The Wolf of Wall Street

[Ace Nova]

I don't know, I'm no film editor, but off the top of my head the whole thing with the boat sinking was pretty pointless. It was just a long ass movie though, I guess it had to be.

I think the boat scene was intended as a "turning point" in his life....he says something along the lines of "That was a sign from God"....and afterwards is when he decides to "go straight" so to speak....by his definition, anyway.

[Ace Nova]

I just saw the movie last night and read through about half of this thread. I enjoyed the movie for what it was - basically telling the story of a modern day (borderline) sociopath....who became a successful (but dirty) Wall Street broker. As far as others saying it was the worst Scorsese film....can't disagree more....it was a good movie.

I also disagree with anyone who thinks this film was in anyway "glorifying" Jordan Belfort, his associates or his lifestyle....if you did, you may want to take a look at yourself first. Anyone who finds that lifestyle appealing (the way it was portrayed in the movie) must desire things such as cheating people out of money...abusing drugs to the point of looking like a fool.... raunchy, promiscuous sex with prostitutes - followed by cheating on your partner and getting divorced TWICE... absolutely decadent wasting of money...and "ratting" out your own friends in order to save your own ass....I mean, seriously...how could anyone find that even modestly appealing?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

I just saw the movie last night and read through about half of this thread. I enjoyed the movie for what it was - basically telling the story of a modern day (borderline) sociopath....who became a successful (but dirty) Wall Street broker. As far as others saying it was the worst Scorsese film....can't disagree more....it was a good movie.

I also disagree with anyone who thinks this film was in anyway "glorifying" Jordan Belfort, his associates or his lifestyle....if you did, you may want to take a look at yourself first. Anyone who finds that lifestyle appealing (the way it was portrayed in the movie) must desire things such as cheating people out of money...abusing drugs to the point of looking like a fool.... raunchy, promiscuous sex with prostitutes - followed by cheating on your partner and getting divorced TWICE... absolutely decadent wasting of money...and "ratting" out your own friends in order to save your own ass....I mean, seriously...how could anyone find that even modestly appealing?

Yeah, I agree with a lot of this. Sure, there are parts where Belfort's crazy antics make him interesting, but the guy is a royal asshole. Besides the whoring, drugging, stealing, manipulation, and backstabbing, what really elevates this guy to asshat status is when he gut punches his wife near the end of the movie (I believe he also slapped her as well).

It's hard not to cheer for the guy throughout most of the movie (less so near the end) because it's his narrative and it's his story that provides the ridiculousness. But objectively, if this movie were told from the perspective of his investors or one of his ex-wives, you'd hate this guy.

Wolf is a movie about hubris and greed. Belfort is nothing more than shameless salesman without limits - certainly not anyone to to champion. Laughing at him (and I laughed my ass off when the quaaludes took effect at the country club) doesn't have to translate into cheer or support.

[sweetness]

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts, I never felt like as a viewer we were supposed to love or sympathize with the main characters, especially Belfort.

Did some reading on the real Jordan Belfort, I had no idea how accurate Wolf of Wall Street actually is. I had assumed it was all loosely based on a true story, but all of the names, companies, and most of the events are all real. Pretty crazy.

[downzy]

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts, I never felt like as a viewer we were supposed to love or sympathize with the main characters, especially Belfort.

Did some reading on the real Jordan Belfort, I had no idea how accurate Wolf of Wall Street actually is. I had assumed it was all loosely based on a true story, but all of the names, companies, and most of the events are all real. Pretty crazy.

Well, it is based on his autobiography. I downloaded the e-book version (illegally, as if this guy deserves to profit from any of his past), but haven't had time to read it. I've got 15 books in the queue, so not sure when I'll get to it.

[sweetness]

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts, I never felt like as a viewer we were supposed to love or sympathize with the main characters, especially Belfort.

Did some reading on the real Jordan Belfort, I had no idea how accurate Wolf of Wall Street actually is. I had assumed it was all loosely based on a true story, but all of the names, companies, and most of the events are all real. Pretty crazy.

Well, it is based on his autobiography. I downloaded the e-book version (illegally, as if this guy deserves to profit from any of his past), but haven't had time to read it. I've got 15 books in the queue, so not sure when I'll get to it.

Yeah I didn't know that until after I saw the movie, just assumed it was another "hollywoodized" dramatization, which considering everything that happened it easily could have been.

I wonder if they really played darts with midgets...

[Ace Nova]

Yeah I didn't know that until after I saw the movie, just assumed it was another "hollywoodized" dramatization, which considering everything that happened it easily could have been.

I wonder if they really played darts with midgets...

I wouldn't doubt it. Back in my college days I heard about fraternities hiring "midgets" to do that type of stuff all the time....personally, I thought it was horrible....but it's true....it does happen.

[Nosaj Thing]

I also disagree with anyone who thinks this film was in anyway "glorifying" Jordan Belfort, his associates or his lifestyle....if you did, you may want to take a look at yourself first.

Agreed.

I shared the same sentiment in this thread along with other posters. Cool to see we're not alone.

[wasted]

Your morals only run as deep as the surface.

[Nosaj Thing]

:rofl-lol:

[DieselDaisy]

I just saw this. It is basically a remake of Goodfellas/Casino with 80s stockbrokers substituted for mobsters; scene by scene you see this (e.g. the introduction scene of the various gangsters/brokers etc). In terms of morality however it is different. With Hill, Hill was pulled down at the end: he became a 'nobody'. Also brutal men (Pesci's character) were 'wacked'. And yes Belfort also is, sort of brought down, in the sense that he spends three years in prison, loses his wife and is forced to 'rat' on his company, yet, even the prison sequence is slight (and reminiscent of prison in Goodfellas). And he looks fairly successful as a speaker in that final scene, doesn‘t he? So there is no, comeuppance. Maybe Scorsese is commenting on, how, economically we are still at the mercy of these sleazy jacks, n.b, our own recession, Lehman Brothers - which gets a brief mention in the film. Or maybe the film does indeed lack a moral compass (which is NGOG's point I believe). I can enjoy films like this however. It is like Caligula, an orgy of sleaze, sex, drugs and decadence. It is wonderfully shot, and I agree about it being Di Caprio's greatest performance - it reminds me of the type of acting Jack Nicholson employs.

Overall, excellent film.

PS

I do not think it outright glorified him per se, but Scorsese is playing around with that subversive antihero thing, like the way Hitchcock delivered-up charismatic debonair villains. Scorsese has always had this present in his work. People complained about Goodfellas glamorising gangsters. But at no point, it has to be said, did I ever think, ''I want to be a '80s stockbroker'', so the film must be achieving something. So I would not say it glamorises Belfort and his companions, but it does walk that slight subversive line (some of us might want his cars and women - or even the drugged up decadence for a single day).

As I said, the difference here is, he does not get his comeuppance. It does not have an old Hollywood ending in otherwords where everybody has to pay for their crime. It does have a, stranded morality, which I think is deliberate and has some relation to today.

Edited February 19, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[GivenToFly]

I just saw this. It is basically a remake of Goodfellas/Casino with 80s stockbrokers substituted for mobsters; scene by scene you see this (e.g. the introduction scene of the various gangsters/brokers etc). In terms of morality however it is different. With Hill, Hill was pulled down at the end: he became a 'nobody'. Also brutal men (Pesci's character) were 'wacked'. And yes Belfort also is, sort of brought down, in the sense that he spends three years in prison, loses his wife and is forced to 'rat' on his company, yet, even the prison sequence is slight (and reminiscent of prison in Goodfellas). And he looks fairly successful as a speaker in that final scene, doesn‘t he? So there is no, comeuppance. Maybe Scorsese is commenting on, how, economically we are still at the mercy of these sleazy jacks, n.b, our own recession, Lehman Brothers - which gets a brief mention in the film. Or maybe the film does indeed lack a moral compass (which is NGOG's point I believe). I can enjoy films like this however. It is like Caligula, an orgy of sleaze, sex, drugs and decadence. It is wonderfully shot, and I agree about it being Di Caprio's greatest performance - it reminds me of the type of acting Jack Nicholson employs.

Overall, excellent film.

PS

I do not think it outright glorified him per se, but Scorsese is playing around with that subversive antihero thing, like the way Hitchcock delivered-up charismatic debonair villains. Scorsese has always had this present in his work. People complained about Goodfellas glamorising gangsters. But at no point, it has to be said, did I ever think, ''I want to be a '80s stockbroker'', so the film must be achieving something. So I would not say it glamorises Belfort and his companions, but it does walk that slight subversive line (some of us might want his cars and women - or even the drugged up decadence for a single day).

As I said, the difference here is, he does not get his comeuppance. It does not have an old Hollywood ending in otherwords where everybody has to pay for their crime. It does have a, stranded morality, which I think is deliberate and has some relation to today.

I doubt he was making 'just short of a million a week' as a speaker, so in that way he's brought down pretty hard.

[DieselDaisy]

He is still rich in prison though! In a way, the very existence of the film itself is a testament to how he still has the good life. I heard he sold the rights to his book for 1 million.

[wasted]

Scorsese and Leo both pointed to his redemption. But it comes off a bit like they are doing PR for satan.

[DieselDaisy]

Where is the redemption? Granted he gets sober but he even says that is 'shit', being sober. Then he goes to prison and says, ''I forgot I was fuckin' rich' and you see him playing tennis with the other rich prisoners. Then it cuts to the speaking engagement, ''sell me this pen'', where he is still the well-heeled, fine-suited, impossibly smug git he was at the start of the film!

[wasted]

Not in the movie, in his real life. They keep saying he turned his life around. Now he uses his talents legally and has quit drugs. So I think Marty sees it like a survivor story. That allows us to be fascinated and learn something from him. But like I said I'm not sure he really did change he's just using them to make money again.

[downzy]

Not in the movie, in his real life. They keep saying he turned his life around. Now he uses his talents legally and has quit drugs. So I think Marty sees it like a survivor story. That allows us to be fascinated and learn something from him. But like I said I'm not sure he really did change he's just using them to make money again.

Part of his plea agreement was that he was responsible for restitution, to the tune of $119 million (or something along those lines). Apparently, from what I can recall, he's been in trouble the past 10 years for not being honest with his income, as the agreement garnishes 50 percent of his yearly income to help pay back those he duped. It was discovered that he kept more than 50 percent of the money he earned from his book (which the movie is based on).

So no, I wouldn't say he found redemption in real life. He's still a schmuck.

Edited February 19, 2014 by downzy

[wasted]

Not in the movie, in his real life. They keep saying he turned his life around. Now he uses his talents legally and has quit drugs. So I think Marty sees it like a survivor story. That allows us to be fascinated and learn something from him. But like I said I'm not sure he really did change he's just using them to make money again.

Part of his plea agreement was that he was responsible for restitution, to the tune of $119 million (or something along those lines). Apparently, from what I can recall, he's been in trouble the past 10 years for not being honest with his income, as the agreement garnishes 50 percent of his yearly income to help pay back those he duped. It was discovered that he kept more than 50 percent of the money he earned from his book (which the movie is based on).

So no, I wouldn't say he found redemption in real life. He's still a schmuck.

Again, but Marty and Leo have been saying in the promo that he's turned his life around. I didn't see it in the film anywhere and suspected that he's just using them as PR.

[downzy]

Not in the movie, in his real life. They keep saying he turned his life around. Now he uses his talents legally and has quit drugs. So I think Marty sees it like a survivor story. That allows us to be fascinated and learn something from him. But like I said I'm not sure he really did change he's just using them to make money again.

Part of his plea agreement was that he was responsible for restitution, to the tune of $119 million (or something along those lines). Apparently, from what I can recall, he's been in trouble the past 10 years for not being honest with his income, as the agreement garnishes 50 percent of his yearly income to help pay back those he duped. It was discovered that he kept more than 50 percent of the money he earned from his book (which the movie is based on).

So no, I wouldn't say he found redemption in real life. He's still a schmuck.

Again, but Marty and Leo have been saying in the promo that he's turned his life around. I didn't see it in the film anywhere and suspected that he's just using them as PR.

I suppose "turning your life around" is a relative proposition. Is Belfort blowing millions up his nose and continuing to dupe people of millions? Not from what I have heard. But he's not really doing much to pay for his sins, both literally or figuratively.

[wasted]

Does Scorsese just present it as realistically as he can?

I can't see the fun in shaking my head at the immorality of it all for 3 hours.

Wolf is kind of similar to Filth. It's just a comedy.

Edited February 20, 2014 by wasted

[downzy]

Does Scorsese just present it as realistically as he can?

I can't see the fun in shaking my head at the immorality of it all for 3 hours.

Does Scorsese just present it as realistically as he can?

I can't see the fun in shaking my head at the immorality of it all for 3 hours.

Yeah, part of me thinks that the objection one has while watching the movie shouldn't necessarily be directed towards Belfort, but by the system and society that allows a conman to act with impunity.

The moral reproach belongs to Wall Street and not necessarily the wolf.

The ending kind of lends itself to this point: at the end of the day, Belfort is just a salesman. Give him the environment and enable him the way Wall Street did and society only has itself to blame for such a man.

[wasted]

Does Scorsese just present it as realistically as he can?

I can't see the fun in shaking my head at the immorality of it all for 3 hours.

Does Scorsese just present it as realistically as he can?

I can't see the fun in shaking my head at the immorality of it all for 3 hours.

Yeah, part of me thinks that the objection one has while watching the movie shouldn't necessarily be directed towards Belfort, but by the system and society that allows a conman to act with impunity.

The moral reproach belongs to Wall Street and not necessarily the wolf.

The ending kind of lends itself to this point: at the end of the day, Belfort is just a salesman. Give him the environment and enable him the way Wall Street did and society only has itself to blame for such a man.

He's facilitated by the Swiss banks. He's not the only one either, he has a whole room of assholes working for him.

Scorsese is saying in America money is power. And sociopaths are the best at this game.

I guess it's kind of how crime people look at the world. Everyone's corrupt.

He was in fact jumping through the same loop holes all rich people do.

He made his money doing some illegal. But so did Donald Trump.

So in someways Belfort is the vehicle that you need to expose the system.

[GivenToFly]

This is what Scorsese says:

Why bother telling a story of someone who’s unremarkable, some who didn’t do anything inspiring: Michelangelo, Walt Whitman, Roosevelt, Lincoln on one hand, on the other hand Rasputin, Mao, Stalin, on top of that someone who led a life that wasn’t exemplary, pretty ignoble in a way, not because they wanted to harm anybody per se but because they had no real model for leading a decent life because this is what they learned from the world around them. That’s something that I’ve always been attracted to and it’s interesting to me. Someone like Jordan, or Jake LaMotta or Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas.

People say ‘that type of person, that sort’ – I guess what that means is that they try to distance themselves from them, ‘that’s some else, that’s not me’ but in actuality I feel it’s not someone else, it’s us. It’s you and me and maybe if we had been born under different circumstances maybe we would have wound up making exactly the same mistakes and choices. I think when they say it’s people of that kind it’s not a matter of equalizing everyone and saying we’re all responsible; I think it’s a matter of facing and recognizing, acknowledging that part of us which is a part of our common humanity and we have to deal with it.

He thought that he could bypass or surpass morality with a combination of money and drugs. (…) He was different from Madoff and Skilling in that (…) Jordan’s experiences are more entertaining. That brings you closer to him because you look at these guys and think ‘this seems to be a lot of fun’. It doesn’t just look that way, they really did have a lot of fun. That’s really all they could do was have fun, and more fun, and more on top of that, until it wasn’t so much fun anymore. What they couldn’t do is just be. They just couldn’t face that. The challenge is to show that honestly, without tipping the scales to judgement and taking you outside of the world of these characters and the way that they lived their lives which was to obliterate all obstacles, all troubles, all difficulties, by taking more drugs, more money, and power.

Edited February 21, 2014 by GivenToFly

[wasted]

I can't see this vid, what does it say?

[GivenToFly]

I can't see this vid, what does it say?

I transcribed it.