It’s difficult for many of us to be unbiased when it comes to Martin Scorsese. Very likely he could direct a remake of When Harry Met Sally and I’d think it was the greatest thing since Taxi Driver. But even given all of that bias, and all the ways I love The Wolf of Wall Street (my favorite film of the year) it’s still hard to put into words why he’s just the best director working today and why he shines so brightly with The Wolf of Wall Street, his fifth collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio.
The Wolf came late into the season. There wasn’t a way to push the other films aside to find a place on the bench but when you’re Scorsese and DiCaprio, that spot was already being held for you — all you had to do was match expectations. This film did and it didn’t. Artistically, it is without compare. The subject matter caused more than a few ripples in the filmgoing community and probably still gives people complicated feelings about what they’re seeing on film. The charming, humble and likable DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort lassoing the American dream, complete with sociopathic greed, with no regard whatsoever for his victims.
To accept this indictment of American culture is to be complicit in the dirty game. That world is us. We are that world. We are that world every day, every time we buy something from Walmart or buy a lottery ticket. Walking the aisles of Walmart I flashed on that subway scene in The Wolf of Wall Street where Kyle Chandler is looking around at ordinary, working class America going about its business, buying the dream like a drug. We’re chumps. Buying goods made in China cheap. Not investing in our future but making a few obscenely rich people even richer.
If John Steinbeck is right about us — that we see ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires in a slump, waiting to right our course — then The Wolf of Wall Street tricks us once again, like a wolf would do, into believing that we should want that. We should want the beautiful wife, the yacht, the drugs and sex. We should want to toss $100 bills at people we don’t like — fun money that doesn’t even have as much value as toilet paper. Scorsese goes painfully, irreversibly deep.
As a director Scorsese hasn’t slowed down. He is every bit the attack dog he’s always been. Helped greatly by his partner in crime Thelma Schoonmaker to splatter the big screen with primary colors — cadmium orange, cobalt blue, vermillion — thick strokes, unpredictable rhythms caught in a tangled web of beauty, greed, wanting, dissatisfaction. The film is filled with memorable shots — like the one with the watch traveling slo-mo through the air to the beat, beat, beat… Belfort’s naked body cruising among the debris from the bachelor party the night before, looking out the picture window.
Never missing even a half-beat, we are held by Martin Scorsese’s remarkably capable hands that pick us up for a journey and deposit us three hours later at a new perspective — hours that feel like seconds, so fast does this thing move. Scorsese is one of the few directors who has been dazzling audiences since the 1970s and continues to do that without giving us too much to figure out all at once. He parses information, cuts scenes abruptly, lingers on long conversations long enough to sort thing out on our own without being spoon fed the usual cues.
If we can’t face slavery, it’s equally difficult to face the financial ruin that Wall Street scoundrels, the 1% and people like Jordan Belfort left us with. Scorsese depicts this evil world with a wide grin, rubbing his palms together and saying, see, let me show you what they and that world are REALLY like. It’s a juicy, honest high resolution image of one of the ugliest parts of our empire.
The film is build on a speed up/slow down motion. Scorsese wanted his usual rapid-fire editing (Thelma) and then for everything to stop for a long conversation, like the one between Matthew McConaughey and DiCaprio. Or Jonah Hill explaining his convoluted marriage. Or that great bit with Jean DuJardin. DiCaprio’s Belfort continues to reveal himself more and more with these scenes, and we are pulled in closer to him each time, forging a deceptively intimate relationship. We like him. We want him to be happy. We want him to have his dreamgirl, his dream job, his car. We even want him to get home when he’s paralyzed with quaaludes.
The brilliance in the hat trick Scorsese pulls off here is that at some point you start to feel uneasy about what you’re watching, whom you’re rooting for and what that says about you. You feel that when you’re watching Rupert Pupkin play kidnapping for laughs, or that date with Travis and Betsy in Taxi Driver. Something is off, Scorsese is toying with your perception of the traditional antihero protagonist. He excels at that with DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street.
Will there be people who don’t feel that way? Sure. We would like our heroes, and our idealism, to be cut and dried, to have film state humanity’s message again and again. But probably those people who mythologize Belfort, who yearn for that life, have, to quote Jack Nicholson in The Shining, a big surprise coming to them.
Scorsese is a master of the craft. He is leagues beyond anyone else. Making a case for him is easy. Betting on him this year to win is near impossible.
“The Wolf of Wall Street” is a great film. I wonder if all the critics of this film are also fans of “Goodfellas”, which is very much like WOFS – the main character is a crook (but likeable), there is violence which surprises (which is essential to both plots),there is a certain kookiness in the narration (both Liotta and DeCaprio voice-over much of both films), which lends a certain sympathy for both sleezebags. It’s done tongue-in-cheek. It’s accomplished brilliantly by Scorsese. All of these bloggers who complain about the characters being “despicable” . . . well . . . that about wipes out most Shakespearean villains I’d say from their viewing repertoire.
If you characterize the value of a film by the moral quality of its characters, you are, indeed, limiting yourself from much good cinema watching.
I found most of the characters in the films nominated this year to be downright MEAN (“American Hustle”, for example) to their fellow man. But it didn’t deter me from watching them. Hell, even that television sitcom “Will and Grace” wallowed in vitriole, bitterness, and selfishness (but we still ended up loving the characters).
I’m with Dan & John on this one. I just wanted the characters to die after 2 hours of repetitive scenes of bad behaviour.
It’s a film I’m glad I’ve seen but I will not watch again, in fact I find that with most Scorsese films.
I think you get the point of the movie in the first hour and then it is one piano note for another two hours. The same goes for Leonardo’s performance, some fans are so entranced with this guy that they would give him an oscar if he spent a whole movie sleeping on the couch with his back to us. The crime of this years nominations was that they could not overlook J Phoenix’s weirdness and give him an nomination that dude is phenomenal …
Sasha, I just simply agree with you 100%.
p.s. Leo for the win…!!!
Sasha’s note about WOWS coming so late into Oscar season makes me wonder if Marty/Thelma had been able to get it completed just a couple of weeks earlier. Would it have made a bigger impact into people’s consciousness and become a Best Picture contender? Or, conversely, if they’d indeed held it back until March 2014, would it have stuck around and been a contender for next year’s Oscars?
I’m on Dan’s bus. Left after an hour. Couldn’t take any more of these repugnant idiots.
There are anti-heroes who lure us in, then get us feeling complicit for enjoying what they have done. Michael Douglas and Denzel Washington both won the Best Actor Oscar for playing those roles. They both made the AFI top 50 Villains list for those roles. Those are great movies.
In this movie, we are stuck with two unbelievably unpleasant idiots with no moral compass whatsoever. These guys don’t deserve a movie. I don’t want to watch them. I found them not remotely entertaining. Contrast this with the guys in Goodfellas or Scarface, where I was quite happy to watch three hours of bad behavior.
One of the reasons we like good guys and bad guys delineated is that most of us have moral compasses. Our moral compass gets thrown off if a film revels in behavior which we don’t enjoy. A movie is not challenging because it revels in behavior we don’t like. It is simply unpleasant. This doesn’t make us less of movie goers.
Hope Holliday was right on this one.
I’ve been a big fan of Marty since his resurgence in 2002. But he missed the boat on this one.
id is good. we idolize monsters. Scorsese shows us.
would love to see a mash-up of Wolf and Her. Belcourt vs Samantha. by Scorcese, of course.
I was very hesitant to watch WoWS, but as usual, Scorsese created another fine film that will age well. And I was totally impressed with Leo, so much so, I would celebrate if he were to win best actor. I don’t know if WoWS will be shut out Oscar night, if it is, that would be a shame. It deserves to win at least one Oscar.
This is my second favorite movie of the year. And to be honest, Scorsese, DiCaprio and Winter deserves every award they’re nominated. But I guess Scorsese just have to sit this through again just like what he did in Hugo and The Aviator.
I totally expect McConaughey to win Best Actor for the often-cited reasons: his transformation and weight-loss, career turnaround, etc. Instant sympathy is written into that role. But it kills me that DiCaprio will lose, even though I think he gives the rangiest and riskiest performance of all; walking a high-wire act that goes from hilarious lowbrow slapstick comedy to hyper high drama. He has to play an outrageous and often arrogant antihero yet has to manage to charm the audience just as the real Jordan Belfort charmed his investors.
I doubt DiCaprio will ever get a better role. Maybe he makes it look too easy. I can’t imagine another actor of his generation pulling off a comparable comic AND dramatic tour de force in ”Wolf.” I fear he’ll have to hang around a couple more decades and get a ”makeup” Oscar for an inferior performance, because then he’ll really be overdue. Certainly, his mentor, Martin Scorsese, knows about overdue Oscars.
Meantime, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly has written a new piece about the Oscars: The Best Actor race is the hottest ever. And yes, Leonardo could win. (If only it could come true …)
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/02/23/the-hottest-best-actor-race-ever/
The Wolf of Wall Street is one of my 3 favorite films this year. It should have also been nominated for its great cinematography and editing (and certainly over the badly edited mess that is American Hustle). However I’m in the minority when it comes to Scorses’s films these past several years. I thought The Departed was stunningly overrated–I didn’t believe a moment of it–and Hugo was endless and boring. So I was thrilled to see TWOWS– it felt like a return to form for him and I think his best since Goodfellas. Certainly Leo’s best work by far–what a wonderful performance. It would be wonderful to see Leo win.
Martin Scorsese has been a bit hit-and-miss this century. I really admire his early works (particularly Taxi Driver and Goodfellas), but his work this century ranges from great (The Departed, Hugo) to OK (The Aviator, Gangs of New York) to terrible (Shutter Island). The Wolf of Wall Street would be in the lower part of the “great” category for me. While the overlength and bombast are never something the film overcomes, the movie makes up for it with pure, exhaustive energy in DiCaprio’s performance and Scorsese’s direction. While I don’t love Wolf, I like it a lot and it is nice to see Scorsese seeking out new territory after doing mostly heavy crime dramas over the years.
I would vote for Jonah Hill for supporting over Jared Leto, who I felt was good but also a bit stock. Hill embodies _The Wolf of Wall Street_; to me, he is all that is great and ridiculous about it.
This was also my favourite film of the year. I loved its energy and the courage it had to truly tell this story. Not for a second did I feel they were glorifying this life. I never really rated Leonardo much as an actor until this. I’m hoping he surprises with Best Actor and that the film doesn’t go home empty-handed
Great piece, Sasha!
But Spielberg’s still my #1…
“I don’t understand why that movie was made or why anyone finds it either entertaining or enlightening.”
Not to direct this directly at Dan, but it baffles me that people are more upset with this film than they are at the actual behaviour that occurred (and still does) in that bastion of Wall Street. Belfort claims that the activities were actually toned-down for the film. There was a recent expose on the frat-style hazing that still takes place in some investment houses. The attitude damn near sank the world economy, yet continues unchecked.
Best not shoot the messenger. If it’s upsetting, go for the source.
Personally, I found it entertaining in a bacchanalian way. BTW, I’ll vouch for the accuracy of the lude scene. Luckily I wasn’t trying to drive, just get back into the damn bed.
Best Film, Best Director, and Best Actor this year. If I have to explain why… Nah, I’m not going to do that. If you’re dumb, you’re dumb.
I don’t think WOW has won one award has it? Scorcesee should have waited until this year….but I guess his investors wanted to see their rewards.
Reminder: Satellite Awards announced.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/satellite-awards-12-years-a-682716
I wanted to point out 2 interesting and quirky facts:
1) Leonardo DiCaprio became only the third person to receive multiple acting nominations under Scorsese’s direction. The first two were Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, and both of them won on their second Scorsese-directed Oscar Nominated performance.
2) ALL FIVE Scorsese films to date that have won for acting (Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Raging Bull, The Color of Money, GoodFellas, and The Aviator) share a subtly surprising commonality. They have either received 1) THREE ACTING NOMINATIONS, or 2) TWO ACTING + SCREENPLAY NOMINATIONS. WOWS is the sixth Scorsese film to achieve this nomination milestone, and the first to do so without a Supporting Actress nomination. Even more amazing is that this nomination streak was achieved at least once every decade since the 1970’s.
THE WOLF OF WALL STREET was robbed of several nominations, most notably Film Editing, but also Cinematography and Costume Design. Finally though not in my top 5, Margot Robbie deserved a spot over three of the eventual nominees.
p.s. Much more deserving in the Production Design department than AMERICAN HUSTLE.
Your best Case yet, Sasha, and how can you say enough about Scorsese?
Of all the new wave 70’s directors that includes Spielberg, Coppola, Lucas, Allen, Malick and Altman, Scorsese’s work is probably the most varied, the most daring and the most influential.
In a recent interview with Salon, he said, “You can’t make pictures to be liked,” which probably explains his late arrival on the Oscar podium. They couldn’t pigeonhole him – Boxcar Bertha, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Alice, Hugo, RB, Kundun, Last Temptation…each so unique and unrelated in style and tone. Up next, Silence and The Irishman – again, opposite ends of the spectrum.
Wolf is, I think, his bravest effort yet. Not only does he confront the dragon, he doesn’t ask us to hate it but to understand it, which demands more intelligence and less emotion.
He’s a director whose actors will do anything for and whose true audience will follow him anywhere.
I’m both a big fan of Marty and Sasha, but I couldn’t disagree with her more about this movie. If it had played the way you describe it — if I enjoyed these antics, found the characters charming, wanted what they had, then the movie probably would have worked for me. And I have absolutely no problem watching villains and anti-heroes, some of my favorite movies feature them.
But to me, this movie was excruciating to watch from the first scene. I hated the main characters, I hated what they were doing, I had no interest in taking part in even their best activities … I was completely repulsed by their worst activities, all played for laughs (which included public masturbation and rape … if you think it’s really hilarious to see a guy whip it out and stroke it in public, you should ride public transportation more often.)
About two hours into this movie, I just wanted all of the characters to die … not for some moral catharsis, but just so I could be done with the movie. I don’t understand why that movie was made or why anyone finds it either entertaining or enlightening.
About two hours into this movie, I just wanted all of the characters to die
Ha! Yeah I think this might be the reason it won’t do well with voters…I think good men such as yourself just don’t have the patience to sit through it.
“Choosing Leonardo is genius. He has this innate likeability, damn him! Even while he is despicable, he exudes charm, even sweetness as well as pure menace.”
Precisely. That’s one of several reasons why I dislike Wolf of Wall Street. Leo’s character should be a truly despicable person, because that’s who the real man was, destroying literally hundreds of lives, maybe more. But we like him anyway, because he’s Leo, we enjoy the ride. The effect is to partially exonerate the actions of the villains (combined with the script showing the early generosity of Leo’s character when he could afford to be generous, and including the real life Jordan in the film, a huge slap in the face), because we root for them to have a good time. We certainly don’t want them to go to jail. Not Leo, not fun-loving slap-dopey Jonah. And what an over-the-top good time it is. We are not shown the devastation that pack of wolves causes to innocent or even not-so-innocent investors, so we are left in a moral quandry. And sorry, the movie is an hour too long; for once, I wouldn’t have nominated Thelma either, she should have chopped and chopped again. And I wouldn’t have nominated Martin for the same reason. Don’t get me wrong, like almost everyone else, I too revere Scorsese, believe he is the top American director of the last 40 years, should have won for Raging Bull and Goodfellas for sure (and maybe Taxi Driver, arguably his best film (though I think its Raging Bull, but Network was also so strong and brilliant). But Wolf was out of control, not just the protagonists, but the team behind the screen. I only think Scorsese is nominated because he is Scorsese and he gave some of the younger folk a good laugh. That was my problem with Wolf. I found myself laughing way too much.
Another exquisite essay,Sasha. So many salient reasons why Scorsese is the finest filmmaker working today. I too feel in the company of the master when surrendering to him and his explosive explosion behind the curtain of this slice of life. While on the rollercoaster, i still feel in the safest of hands as he glides and in some cases smashes from scene to scene. From Hugo two years ago to this is proof enough of his greatness let alone the 40 years of previous crafting in his medium.
Choosing Leonardo is genius. He has this innate likeability, damn him !
Even while he is despicable, he exudes charm, even sweetness as well as pure menace. Scorsese knows what Leo can do. Leo knows what Scorsese can do. There are so many great set pieces in this movie. But as is the nature of timing and the ultimate meaninglessness of comparing art like Gravity and 12 years to Wolf, the latter will go home empty handed, but will long be remembered and a significant achievement.
When Marty shuffles off the mortal coil, in say 30 years (:)) His tributes will take the same if not longer duration than the Wolf of Wall Street. Entire weeks would need to be scheduled to wheel out his best movies and pay homage. Thankfully we can do that now!
“Wolf” winning anything on Oscar night would simply make my year.
Bravo, Sasha. My sentiments exactly. Shame about Thelma not getting nominated. But I’m still holding on for the possible upsets of WOWS, DiCaprio and Scorsese.