Skip to main content

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street
(2013)

Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.


I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy whose first day as a fully-fledged broker is that of the 1987 stock market crash. Belfont’s rise up the ladder comes via an inauspicious Long Island boiler room, where he instantaneously makes his mark as a highly effective dealer in penny stocks; instead of the rich and stupid, he targets the poor and stupid. With a supreme knack for selling people what they don’t want, and having been mentored to put his own profit first, Belfort soon starts his own firm (Stratton Oakmont). Its success is built on securities dupery; investors are defrauded through “pump and dump” sales of useless stock. But he also lusts after the respectable end of business. So he arranges the IPO of a prominent shoe designer, from which he also illegally makes a killing. Before long he is attempting to hide his shedloads of cash in Swiss bank accounts, with the FBI is breathing down his neck.


That’s the “proper” plot. But Scorsese and screenplay writer Terence Winter choose to make the evils of the market place merely the backdrop. This is really a film about unchecked hedonism; it’s wall-to-wall with the stuff. Do they think we don’t want or need the fine detail, as we know all traders are scum? The Goodfellas comparison bears some consideration, as, unlike that film, there’s no opportunity to develop its sociopathic protagonist (even if Henry Hill is spiralling out of control, he has an arc). Belfort is pretty much a fixed personality 20 minutes in, and his eventual “redemption” (reinvention might be a better word) as a motivational speaker suggests no degree of repentance; merely an opportunist forced to make his money in a new way. 


His life has (mostly drug-induced) highs, but the lows have no real weight behind them because we don’t care about the self-absorbed prick. And also because he remains relatively unaffected by, even oblivious to, the downsides. He doesn’t actually pay very much for his sins. And that may be the point; it’s all really easy, and even those who “suffer” in the Wall Street game don’t really suffer. They get an easy ride, and before long they can dust themselves off (white-collar crime itself carries a certain “not all that shameful” cachet).  Matthew McConaughey’s mentor figure sets out the (im)morality stall in a spellbinding extended cameo that introduces us to the law of the Wall Street jungle; you make money for yourselves, not your investors, and no one knows a damn thing. It’s just what we already knew though, isn’t it? We can all go home now, can’t we? No, not yet. Let’s see how these rich fucks live, shall we?


So perhaps the lack of ethical compass, and Scorsese’s disinterest in establishing any such direction, is an intended lesson in the nature of this (business) world. But if so, and I’ll ask this a few times, isn’t he preaching to the choir? Strike that down, and what has film got up its sleeve other than an ability to shock, titillate, and/or appal. Goodfellas introduced us to both the lifestyle and the life; we felt like we were privy to the ways of the wiseguy. TWOWS seems content to cast this aside with Belfort’s smug to-camera pronouncement that the ways of the trader are much too complicated and we don’t really want to hear about them. Which strikes me as a cop out. If Scorsese and Hill don’t want to provide any such insights, why spend so long not getting there? Margin Call proved that complex financial manoeuvring can be made comprehensible, so it’s doubly disappointing. The closest we get is the subplot of the protracted public offering, but only because it relates to Jordan’s downfall, not because Winter has any apparent interest in it in and of itself.


TWOWS spends undue time evidencing Belfort’s rapacious capacity for extreme behaviour; much of it is a variation on the same, and leaves a clear trajectory at the door. The film seems wilfully disdainful of narrative progression, swimming in circles with repetitive scenes of jaundiced acts. The argument may be that such wearisome reiteration is the point, but is it one we needed ramming home? It’s a curious defence of the movie that a director is attempting to test the patience of his audience in order to deliver a thematic message (not that the film is ever boring in a given scene, but its content becomes cumulatively redundant). All we actually need to get the memo is a judiciously placed scene; it’s right there when Jonah Hill’s Donnie Azoff is wanking away in full view at a house party, or to a lesser extent when Belfort awakes in restraints on a transatlantic flight. It doesn’t take much to recognise that these guys are arseholes or to tire of their ways, and frankly it does the audience, and the filmmaker, a disservice to make excuses for a lack of control in the editing suite (I know, I know; Thelma Schoonmaker is a titan. And it’s not her editing of individual scenes that’s the problem – it’s the size of the beast as a whole).


Given the devotion to Belfort, it’s curious that we never really get an idea of why his staff love him so; by the time we reach his soon-not-to-be leaving speech, the mention of his £25k gift to one of his first (female) employees (tears all round) feels like a desperate sop to claw him back the vaguest suggestion of selflessness amidst the consummate self-centredness. And naturally it fails.


It’s also a problem that the motivational speeches come too late. We’ve already seen what Belfort can do much more impressively during the penny shares scene. With that, and the mesmerising monologue from Matt McC, anything else was going to have to struggle to make the same mark. Good as Leo is (strike that, he’s great), he is unable to convince us his staff are really awed and pumped to sell. There’s none of the electricity to his speech the way there is with Alec Badwin’s sales pitch to his sellers in Glengarry Glen Ross. Part of it is no doubt that they are empty words, but isn’t the key to make us hear it the way the rapt employees do? Hill and Scorsese are undoubtedly more enamoured with their character than we are (or Leo, who initiated the project, is), so it is fortunate that they have the gift of DiCaprio’s performance. 


The actor is on the top of his game, even if his narration seems to be consciously channelling Ray Liotta’s nonchalant Henry Hill. Above and beyond selling us the idea that Belfort is a great salesman, the most impressive thing here is how damn funny Leo is. We know Jonah Hill can be funny (if he’s not trying too hard, and with enormous whitened dentures and horn-rimmed specs he’s been blessed with all the props he needs), but DiCaprio is frequently, apparently effortlessly, hilarious. So he’s got one up on Scorsese’s one-time multi-collaborator De Niro there.


TWOWS is the closest Scorsese has come to a (twisted) comedy since the early ‘80s and The King of Comedy and After Hours. He undoubtedly succeeds in that fine juggling act between making TWOWS both raucously funny and at the same time very much not a celebration of these people. We can see the unthinking cruelty and disdain for their prey, and the irony that most of these specimens of power broking are found wanting in both looks and personality is not lost on us. No one would seriously want to be in their shoes unless they too were sociopaths. Like the guys cueing up to join the firm after a Forbes article rips a piece out of Belfont. And unlike the poor schmuck who cleans the goldfish bowl (I do wonder when I read that Jonah Hill reportedly wanted to actually eat a live goldfish for his “art”; it sounds like he’s a rather impressionable young wannabe “serious” thespian).


The comic beats are often sublime. There’s the anecdote about Jordan’s father, in which a resplendent Rob Reiner shouts and swears his way to answer the telephone (who would dare to call his house on a Tuesday, when he is watching The Equalizer?). It’s the kind of thing this film has in abundance. Beautifully formed, perfectly pitched individual scenes. There’s just too many of them. And then sometimes the jokes fall flat because, as with every aspect here, it’s stuck on repeat. Scorsese encourages improv, but a lot of the party time and office material feels like outtakes from a lesser Will Ferrell movie. I mentioned Jonah Hill wanking (and it will come up again and again). By the time he pisses in a bin, the office scenes are beginning to induce fatigue.


And there’s another problem here. The heightened take on the lifestyle, the comedy and the cartoonishness, denies TWOWS any resonance. This is a gaudy, titillating and gross comic book. Dazzlingly made by a master but with no idea when to stop. We’re carried along by the bravura filmmaking but soon the feeling of nourishment has passed and we’re left with mild indigestion.


It’s probably unsurprising that Scorsese comes especially alive depicting the drug side of the depravity. If he could have brought that same keenness of craft to the trading, wouldn’t TWOWS have been a greater achievement? To initiate us into the scams and low-down trickery rather than (as mentioned) self-reflexively pronouncing they are too hard to understand. The vice is the easy part, which is why it goes on and on and on.


What has already become known as The Quaaludes Scene is extraordinary (not the one depicted above). It’s the most staggeringly well-conceived and executed, laugh-out-loud funny piece of pure cinema I’ve seen in many a year. A 15 (20?) minute episode of sustained comic timing and tension, it shows TWOWS at its very best. Jordan’s ancient Lemons finally take hold at a country club, rendering him immobile. Somehow he must make his way home to warn Donnie not to use the FBI-tapped telephone. Even if it means crawling. If Scorsese can deliver something as perfect as this, surely he should be able to see that a few less office jamborees and hookers wouldn’t be missed in the cause of greater focus. I was oblivious to the effects of Quaaludes before watching the film, and I can’t say I really understand their appeal after. In the absence of any to hand (perhaps TWOWS will spark an illicit comeback?) I will have to Wiki the damn things.


If you took away the acres of flesh and mounds of coke you could probably shave (an appropriate word, given the bodies on display) a good 90 minutes off the film. While ex-coke fiend Scorsese draws on every piece of technical jiggery-pokery in his arsenal to render the effects of narcotics, he is more reserved with the sex. Obviously, this side has received all the attention (I don’t doubt that Hill’s prosthetic cock needed trimming to stave off the NC-17 rating) but like a good Catholic boy Marty films the rumpo dutifully rather than lasciviously (if there’s one thing Scorsays is not, its Paul Verhoeven). I fear for Margot Robbie, however; she may be instantly been consigned to Shazza Stone’s fate of showing off her wares in each new coming attraction.


Maybe I’m just ungrateful. I in no way wanted a repeat of the cosy morality of Wall Street, but I do understand the complaint that the filmmakers needed to show the victims’ side. I don’t necessarily agree with this, as it would be very difficult to pull off without a queasy Oliver Stone-esque morality play creeping in. But the sheer length of the film makes it something of a one-trick pony, telling variations on the same gag over and over. Scorsese has the same problem as Bay with Pain & Gain, although he is an incomparably superior filmmaker (much, much smarter for starters) and can nurture a scene like no other in order to extract its primary purpose. But he has the same problem of too much story, when that too much story is actually the same story going round and round (a bit like this review, actually). You can’t school Bay but Scorsese seems to be getting less ruthless as he gets older, even if the actual prowess on display proves he’s as vital a visual force as ever.


You can see the lack of clarity in the stop-start structure. The FBI guy (Kyle Chandler; as soon as I saw him I thought, “Of course! Kyle Chandler’s been cast in the Kyle Chandler part!”) is introduced (a great scene on Jordan’s yacht where he kind of doesn’t try to bribe the Feds; this is what I mean – any given stretch of the movie will reap a gem of a scene somewhere) and then promptly disappears for another 40 minutes. The director has all these plates spinning but is distracted by the soufflés perched atop them. Even then, because he’s a master, just as things get a bit samey, he throws something else into the mix (who saw the yacht-sea rescue coming?) But he needed to move on to keep the story interesting. Rather than pepping it up with visual ludes, dude.


Mention of the FBI leads to another issue. It’s clearly a conscious decision. We’re rarely away from Jordan’s company; he’s the narrator of his own tale, after all. But we weren’t away from Henry Hill much in Goodfellas and we still got a look-in from Lorraine Bracco. There’s no other perspective in the movie. Not of his wife (wives). Not of the victims. Not of the FBI. TWOWS might be a reasonably acute character sketch, but it would have worked better if it had an alternate view of the world outside of Belfont. It’s indulgent. So the film is a reflection of Belfont, see; Scorsese has become Belfont. No, that’s not an excuse.


Along with this, as usual Scorsese features under-developed female characters at every stage. Here they are mostly just sex objects (or the subjects of spousal infidelity and abuse), and you can see how it wouldn’t make much sense to attempt something more insightful. But there are two wives to pick from, one with a conscience (she had to go), and the other as unscrupulous in her own way as Belfont. Just because she too is vacuous in terms of values doesn’t mean the plot wouldn’t have benefited from such broadening. Indeed, it might have been just the kind of reinforcement endless redundant shots of coke snorted off tits fails to convey.


I’ve mentioned several of the actors on display (and many are most definitely on display). It’s an eclectic Scorsese cast as ever, and a mostly seamless one. You can’t help but be painfully conscious of all that weight Matt McC lost for Dallas Buyers Club. And I never expected to see Joanna Lumley in a Marty movie, less still in a clinch with Leo. Jon Bernthal does his best dense De Niro impression. Spike Jonze is typically oddball as the boiler room guy a little turned on by Jordan. Mackenzie Meehan’s ultra-coarse secretary Hildy is wonderful. Only Jean Dujardin seems a little out of place, falling prey to that thing of an international star in Hollywood ending up all-at-sea in the roles he lands.


For all the faults I’ve mentioned (what is frustrating about TWOWS, and a number of recent movies, is that it’s so close to greatness; in every case issues come down to the script), this is the best Scorsese since he first stepped out with young Leo.  I may be in the minority, but I rather favour his formal experimentation during the ‘90s, taking in new genres and stylistic approaches. The likes of The Age of Innocence and Kundun are in some ways far flung masterpieces. Probably the last film of his I instantly adored (admittedly I haven’t seen it in a number of years) was the mostly maligned Bringing out the Dead. But this might be his first since Goodfellas to have the sense of immediacy that comes from a willingness to improvise. It’s both better (spontaneous invention) and worse (indulging such invention) for it.


As for its Oscar chances, at five nods it’s way back in field with half the number of Gravity and American Hustle. There are six films with more nominations than TWOWS, so it will have its work cut out for it if it’s to make any impression. But The Departed, a solid but minor league Scorsese effort, was also nominated for only five awards, and took home four of them. At least they’re all meaty ones (Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor and Adapted Screenplay). I certainly wouldn’t argue that DiCaprio and Scorsese aren’t firing on all cylinders, and no one could complain if they were awarded gongs (I don’t think either will be, however), but TWOWS simply doesn’t deserve Best Picture. It’s become very nearly a ritual to nominate the latest Scorsese film (Hugo and The Aviator had 11 each, Gangs of New York 10); Shutter Island is the only recent film of his that failed to get any attention, and that’s because it’s a bit shit.


No matter how terrible, I doubt that I’d actually walk out of a film unless it was eliciting some uncontrollable physical reflex from me. Or I’d eaten something nasty during the previous 24 hours. In which case I’d probably be running for the exit. Several people left during the screening I attended. Sometime after the point where Hill was waggling his wanger. That might sum up TWOWS, though. Eager to offend. Apparently it sets a new record for uses of the word “fuck”, but if I hadn’t been told that, I wouldn’t have noticed.


TWOWS is just as extraordinary a piece of filmmaking but a much lesser film than Goodfellas.  In the absence of insight or agenda or purpose, what we are left with is a three-hour film about a conscience free amoral huckster indulging himself over and over again and learning nothing. Gee, Marty, did you really need all that time to tell us something we know already, that finance guys are crooks and scum and don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves? Even Oliver Stone needed less time (Belfont was, tellingly, inspired by Gordon Gekko). How about some insight into the self-perpetuating system that beheads a few high profile sacrificial lambs but leaves the juggernaut unscathed? No?


He certainly succeeds in showing the wanton profligacy, the abandon and decadence, but when there’s nothing else this becomes indulgence in need of an editor who’s not also a dear friend. The irony of criticising The Wolf of Wall Street is that it’s a highly entertaining movie. It just isn’t a very thoughtful or layered one. All it has to say is on the surface, with the defence that this is because Belfont is all on the surface. In that respect too, it’s not very far from Pain & Gain. Is it wrong to want more than confection for the eyes? In five years time kids will be making Leo’s Belfont a role model the way he did Gekko. Which is a dubious achievement.


****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…