|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2020 18:16:18 GMT
I noticed alot of people who have seen Wolf of Wall Street tend to view the movie as romanticizing the lifestyle Belfort leads and advocating it and I can't help but wonder why thats usually an interpretation. I feel like the movie explicitly shows us with many scenes, we aren't meant to glamorize or yearn for this life, but be taken aback by the hedonistic tendencies and self indulgences.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Nov 11, 2020 19:39:43 GMT
Yeah I don't really get how people think it's glamorizing the lifestyle. The movie is very funny and very entertaining, but I've never finished the movie and thought that I'd love to be like Jordan Belfort.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2020 19:45:12 GMT
Yeah I don't really get how people think it's glamorizing the lifestyle. The movie is very funny and very entertaining, but I've never finished the movie and thought that I'd love to be like Jordan Belfort. Especially with scenes like the woman shaving her head on a dare, Bernthals character dying young of a heart attack, his excessive cheating catching up to the marriage, his burgeoning paranoia over going to prison as well etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Nov 11, 2020 20:27:33 GMT
I wouldn't say it glamorizes the lifestyle, at least not cumulatively.
Scorsese is a very accomplished and talented filmmaker. I just found the bombastic style (granted it's suited to the narrative), wore a bit thin and became tiring by the end. I have a similar problem with Goodfellas and Casino, but not to the same degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2020 20:44:56 GMT
I wouldn't say it glamorizes the lifestyle, at least not cumulatively. Scorsese is a very accomplished and talented filmmaker. I just found the bombastic style (granted it's suited to the narrative), wore a bit thin and became tiring by the end. I have a similar problem with Goodfellas and Casino, but not to the same degree. I wasn't specifically targeting you, but some critics and people I know came away with those opinions of the movie which felt a little like they missed some of the whole intent. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Nov 11, 2020 21:03:24 GMT
Misunderstanding the point of a Scorsese film seems like a common theme. A lot of people apparently don’t realize that you’re not supposed to admire Travis Bickle.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 11, 2020 21:05:10 GMT
Well, like with Goodfellas, Scorsese has to glamorize it a little bit or you'd wonder why anyone would want to live that life in the first place. At least in the beginning. Then he deconstructs it and shows everything fall apart. Though I think Goodfellas is a little more successful in that regard.
I think some of the moral panic is because even the most negative portrayals (Wall Street 1987, Trading Places, American Psycho) have inspired people to be brokers. More than any of those, this movie leans into the "fun" of it. I have no doubt there are people who will be or already are working on Wall Street because of this movie. Which is a little scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Nov 11, 2020 21:43:25 GMT
I wouldn't say it glamorizes the lifestyle, at least not cumulatively. Scorsese is a very accomplished and talented filmmaker. I just found the bombastic style (granted it's suited to the narrative), wore a bit thin and became tiring by the end. I have a similar problem with Goodfellas and Casino, but not to the same degree. I wasn't specifically targeting you, but some critics and people I know came away with those opinions of the movie which felt a little like they missed some of the whole intent. I realized that, just thought I'd offer my reasoning as I had made negative comments about it recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2020 22:10:33 GMT
Well, like with Goodfellas, Scorsese has to glamorize it a little bit or you'd wonder why anyone would want to live that life in the first place. At least in the beginning. Then he deconstructs it and shows everything fall apart. Though I think Goodfellas is a little more successful in that regard. I think some of the moral panic is because even the most negative portrayals (Wall Street 1987, Trading Places, American Psycho) have inspired people to be brokers. More than any of those, this movie leans into the "fun" of it. I have no doubt there are people who will be or already are working on Wall Street because of this movie. Which is a little scary. I agree with all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Nov 11, 2020 22:57:45 GMT
How do you not glamorize a lifestyle that has you banging Margot Robbie?
Like how can you downplay that?
I’ve never seen the movie all the way thru. The plot doesn’t really interest me.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2020 23:19:46 GMT
Well, like with Goodfellas, Scorsese has to glamorize it a little bit or you'd wonder why anyone would want to live that life in the first place. At least in the beginning. Then he deconstructs it and shows everything fall apart. Though I think Goodfellas is a little more successful in that regard. I think some of the moral panic is because even the most negative portrayals (Wall Street 1987, Trading Places, American Psycho) have inspired people to be brokers. More than any of those, this movie leans into the "fun" of it. I have no doubt there are people who will be or already are working on Wall Street because of this movie. Which is a little scary. i get that you have to romanticize areas for accessibility, but wheres the disconnect with audiences realizing and drawing the realization of its intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2020 23:48:29 GMT
Well, like with Goodfellas, Scorsese has to glamorize it a little bit or you'd wonder why anyone would want to live that life in the first place. At least in the beginning. Then he deconstructs it and shows everything fall apart. Though I think Goodfellas is a little more successful in that regard. I think some of the moral panic is because even the most negative portrayals (Wall Street 1987, Trading Places, American Psycho) have inspired people to be brokers. More than any of those, this movie leans into the "fun" of it. I have no doubt there are people who will be or already are working on Wall Street because of this movie. Which is a little scary.. i get that you have to romanticize areas for accessibility, but wheres the disconnect with audiences realizing and drawing the realization of its intent. The thing is that unlike Goodfellas this movie basically has them getting some country club prison sentence. It's all amusing to the characters in the movie. The movie goes out of it's way to show these asshats being as much of douchebags as possible (They makes Henry Hill look like a good person) and this is where the point comes across for me. The thing is that there are no doubt many people who will find all of this awesome and want to behave like these scumbags. A moral person with some self respect will watch the movie and see something much different than a immoral or narcissistic person who watches the movie. The movie is a bit too interested in making all of this funny and ridiculous than actually commenting on it. The movie gets away with it for the most part because of the skill involved and because the story itself is quite interesting and only takes itself partially serious, but I still have my issues with the moral side of it. If I didn't know this was directed by Martin Scorsese, I don't know if I would have come to the same conclusion of it's intent. He has said that he doesn't judge the characters in his movies, he just tells a story. It is up to the audience to judge the characters and ask themselves, "Is this the kind of person and lifestyle I would want and is this a kind of lifestyle I support or is it not?" In this it is successful. The movie is very entertaining nonetheless in a similar way as Casino. Natural Born Killers has gotten slack for similar reasons, though that movie is much more of a satire than The Wolf of Wall Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 12, 2020 1:11:52 GMT
First viewing is a party. Second viewing you want a shower.
Subsequent viewings after that, you realize how putrid their existences truly were/are.
As for the pen scene at the end... very underrated. It's showing everyone that in a pinch, half the human race will show up for 'free' money even if it means lessening yourself as a person. It also shows just how many 'real' ppl are forever feeling financial stress.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 12, 2020 1:26:24 GMT
First viewing is a party. Second viewing you want a shower.
Subsequent viewings after that, you realize how putrid their existences truly were/are.
As for the pen scene at the end... very underrated. It's showing everyone that in a pinch, half the human race will show up for 'free' money even if it means lessening yourself as a person. It also shows just how many 'real' ppl are forever feeling financial stress. I felt all of that in the first viewing. As entertaining as the movie is, I haven't re-watched it yet. I don't think the pen scene has the effect that is intended. It doesn't for me at least, even after you pointed it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2020 2:03:39 GMT
First viewing is a party. Second viewing you want a shower. Subsequent viewings after that, you realize how putrid their existences truly were/are. As for the pen scene at the end... very underrated. It's showing everyone that in a pinch, half the human race will show up for 'free' money even if it means lessening yourself as a person. It also shows just how many 'real' ppl are forever feeling financial stress. Going off that one could also stipulate that they are the voice of capitalist tendencies finding success in pulling the wool over the very eyes of the public and will continue to do so in a vicious cycle of sorts. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Nov 12, 2020 2:54:14 GMT
I noticed alot of people who have seen Wolf of Wall Street tend to view the movie as romanticizing the lifestyle Belfort leads and advocating it and I can't help but wonder why thats usually an interpretation. I feel like the movie explicitly shows us with many scenes, we aren't meant to glamorize or yearn for this life, but be taken aback by the hedonistic tendencies and self indulgences. Na I think that most people believe the movie is glamorizing that lifestyle and theyd be right. Theres one scene near the end after Belfort gets sentenced where the FBI agent is riding home alone in the grimy subway with other commoners. That scene pretty much sums it up. Being a straight arrow nice guy is boring and dull compared to the life of luxury Belfort led. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2020 3:03:22 GMT
I noticed alot of people who have seen Wolf of Wall Street tend to view the movie as romanticizing the lifestyle Belfort leads and advocating it and I can't help but wonder why thats usually an interpretation. I feel like the movie explicitly shows us with many scenes, we aren't meant to glamorize or yearn for this life, but be taken aback by the hedonistic tendencies and self indulgences. Na I think that most people believe the movie is glamorizing that lifestyle and theyd be right. Theres one scene near the end after Belfort gets sentenced where the FBI agent is riding home alone in the grimy subway with other commoners. That scene pretty much sums it up. Being a straight arrow nice guy is boring and dull compared to the life of luxury Belfort led. Or they could simply be illustrating how an FBI agent lends himself into a certain. Existence without the greed or ego exhuded by Belfort. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 12, 2020 13:41:51 GMT
This kind of debate has been going on for a long time, more recently with JOKER and CUTIES. These aren't just movies about a bad person or about a good person going down the wrong path. These are movies told exclusively from the protagonist's point of view. It feels like they're the ones who wrote and/or directed their own movie. Whether we have to sympathize with them or whether condemnable actions are initially portrayed in a positive light, it happens because that's how those protagonists feel in the moment. However, you have to watch a movie like this until the very end in order to understand its true intentions. In T.W.O.W.S., we see Jordan's downfall and he's not really presented as a victim in those scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Nov 12, 2020 15:12:57 GMT
This kind of debate has been going on for a long time, more recently with JOKER and CUTIES. These aren't just movies about a bad person or about a good person going down the wrong path. These are movies told exclusively from the protagonist's point of view. It feels like they're the ones who wrote and/or directed their own movie. Whether we have to sympathize with them or whether condemnable actions are initially portrayed in a positive light, it happens because that's how those protagonists feel in the moment. However, you have to watch a movie like this until the very end in order to understand its true intentions. In T.W.O.W.S., we see Jordan's downfall and he's not really presented as a victim in those scenes. I feel like we're slowly but surely regressing back to that Hays Code mentality that characters have to be blatantly punished onscreen for their crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 12, 2020 15:48:38 GMT
This kind of debate has been going on for a long time, more recently with JOKER and CUTIES. These aren't just movies about a bad person or about a good person going down the wrong path. These are movies told exclusively from the protagonist's point of view. It feels like they're the ones who wrote and/or directed their own movie. Whether we have to sympathize with them or whether condemnable actions are initially portrayed in a positive light, it happens because that's how those protagonists feel in the moment. However, you have to watch a movie like this until the very end in order to understand its true intentions. In T.W.O.W.S., we see Jordan's downfall and he's not really presented as a victim in those scenes. I feel like we're slowly but surely regressing back to that Hays Code mentality that characters have to be blatantly punished onscreen for their crimes. yikes i hope not.
|
|
