wows
Maynard contemplates this “controversial” film

This isn’t exactly a recommendation, but I found myself weirdly fascinated by “The Wolf of Wall Street”.

The film is extremely vulgar, with non-stop decadence and substance abuse. This Drudge-linked story claims WoWS uses the f-word 506 times; a record!

Upon leaving the theater, my immediate reaction was mixed. I certainly wasn’t bored. Watching this orgy of indulgence was oddly fascinating.

On the other hand, I didn’t see the take-away. Why was I exposed to this? The movie seemed to hit a note and stay there. Was the degree of excess (almost 3 hours of it!) really necessary?

But after a few days, I found I continued to mull over what I’d seen. And that says to me there’s something important here. Something to chew on. Otherwise I’d have simply forgotten it.

WoWS is based upon the memoir of the real-life Jordan Belfort. He wrote a book, “The Wolf of Wall Street”. The film is said to be fairly true to the book.

Matt Drudge Tweeted: “Who will be celebrating the birth of Christ in darkened movie houses watching Scorsese orgies?” Yes, this isn’t exactly Christmas fare.

A Tammy re-Tweet from 12/27: “Victim of ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ shames Marty & Leo”, with a link to this “Open Letter” to the filmmakers and the Wolf.

…You people are dangerous. Your film is a reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals. We want to get lost in what? These phony financiers’ fun sexcapades and coke binges? Come on, we know the truth. This kind of behavior brought America to its knees.

And yet you’re glorifying it — you who call yourselves liberals. You were honored for career excellence and for your cultural influence by the Kennedy Center, Marty…

I disagree with this condemnation. WoWS does not glorify these shenanigans. I see here a cautionary tale. This is a portrait of what humanity becomes if we abandon ourselves to material indulgences. WoWS is a mirror held up to whomever will view it.

Some will try to make this a condemnation of capitalism or Wall Street or America. Nonsense! WoWS is set on Wall Street because this setting will mean something in our day. But it’s the same story, on whatever stage it plays out. It’s the tale of King Solomon as told in Ecclesiastes. Solomon, the richest man in the world, who sought happiness through every excess and indulgence, and ultimately found such pursuits to be hollow.

Ecclesiastes is part of the Biblical canon precisely because it shows how even a great King can lose the path. We seek God when we finally come to realize there is no other choice.

Jordan Belfort was no King Solomon. The point is that no mortal man, no matter what his station in life, is entirely secure against the snares of the world.

Is indulgence fun? Of course it is! Drugs, parties, booze, broads, fast cars, etc. Power! Masters of the universe! To say this is without appeal would be a lie.

Nor does Jordan Belfort face the full weight of justice. He was jailed for 22 months, and ordered to pay restitution of $110 million — of which only a tenth has actually been paid back. These days he’s a motivational speaker. As with “Goodfellas”, there’s no indication that the central character has regrets.

This is the world we live in, and it’s always been so. We must maintain our ideals, and find a way to reconcile this with our knowledge that the world will fall short.

And we, too, will fall short. In that sense, ideals can be a burden, in that they’re a reminder of failure. Just as a conscience can be a burden. Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we could live life without ever suffering pangs of conscience?

So Martin Scorsese did not give us a simple story of corruption and comeuppance. Instead, he showed a picture of indulgence so excessive that it’s actually funny, although not in a ha-ha way. He doesn’t have to get on his soapbox and tell us why Belfort did a bad thing; he lets the story speak for itself, with all the messy complications of real life.

The audience can decide for itself whether Belfort was a glorious figure. But I don’t see how anyone who actually watched the picture could conclude that he was. I think we come away with the sense that such adventures might be kind of fun for a little while. But even if you have no conscience — as Belfort apparently doesn’t — your fantastic ride will get you exactly nowhere.


Postscript: In reflecting upon WoWS, I was struck by a crazy juxtaposition that will get me run out of town, but I’m going to share it anyway. Do you remember “Citizen Kane”? In particular, the “Kane song”? I was thinking that the entire WoWS movie might, by some stretch of the imagination, be considered an expansion of that scene.

Consider that both films are tales of excessive power and indulgence. The difference, of course, was that Kane began with ideals that somehow ossified into pursuit of power. (Were Kane’s ideals ever real, or were they just an excuse to act out his narcissism?) Whereas Belfort never harbored illusions that he was helping the downtrodden. Why, Jordan Belfort even looks like young Kane! Am I on to something here, do you think?

Update: A link to the original Forbes exposure of Belfort, “Steaks, Stocks — What’s The Difference?”, published October 14, 1991. This was an early warning; Belfort was not indicted until 1998.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Kitten says:

    It took about 3 minutes to read your review, Maynard. Probably the best, non-biased review the film will get. That said, my suspicions about the film were correct and I’d rather not spend money to watch a “vile” movie with people hurling f-bombs at me every few seconds, for 3 hours. It’s just not my idea of a fun time.

    PS: I hear “Heaven Is For Real” is coming out soon. That’s more my speed. 🙂

  2. Sailing_J says:

    I was going to see this but then saw the preview with Matthew Mcconaughey and decided not to. He annoys me way more than 506 F bombs. Thanks for the review!

    • Maynard says:

      I wouldn’t want to talk anyone into seeing this against their better judgment. If your instinct is to stay away, then do so! But, FWIW, McConaughey doesn’t have a lot of screen time, just a few minutes early in the film. As a coked-up lunatic broker explaining to young Belfort how to make good, McConaughey is quite effective.

You must be logged in to post a comment.