I agree there's a difference between what Marty thinks he's doing and the audience it finds. I find it hard to believe he doesn't know what he's doing to certain degree.

Why does that book get made into a movie. Because audiences love this stuff. It's really an extension of Gordon Gecko. Accept this time they know it will be misunderstood. Bud Fox is meant to be the hero. Even when Patrick Bateman is a serial killer people don't get the satire.

Maybe it's the real ness or honesty that audiences respond to. As for most people their jobs must be relatable. Even if you sell perfume at the counter in a department, telesales, up selling at mcDs. It's the art of the con. After a long day ripping people off, everyone likes to go out.

I think a lot of the audience doesn't get the satire. Or enjoys it in other ways.

Edited January 21, 2014 by wasted