Find us on facebook

Showing posts with label Leonardo Di Caprio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leonardo Di Caprio. Show all posts

Sunday, March 9, 2014

"The Wolf of Wall Street", the Cult of Money

The Wolf of Wall Street

Funnily enough, it has had to be Martin Scorsese, not a thoughtful documentary director or an artie/indie filmmaker far from the industry the one to show what an aberration current capitalism is. And Scorsese has done it in a flamboyant, orgiastic and sardonic way. He has filmed “Goodfellas 2” in a bigger, bolder and stronger way, replacing the “traditional” mob for 90s Wall Street’s mafia. Arguably some of the most despicable human beings on Earth.

The Wolf of Wall Street is quintessential Scorsese. Although is based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, who rocketed from an ambitious college graduated dreaming big with Wall Street to a megalomaniac, obnoxiously wealthy stockbroker living an out of control high life, involving himself into a neverending spiral of crime, corruption and vileness, this juggernaut tour de force that goes on for three relentless hours without never losing its punch and path couldn’t be filmed by anyone else.

This is a beast of a film. The tale is outrageous but you’ll probably laugh. Characters are so near of becoming a caricature with their gross behaviour, filthy language and over the top attitude, you are sort of expecting the movie will fall, and become a silly, incongruous parody. But it works, oh my, how it works. It’s a crude, raw and deformed mirror Scorsese forces to look at (the speeches at the office are so puzzling and frightening). He had done that before but the difference here is that while the majority of his villains acquire some sort of glamour, the characters on this movie are simply repulsive, repugnant people. It’s a monster’s parade.

Praise the actors for jumping aboard this bonfire of human values, specially Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort and Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff, his right-hand man, playing the Joe Pesci’s role without throwing a punch. And we shouldn’t forget Margot Robbie as Naomi Lapaglia, Jordan's second wife. As gorgeous as complex and ambitious role, very far from the usual mannequin. Actors unleashing their talents in performances without a net.

But let’s conclude with Scorsese. I’m still shocked by his unparalleled narrative pulse, which imo makes “The Wolf of Wall Street” a director’s masterclass. I think of films that wanted to be “bigger-than-life” at the same time that aimed to be “state-of-the-art” works, like Brian de Palma’s laughable “Scarface”, Oliver Stone’s boring “Any Given Sunday” or the seriously empty “American Hustle” (review coming soon) to name just a few. But here the farce, the obscenity, the vulgarity and the sardonic humour all serve a purpose: to show how awfully wrong our societies are without delivering an indigestible, too depressive drama to assimilate. As a Spaniard, I just have to take a look to our suit & ties criminals, our corrupted, vile politicians and the cast of bankers and corporate leaders they serve. Are they glamorous, professionals to learn a lesson from, enterpreneurs (the ubiquitous stupid word)? No, the vast majority of them are people without any scrupulous. The mafia of the last 3 decades wears expensive suits and deals with “the market”. The American dream (and the Spanish, and the Russian, etc, etc) is a depraved one… Capitalism is greed and addiction. Is the cult of money. Nobody escapes it’s attraction, and choosing the right side (oh these jaw-dropping scenes on the subway and the tennis court) is never easy, and poorly rewarded. But it’s our choice, still. Our responsibility.

SCORE: 8/10

Saturday, September 14, 2013

"The Great Gatsby", Fitzgerald for Dummies

The Great Gatsby

I knew this was going to happen. I really saw this review coming. And I was right. Ouch, that hurts beyond what's bearable...

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe director Baz Luhrmann is a visionary. Maybe he just made this awful, incredibly simplistic and shallow film just to attract the youngster generation. Maybe he thought "look at these kids, they cannot read more than their whattsup one-liners. We need to bring them the best stories, in this case one of the finest examples of American literature, in a language they can understand". In Luhrmann's opinion, I believe, that means reducing Fitzgerald's book to a one-line plot: incredibly rich millionaire gives amazing parties but he's unhappy because he can't have the chick he loves. Period.  I imagine Luhrmann adding: "Now kids, here's the lesson to learn, the profound message I'm offering you in this film, so try to be focused: even the richest cry sometimes. Astonishing, right? You don't have to thank me. I'm just that great". Well Baz, NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Sure. Even the less smart of the Smartphone users can get Luhrmann's only idea on his "The Great Gatsby". But that doesn't mean they will have even the less remote clue of what was Fitzgerald's masterpiece about. It's not a question of being faithful or not to the original text (it was ages ago, but I do remember being extremely bored with Robert Redford's Gatsby version, and believe me, few books are more moving and engaging). It's just that he has decided to go for the most superficial, to an incongruous extreme, take of the book. It's all surface, as bombastic, flamboyant and 3-D as you want, but with less than zero insight. So, even you don't give a damn about the adaptation of the original story, what you get is so shallow that you won't get a film that's worth the effort either. "The Avengers" might have the same amount of depth than this Gatsby. And that's unacceptable.

Granted, "The Great Gatsby" first half is a visual feast in the vein of "Molin Rouge" (but now on 3-D folks!, so go to cinema and pay even more for that!). But exclusively visual. From the very beginning, characters are introduced and then completely ruined. A good actor like Tobey Maguire makes the dumbest impersonation of Nick Carraway I could ever imagine. He just stays there, mouth open, a silly kid enlightened by the exotism, the noise, the chicks, the confetti and grandeur of his neighbour. That's not the character Fitzgerald wrote. At all. Carey Mulligan's as Daisy deserves a separate comment. Don't know if that's Luhrmann, Mulligan or both fault, but what a disastrous performance. Exactly in the same vein as she did in "Shame", without the suicidal tendencies, with the similar annoyingly results. DiCaprio, the only remarkable of the film (and the reason the rating below isn't lower) makes a vivid impersonation of Gatsby, that grows from the shameful "perfume advertising" first looks to a much somber character, much closer to the troubled, complex and absorbing character Fitzgerald penned. Still, Di Caprio is alone, so he can't help the feeling he's performing on a ridiculously expensive and lush but fake and empty set. Fitzgerald's were powerful, extremely rich yet still misterious, obscure, not very likeable yet absorbing characters. Human contradictions, ambitions and miseries revealed. Nothing to do with this. The National's Matt Berninger penned the perfect definition for the characters you'll find on the film: "a television version of a person with a broken heart". Fakers.    

There's more to rant about. Of course, the music. We get it, partying is partying, but being a film directed to kids it's better to go for a much modern, cooler soundtrack, full of Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Will.I.Am... well hell no Baz. You did quite well (at least watchable) with "Romeo & Juliet" before with the soundtrack... because you translated Shakespeare story to a contemporary context, but not this time. Do you know what the Jazz Age means? Jazz is a very important part of the context where the story takes place... oh sorry, I forgot the director didn't care about the story. Ok, let's change the subject .Transitions. Hard to remember a film worse constructed. First, a lame lame trick so Nick Carraway can explain his insane fascination for Gatsby, so flashbacks are justified. Second, you can film as many flamboyant, flashy or slow-motioned dancing scenes you want, but they should carry you somewhere, or are we just contemplating a terribly long videoclip? Third, I can't remember just a drastic change in tempo and mood in any film seen in a long time. Party is over, so then let's go for a romantic drama. Drastically. And fourth, symbols should be subtle, if not become seriously upsetting there's no need to repeat once and again adverts or the green light. We got it. The kids too.

So, If you believe "The Great Gatsby" needed an adaptation for our digital age where information MUST fit in your mobile phone, then you have reasons to celebrate. Luhrmann has nailed it. But if you don't want to watch this "Fitzgerald for Dummies" version, just stick with the book. Have some faith in the kids next time Baz.

SCORE: 2/10