The Wolf of Wall Street ****/5: Good film but did not hit the core of a number of issues particularly the savage mentality created by capitalism. The comedic portrayal of Belfort's savagery is one of the reasons for the distraction.

I must personally raise my glass to Martin Scorsese for making this film because it vindicates a lot of things I, and others, have said about capitalism, particularly about its venal nature. When you say something bad about capitalism the apologists  frown and debate the merits of capital and how you should be all about making money. Film reviews by Karl C. Watts: The savages in the capitalist system
 Actually I should thank Jordan Belfort for writing his memoirs. Scorsese and Leonardo Dicaprio have brought it so vividly to life however that they have truly shocked people. I did a post about the savages produced by capitalism and I thought, for awhile, that I was going a bit overboard however this film has laid my fears to rest. Capitalism does produce base savages. When I was writing about the bourgeois class engaging in sodomy in my post related to the godfather I also thought I was going overboard but this film and Inside Job (2010) also confirmed what I was saying.  Even though capital is a great system for increasing the productive powers of labour and so generating massive wealth, when compared to other economic systems, on a social level, with private property as its basis, it must induce some savage mentality in the populace. This is why I made those claims. Capitalism provides a ruthless drive to accumulate as much wealth as possible and in order to do this people have to be trounced in the process. Wealth is therefore produced on a individualist basis  and so when, or if, you succeed and engross all of this wealth you do not necessarily have to regard other people because it’s all yours. A problem occurs when you become so ruthless that you take from others to feed this crazed drive for more and more. This is what has made capitalism great for man: the promise of more or the promise that you can have it all. This is what they call the myth of opportunity for such a thing to occur because the environment is very competitive and some people have to be the losers or suckers that get trounced while people like Belfort fleece your money and engage in sodomy, drugs, excess spending sprees and the like.  

That aside I really liked the direction of the film however some have a right to complain that it glorifies excess because of the comedic elements. From what I read when Belfort does tell his stories people find them really funny and so it must be the same effect however Scorsese has to portray it in such a way that makes it funny as well. The main question asked in The Wolf of Wall Street is whether or not there is a piece of Belfort in all of us. He went all the way where most of us restrain ourselves out of fear of the consequences. Most of the excesses Belfort engages in is not new because he is not alone.

This film is based on the memoirs of the savage Jordan Belfort who began his career as a trader on Wall Street before he founded the company Stratton Oakmont which fleeced millions from unwary investors. He used these millions to live a lavish lifestyle which is reprehensible to a lot but alluring to many. If it were not alluring Belfort would not win over so many people in his firm. This is the reality of the American dream. Those on the top are not necessarily saints. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation and so you have to numb yourself if you’re prepared to engage and become like them. Belfort rises and falls in this film because the chickens came home to roost. You can never move through life without hurdles and this character is probably reprehensible because he does not accept that until it all comes crashing down.

Positives

(right now I am restraining myself because I am tempted to spit some venom at this character who is going around America pretending that he is reformed. He only reformed himself because he was caught. If he got away with the money in those Swiss accounts he would give none of that back based on the person he is. He deserves to suffer and it goes to show how corrupt the system is when he gets away with a pat on the back while a man who steals a couple hundreds  so that he can eat out of necessity languishes in jail. Belfort is scum and an embodiment of the filthy element created by this glorious system of capitalism)

I liked the portrayal of the savages created by the capitalist system. This film, alongside Belfort’s memoirs, is the ammunition you need to show that capitalism does not promote social unity. That is all an illusion created by the philanthropists. This competitive environment creates a savage determination in its participants. We see this at the beginning of the film when Belfort was sober and then drawn into life of traders on wall street that take cocaine and jerk off or have sex in order to stay focused on the business of money making. He is introduced to this lifestyle primarily by Mark  Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) and it shows that even though Belfort moved on he still adhered to the principles he first encountered as a naïve trader on wall street. Capitalism is a savage system and I now say that without apology. You have to be a savage to succeed even if you’re putting on a show. It becomes more reprehensible when a character like Belfort does not earn it the legitimate way. He could not earn it the right way. He was all panache and little substance. As I like to see beyond any illusion neither he nor his operatives could convince someone like me to invest my money in such a company. What I liked was that he got rich by learning as a petty bourgeois trading not only on Wall Street but, after he lost that job, trading in penny stocks. These practices are reprehensible particularly when you convince people to give up their real money to buy stocks which is clear will not amount to anything.

 His experience at the penny stock trading firm was that his commission was 50% because the stock price is so low whereas on Wall Street it is 1%. This experience at the penny stock trading firm made him believe that pricey stock could afford such a hefty commission. There had to be skimming off the top for something like that to happen. With such a method it is no wonder he became so driven for his salesmen to keep making those calls.

What would have made Belfort noble is if he actually tried to use this money to make things happen in the various start ups. If he did then this money would have actually gone towards some good and would have actually made the economy grow. It is savage behavior because it only benefits Belfort and his truly excessive and obsessive lifestyle. He had the panache and the style to convince people to give up their money. If he and his partners and associates actually used this money to contribute to the growth of new companies then he would not have been as rich. He would have been stuck in a more homely lifestyle. Look at what happened with the Steve Madden IPO. He controlled most of the company and encouraged his team to call people to purchase the stock and so inflate the price even though it had nothing to do with the actual production process.  Even Gordon Gekko had to go through established companies in order to make his profits in Wall Street (1987). Belfort has no interest in the company he just looks at the share price. Gekko at least had to go through a established management structure even when he downsizes  and sells them off piece by piece. We never hear from Belfort how the company actually performed after he launched the IPO. It does not really matter. When will these savages learn that money is merely the beginning and the outcome of the production process. If you want to make money you have to invest to make more. One can see from the portrayal of Belfort’s lifestyle that he was not interested in making real money. Belfort still has the petty bourgeois mentality when one considers his excessive consumption lifestyle. A real lord of capital has more than half his money engaged in some form of company that produces some commodity for sale in the market. Commodities with an actual use value will be assured of exchange. Belfort does none of that and relishes the lifestyle created by having a lot of money. He was never a lord of capital. He never made the real money. He remained a highly paid official, that is all, a petty bourgeois. He could not even divorce himself from the actual running of the business because it was his primary occupation to be a trader in service to capital. It was to be in service to capital but instead he profited from gullible investors.

The film is very funny particularly a scene where Belfort overdoses on a very rare type of Quaalude.

Dicaprio may not win the Academy award but I hope he does for his catalogue. This  performance is up there with his best. He carries this 3 hour film like a true star. I had no real problem with the length because of him. If it was a lesser actor then the length would be a real issue even with Scorsese behind the wheel. Only a great actor could carry such a role. Even though it is a comedic performance for the most part there are episodes involving his wife towards the end that are in the tradition of Raging Bull with an overdose involved.

Strong supporting cast

Negatives

I wished Scorsese and his writers would have offered other perspectives of Belfort. FBI agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler) is the only real voice of serious dissent that we have but it is not very effective apart from an arrest here or there. I know the film is based on Belfort’s memoirs and so it must be told from his perspective. This is the only reason I did not have problem with the excess of the antihero. It is surprising for instance that Scorsese did not highlight the downfalls of the system that gives a man like Belfort two years because he cooperates. The prison is like a haven until things blow over. It is not a real prison. Scorsese should have highlighted that a man who steals food to eat so that he does not starve is locked away like a beast yet this savage can roam the place preaching about reform. Scorsese might have just merely highlighted the lifestyle but did not go for the killer punch and so expose the system.  Inside Job did a better job here. It seems that Scorsese relies on the panache to sell this individual; the panache being his expertise behind the camera. The closest we come to the view is the shot with Denham on a train as real Americans are in the process of going home from work. In The Departed we had both sides of the coin but not here. Even in GoodFellas there is a constant comparison to the schmucks/ordinary nobodies who sit through good government bullshit and there was the perspective from Karen who came from the lifestyle of the ordinary schmucks. This was a way of justifying the mob lifestyle. In Raging Bull we see La Motta make reconciliations. In this film we do not get a sense of the schmucks involved or the many investors he defrauded. You just know that they are suckers for believing in the American dream. Scorsese could have made us feel something real on their behalf. Scorsese does not have any life affirming statement here. Sometimes portraying reality or being realistic is not enough. I suppose that is the main criticism here. Did Belfort have nothing to say about his savage behavior?

One perspective of Belfort they should have offered is that despite all this money he never became a real lord of capital. He never made the real money. He never created a commodity that influenced how people interacted with the world. They should have questioned the true value of money as capital and as a means of exchange.

The comedic element was abhorrent at times and it seemed to distract from the issue. I suppose I was too eager to see him collapse and fall. Some of the scenes were unnecessary from this point of view. Is it necessary to see how he prepared for a flight by swallowing Quaaludes? We know he is an addict so heaping scene upon scene about his addiction does not add anything new to the story. Or, for that matter, his sex addiction which seems to go hand in hand.