26 December 2013
HUNGRY LIKE THE WOLF
The Wolf of Wall Street isn't done. That's the thing that has to be cleared out before we can do anything else at all with it. It might very well be a film that Martin Scorsese can live with for the rest of his life without ever considering for a minute that he and editor Thelma Schoonmaker need to revisit it for a home video re-edit somewhere down the road, and in that sense can be described as "finished"; but it's not done. There are several scenes, particularly in the first of its three hours, that rank among the worst in Schoonmaker's massively successful career, scenes that have been "assembled" but not really finessed all that much: beats go on for too long or are snipped off, continuity isn't even a tertiary concern, the sound editing is at war with the visual editing rather than in concert with it.
It's not hard to encounter the idea that the draggletail pacing of individual scenes, many of which go on for too long and start to lose the thread about halfway or two-thirds through, is reflective of the main characters' life driven by money, drugs, and sex, in that order, until he reaches a point where nonstop hedonism is more about keeping himself from falling behind rather than actually receiving pleasure. And this is a tempting, appealling reading, except it fails to account for how some of the worst-assembled scenes occur before he ever even becomes a coked-out trainwreck of a human being. It's fun, I totally understand, to play Apologise for the Auteur, but sometimes a locked-in release date is too much, and Scorsese and Schoonmaker just couldn't make it happen with this time.
That being said, the film is still a pretty solid and enjoyable watch, and an exemplary character study, thanks in huge part to Leonardo DiCaprio, in the best work he's done in his now five collaborations with Scorsese, and his strongest performance overall since Catch Me If You Can in 2002. It's quite a dizzy and demented tightrope the actor must walk: first to take a character who is, on the page, totally irredeemable and disgusting in every detail of his behavior, and make him so immensely appealing and charismatic that we never doubt for a second why so many people would look up to him as a leader and role model, nor do we doubt the infectious enthusiasm he has for his overclocked lifestyle; then, having done this, he must also make that charisma seem hollow and trivial, so that the film's indictment of the lifestyle which the character spends so much time praising can actually stick. The successful performance of real-life stock fraudster Jordan Belfort (whose business model and indictment inspired the 2000 movie Boiler Room, as well) is the movie, to a certain degree: the emphasis on moment-by-moment incident over plot tends to make the film more about Belfort's personality and how it was externalised in the activities of Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage firm he founded. DiCaprio puts over his subject's character with unbelievable verve and precision, perfectly capturing the manic glee of that kind of lifestyle in a way that's both exciting and offensive.
So at the very least, The Wolf of Wall Street goes down easily, though one doesn't exactly forget about its punishing running time (it barely edges out Casino as Scorsese's longest film), which it absolutely does not come remotely close to earning. It is, anyway, crammed full of incidents, and tricked out with a pretty solid cast who do terrific work in delivering the lines in Terence Winter's screenplay with easy, off-the-cuff casualness (Jonah Hill, with readily the largest part after DiCaprio, makes the biggest impression, though my favorite small performance was probably Jean Dujardin as a shady Swiss banker), and these things both serve to make it a largely pleasurable, high-spirited exercise in watching debauchery and enjoying it, but also enjoying the people involved getting their comeuppance. It isn't an especially fangs-bared evisceration of the excesses of American financial shenanigans, but there's enough of that to keep the film from being just smutty froth.
And oh, how smutty and frothy it is: it is a vulgar, sex-addled film, though virtually always in ways that strive to further the comedy, rather than serve any other purpose. Indeed, The Wolf of Wall Street is primarily a can-you-believe-this? comedy more than it's ever a biopic or critical study or anything, and it frequently becomes difficult to tell if it's condemning or celebrating Belfort's lifestyle, or if it cares which of the two it's doing. Which maybe weakens it a little bit; I won't pretend that it's entirely to my own tastes, but it's funny far more than it's not, and that has to count for something.
It is also flabby, however, and this hurts it in all possible ways: it's less focused, less insightful, less funny, less entertaining, than a more streamlined effort would have been. The shaggy editing is absolutely the biggest problem, but there other things: the redundant scenes, the scenes that are redundant in and off themselves, the dodgy music cues (for a director noted for the excellence of his soundtracks, Scorsese really dropped the ball on this one: a lazy and clichéd use of "Ça plane pour moi", grating covers of "Mrs. Robinson" and "Sloop John B"), the inconsistent use of cinematic flourishes, which can be as giddy as the battle of voiceovers between Belfort and that Swiss banker, only to give way to fifteen straight minutes of conversations in medium shots. The two most inspired moments in the film - a Quaalude-suffused day preparing for a trip to Geneva, and a scene where Belfort attempts to navigate his way home as his body shuts down on him completely - are both such obvious retreads of the sublime "Sunday, May 11th, 1980" sequence from Goodfellas that it's hard to respond to either of them fully on their own terms.
From any other director, would this exact same movie seem better? Perhaps. But from any other director, this movie wouldn't necessarily have been released in such an indulgent, rough shape. There's a lot of fun to be had, and DiCaprio single-handedly makes it worth the significant time commitment, but this is not filmmaking at the level of creativity and panache of the best Scorsese, even by the somewhat muted standards of his 21st Century work. There might not be a masterpiece-level Wolf of Wall Street to be edited and cleaned up out of this footage, but there's definitely a better one, even if the film in its present film is too ebullient to remotely qualify as "bad".
6/10
It's not hard to encounter the idea that the draggletail pacing of individual scenes, many of which go on for too long and start to lose the thread about halfway or two-thirds through, is reflective of the main characters' life driven by money, drugs, and sex, in that order, until he reaches a point where nonstop hedonism is more about keeping himself from falling behind rather than actually receiving pleasure. And this is a tempting, appealling reading, except it fails to account for how some of the worst-assembled scenes occur before he ever even becomes a coked-out trainwreck of a human being. It's fun, I totally understand, to play Apologise for the Auteur, but sometimes a locked-in release date is too much, and Scorsese and Schoonmaker just couldn't make it happen with this time.
That being said, the film is still a pretty solid and enjoyable watch, and an exemplary character study, thanks in huge part to Leonardo DiCaprio, in the best work he's done in his now five collaborations with Scorsese, and his strongest performance overall since Catch Me If You Can in 2002. It's quite a dizzy and demented tightrope the actor must walk: first to take a character who is, on the page, totally irredeemable and disgusting in every detail of his behavior, and make him so immensely appealing and charismatic that we never doubt for a second why so many people would look up to him as a leader and role model, nor do we doubt the infectious enthusiasm he has for his overclocked lifestyle; then, having done this, he must also make that charisma seem hollow and trivial, so that the film's indictment of the lifestyle which the character spends so much time praising can actually stick. The successful performance of real-life stock fraudster Jordan Belfort (whose business model and indictment inspired the 2000 movie Boiler Room, as well) is the movie, to a certain degree: the emphasis on moment-by-moment incident over plot tends to make the film more about Belfort's personality and how it was externalised in the activities of Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage firm he founded. DiCaprio puts over his subject's character with unbelievable verve and precision, perfectly capturing the manic glee of that kind of lifestyle in a way that's both exciting and offensive.
So at the very least, The Wolf of Wall Street goes down easily, though one doesn't exactly forget about its punishing running time (it barely edges out Casino as Scorsese's longest film), which it absolutely does not come remotely close to earning. It is, anyway, crammed full of incidents, and tricked out with a pretty solid cast who do terrific work in delivering the lines in Terence Winter's screenplay with easy, off-the-cuff casualness (Jonah Hill, with readily the largest part after DiCaprio, makes the biggest impression, though my favorite small performance was probably Jean Dujardin as a shady Swiss banker), and these things both serve to make it a largely pleasurable, high-spirited exercise in watching debauchery and enjoying it, but also enjoying the people involved getting their comeuppance. It isn't an especially fangs-bared evisceration of the excesses of American financial shenanigans, but there's enough of that to keep the film from being just smutty froth.
And oh, how smutty and frothy it is: it is a vulgar, sex-addled film, though virtually always in ways that strive to further the comedy, rather than serve any other purpose. Indeed, The Wolf of Wall Street is primarily a can-you-believe-this? comedy more than it's ever a biopic or critical study or anything, and it frequently becomes difficult to tell if it's condemning or celebrating Belfort's lifestyle, or if it cares which of the two it's doing. Which maybe weakens it a little bit; I won't pretend that it's entirely to my own tastes, but it's funny far more than it's not, and that has to count for something.
It is also flabby, however, and this hurts it in all possible ways: it's less focused, less insightful, less funny, less entertaining, than a more streamlined effort would have been. The shaggy editing is absolutely the biggest problem, but there other things: the redundant scenes, the scenes that are redundant in and off themselves, the dodgy music cues (for a director noted for the excellence of his soundtracks, Scorsese really dropped the ball on this one: a lazy and clichéd use of "Ça plane pour moi", grating covers of "Mrs. Robinson" and "Sloop John B"), the inconsistent use of cinematic flourishes, which can be as giddy as the battle of voiceovers between Belfort and that Swiss banker, only to give way to fifteen straight minutes of conversations in medium shots. The two most inspired moments in the film - a Quaalude-suffused day preparing for a trip to Geneva, and a scene where Belfort attempts to navigate his way home as his body shuts down on him completely - are both such obvious retreads of the sublime "Sunday, May 11th, 1980" sequence from Goodfellas that it's hard to respond to either of them fully on their own terms.
From any other director, would this exact same movie seem better? Perhaps. But from any other director, this movie wouldn't necessarily have been released in such an indulgent, rough shape. There's a lot of fun to be had, and DiCaprio single-handedly makes it worth the significant time commitment, but this is not filmmaking at the level of creativity and panache of the best Scorsese, even by the somewhat muted standards of his 21st Century work. There might not be a masterpiece-level Wolf of Wall Street to be edited and cleaned up out of this footage, but there's definitely a better one, even if the film in its present film is too ebullient to remotely qualify as "bad".
6/10
4 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
Such a divisive film, this one.
ReplyDeleteThe movie is too fuckin' long, yes. I think everyone except the biggest fans of the movie could see that. Scorsese films just get longer as they go on, often for no particular reason; the man who made the raw and lean Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and The King of Comedy seems to have left the building. The next one will probably be 4 hours long at this rate.
I also agree about some of the sloppy editing here. There was this weird cross dissolve that happen when Leo was getting out of the car to Spike Jonze's penny stock place, did you see that? That was very odd.
I will say though, I definitely still think this is the best of any of the DiCaprio-Scorsese combos, and better than Casino(there's a movie that annoys me). I also put it well above American Hustle, which I'm sorry Tim, but I thought that was the 6/10 sloppy mess of a movie, whose "plot" was cobbled together through improv outtakes. There's just nothing going on there on a character or thematic level, from what I saw. I think Wolf, as overstuffed as it is, was a much more accomplished and confident picture. And much funnier!
This reminds of that last too-long Christmas day movie from an acclaimed director starring DiCaprio I enjoyed more than you, Django Unchained. I wonder if we can get a yearly tradition going here.
Yeah, I pretty much completely disagree with this review, and I normally agree more often than not with Tim.
ReplyDeleteI found the movie to be the fastest, shortest 3-hour film I think I've ever watched. I marveled at the rhythms of the thing, how it could go from extended montage sequences to long talking scenes and back, how it could have elaborate mini-films within it, sequences with their own little plots rubbing up against quick little snapshot backstories, all somehow edited together so well that the pace never seemed to flag.
I'm not sure if it's a masterpiece--it certainly doesn't have the depth and moral complexity of Scorsese's greatest films--but it is simply remarkable in its dazzling excess, and it felt totally finished to me.
Jeremy's comment made me think of something that I omitted from my own review: I wish we could have seen more of Belfort-as-Penny Stock-salesman. That scene was way too brief (Spike Jonze was great), and I would have loved to stay a little bit longer there, but it really felt like Scorsese was eager to get through that part of Belfort's rise.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regards to Jeremy's comment, I am someone who loves Casino (I like it more than Goodfellas, in fact), and I didn't feel like Wolf moved as briskly. It lacked the kind frenetic energy Casino had (or something like Bringing Out the Dead. So I agree with you that film is too long, but I do think Casino is the better film and a film that earns its runtime.
I'm also seeing a lot of people say how the film reminds them of last year's Django Unchained. I'm glad I'm not the only one that had that feeling. The reaction to the film also reminds me of the reaction surrounding The Master.With Anderson's film, I never quite felt like it let me in, and of course (as many of the film's defenders will be quick to tell you) that's the point. But so what? I appreciate the effect Anderson's going for in The Master and how he wants his audience to feel as disconnected/isolated/aimless as Freddie feels, but that doesn't mean that I'm automatically enthralled or engaged in the film because of it.
I think Scorsese is doing something just as deliberate here with his narrative: he wants us to feel that the movie is messy and excessive and redundant and reckless and so on because it is a metaphor for Belfort's...but so what? That doesn't give him and Schoonmaker a pass for sloppily pasting together certain sequences in the film that feel so un-Scorsese like. I just feel like that people are giving the film a bit of a pass because of Scorsese intended instead of looking at what's actually on the screen.
I liked the "Mrs. Robinson" cover more than you, Tim, but I agree with you: what in the hell happened with his music cues in this movie? So odd for a director that is usually so on-point with his music. Whether the music gives a scene a kind of energy or drives the narrative forward or underlines a primary theme of the film...his music choices are usually great--yet here they just seem, I don't know...dull. And that's depressing, isn't it?
Also, I like that you mention that famous montage from Goodfellas--one of the director's (and Schoonmaker's) greatest creations. Leo's physical acting is just phenomenal in the scene you describe, but, yes it all feels like its missing something. I know I mentioned all of this in my review, but I wanted to reiterate: anyone that wants to see a full length version of that famous scene from Goodfellas need only look to Bringing Out the Dead.
And it bears repeating: DiCaprio is so fucking great in this movie.
Great review here, Tim!
I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I was honestly supprise that it didn't feel to long. Dialog is funny, preformance are great... I loved it with a capital "L" ;)
ReplyDelete