By Steve Evans
Finally finished viewing Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall
Street" over three evenings separated by three weeks. My reaction is
complex and not a little confused. I salute a 70-year-old director for
producing a stylish and rambunctious motion picture that sustains the most
unchecked debauchery (three relentless hours of it) that I can recall in a
movie, yet tells the story in such farcical terms that I cannot decide whether
to be offended or laugh, or more likely, both. Hence, my ambivalent reaction to
the film. Maybe the only way to present such repellent material is to treat it
as comedy so it becomes more accessible to a mass audience that can buy
sufficient tickets for a $100 million film to become profitable (it did). Or maybe I am just
old-fashioned. Maybe my conscience influences my thoughts about
situations I find offensive yet are beyond my control. Perhaps I am more
conventional than I once believed. Or more anarchic than I could ever have imagined.
"Wolf" traces the true story of Jordan Belfort, a charismatic penny-stock broker whose taste for wealth, women and drugs seems obvious after the first three minutes of the film, then continues for hours. His appetites accelerate in ways that only a film with a hard-R rating can explore. Belfort ultimately got busted, ending up serving a couple years in a federal prison for fraud and securities-exchange violations. He avoided a 20-year sentence by ratting out his accomplices. Today he is a motivational speaker.
Less than 30 seconds of research on the web reveals he was paid $1 million by the producers of this film for the rights to tell his sordid tale.
Belfort's brokerage was a boiler room where "pump-and-dump" stock schemes involved pushing cheap, worthless investments on rubes throughout the United States who were convinced by slick salesmen to buy paper that would never pay off. When the stock reached a plateau, Belfort and his cronies sold off, leaving the core investors to suffer the aftermath of junk gone bust.
In his pursuit of the American Dream, Belfort exploited the people most susceptible to the vaporous elusiveness of that dream. As portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the film, Belfort never gave a damn about the harm he caused. If the film is at all accurate, Belfort was too fucked up on drugs and intoxicated by pussy to comprehend his own behaviors. Even in fleeting moments of lucidity he just doesn't care.
The essential lesson of "Wolf" is that obsessive
pursuit of anything (money and sex in this instance), comes at the cost of the
soul. This is no epiphany. It is not insightful, beyond the relief
that a thoroughly corrupt human being ultimately got his comeuppance, but still finagled a
sweet deal with the law and emerged chastened, if relatively unscathed.
In absolute terms, the immorality of the protagonist is
never in question: He is a scumbag. While Scorsese is ever-reliable in his
flash-bam-pow cinematic style (this movie positively sizzles with energy and
bizarre comedy), the story is familiar to anyone who follows the news and the
theme seems self-evident to anyone who knows anything about Wall Street.
If the film is to be believed, Belfort enjoyed hiring hookers to shove lighted candles in his ass while dripping melted wax on his bare back. He tossed $100 bills at FBI agents who were investigating his company. He inhaled coke like most people enjoy breathing. He ingested so many Quaaludes that he had to crawl out of a country club. His schemes were so broad and complex that even distant relatives were recruited to launder his money through Swiss banks.
So why should we care? Step back for a second and think on Scorsese's career.
To oversimplify just a bit, "Wolf" is
"GoodFellas" substituting guns for Mont Blanc pens. The films explore
different worlds, but the motivation within them is still the same as every
great Scorsese picture: money, power, sex, drugs, guilt, the hope for redemption. This time the only
unconvincing aspect of a Scorsese picture is whether the protagonist truly
feels guilt, much less seeks redemption.
Scorsese in his finest hours has been as obsessed and fascinated by these themes as any of his characters who have wallowed gleefully in decadence, madness and self-destruction. Scorsese himself came frightfully close to death in 1979, when a nightmarish addiction to cocaine nearly took his life. Robert De Niro brought to him the project that would become Raging Bull, and Scorsese devoted himself to that film as if it might be his last artistic statement in this life.
Like a moth to a flame, I believe Scorsese is more than just intrigued by these themes that imbue his films. Perhaps he even envies them, but in the case of "Wolf," at least, he cannot commit to a moral position. Still, narrative film is not journalism, in which some notion of objectivity is expected. Narrative film is art, and as an artist, Scorsese until now has always made his stance clear.It is his ambiguity over "Wolf" that makes my own ambivalence more troubling. I just don't believe Scorsese fully understands what he has created. The film was cut multiple times and the release delayed to get the running time under three hours. Maybe commercial considerations tainted the finished product.
Or maybe I expect too much from Scorsese, given his track
record of excellence (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, The
Departed -- even Casino -- come to mind). I was entertained by
"Wolf," often extremely so. But I was not enlightened.
For me, transformation is the essence of great drama. Maybe
the intent was to slay me with irony. The protagonist of "Wolf" is a
degenerate prick and remains so throughout the picture. If that was Scorsese's
goal, to show a man fundamentally incapable of change, then I need to think
long and hard about the bleakness of that world view. It is not my vision. I
believe people are capable of change. At least those who are not sociopaths.
Is sociopathy the key to success in relationships with
people (at least short term)? Is an embrace of this ethical wasteland a crucial
component of amassing wealth? Is the ability to prey upon people's weaknesses
the path to winning? And if so, what has actually been won? Scorsese's film
seems to suggest the answers to these four questions are "yes,"
"yes," "yes" and, "who cares?"
If these are the answers, my friends, that may be cause to
reevaluate my response to modern American cinema. If "The Wolf of Wall
Street" is intended as a reflection of the world we live in, a
hyper-stylized mirror image of the reality that drives the 1
percent of Americans, then I may be ready to talk a little treason. To tear
down the walls.
Truth be told, I am an anarchist at heart. In my most calm and calculated
moments, this movie made me want to swing the action end of a Louisville
Slugger savagely into the faces of several characters. I was revolted. I wanted to
do...something. Perversion, selfishness and utter self-absorption should have
no place in a world where people ought to love one another. Does that sound
precious? Think that at your peril.
Taken in that light, perhaps Scorsese's bloated look at privileged American
decadence may prove its value yet.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2014 by Steve Evans. All rights
reserved.