'The Wolf of Wall Street' - Movie Review

Towards the end of Martin Scorsese's GoodFellas, as the Feds are rounding up the Mob, one of the wise-guys snarls, "How about you go down to Wall Street and get some real fuckin' crooks?"

It took twenty-three years, but the director (or 'maestro', as I like to call Scorsese) appears to have taken this advice. After all, why beat around the bush when you can beat it, burn it and salt the ground? Enter: The Wolf of Wall Street. 

 

How exhausting, exhilarating and debauched is Scorsese's new flick? It had me wanting an intermission so that I could clear my head and pop a few panadols. Yes, panadol is my fairly lame version of Jordan Belfort's quaaludes.

Scorsese certainly doesn't speak in metaphors in this cautionary tale. And it is a cautionary tale. For if you've walked out of this one only remembering Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) shagging his buxom blonde wife (Margot Robbie) on a pile of money, then you might want to try and actually learn something next time. One thing is for sure, though, everything is out in the open. It's clear that Scorsese is drawing a connection between his "Good Fellas" and those that occupy Wall Street. After all, once you substitute the guns for cash, what's the difference between wise-guys and greedy suits? Well, as Jordan and his merry men demonstrate over the course of three hours, not a whole lot. Both march to the beat of their own drums; both live for excess (and are strangled by it); and both rise and fall in typical Scorsese fashion. This truly is the white-collar GoodFellas.

Narrated by Belfort, in typical Scorsese breaking down the fourth wall style, we once again play the awestruck observer of something unbelievable. In fact, with Belfort narrating, it's almost as if The Great Gatsby has been told through the eyes (and words) of today's Gatsby.  Yet, Daisy is no longer the goal. The goal for Belfort is just money. For if Gordon Gecko told us that "greed is good", then Belfort unashamedly tells us that it's also fun. 

Most of us knew something about "The Wolf of Wall Street", Jordan Belfort, before Scorsese's 23rd feature film hit the big screen. There's been so much media coverage on the man leading up to the film's release that even the obnoxiously loud, middle aged ("speak up, honey, I can't hear you over the movie") women behind me could spot the real Wolf towards the end of the film. It appears that Belfort's rise and fall is the perfect Scorsese story, adapted by Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire writer, Terence Winter. And with its unreliable narrator, plotless joy and in-your-face script, it is a typical Scorsese masterpiece. However, this three hour satire is so fast paced, devious and funny that it presents something new from Scorsese, Schoonmaker and Co. 

"We joke that it's GoodFellas on steroids. I would not want to speak for Marty, but he has made a wonderful, provocative, important film." - Producer, Emma Koskoff

There's enough dark and dirty humour in Wolf to make me think that the Coen Brothers played a part in its creation. (Turns out they didn't.) The laughs come early and often, from Matthew McConaughey's brief but outrageously hilarious and memorable pit-stop as young Belfort's first Wall Street boss and mentor - the restaurant scene packs more laughs than what we see in the trailer - to Spike Jonze's hilarious role as an average Joe who runs a dodgy business which sells cheap stocks to working-class schmucks. However, it isn't until we meet Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill, who apparently had to plead his way into the film and only collected $60,000 for his work) and his bleached white teeth that the real hilarity hits. He is Jordan's right hand man: DiCaprio's Joe Pesci, if you will. And the biggest shock the film produces comes from Donnie. No, it isn't due to one of his and Jordan's crazy stunts - midget tossing, office orgies, 'cerebal palsy' crawling - it's the moment we realise that someone as stupid as Donnie actually "made" that much money. And all he needed was a cliche training montage. 

Smack bang in the middle of this hedonistic nightmare is producer, creator and lead actor, Leonardo DiCaprio. Like De Niro with Raging Bull, DiCaprio approached the maestro with this story. It's not hard to see why DiCaprio would want to tell Belfort's story, given that last year he took on two shady - and ridiculously wealthy - American men in The Great Gatsby and Django Unchained. What sets DiCaprio apart in Wolf, however, is his ability to charm, draw us in, but above all sell his character through his narration. From the opening sequence, where we get a taste of this man's unapologetic lifestyle, during which he crash-lands a helicopter on the grounds of his Gatsby-esque Long Island estate, we are hooked. And as the Cult of Jordan grows during the office scenes, where Jordan lets anything fly and calls his employees "killers" and "warriors", our interest grows too. By just furrowing his brow, DiCaprio is able to express everything we need to know at any given moment. He is one of the finest actors of our day, with a tremendous ability to transform himself into a character. He's the De Niro of now.

"He was a brilliant salesman from humble beginnings. And it really is an interesting character study, because he's a guy who could have succeeded at anything he put his mind to, and he ultimately, and unfortunately, chose to use that gift in the wrong way. And the greed and excess that came with his ability to sell became his ultimate demise. It's really a story about how the financial industry sets people up - and they can go either way." - Koskoff on Jordan Belfort

There has been a considerable amount of backlash to go along with applause surrounding the base actions and uncensored nature of the film. So, is Scorsese celebrating the hedonism that Belfort delights in? Or is the director critiquing the choices that are made? Perhaps the answer is neither. It's undoubtedly true that Scorsese makes films which include strong character arcs, but it would be a stretch to say that Scorsese judges his characters. He's too subtle for that. Rather than approving or disapproving, Scorsese chooses to depict and question. Even if that means through the use of vulgar language and disturbing acts. It's the beauty of Scorsese, he depicts and shows two sides to his characters.

What Scorsese may indeed be critiquing is not the man but the American Dream. It's the idea that one must accumulate in order to succeed and live well. After all, isn't that what Belfort is after? He wants to make money, which he less-than-eloquently says makes us better people. But with the making of money comes a monster which dictates how he lives his life. The actual substance is not evil, but the human nature Scorsese loves to paint. It's worth thinking about: what is Belfort and is there a system in place which preys on the bad in all of us? And are people up in arms because of what they see? Or because what Scorsese may be critiquing hits a little too close to home?

A white-collar GoodFellas. There have been whispers about the maestro taking on Wall Street for years, probably since GoodFellas was released in 1990, but no one thought he would go this deep. Scorsese and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto keep it electrifying (the camera in a Scorsese movie keeps our heads on a swivel), where Schoonmaker once again is able to cut what was over four hours of footage down into a three hour delight. So, where does The Wolf of Wall Street belong? Right in here.  

9/10