Wall Street, the actual review
Sep. 25th, 2010 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marinessWhat's changed:
1. Product endorsements. Up. Way up. Particularly, and oddly, cheap product endorsements (except for the extended commercials for Lightspeed software which I suppose was inevitable.) Cheap product endorsements Cheap product endorsements have gone up. Way up. (Although I admit to considerable amusement at the sight of young wealthy Wall Street traders clutching at Dunkin Donuts coffee instead of one of those elaborate Manhattan coffee drinks. And where, in a movie that seemed to be crying out for it, was Starbucks?)
2. Cell phones.
3. Martin Sheen. Not in the movie, much to the film's detriment. (I know, I know, the film had no place to squeeze in his character, but the gravitas he provided is badly missed.)
3. Charlie Sheen. Clearly older.
4. Computer graphics. Slicker. More annoying.
5. Daryl Hanna. Wisely avoiding this film.
What hasn't:
1. Art. Still awful. Available to be destroyed in moments of anger!
2. Apartments: Still improbably large with improbable views. (On the bright side, this put all of our complaints about Neal's improbable apartment in White Collar into perspective.)
3. Downsized apartments: Also still improbably large, if without views. But seriously.
4. Male domination. This film doesn't just fail the Bechtel test; it stomps all over it. The women here have even less to say and suffer more public humiliation than the ones in the first film did. In one scene, the film even takes joy in having a man outflank and outdo a female counterpart, visibly irritating her and attempting to humiliate her; her later victory occurs offscreen. This is ongoing. The men, not the women, move the film along. Exactly one woman with a speaking part – a Chinese investor – appears to have any real power in this male dominated world – and even she works for a male boss.
I suppose that might be a real reflection of the way Wall Street works – a scene with a bunch of very, very white bankers, including a grand total of two women – I counted – one of whom never speaks, deciding the fate of Wall Street firms makes its own point, but having the most powerful woman in the film be from China was a bit disconcerting.
More detailed comments below ():
Wall Street, as a film, suffers from two major shortcomings:
1. It doesn't have enough of Gordon Gekko. When he's on screen, the film crackles. When he isn't, which is most of the time, the film kinda duds.
2. The romance between the two leads makes no sense, and is not even remotely believable, perhaps because both leads seem to be asking, and, exactly why am I with this person again?
Let's recap: the woman, Winnie, believes, with reason, that her entire life has been ruined by her father, a Wall Street trader, to the point where she is now running a liberal website and refusing to touch one hundred million dollars. We are not talking about, hmm, well, I feel icky about this million, so….We are talking a vast, vast fortune. She doesn't struggle with it; she's not even tempted. Money no longer interests her. Fair enough.
So why the hell is she with a Wall Street trader and living in a penthouse loft with views of the Empire State Building?
It makes no sense. None. And the film gives us no reason to believe that it makes sense. We see them briefly in bed together before having a small argument; she hugs him in comfort minutes later after a long screen absence; he goes against her wishes and contacts and makes friends with her father and lies to her about it; they go to a charity event; they get pregnant; he gets her the wrong type of ring. They don't agree about how to handle their dysfunctional parents. She doesn't like his job and he makes fun of hers and her political beliefs at the charity event.
And that's it. I can't even tell if they like the same sorts of books or television shows or motorcycle racing or anything; most of the time they don't even seem to like being together, or she's mad about his attempts to reconcile her and her father, or both. Also, no sizzle whatsoever on screen. (I'm beginning to wonder if this is just Shia LaBeouf, though – does he sizzle with anybody? Especially since he is apparently dating this actress in real life.) I kept saying (and with movies I'm a romantic), dump the guy already! When she did I was all happy, figuring they were both better off, much lessening the emotional impact of the whole Oh, man, look, the evils of Wall Street just killed my relationship.
But the strangest part comes at the end.
The original Wall Street was made when Wall Street, as a unit, was doing lots of things (corporate buyouts and so on) that were certainly hurting a lot of people, but by that time, the bad recession of the early 80s was over, and the upcoming recessions were not as deep, and lots of people were still earning money on and through Wall Street and the internet and Microsoft Windows were on their way. People joked about Wall Street, but not in a particularly vicious sort of way, and Wall Street traders, if not exactly as beloved as, say, Sesame Street trash can characters, were not at the bottom of anyone's list.
Even in this environment, at the end of the first film, the two main characters went to jail.
Flash forward.
Wall Street nearly destroys the world economy and has to bailed out by the federal government in a major bailout that made everybody unhappy. Banks still vanished; home values plummeted. I can't think of the last time anyone spoke a single tolerant word about Wall Street in my presence in the past few years. And although I understand that the U.S. economy is no longer officially in a recession, massive unemployment still lingers and the teacher I saw the film with and I were not exactly feeling particularly wealthy.
At the end of this film, the two main characters don't go to jail at all, and it's readily apparent that many of the worst of the bankers and misguided investors are merrily partying on Manhattan rooftops.
Now, ok. As CD pointed out, that is, in fact, more or less what actually happened – Wall Street guys are still pulling in millions while the rest of us aren't – so kudos for, um, the happy ending, but what's odd is that the film does not paint these final scenes with a hint of irony, let alone undercut them with other scenes. No, we're meant to cheer this on - that the girl has gotten back together with the guy who lied to her and seems to have nothing in common with her and reconciled with her father who previously stole $100 million from her but we're all meant to be one big happy family now and yay, Gordon Gekko is rich now and isn't the baby cute.
Oh, and, um, we'll have fusion energy in the near future, so, er, yay?
This is...dissatisfying, to say the least. It's not that I always want my movie villains to suffer – I thought Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors was a great, great film for showing just the opposite. But here something else was needed – an awareness, at least, on the level of the directors and writers, if not to the characters.
Oh, and, call me cynical, but I cannot envision anyone in today's Wall Street jumping in front of a train in shame.
One amusing bit of the film is in the final credits, where most of the real life people – Warren Buffett, various CNBC and other media personalities – are credited as themselves, with one notable exception: Jim Cramer, who, we are told, is "playing" a "newscaster." Well, then.
1. Product endorsements. Up. Way up. Particularly, and oddly, cheap product endorsements (except for the extended commercials for Lightspeed software which I suppose was inevitable.) Cheap product endorsements Cheap product endorsements have gone up. Way up. (Although I admit to considerable amusement at the sight of young wealthy Wall Street traders clutching at Dunkin Donuts coffee instead of one of those elaborate Manhattan coffee drinks. And where, in a movie that seemed to be crying out for it, was Starbucks?)
2. Cell phones.
3. Martin Sheen. Not in the movie, much to the film's detriment. (I know, I know, the film had no place to squeeze in his character, but the gravitas he provided is badly missed.)
3. Charlie Sheen. Clearly older.
4. Computer graphics. Slicker. More annoying.
5. Daryl Hanna. Wisely avoiding this film.
What hasn't:
1. Art. Still awful. Available to be destroyed in moments of anger!
2. Apartments: Still improbably large with improbable views. (On the bright side, this put all of our complaints about Neal's improbable apartment in White Collar into perspective.)
3. Downsized apartments: Also still improbably large, if without views. But seriously.
4. Male domination. This film doesn't just fail the Bechtel test; it stomps all over it. The women here have even less to say and suffer more public humiliation than the ones in the first film did. In one scene, the film even takes joy in having a man outflank and outdo a female counterpart, visibly irritating her and attempting to humiliate her; her later victory occurs offscreen. This is ongoing. The men, not the women, move the film along. Exactly one woman with a speaking part – a Chinese investor – appears to have any real power in this male dominated world – and even she works for a male boss.
I suppose that might be a real reflection of the way Wall Street works – a scene with a bunch of very, very white bankers, including a grand total of two women – I counted – one of whom never speaks, deciding the fate of Wall Street firms makes its own point, but having the most powerful woman in the film be from China was a bit disconcerting.
More detailed comments below ():
Wall Street, as a film, suffers from two major shortcomings:
1. It doesn't have enough of Gordon Gekko. When he's on screen, the film crackles. When he isn't, which is most of the time, the film kinda duds.
2. The romance between the two leads makes no sense, and is not even remotely believable, perhaps because both leads seem to be asking, and, exactly why am I with this person again?
Let's recap: the woman, Winnie, believes, with reason, that her entire life has been ruined by her father, a Wall Street trader, to the point where she is now running a liberal website and refusing to touch one hundred million dollars. We are not talking about, hmm, well, I feel icky about this million, so….We are talking a vast, vast fortune. She doesn't struggle with it; she's not even tempted. Money no longer interests her. Fair enough.
So why the hell is she with a Wall Street trader and living in a penthouse loft with views of the Empire State Building?
It makes no sense. None. And the film gives us no reason to believe that it makes sense. We see them briefly in bed together before having a small argument; she hugs him in comfort minutes later after a long screen absence; he goes against her wishes and contacts and makes friends with her father and lies to her about it; they go to a charity event; they get pregnant; he gets her the wrong type of ring. They don't agree about how to handle their dysfunctional parents. She doesn't like his job and he makes fun of hers and her political beliefs at the charity event.
And that's it. I can't even tell if they like the same sorts of books or television shows or motorcycle racing or anything; most of the time they don't even seem to like being together, or she's mad about his attempts to reconcile her and her father, or both. Also, no sizzle whatsoever on screen. (I'm beginning to wonder if this is just Shia LaBeouf, though – does he sizzle with anybody? Especially since he is apparently dating this actress in real life.) I kept saying (and with movies I'm a romantic), dump the guy already! When she did I was all happy, figuring they were both better off, much lessening the emotional impact of the whole Oh, man, look, the evils of Wall Street just killed my relationship.
But the strangest part comes at the end.
The original Wall Street was made when Wall Street, as a unit, was doing lots of things (corporate buyouts and so on) that were certainly hurting a lot of people, but by that time, the bad recession of the early 80s was over, and the upcoming recessions were not as deep, and lots of people were still earning money on and through Wall Street and the internet and Microsoft Windows were on their way. People joked about Wall Street, but not in a particularly vicious sort of way, and Wall Street traders, if not exactly as beloved as, say, Sesame Street trash can characters, were not at the bottom of anyone's list.
Even in this environment, at the end of the first film, the two main characters went to jail.
Flash forward.
Wall Street nearly destroys the world economy and has to bailed out by the federal government in a major bailout that made everybody unhappy. Banks still vanished; home values plummeted. I can't think of the last time anyone spoke a single tolerant word about Wall Street in my presence in the past few years. And although I understand that the U.S. economy is no longer officially in a recession, massive unemployment still lingers and the teacher I saw the film with and I were not exactly feeling particularly wealthy.
At the end of this film, the two main characters don't go to jail at all, and it's readily apparent that many of the worst of the bankers and misguided investors are merrily partying on Manhattan rooftops.
Now, ok. As CD pointed out, that is, in fact, more or less what actually happened – Wall Street guys are still pulling in millions while the rest of us aren't – so kudos for, um, the happy ending, but what's odd is that the film does not paint these final scenes with a hint of irony, let alone undercut them with other scenes. No, we're meant to cheer this on - that the girl has gotten back together with the guy who lied to her and seems to have nothing in common with her and reconciled with her father who previously stole $100 million from her but we're all meant to be one big happy family now and yay, Gordon Gekko is rich now and isn't the baby cute.
Oh, and, um, we'll have fusion energy in the near future, so, er, yay?
This is...dissatisfying, to say the least. It's not that I always want my movie villains to suffer – I thought Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors was a great, great film for showing just the opposite. But here something else was needed – an awareness, at least, on the level of the directors and writers, if not to the characters.
Oh, and, call me cynical, but I cannot envision anyone in today's Wall Street jumping in front of a train in shame.
One amusing bit of the film is in the final credits, where most of the real life people – Warren Buffett, various CNBC and other media personalities – are credited as themselves, with one notable exception: Jim Cramer, who, we are told, is "playing" a "newscaster." Well, then.