I don't really know how true this is anymore. Sure everyone wants to be filthy rich but I think there is a general disdain for how modern corporate America has gone about gaining its wealth since 2008. We enjoy the fantasy of WOWS but only as escapist fantasy. When we leave the theatre I don't think there is any confusion about how we should act as a society.

I don't think the final shot of him selling his schtick to some clueless rubes is any indictment on the people that are victims of Wall Street or people who came to enjoy the movie. The Wall Street douchebags get away with their extravagant crimes because there are fundamental inequalities inherent in the American political system not because people are secretly too envious to hold corporate America accountable in the hopes that they too will someday be the future Belforts of the world.

About the first paragraph: if you don't see the destructional character of JB's lifestyle by watching WOWS, I think that's more on you than on Scorcese not showing that destruction explicit enough. It is not explicit but it's absolutely there, and the makers not showing that stuff explicitly at the benefit of a better / more entertaining movie does not lead me to think they want to 'glorify' JB's life.

That second paragraph is just absurd and extremely judgmental. Who are you to tell people why they find certain stuff entertaining? So IYO people who enjoy Rambo dream of violently killing other people while spouting off ridiculous one-liners? People who enjoy Star Wars dream of living in some kind of random universe light years away from us?

In no way does being entertained by WOWS mean that one covets living Jordan Belfort's life. Ugh.

You're forgetting that you're viewing Jordan's actions through a filter (the film) that CANNOT be unbiased. It's impossible for any human being to simply show something without assuming some sort of stance on it because you're constantly choosing what to show vs. what not to show. And by choosing what to show vs what not to show, you're providing context for the audience as to how to interpret it. By creating a context for Jordan Belfort that's largely consequence free, the movie ends up cushioning the character of Jordan Belfort. To use a film analogy, the entire movie presents the Jordan Belfort character in 'soft focus'.

I was merely trying to point out how the movie is quite willing to show Jordan as self-destructive (that's where a lot of the humor comes from), but it refuses to explicitly show how destructive he is to others (his ex-wife, the people he's stealing money from). It enables the audience to maintain likability for him because really, he's not such a monster, he's just hurting himself.

What else would one find entertaining about this movie? We get to be a fly on the wall of this out of control life style.

I am not saying we can't figure out bad consequences to his lifestyle but Scorsese decided to focus on the parts of Belforts life that were entertaining and not the negative aspects. I am not criticizing him for not spelling this out, he made the movie that he made. I am just saying that it's a glorification of Belforts life, I don't see why that statement would be controversial or bothersome to people.

Have you never met a star wars fan? It's total escapism.

Yes, the makers chose to show all events through JB's eyes, I just disagree that that necessarily means the movie glorifies everything - it's merely an artistic choice. In essence, deciding whether something is shown vs not shown is basically a JB decision and not a decision of the makers.

I understood what you meant, I just didn't notice this the way you did (that doesn't necessarily mean the dissonance isn't there). It's also a consequence of choosing to film from JB's POV: he sees/experiences the pain he causes himself, but not what he does to others (being the narcissistic and egotistical douchebag he is).

I never said it wasn't escapism, just that enjoying this movie isn't like admitting you actually want to be like JB or live his life. People who enjoy Rambo don't dream of going on killing sprees, they just find it entertaining to watch a heroic war veteran cause havoc all over the place. Similarly, I can find it entertaining to watch JB snort coke out of a hooker's ass, without actually wanting to do it myself. The idea that being entertained by a movie means that you covet the life depicted in it is absurd to me.

I don't think people that watch Rambo enjoy it for the escapism of a murder rampage but there definitely escapism to want to live the heroic life, be under fire, and come out alive.

I guess we just disagree on the definition of escapism. You can watch a movie and live a fantasy and enjoy the escapism and still come out not wanting to live that life in the real world. That's what escapism is, to fantasize about what it would be like to live another life with a different set of social constraints (or lack thereof)

I would never live the drugged up life of Jordan Belfort because I would have to face the real world consequences of drug addiction. But drugs are awesome in the short run and watching a movie that glorifies drug abuse (by minimizing the negative aspects) can be an escape into a world that is free of consequence.

I dunno, to me that is one of the major purposes of movies. Movies are also their to inform but since we all agree that Scorsese purposefully chose not to make the movie an informative expose of Wall Street I can only assume its purpose is for the audience to escape their social norms into the fantastical life of Jordan Belfort.

It's like when I play a game like grand theft auto. I do so explicitly to cause as much mayham as possible, to escape from the constraints of society in a consequence free simulation of the real world. When I leave that world I have no interest in harming others and can remain an upstanding member of society. I was able to enjoy WOWS on that same level and I don't see what's wrong with that.

seriously the arguments against this movie are such aids.

I honestly can not make any sense of them. Is the basic premise of the argument suggesting there's a version of this movie where the characters are meant to be admired? If so, I must answer the question with a question: are you insane?

No, not ALL events. That's the entire point right there.

A JB as in Jordan Belfort decision? How? He didn't make the movie. Martin Scorsese did. It's not like they didn't change things in the movie from the way it was described in the book. In the movie, the character of Donnie Azzoff is supposedly an amalgam of several people described in Belfort's memoir.


Well, yes, of course. This isn't the first movie/TV show filmed from one character's POV - think of Tony from the Sopranos. Like Belfort, he's a likable guy who gets rich doing some nasty things, and the show is designed, on some level, to have the audience root for Tony. But the Sopranos, unlike WoWS, also shows us all of the destructiveness that Tony leaves in his wake, the toll his actions take on his family, his friends, and depending on how you interpret his motives for therapy, his own mental health.

The destruction is self-evident. It's also littered throughout the film, if you pay attention. Witness the scene where Jordan is recounting the guy who married the office slut and "eventually he got depressed and killed himself three years later....anyway..." Why is that included, especially accompanied by a shot of a dead body in a bloody bathtub, if the idea is to glamorize Belfort and the lifestyle?

I could cite at least a half-dozen other similar moments where the satire is subtle but clear. It's funny that this type of shallow criticism has been going on since Mean Streets, and when Scorsese does try to hammer home a message like the final shot of the rat in The Departed (also misinterpreted by most) he gets bashed for being too obvious.

Yes, that one second shot was deep and meaningful. Especially since it was one of the brokers themselves, so someone implicit in the lifestyle, not someone they stole money from. It's included to show how self-destructive the lifestyle is, not how destructive to society as a whole it is. It's a limp wristed critique. Quoting DiCaprio himself: "We purposely didn’t show (Belfort’s) victims. We wanted the film to be a hypnotic ride the audience gets on so they get lost in this world and not see the destruction left in the wake of this giant ship of greed."

Can you please provide some more examples? Your one, one-second example is not really convincing as a basis for 'satire.'

You're the one who bought the phony sales pitch of this movie as 'social critique/satire' that Scorsese, DiCaprio are trying to sell you. That's nearly as bad as buying the penny stocks from Belfort himself and hoping to get rich quick.

I like the Departed, I like Good Fellas, I like Taxi Driver. I have no problem with movies having despicable main characters and showing horrible lifestyles. What I do have a problem with is a movie that tries to sell me a phony bill of goods.

Wouldn't be surprised if Baltimore Jones is one of the more sexist posters on 2p2.

?

I think he meant "sexy."

That's what I figured.

[img]http://s13.************/froqqrggn/SPINAL_TAP_Title1_avi_snapshot_00_16_07_2012_04.jp g[/img]

WAT?

Leo's work in Django was way better than WOWS.

Agree on Marty.

Had to see this again before replying.

Right. That doesn't mean it can't be satire. We're talking about actual people and events- high profile recent ones- not fictional characters.

Sure, there are a ton.

When Jordan makes the sales call giving the client the finger and pantomiming ass-****ing him the whole time. That "I'm gonna have a beer" you can hear from the guy which makes everyone laugh even harder says worlds more than that subplot in Boiler Room about the poor guy Ribisi bilked (and that movie wimped out and let him get his money back).

Donnie shouting "**** the USA" while pissing on the subpoena (after Jordan earlier said "Stratton Oakmont IS America" in one of his pep speeches). He could have easily said "**** the FBI".

How about when Jordan almost lets his best friend die on the floor? Or when he endangers his daughter (who he hasn't even mentioned previously) out of pure revenge and spite? Or the way he never talks about anything deeper than sex, drugs, and money?

The look on the girl after her head is half-shaved. Firing the dude for cleaning his fish tank. The *looong* scene where the guys discuss dwarf tossing, referring to them as "things".

His reaction to the rescue plane exploding while the whole boat is dancing to the Italian version of "Gloria."

You really think this film is celebrating these guys?

Sorry, but you're the one who got taken if your response to it is "Why aren't we seeing the victims? How come they're portraying these thieving scumbags as being so cool?"

How is it trying to do that? Or better yet, *why* would it try to do that?

I'm not saying Scorsese isn't fascinated by and even attracted to this culture- he definitely is. And we're supposed to laugh *with* Jordan, not at him, during many of the scenes. But Scorsese and the movie are much smarter and more socially aware than you're giving them credit for.

This sums up all of my thoughts well: The Too-Appealing "Wolf of Wall Street"

"I would let Margot Robbie give me aids"

Didn't even know that was a rape scene. Pretty standard husband pressuring wife for sex.

I LOL'd so hard at that line.

Smoking hot.

I am sure it was tough for Leo to do scenes with her.

Misogynistic escapade - parts of which Scorsese was apparently embarrassed to direct, such as when in a room with an entirely naked crew and telling actor to place hand on actress from behind (he knew some of them and their parents).

The movie isn't a critique of Wall Street culture at all. None of the Wall Street firms were involved in any way, save for one line that goes something like :-

"they should go after the real crooks, Wall Street and their $trillion mortgage derivatives, not us with a few hundred $million in pink slips"

Wall Street is just a catchy name that sells tickets and attaches importance to the plot beyond its proportional value (which was a drop in the ocean compared to the real Wall Street)