Monday, March 17, 2014

The Wolf of Hollywood


This years film “The Wolf of Wall Street” made millions at the box office. The film and its famous actors were nominated for many top film industry awards and it received a ton of media attention.  This spotlight made Jordan Belfort somewhat of a household name to many people. Jordan Belfort is, of course, the real life wolf of Wall Street. He lived it all; he took wild amounts of drugs, crashed planes/boats/cars, and swindled hard working Americans out for millions to build a massive personal fortune.  The film is based on his real life experiences.

Belfort was sentenced to 22 month in jail for money laundering and fraud, but the real life wolf of Wall Street may not have learned his lesson. According to an article from the Hollywood Reporter, Belfort still owes a considerable amount of money to his victims, “Prosecutors recently claimed he had failed to make court-mandated payments toward the $110.4 million he owes his victims. In an October filing, the Justice Department said that he had stopped paying restitution "at the rate of 50 percent of his gross income, as set forth in the judgment,” (Galloway). Belfort denies these allegations, while the movie based on his life made  $41,448,935 million domestically  according to a report titled “2013 Domestic Grosses” from box office mojo.

The wolf of Wall Street has now become the wolf of Hollywood. “Although he had an income of more than $1.7 million from his works, Belfort has only paid $243,000 in restitution since 2007” (Giang). Clearly he has not learned from his mistakes and is still cheating people out of money. Information like this brings up ideas that the film may have glorified Belfort’s actions. Some even question if the movie should have ever been made. In the film the viewer sees Belfort and his gang doing unspeakably horrible things, like partaking in domestic violence, excessive drug use and driving under the influence, just to name a few. But all the while the film has somewhat of a light and jovial vibe. The music is up beat, the characters are dressed in bright colors and the dialog is witty and funny. Whitney Friedlander, a new editor from Variety had this to say about the film, “it’s a celebration of this lifestyle that tells them you can either have this for a short while before you get busted (something that’s mostly glossed over in the film) or you can forever be a rundown sad sack riding the subway and only glimpsing the good life,” (Friedlander). The films director, Martin Scorsese, and the films star, Leonardo Dicaprio, both denied that the movie in anyway glorifies Belfort’s unlawful and erratic behavior. (Friedlander)

The film came in at number 80 of the year’s most popular movies according to box office mojo and the film was nominated for five Academy Awards including best picture. In an article written for EW.com the Oscars were accused of nominating more buzzed about films in and effort to boost ratings, “If more popular films were nominated, the thinking went, more people would tune in to see if any of those films won,”(Breznican). The Oscars and the academy helped to glorify Belfort’s actions even further.  The film was wildly successful in so many areas that the moral issues are overlooked.
This could have to do with the fact that the dream team of Leonardo Dicaprio and Martin Scorsese are so closely connected to the film. In a clip from YouTube by WSJ Live, we can see an interview with the man who prosecuted Jordan Belfort, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObeQCwrggLY. In the clip he claims that the movie completely glorified Belfort’s actions.  He makes the argument that any character played by the loveable, charismatic and good-looking Leonardo Dicaprio is going to come off looking cool and appealing. He also criticizes the films ending. He says that the end of the film almost becomes an advertizment for Belfort’s new business. The film is not harsh enough on Belfort at the end.  Jordan Belfort even makes a cameo appearance in the film.

While the film “The Wolf of Wall Street” was no doubt entertaining, it brings up a few moral issues. Jordan Belfort is profiting and gaining a great amount of publicity because of the popularity of the film, but at the end of the day it is still important to remember that he is a criminal that has not paid his victims back. The film does a bad job of condoning this kind of behavior. The big star names and the flashy nominations of the film only glorify the behavior further.  The film itself is in many ways the wolf of Hollywood. 

Work Cited-
Galloway, Stephen, and Jordan Belfort. "Real-Life 'Wolf of Wall Street': 'It Was Awful What I Did, But I Was on Massive Amounts of Drugs'" The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

Giang, Vivian. "If You Think 'The Wolf of Wall Street' Jordan Belfort Has Learned His Lesson, You're Wrong." PolicyMic. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.


Friedlander, Whitney. "Does ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Glorify Criminals? Yes." Variety. N.p., 31 Dec. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

Breznican, Anthony and Jake Perlman. "Oscar Overcrowding." Entertainment Weekly 21 Feb. 2014: 12-13.

"2013 Domestic Grosses." Box Office Mojo. Accessed 21 Feb. 2014. Web.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObeQCwrggLY,


by Kerri O'Keefe 

2 comments:

  1. Kerri,

    It was interesting to read your take on the negative aspects of the movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, and the person whose life the movie is based on. I personally loved the movie primarily because of the actors who were in the movie and the director of the film. It is undeniable that Martin Scorsese is a cinematic genius. I really enjoy watching his films. As for Leonardo DiCaprio, well, is there anyone who does not love watching him act? However because I knew the movie was based on a real life character, when I watched The Wolf of Wall Street, I did have some concerns about the way Belfort’s life was portrayed. He was not depicted as a villain in any way in the movie. Rather, the film seemed to glorify sex, drugs, and abuse. I found myself laughing as if it was funny to drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, crash planes, sink yachts, and throw midgets at targets. The film seemed to take a comedic approach to some very serious issues. While I do not believe the film condones the behavior of Belfort, I do believe his life style is portrayed in a lighthearted manner. In my opinion, it is difficult to determine if the film depicts Belfort in a glorified way when you keep in mind that this is a movie made to entertain the audience in order to bring profit. Criticizing the depiction of Belfort brings attention to significant cultural issues such as consumerism and constant rewarding of the person at the top and the power they possess. Belfort lived a very luxurious and over-the-top lifestyle. Scorsese, in a way, was merely portraying the reality of an individual’s life and leaving it up to the audience to judge that lifestyle. Hollywood movies are made to entertain in order to make money. Is it fair to accuse Scorsese of glorifying Belfort’s life any more than Coppola glorified mob life in The Godfather?

    As you point out in your blog, perhaps moral issues were overlooked and the situation was glorified because of how amazing and talented the Scorsese-DiCaprio dream team is. In the video you shared, the prosecutor who prosecuted the real Jordon Belfort claims that DiCaprio will make any character he plays appear charming and cool. Yet, he also admits the real Belfort was charming (“as long as your wallet was in your back pocket”). It is undeniable that Belfort, both as a fraud on Wall Street and as a motivational speaker, must have charm and charisma to “get away” with the things he did in his past.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (part 2)

    As you further pointed out, in the EW article Oscar Overcrowding, it seems the Oscars have developed a trend nominating blockbusters for the prestigious award in order to boost Oscar viewership. This may be true; I know I was holding my breath for DiCaprio to win an Oscar finally. However, it also creates a problem. While box office nominees have “skyrocketed, the actual value of a Best Picture nom has fallen…” (Oscar Overcrowding). Prior to expanding the pool of nominations, most films nominated for “Best Picture” were indie movies or movies that did not receive box office attention but were cinematic masterpieces that without a nomination, may not have gotten the attention they deserved. When a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street, a big, block buster film, is nominated for best film, it gets even more attention than it did before the nomination. Is it possible that because blockbusters are now getting even more attention than ever, The Wolf of Wall Street seemed to be even more glorified and receive more attention than it would have had it not been nominated? In your blog, you wrote that the Oscars and the Academy helped to glorify Belfort’s actions even further.

    To add to the discussion and hype, I would like to point out that Matthew McConaughey had a supporting role in The Wolf of Wall Street. While his part was short and sweet, he contributed to arguably one of the most memorable scenes in the entire movie. As Karen Valby points out in What If McConaughey Were A McWoman?, McConaughey has only recently broken into some very interesting and noteworthy roles which “fans… love to talk about the artistic courage of such a bold reinvention.” McConaughey, and Jonah Hill for that matter, make The Wolf of Wall Street even more attractive to viewers. Jonah Hill is one of the more famous comedians of our time. And McConaughey? Well, any girl who has seen him in a romantic comedy or Magic Mike is head over heels for any character he plays. While he was not in The Wolf of Wall Street for an extended period of time, there are few who do not know the scene of him throwing back drinks in the middle of a workday and beating his chest in the middle of a restaurant. The Wolf on Wall Street certainly pulled out all the stops for this blockbuster, and audiences were not disappointed. The movie has also served to make us question a horrible and scandalous life-style while entertaining us. In the criticism, we are exposed to many sides of an issue. Perhaps the movie actually serves two significant purposes by making money for the industry by entertaining us and calling our attention to an individual and his lifestyle to make us think about right and wrong and cultural values.

    Work cited:
    Breznican, Anthony and Jake Perlman. "Oscar Overcrowding." Entertainment Weekly 21 Feb. 2014: 12-13

    Valby, Karen. "What if McConaughey Were a McWoman?" Entertainment Weekly 21 Feb. 2014: 20.

    ReplyDelete