'The Big Short', the real ship of fools

The Big Short

‘The Big Short’ is one of these rare occasions when, after watching a movie, you go looking for the book and, let’s admit, the film beats it (probably because Michael Lewis’ work, despite being absorbing and dynamic, demands a very high level of concentration and knowledge of banking, financial products and American economy). Praise director Adam McKay’s ability to build a film that doesn’t hide the complexities and dramatic consequences of its subject. It has plenty of information, dense yet important information. But manages to remain engaging, enjoyable, thoughtful and, at times, truly vibrant. I left the theater wanting to talk about it: about Ryan Gosling breaking the “fourth wall” and being obnoxious, but also about how the most absurd and blatant fraud ever made by capitalism, out of any control, provoked a global economic disaster based on incompetence, greed and stupidity. But it's worse than that. After all the mess caused, we are still worshipping the market, like fanatics believing on a God with their feet completed covered on blood and mud (how appropriate, right?). Obedient lambs in our way to the slaughterhouse...

‘The Big Short’ tells the story of how the market crumbled down in the US in 2008, causing the major breakdown worldwide, whose consequences we are still facing. But McKay is not interested on a documentary deep on analysis, facts and figures. No, he wants way more than that. He wants a movie of vital pace that entertains while explains you how we got robbed (never forget, it wasn’t a crisis but a gigantic scam). And he delivers, thanks to a script that takes it time to descript sub-prime loans, CODs and other vile financial products, but through the actions and challenges their main characters have while the movie develops. And, when it’s needed, requesting a pretty surprising yet simple and effective resource: pop culture, meaning celebrities. Speaking directly to the audience, detailing economic aspects our regular persona might not be interested to listen to (it’s really complicated & boring) but that a famous star can make understandable and even cool. Brilliant.

But make no mistake, behind all its lush, state-of-the-art surface perfect for Millennials and people who can only watch series, ‘The Big Short’ encompasses all the rage, the hypocrisy and pathetism the story demands. Through the groups of traders who discovered that the housing market, specifically their loans, major pillar of American economy (Spanish too) were actually a bunch of utter crap in the form of repackaged bad loans that, thanks to the freedom of Wall Street, the big sharks’ of the banks and the agency ratings (a true mafia), were about to ruin us all. As they did. And, McKay points out clearly, could very well do that again...

The road to perdition, a real one, is developed here in a poliedric way, so the puzzle shows the most complete picture. Here’s the pioneer, the ultra-freak aka genius Michael Burry (performed by Christian Bale, in my opinion the most dubious performance, too heavy on mannerisms, too 'weirdo' to entirely believe is a real person, as Burry is), the first wager against sub-prime loans, and the guy who discovered the housing marked was built on trash while managing awkwardly his hedge fund. Here’s the trader who detects Burry shocking bet against the “most solid marked in the country”, a posh asshole named Jared Vennett (based on Greg Lippman, and smoothly, easily played by Ryan Gosling, by far the funniest & caricaturesque character of the film, but also including a poignant dose of merciless realism), also in charge to interact directly with the viewers about how unstoppable, but foremost completely dumb, was the whole financial system. Here’s the one Vennett tries to get money from, Mark Baum (based on Steve Eisman and played by Steve Carell who, in my opinion, deserved an Oscar nomination and becomes the real presence of the film, a character so personally damaged and enraged it hurts, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t suffer from a heart attack while he swallows his bile and keeps his educated manners). A troubled person that knows corruption rules the world and joins the seemingly crazy path Vennett is offering him… because he wants to believe him. He wants to be right about his pessimistic look at life… Until he realizes he was right, but the disaster was even bigger than he ever imagined. And there’s a fourth inter-linked story, probably the weakest one (one of the few flaws of the film), about two young entrepreneurs on finances (played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro) who, almost by pure chance, also discover Vennett’s plan (then we are allowed to know that’s all fiction) and, with the help of a retired trader tremendously critic on Wall Street (very restrained and solid Brad Pitt), get into it.

The film is full of memorable moments (the aforementioned with famous faces making simple explanations of CDOs and “creative finances”) but the best are the ones that, behind the smile or the laugh, also show the cruel, depressing consequences of such a demented and despicable system, as well as highlighting that our “heroes” are far from being nothing more than a group of smart hypocrites. Baum and his colleagues interviewing a couple of over-the-top, insufferable hotshot traders bragging (that’s the key word) about how they worked with the people with lowest incomes. Baum and Co. talking with Standard & Poor's on how the ratings were still so high, despite the economy indexes falling. Brad Pitt reminding his young pals what the banks accepting their “bet” against the housing market means if they are right for the people. The ship of fools. Real fools. The tragedy behind the farce. We should praise movies that are brave enough to talk about the times seriously while taking risks trying to adapt to the times. And, of course, we should never forget. For our own good. Or next time we will have a fascist billionaire running for U.S. president. Oh, wait...

SCORE: 7,5

"Killing Them Softly", capitalism or death

Killing Them Softly

Yeah, I know, the title of the post is pretty bizarre for what it looks like another neo-noir thriller. Noir thrillers are not odd, they usually use (overuse I dare to say) some very determined and classical pattern with slight or more radical ("state-of-the-art", "cool" are also words that come to my mind) visual variations, putting style ahead of substance. But "Kiling Them Softly" is different. Is the first "capitalist thriller" I have ever seen. You must be thinking, what the hell is a capitalist thriller? Let me try to explain myself.

"Killing Them Softly" is, on the surface, a pure thriller dealing with the criminal world. An using a recurrent topic/premise: what in the mafia jargon is called a "contract".  Jackie Cogan is an enforcer recruited to solve a situation (meaning killing the responsible) created by three guys who robbed at a mob protected card game. But the unsurprising, common ground of the premise quickly reveals much more.

It is obvious, since almost the beginning the movie is not really interested on the robbers. They are amateurs and pretty dumb (one of them just a scum), therefore fated to a dramatic end. But director Andrew Dominik adapting George V.Higgins' novel "Cogan's Trade", want to talk about something much more bigger than a crazy robbery. They use that scenario as a metaphor of capitalism, with the United States as the evident background. Well, maybe I should rephrase this paragraph, maybe this is about a crazy robbery after all. The biggest, most despicable and crazy robbery mankind is suffering.

What Jackie Cogan is paid to do is not eliminating three stupid guys, but restore the collapsed local criminal economy. Cogan and the unnamed driver with whom he has the arrangements discuss about murders, but mostly about economy (every dollar counts, more in this choking economic crisis context) and the "public image" that has to be rebuilt. Their capitalist structure, the status quo, has to be preserved by all means. Does it sound familiar to you? It does.

In that context, violence is just a tool, another mean to reach the desired end. Cogan, portrayed with a disarming naturalness by Brad Pitt, could be a gangster, but also the perfect public relations. The film has some violent  scenes, not many, but is mostly a movie about conversations. Criminals wearing suits and ties talking about the needed steps to be taken. Did I hear bankers and politicians? The driver, played by the always perfect Richard Jenkins is an accountant, that's for sure, and you'll see Obama too many times on the screen to just think is a coincidence. Remember than words can also be weapons.

Unfortunately, "Killing Them Softly" somewhat fails as a movie. It has a peculiar, off-beat pace that harms its dynamism. Without it, some scenes seem to be there to make fun, a peculiar, deadpan humour that is, but they don't mix that well as a whole. And to my understanding, director Andrew Dominik makes terrible mistakes of presenting several relevant elements in its narration to abandon them later on. Mickey's character (another great performance by James Gandolfini) and Dillon's ghostly role are the two most blatant examples. It was just a (bad) editing choice? It might be the first film in ages in which I have the feeling the movie is too short... for what it wants to say.

Capitalism or death. But let's try your murder to be as delicate as possible.... Damn it again, doesn't sound familiar to you? Failed movie, but brave, risky, smart, well acted and thought-provoking.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"Moneyball", Brad Pitt hits a home run

Moneyball

To start with, there aren't many memorable sports films (boxing being the exception), just a few worth remembering. But the perspective of watching a movie about baseball was even more discouraging. Sorry folks, but I simply don't get baseball. It is such a boring game, in my opinion. So, a good film about baseball? Hard for me to believe it. Before I watched "Moneyball", that is.

"Moneyball" is, of course, about baseball, which made me miss some superficial details, or not sharing the emotional part of the games (few) we see during the film. But luckily it is more about the insights of a game, its nature, and need to evolve. And foremost, is the story, excellently constructed and brilliantly performed, of human beings.

Going to the "message" of "Moneyball" (I know, delicate subject), this is not the first movie that pretends to show us an inspiring "true" story, in this case the one of the Oakland A's, a team with low economic possibilities that managed to compete with the rich & powerful teams of the league, but have to face rebuilding after a successful season with very limited resources. That's when manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, decides to make a drastic move in order to still be competitive. "Moneyball" then becames a film about standing against and overcoming the odds, combating the usual pattern that would condemn his team. It is unoriginal, but its quite moving and, as I said, despite being about baseball, that's just the backdrop. As a Spaniard is easy to make the analogy with our incredibly unbalanced and unfair Soccer League, not to mention other minority sports.

There are two major factors why this film succeeds: one is the striking, always intriguing and powerful script, written by Aaron Sorkin (who's also responsible of another brave screenplay, "The Social Network") in a great job adapting Michael Lewis' book. In a movie where dialogue is everything, this is always refreshing, dynamic, and alive. Even the familiar scenes, or the flashbacks in time, that could easily introduce a cheesy, unnecessary dramatic element to the film are there for the purpose of showing a more accurate portray of Beane's life. Praise director Bennett Miller and Sorkin for that.

The other driving force are the actors. Brad Pitt convinces as Billy Beane, portraying a character that, as every human being, is complex, imperfect and demanding. Without overacting or forcing any scene, Pitt is able to achieve a very remarkable creation: what we see in every scene is not an actor, but a person struggling against the enormous challenging he is facing. But even is Pitt is excellent, to me the surprise, and the actor that "steals the show" is Jonah Hill, who plays the Harvard "nerd" Pete Brand, the person that will give Beane the chance to compete against the rich teams with a new system of analysis of the players and the game that will shock the entire league (not to mention their own team). He is superb in his role, a mixture of fragility and doubt with a passionate, fierce conviction in what he does. Of course, Philip Seymour Hoffman (as always) is also great in his role as the Oakland's coach, but I would have love he had received some more scenes to develop his character a bit more.

Overall, a quality film, with great acting, direction and screenplaying. It might not be groundbreaking in its content or its conclusion, although is far more interesting than a vast majority of the sports genre. But if you allow me the easy end, is a solid, and very pleasant, home run. From a non-baseball fan.

SCORE: 7/10

"The Tree of Life", the most self-indulgent film ever

The Tree of Life

Beware of someone qualified as an "author". Not saying that Terrence Malick doesn't deserve the adjective. He is a terrific filmmaker, capable of creating scenes of unparalleled beauty. In that sense, "The Tree of Life" is an achievement again, full of striking visuals and imagery. But a film is not just a collection of gorgeous images with a brilliant photography. I'm very sorry to say there's nothing more than that in Malick's film.

What I criticise with the "author" concept, and to me, the main reason why the film is a complete failure, is that Malick made it exclusively for himself, without caring a tiny bit about the audience. It might be the most self-indulgent film I ever seen.

To me, an artist aims to create a connection with his/her art with an audience. That connection can have different expressions: make you laugh, burst into tears, make you think, blow out your mind, terrify you... It links with your emotions and passions, with something inside of you. It's all about our empathy with the characters and or/the story. I remember how I got deeply moved by Malick soldiers' of "The Thin Red Line". Never been in a war, but their fear of death, their doubts and concerns about what they we're doing were completely human and understandable to me. There's no empathy at all with "The Tree of Life".

Seems the film is vastly autobiographical, so while the recreation of the fifties town is vivid and credible, his memories are just too personal to say anything to the regular viewer. What happens is... trivial, and despite the convincing acting of young Jack (Hunter McCracken) and his father (Brad Pitt) the remembrance of this childhood memories and the relationship with his parents and brothers is not particularly appealing or enlightening. Combine that with the aspiration of making a film of cosmic proportions (literally) that supposedly poses all the important questions about life & existence, and you'll have a chaotic, gigantic mess.

But it is much worse. The structure of the movie is a disaster. Every serious critic rating the film as a masterpiece should, at least, admit something's is not quite right in what regards to a film that starts as a mixture of experimental images and a drama, then turns into a long documentary on the creation of the universe, the planet and life, then moves into a drama about a kid's coming-of-age, and then ends into a surreal, experimental way. All with the addition of an ever-present off-voice, and annoyingly epic music, so you don't forget that's an essential moment of the film. Unnamed characters and yes, Sean Penn's brutally edited role, only adds more confusion to an already nonsensical film.

Enough? If not, we can talk about "THE message" of the film. From the very beginning, Malick puts the Bible as the only reference. Loss, grief, fear, desolation, love, are universal feelings that don't need a religious attempt for explanation. So why Malick only has one (extremely conservative) answer to this questions? In my opinion, because he fervently believes it, or because he needed to exorcise his demons of the past. And both aren't reasons strong enough to film this completely unidimensional, pretentious and self-indulgent movie  and getting away with it. No way. "The Tree of Life" only makes sense in Malick's head, not in the screen. Sorry, but the more I think about, the worse it becomes.

SCORE: 1,5/10