OVP: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Film: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner
Director: Martin Scorsese
Oscar History: 5 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor-Jonah Hill, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Martin Scorsese through the years has become an absolute master of not only the cinema, but getting people to talk about the movies.  Scorsese is perhaps the most noted director currently talking about classic cinema (Woody Allen would rival him if he did more interviews).  You rarely see an interview with Scorsese where he doesn't reference John Ford or The Red Shoes or some early sound era actress.  He's someone who is deeply respectful of his place in the filmic world, and wants to contribute to the conversation.

He has done this for years by creating smart, interesting films that get people to talk.  Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Casino-these are movies that spur discussion about violence, sex, and debauchery in our general world.  And yet since he started his mad dash to the Oscars in 2002, his films, while still of quality (well, maybe not Gangs of New York) haven't had that sort of splash.  Even a film like The Departed, which looks out-of-place compared to most Oscar winners, is a superb film but it lacks the boundary-pushing that his earlier work did.  So it was something of a surprise to me when The Wolf of Wall Street came out and almost everyone started discussing it in highly polarized views, wondering about the lifestyle that it was promoting and whether it lauded or hated Jordan Belfort (played, of course, by Leonardo DiCaprio).

(Spoilers Ahead) I feel like that question both needs to be answered first in a review of the film, particularly one where I'm the last one to the party, and doesn't need to be answered at all.  Because at the end of the day, the thing that matters is if this is a strong movie or not.  Films frequently can be quite excellent if you don't agree with them.  Someone can be an atheist and still acknowledge the wonder of Ben-Hur.  It's not an either/or situation.  That being said, I think that while Martin Scorsese is not a man who celebrates this sort of lifestyle, and neither is his star Leonardo DiCaprio (and by lifestyle I mean using corruption, greed, and fraud to live a life of senseless pleasure, not sleeping with models and throwing wild parties, because clearly Leo is up for that), the movie does luxuriate Mr. Belfort's time at the top.  How can it not?  It's a bit similar to The Bling Ring last year in that both films have this incredibly decadent, fascinating lifestyle and they both succeed in making it look false and tacky, but they also succeed in making it look quite appetizing.  You may hate yourself for what you have to do to wear a Brioni and date a supermodel, but man are you going to look good while doing it.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's dive into the actual movie at hand, which is strong, though we're judging on a curve here both because it is a Scorsese picture (I feel bad for artists who succeed that early in their careers, but we expect different from the likes of the guy who can do something like Taxi Driver) and because the film nabbed five Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, so it's worth noting that it's not the best film Scorsese has ever made (hyperbole that seems to come out every time a master makes a new film, at least from the Peter Travers crowd).  The film's best attribute is at its center.  Scorsese and DiCaprio hasn't always made sense (Gangs of New York was a fatal miscasting), but here it seems quite perfect.  Leo, like Jordan Belfort, is a former golden boy who knows a thing or two about partying.  You can actually see Leo enjoying himself and stretching a bit as an actor.  The Oscar nominee has long wanted to be thought of as a "serious" thespian, and I don't think anyone would deny he is one at this point, but that being said, his best role in my opinion may well be Titanic.  He has a natural charm in that film that lends itself so perfectly to the screen, and yet film after film after film, he seems to be trying to stifle it.  Here it comes out (albeit in occasionally grotesque ways) marvelously.  You can genuinely see why the rest of the world is enamored with this man-you do want to be him, you do want to be part of his web and gain his approval.  He's intoxicating.

The rest of the cast is solid, though, too.  Jonah Hill scored a surprise Oscar nomination for his work in the film (he was the no-precursor nominee of the year), and I have to say this is easily my favorite piece of work from Hill so far in his short filmography.  Since coming from rather humble roots, he had started to establish himself as clearly a nice guy with really good taste in scripts (or at least a damn fine agent), but here he does something additional: he proves that he can act.  He takes what is a gross character and adds shades to him, but never at the sacrifice of us cringing when he's on-screen.  That takes talent, and I'm hoping that Hill stays a part of Scorsese's world, as it's high time we had someone fill Joe Pesci's shoes.  Margot Robbie is also quite excellent, though strangely didn't gain Oscar traction, despite Scorsese being oddly good with Supporting Actresses (you wouldn't guess it from his male-dominated filmography, but he has actually landed supporting actress nods for seven different women).  Robbie is supposed to perch herself as simply a point-of-lust in Jordan's eyes, but is smart enough of an actress to let the audience see the growth in her character, even if she doesn't let her husband.

The problems with the movie are both around the endless string of debauchery (the point has been made-we don't need three hours of it) and the fact that the film doesn't quite know where to put all of its attention when it starts to lull.  The problem with a biopic is that we the audience know where this is going.  We know Belfort is going to get caught, otherwise there wouldn't be a movie.  Scorsese, though, is treating the audience as if we don't have a clue where he's headed, frequently making stops that don't need to be made (the entire Jean DuJardin story could be lifted with almost no issue).  He's trying to make a big, giant movie, and he does, but to what point?  This is a man whose story is already quite known-three hours is too much unless it's a tale we haven't heard yet.

The film also doesn't know quite what to do with its side characters-the film frequently has people actually getting arrested (I recall the platinum blonde woman), but these characters are so ancillary that you don't even know their names.  Scorsese's past films got this, giving these parts at least some relevance to the film, but not here.  They are just wallpaper.

Still, though, an admirable effort to get back into the zeitgeist by a director who was once the reigning voice in edgy cinema.  It says something that this was not only the ballsiest film to be nominated for Best Picture last year, but it was also from the oldest director in the field.  Now into his seventies, Martin Scorsese continues to find interesting things to say about the world around him, and thankfully, has the movies to share those thoughts.

Let's hear from you (I'm positive you've all seen this movie by now)-what did you think of Wolf of Wall Street?  Where do you stand on the celebrate/condemn the sinner debate?  Will Leo (or at this rate, Jonah Hill) ever win an Oscar?  And what's your favorite Scorsese (and conversely, what's your Scorsese filmography blind spot, that shameful film you for some reason haven't caught yet)?  Share in the comments!