The Case for The Wolf of Wall Street
- Apr 4, 2014
- 4 min read
Now that Martin Scorsese's newest film The Wolf of Wall Street has hit shelves in DVD and Blu ray format, the film is again gaining popularity and with that, even more notoriety. For this reason, it only seems reasonable to yet again make my case for The Wolf of Wall Street. As I mentioned in my previous review of the film during it's theater run, there are different lights in which the film can be seen, and these will likely color your ultimate feelings on the film as a whole.
Many have seen The Wolf of Wall Street as a glorification of the actions of it's protagnoist Jordan Belfort, who is more greed-fueled and indulgent than any character Martin Scorsese has ever before put up on screen. There is another way to view The Wolf of Wall Street though, and this is the way I feel in which it should be seen. The film is not a celebration, but a condemnation. While it does tell the story of one man, it's themes are endless. It is an undeniable fact that greed fuels the world around us. It drives men to do things that they would otherwise never imagine. This is what Scorsese show's us here. Belfort begins as a humble man dreaming of being rich, this can be seen in his conversation over lunch with Matthew McConaughey's character Mark Hanna, or in the conversation he has with his wife when he is considering quitting stockbroking all together. It is when the money begins to come in that Belfort transforms into the monster that so many have critisized. He is to be critisized. This is the story of a vile and corrupt man. If you feel the disgust when watching Belfort's actions then the film is not a failure, but a grand success. The Wolf of Wall Street is a social commentary on the effects of greed on a man, and Belfort is just one of hundreds and hundreds of examples.
Anyway, I've written enough on that in the past. The real reason that I decided to write this today was to draw a comparison which I stumbled upon while watching the special feature of The Wolf of Wall Street blu ray and that is this. In it's structure, this film is not necessarily very different from Martin Scorsese's most celebrated film, GoodFellas. I know this will probably not sit well with some people, but let me explain. GoodFellas tells the story of a man who has always dreamed of being a gangster, illustrating his rise from kid at the cab stand to sort of street warrior of the mafia. In showing us this, Scorsese spares no violent image or immoral act. When GoodFellas is discussed though, I typically don't here disgust thrown at the actions of Henry Hill. As an audience we are enticed by the gangster world that Henry operates in, most of us will never exprience this in our lives, but GoodFellas gives us a peak inside, shows us what it would it would be like, makes us feel what it would be like, but that does that not make what Henry does right, Scorsese is not intending to glorify his actions by showing them in this way. This is the same with Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street. There are aspirations, (this time to be rich) and there is an ammoral yet enticing rise to where these men once dreamt of being. Even their collapses are similar in form. At the conslusion of GoodFellas, we see Henry Hill coming out of a dull suburban house to collect his newspaper as he has been placed in the witness protection program. In the end, Henry is not a changed man. The only regret he feels is in that he cannot continue his life as a gangster.
When The Wolf of Wall Street wraps up, we are left with a similar image. Jordan Belfort, now a motivational speaker after his release from prison, staring across a sea of blank faces at his seminar, none able to conquer his "sell me this pen" trick which his friend had so easily mastered earlier in the film. Again, Belfort is no changed man, he too misses his old life: the chaos, the money, the power. Why then, is Henry Hill looked upon so differently from Jordan Belfort. I have heard that Hill is a more likeable character, or that he has some sort of redemption or turn around. I would have to disagree. I too love to venture into Henry Hill's world, and he is no good man. He is a womanizer, a drug dealer, a killer. He is as power-hungry as the next man. He is not so different from Belfort, the "ammoral tyrant" that so many critics and viewers have condemned, just as these films are not truly so very different when honestly considered.
So I ask you, please, see the film and draw your own conclusions, don't be thrown off by those who don't seem to truly even understand the message the film is attempting to convey. Sorry for the length, this is a bit of a passion piece for me. I hope you enjoyed, and please, always check back for more!
Comments