'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

"Blue Jasmine", from Riches to Rags

Blue Jasmine

An overwhelming praise of a "serious" Woody Allen film? That should had been a warning for me, like "Match Point", that was saluted as a masterpiece, when at its best (Scarlett Johansson magnetic screen presence aside) it was an ok noir recreation with a solid script but a non-Allen film. "Blue Jasmine" is worse. I'm very sad to say that Allen's latest movie seems to come from another planet and characters are mostly unbelievable.

I could blame it to the fact Allen is too far from his natural environment here. Truth is that the world of Allen's filmography has been always pretty constrained in what regards to his sociodemographic scope. An intellectual, slightly upper-class American, recurrently related with arts or cultural industries. But that wouldn't be completely fair. Brilliant and very different works like "Purple Rose from Cairo", "Radio Days" or "Broadway Danny Rose" just to name a few depicted middle and lower classes with more depth an charm that "Blue Jasmine". And that's terrible considering Allen's new piece really wants to say something about social class in the new millennium, in this age of economic crisis where capitalism is showing (even to the most stupid) what a wrong system this is. The problem is that he tries to explore human nature, and its darkest sides, without getting there. Like the failed "Cassandra's Dream", the terrible "You'll Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", or the better but still sterile "Match Point", "Blue Jasmine" lacks depth and heart. And coming from Woody that's a huge disappointment.

"Blue Jasmine" is not a terrible film. The life of Jasmine French is the tale of a downfall, from riches to rags (not enough of these in real life sadly), that Allen exposes in a quite dynamic and wise juxtaposition of current and past events. It does seems it could work, as Cate Blanchett is the perfect actress to give her character sophisticated an elegant looks mixed with the vulnerability of someone who is always on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She is completely lost when she arrives to San Francisco (cool to recognise many locations of the city) looking for a shelter and a new start at her sister's house, a character so different to her that when the spectator knows that they were both adopted there's a relief. 

But right then things to feel pretty unbelievable. Jasmine's sister, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, who seems to repeat her "Happy-Go-Lucky" role to an exaggerate extreme. Her naivete seems a bit silly to me. And so are many of the situations, conversations (not very funny) and secondary characters that appear on the story. In particular, I even felt a bit of embarrassment for Allen with the lame and ridiculous dentist as well as the wealthy Dwight (wasting an excellent actor like Peter Sarsgaard).

Then it occurred to me that maybe Allen was just pointing how delusional this woman can be after losing her status and lifestyle. That maybe we were looking to the story though her neurotic, bipolar eyes. That maybe would explain the "wild mood swings", the "going back and forth", not in terms of structure, but in what regards to Jasmine's behaviour... but it didn't really worked out either. Because I didn't care about Jasmine. Not talking about feeling empathy for her character, but I'm referring to interest in the story. Everything kept going, but nothing grabbed me, with the feeling some parts were pretty forced and the whole narrative-dramatic arc being a bit flat (Alec Baldwin's crumbling empire could have been better developed). 

There's a glimpse of brilliance at the end, with a cruel twist in the turn of events on which Allen seems to be punishing not only Jasmine but also Ginger (resignation). I believe the director wants to hold Jasmine as responsible for the crimes of the greedy class, as the perfect wife who profited from corruption, and when reality gives the final slap in her face, she lets madness win. Like in "Midnight in Paris", the impossible desire to be somewhere else and escape from your neuroses and a life you are incapable of living. But if the Parisian dream was lovely and full of magic and wonder, "Blue Jasmine" is just the image of madness. That darker twist saves the film from being a flaw in Allen's career, but it's a big deception nonetheless. 

SCORE: 5,25/10

"The Spirit of '45", the 99%, back then

The Spirit of '45

So glad to see Ken Loach back on track. "The Spirit of '45" is a moving documentary and a crystal-clear tribute to the British people that, together, were capable of leaving behind the scourge of the II World Wars, and along with the '45 Labour government rebuild the country. A new England under a new vision: a fair and united society. Tories, Republicans, Merkel fans, PP voters... all right-wing devotees, as well as Tony Blair or Zapatero nostalgics, 80-90s socialists, you should stop reading right now. This is going to give you hives (skin rash).

Loach doesn't care about the possible (obvious) criticism he has/is going to face. I assume he's got so used to the accusations of being heavily biased that he probably doesn't waste a single second to read critics opinion (who cares about the right-wing opinions anyway? we all know they are all crazy). After all, "Spirit of '45" is the next step of a director who has always had a coherent political speech, something showed in his long filmography. 

As expected as well, Loach is not interested in portraying a flamboyant, state-of-the-art documentary. He combines footage from the vast British archives with contemporary interviews, many of them people who were there and, with their answers can define how dramatic was the situation after the war, how the changes arrived with the labour government. The film is not the most dynamic, but on the other hand, is powerful and determined to get its point exposed: there's an URGENT NEED of another SPIRIT OF '45.

Co-operation, solidarity, unity, support, but also nationalisation of any economic-productive sector that was pivotal for society, and the creation of a welfare system (health, education, subsidies). Does it sound familiar to you? Yes, that's the same social protection system our despicable politicians in Europe are trying to destroy. Or the national health program Republicans from the States would qualify as evil (meaning communist, of course). Keynes against the "market law", now updated into an even more criminal version, Friedman's privatise-everything (that serves to my only benefit) law, packed with shameful speculation. Sorry, but like Loach, I have decided it makes no sense to waste my time trying to be more "polite/tolerant" with the people who are the reason of the disaster we are in now. Let's say it out loud and clear: we have enough of criminals who are there just for their own greed. 

Let's go back to the documentary then. It's so evident Loach is trying to tell us we can't give out hope today. Yes, the bastards are everywhere, and extremely powerful and the situation is extremely difficult. But was it worse than 1945? Don't think so. And then, the 99% of Great Britain decided it was time for a change, a revolution. And so came the change. Loach rediscovers history to show it's time for another revolution. That we can fight and succeed.

I personally missed the voice of young people, believing it would have been nice to confront the current generations with the memories and thoughts of the elders. Also I'm kind of dubious of the last-minute attack to Thatcher. Don't get me wrong, Thatcher can't be condemned enough, but it's kind of tricky the way it is exposed. She introduced the criminal (sorry liberal) economic policies in the country, trying to dismantle the Welfare System. But Loach doesn't take the time to explain how the monster arrived to Downing Street, and she wasn't alone. What about John Major? And Blair? Aside from that, a documentary to watch and think about it.

SCORE: 7/10

"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

"The Union", everybody must get stoned!

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Quoting Bob Dylan, the title of this post could be the joking summary of "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High". I'm exaggerating... but only a bit.

As a documentary exposing the hypocrisy and brutal amount of lies from the different American governments, pressured by the big, gigantic, pharmaceutics industry and their greedy interests, the film must be overtly applauded and celebrated. It has a particularly good "didactic" quality. First, on demystifying marijuana as the EVIL, something decades of propaganda and partial use of the media resources has achieved in the USA. Second, and even more importantly, because it reveals how the penalisation of cannabis has created an enormous illegal industry (called "The Union"), and several legal structures that benefits immensely from that prohibition. "The War on Drugs", which targets marijuana as its prime villain is finely exposed on the film as a combination of paranoia (John Ashcroft, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II* have some amusing/pathetic moments) and perverse, shameful manipulation. And third, because it doesn't hide these policies are only a way to help the powerful and politically valuable lobby of pharmaceutics industry.

But as much as "The Union" is thought-provoking and revealing, it is not entirely satisfying. As a documentary itself, in terms of film quality, is quite mediocre. Filmmaker Adam Scorgie structures his film on a never-ending off-voice, giving data and more data, occasionally truncated by the opinions of growers, criminologists, economists, doctors, politicians, famous people (I suppose) and street interviews (probably the most revealing, as they show how ignorant is the population on this issue). The development of the film for the viewer is quite boring. It seriously lacks dynamism.

There's another big issue. "The Union" is heavily biased. Not referring to the part devoted to the "pot industry" or the politic interests, which I already say are brilliantly documented, being the main reason this movie is worth the watching. I'm talking about the nature of cannabis. Never been a pot consumer as I never felt the need/interest/curiosity to do so. I know that cigarettes and alcohol are spectacularly more dangerous than marijuana, that can be very beneficial (and much more healthier) for the treatment of several diseases and chronic pains (have cases in my own family). But this is a "stoner film" (that definition exists?), and hey, cannabis in Spain might be also illegal (the law here is quite ridiculous, you can have your daily dose for self-consumption, but you can be arrested by police if you are seen smoking on public spaces while trade and advertisement in determined places is accepted) but is commonly accepted, and everyone, I mean EVERYONE, knows from the personal experience, familiars/friends, etc, on how regular pot consumption affects people. "The Union" doesn't even try to collect a single opinion of the possible consequences of its consumption. Marijuana is portrayed like a wonder that nature has given to us, and we silly humans, are prohibiting. And that is not exactly the case.

SCORE: 6/10

* Dear Americans, as we should do too, please think when you vote. It has obvious consequences ;). What a monsters parade....

Spanish Election Day Eve: think for a minute!

An imaginary conversation between the only honest politician in our country and a potential voter, today, on the Spanish Election Day Eve.

Politician: You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. No BRICS. No America. There are no third worlds. There is no West. No European Union. No United Nations. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, euros, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, dear voter?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch TFT HDI screen and howl about Spain and democracy. There is no Spain. There is no democracy. No PP or PSOE. There is only Banco Santander and Inditex and Telefónica and LaCaixa, Endesa, Repsol, and Abertis. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state - Karl Marx? What do you think Merkel and Sarkozy talk about in their meetings -saving the European welfare state? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, dear voter. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, dear voter. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And I have chosen you, dear voter, to reveal this truth.

Voter: But why me?

Politician: Because starting tomorrow, you can stop this nonsense. Please, think for a minute before voting. 

(adapted from "Network", 1976)

"Inside Job", the Wall Street World Government

Inside Job

"The politicians do not rule the world, Goldman-Sachs in Government". These are the words of Alessio Rastani, an anonymous stock market trader until this week, when he got interviewed, in all his shameless and shameful honesty, at BBC News, shocking the world with his message. It's not the only one-liner he said that deserves to be remembered. "If you know how, you can make money off a crash!", and "in less than a year the savings will be gone for millions of people without that neither markets nor governments can do anything" are painstakingly examples of what and who leads of the world these days. His position, attitude, words and message are the best summary of "Inside Job", a film that dissects how and who put the world into the economic crisis we are facing. Welcome to the Wall Street World Government.

Director Charles Ferguson, who won the best documentary award at the Oscars, divides the film in a five episodes structure to analyse all sides to take the closest look at what brought about the financial meltdown. The idea and aim is excellent, as we have a comprehensive and very detailed analysis, but the episodes are seriously unbalanced.

After a very good start with the background of the recession in which we go to Iceland before setting the movie at the United States, we move into episodes 2 and 3, where the crisis is carefully explained...with too many facts, numbers and graphics. Don't get me wrong, a serious documentary must inform and give facts, but in my opinion, there's too much and too fast in the film. I have serious concerns about if "Inside Job" can connect with the general audience and not just the people already interested. Worse, I'm among "the already interested" and I admit some of the information provided wasn't fully assimilated, and that I missed some analysis on the role of international institutions (if any) or a wider scope (not just the States). In the other hand, watching the film should be mandatory at schools. Its a documentary that requires to be studied, not just watched.

On the contrary, chapter 4, "Accountability", has to be highlighted on its own. Brilliant from start to finish, offers a side of the crisis completely overlooked. The role of education and economic schools in which politicians, corporations and the markets find their ideological support that seems to have the power to justify that deregulation, bank rescues or lately, cuts on social services, are necessary for the good of economy. "Inside Job" reveals, thanks to sharp and smart interviews, that is a lie. Education has been as corrupted, hypocrite and selfish as banks and politicians, and therefore they are responsible of that crisis as well.

The final chapter "Where are we now" is the other standout moment of "Inside Job". Without any political bias, Ferguson points out how the Obama administration is almost entirely composed by the same people that was behind the crisis, whether in previous political or corporative positions. So you can easily guess what's the conclusion. On the not so good side, there's a slight outburst at the very end of the film, losing part of its remarkable objectivity until that point.

"Why should a financial engineer be paid four times to 100 times more than a real engineer? A real engineer build bridges. A financial engineer build dreams. And, you know, when those dreams turn out to be nightmares, other people pay for it". The words of Andrew Sheng are the best summary of the crisis, so I will save you some time skipping the rants and insults I'm tempted to utter. In what regards to "Inside Job", I believe is a must-see. My suggestion would be to combine it with Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story", as together they provide a complete and powerful picture. Moore is more focused on the people affected by the crisis, the human side, and as it less dense in the explanation of the crisis, while Ferguson's is more objective and informative. Hey! At least there's one thing we have to thank the crisis for. Some filmmakers have been moved to direct great and insightful movies about it.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Capitalism: A Love Story", the criminals of today are ruling corporations

Capitalism: A Love Story

First, the flaws. "Capitalism" is the longest movie to date from Michael Moore, and in what regards to rythym and dynamism is probably his weakest, something that is partially understandable considering he is trying to explain world and American finances, and the consequences for the regular citizens. Besides, I wasn't particularly fond of some mixtures between some jokes or funny/cynical comments just a frame after or before he puts us in front of a dramatic personal story. I know he is trying to create an effect, but goes too far a couple of times in the film.

Having said that, let's move to the triumphs. I don't need anyone to tell me America, as it is Europe, and of course Spain, is wildly corrupted, and that we are all serving a system devoted to create a ridiculous amount of richness among the ones that are already rich. But I praise Moore for having the guts of pointing the names of the criminals and the amount of their crimes so openly in here. Osama Bin Laden might be dead, but I don't think the world has lost its most dangerous enemy yet. Greed is the enemy, and it usually has the form of a suit-and-tie, highly educated and trained CEO financial expert, or a highly incompetent or vile politician.

In a way, the idea of the film is far from being original. "Capitalism" goes back to the desolate territory he explored 20 years ago with the poignant and compelling "Roger & Me" and that he has been examining throughout his career. How corporate America dominates the country (and the world) and ruins it systematically. But now he takes the issue globally.

There are many horrifying scenes and information on the film that makes you wonder why Americans still believe they live in a democracy. Then you look at what the European Union is doing with migrants, or better say, with political refugees from Tunisia, or what Spain and Catalonia is doing with banks/corporations instead of investing public health or education and you can easily ask the same question to you. "Dead Peasants" insurance policies, wild evictions, atrocious juvenile detentions just for the sake of making more money, while tax reductions and increasing benefits for CEOs and corrupted politicians are common practices. But they want more, their greediness is so huge they go too far and the bubble explodes, so they ask the State they are ruining for a rescue. And they succeed. Oh by the way, does it sound you, European Union? Does it sound you, Valencia, Andalusia, Madrid, Mr. Millet, Santa Coloma, and a long, depressing etc.?

But while "Roger & Me" left you in complete desolation, Moore wants the Americans (and the rest of the world please) to raise against it. To say no. And he does it by explaining them the turning point towards disaster dates from a concrete period, the Reagan era, not so long ago. And he does it showing us that with political will (the speech of Marcy Kaptur, the Ohio Congresswoman, against the bank rescue of 2008 at the House of Representatives should be seen by every American and every person who has lost his/her belief in politics), with knowledge, and with union (the strikes, the cooperative examples are compelling), there are options.

I just wish we could find someone comparable to Moore in Spain. We definitely need someone like him. We need to get indignant, to react, to reclaim our rights, to revolt, that's his message. I couldn't agree more. It might not be the most perfect of documentaries, but can't imagine of a more necessary one.

SCORE: 7/10