Author Topic: The Wolf of Wall Street  (Read 21885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +315
    • my site
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #150 on: May 04, 2014, 02:09:47 AM »
+1
I think you're misunderstanding Doyle's point. I think you're over-emphasizing the word "important" and just running with it. Also, I think this is a film that panders to that whole dark tv show watching crowd, and they take certain criticisms of Wolf more personally because this film flatters them and to dismiss the film's justification to be douchey would mean the viewers then are susceptible to douchey things, which is what the edgy tv show-watching crowd hate the most.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #151 on: May 04, 2014, 03:03:15 AM »
+1
doyle's an interesting person with a personal paradise clouded by art and booze, and i don't think he has a reigning perspective. noyeah, his perspective is plain rainy. i like rain. but sorry if it seemed like i was trying to hurl arguments from the pedestal of a high-authority

After seeing few interviews with Christopher Doyle, I took him as cokehead, not drunkard. He is interesting and fast unrelated rants are trademark of him. According to this interview (at the beginning 30 seconds in):



He hates all the films and doesn't watch them.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #152 on: May 04, 2014, 10:38:31 AM »
+3
I think you're misunderstanding Doyle's point. I think you're over-emphasizing the word "important" and just running with it. Also, I think this is a film that panders to that whole dark tv show watching crowd, and they take certain criticisms of Wolf more personally because this film flatters them and to dismiss the film's justification to be douchey would mean the viewers then are susceptible to douchey things, which is what the edgy tv show-watching crowd hate the most.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding Doyle's point, but as the quote is that brief, of course I'm running with what he is saying. The biggest criticism toward the film has been that those characters are not interesting enough to warrant the attention given to them, as if that's not a viewer's choice. It reminds me of the Raging Bull criticisms about Jake LaMotta, back when those characters weren't usual in movies: "why would I care about a cockroach like LaMotta?", and Scorsese's response, "because he's human". As Kal said, the fact that all this is based on a real human being who thinks and behaves like that, who made this and prevailed, and was even rewarded for it, it forces you to question how can a person like that come to be, what system or society creates these people, and how did we get here? who are we? Sometimes I look around, not sometimes, more like everyday, I'm baffled by the obsession with riches and consumerism in our society, how everyone's aspiration is to become rich, make money quick, and show it with cars, clothes, parties. I see this mentality all around me, all over the socioeconomic spectrum, starting with the old rich families, passing through the "nouveau riche", to the middle class, to the lower classes; each on it's own way, but under the same empty ideals. The so called american dream, or more universally, the idea that money is what matters over all other things, has evolved into this scarface / hip hop video mentality where is better to die than be less than a millionaire. morals come last. concern for others is nonexistent. I see this in my country, where crime has risen absurdly, cartels filled with kids who get paid little money, but love to drive the cool cars and show the money around, and then the girls around them, who are the same. And this film illustrates all this perfectly, even better, it shows the whole system as corrupt, not from crime and laws, but from a life philosophy perspective. By the end everyone is guilty.

I don't have a clue what you're saying regarding this dark tv crowd the film supposedly panders to. How this film flatters it's characters or people like them or who want to be like them truly escapes me. this is the second worst criticism the film has received. the panoramic view of the film and it's characters by the end is one of moral hollowness, of brutal, animalistic victim-predator reality with no foreseeable escape. do you think the film flatters this behavior and people because it plays their realities for laughs? where does it flatters these people? there's this weird notion going on basically saying that art should be like a punishing teacher, morally reprehending audiences for liking something, for laughing at things, for enjoying the ride. I suppose the film would be a hit with that crowd if instead focused on someone who got his life ruined by belfort, and as a drama, not as a comedy that ridiculed that guy, because then it would be mocking him, and it would be morally irresponsible. "12 years in debt", what about that? "stealing is bad and it's no fun". I suppose that would be interesting.

the subject of moral decay in the capitalist world, represented in the idea of greed and money while looking the other way, is one of scorsese's most prevalent themes: bringing out the dead, casino, kundun (by presenting an opposite philosophy), gangs of new york, the aviator are all films that deal with this basically as it main subject. and now this one. I not only believe is a worthy subject, but is THE SUBJECT to deal with when observing the world of the first years of the 21st century, there has never been a time when humans know so much of what they're doing wrong and at the same time pretend the damage is not there for them to act on it, and this film touches on that very nicely I think.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • Respect: +1207
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #153 on: May 04, 2014, 12:47:49 PM »
0
The biggest criticism toward the film has been that those characters are not interesting enough to warrant the attention given to them, as if that's not a viewer's choice. It reminds me of the Raging Bull criticisms about Jake LaMotta, back when those characters weren't usual in movies: "why would I care about a cockroach like LaMotta?", and Scorsese's response, "because he's human"
you just ruffled my feathers
nice
"I must whisper it to you—not because Im ashamed but because it is so Dear to me that I must keep it close to me by whispering—"

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
  • Respect: +1435
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #154 on: May 04, 2014, 01:21:47 PM »
+1
The biggest criticism toward the film has been that those characters are not interesting enough to warrant the attention given to them, as if that's not a viewer's choice. It reminds me of the Raging Bull criticisms about Jake LaMotta, back when those characters weren't usual in movies: "why would I care about a cockroach like LaMotta?", and Scorsese's response, "because he's human".

I not only believe is a worthy subject, but is THE SUBJECT to deal with when observing the world of the first years of the 21st century,

There’s a difference between an unlikable but interesting character and an uninteresting rendering of an unlikable character. Belford was a greedy Wall Street schmuck, but I don’t think anyone here went into the movie thinking we didn’t want to see a story about him. I agree with the criticisms that the characters in Wolf are uninteresting, but it has nothing to do with the subject matter or source material, which is extremely rich and full of complex avenues to explore, and everything to do with the quality of writing about it. The importance of the subject matter itself doesn't act as a substitute for drama.

When Doyle says the movie isn't engaging us in anything important, I think he's more referring to the angle the movie is coming at the material at. Is the story engaging us in the strongest, most truthful conflict here, is what I thought he was trying to say.   

Sleepless

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
  • I told you I would eat you
  • Respect: +250
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #155 on: May 05, 2014, 10:19:01 AM »
0
My life is perpetually trying to catch up with movies released 6 months ago...

I'm not offering any critique of this film, just my personal opinion.

I hated this. Watched just shy of 2 hours on Saturday night and initially intended to finish watching it on Sunday night but realized that I had absolutely no desire to other than to watch these characters get punished. Ultimately decided I'd wasted enough of my life on this. Was way too crude for my taste. Obviously we're not supposed to root for any of these characters, but I didn't feel there was anything interesting or substantial about any of them that made me want to invest in their story - even if it was to root against them. Leo deservedly didn't win any awards for this. Of the two hours I watched, I felt they could have easily edited it down to 45-50 minutes and have a better end product. Not for me.

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2570
  • Respect: +876
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #156 on: May 05, 2014, 10:22:37 AM »
+1
You watched it with your wife, didn't you?

Sleepless

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
  • I told you I would eat you
  • Respect: +250
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #157 on: May 05, 2014, 12:12:37 PM »
0
Lol, yes I did. But dude, I wasn't enjoying it. I wouldn't have if I watched it on my own. I dunno, maybe if it was 5 years ago I would have. It was just too excessive for me. But even aside from all that, I just couldn't find anything about it I liked. And I wanted to like it. Didn't.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Wolf of Wall Street
« Reply #158 on: May 08, 2014, 01:11:54 PM »
+1
goddamn it, I just don't have time to answer this properly right now.
suffice to say, subject matter is not a replacement for interesting portrayal. but to me this approach is what makes the film bold and interesting. I wasn't expecting the film to go for this kind of thing, and by doing that it became more a give and take game with the audience instead of an observational document on people like belfort. the risks of this are obvious, people like sleepless just can't take this assholes, it's a much more visceral reaction than what we could have if the film asked us to have more empathy with them.

I mention this too because even though I talked earlier about what Scorsese said in relation to Raging Bill ("because he is human") I don't think he's approaching Belfort or any of the other characters like that. He doesn't give them any dignity, as I remember the film. Every word that comes out of Belfort's mouth is turned on it's head. It's a more ambitious narrative, where we see everything from Belfort's POV while at the same time the film forces us to see things from the outside (what that review referred to as a "Godlike" contemplation). Perhaps Scorsese is way too angry about all of this to permit himself the sympathy he had for Henry Hill or other anti-heroes.

This is why I thought of Buñuel and The Exterminating Angel. The film it's almost surreal in it's endless loop of debauchery. Fun gives way to boredom, and then to horror. Just how much more drugs and parties can these people have before they get it? When are they going to think of the people they leave behind? Where is the conscience? When it finally happens, and they touch bottom, the real horror comes out: they don't learn a thing, and there's a multitude out there willing to make it all happen again for themselves.

of course I understand approaches like this are risky, and people can be turned off, but that's what real artists do with expectations. as for chris doyle, he's always been an overrated douchebag, so everything he says is kind of lame.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy