Back in 1990, Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas ignited a conversation about morality that’s still going on. Is it irresponsible for Scorsese to glamorize Henry Hill’s gangster lifestyle and make these murderers and thugs the focus of the story, or would it be irresponsible as a storyteller to not demonstrate the allure of the gangster life? Over 20 years later, Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio (who had a great deal of creative input) made a film about an even stronger strain of unapologetic criminal.
Jordan Belfort is introduced right up front as a moral black hole, and for three hours we watch him symbolize a type of person who’s profile has only become more public over the decade. I don’t see this journey with the same sense of admiration that Goodfellas has, but it’s easy to see how the characters here are not too different from the ones in The Big Short, or the greedy businessmen in Wall St. and Politics today who believe no cost is too great so long as the money is rolling in.
After telling us that Belfort is a terrible person we’re introduced to his one talent, an ability to sell dreams to people. Those scenes are some of the movie’s best, with everyone gathered around in awe. This is where I become curious about DiCaprio shepherding this story to the screen. How much does he see Belfort as a great character to play and how much does he perhaps subscribe to Belfort’s lifestyle? It’s his job as an actor to be the character and I don’t think he’s all in on Belfort life, but he’s closer to the excess than I am.
This is where Scorsese comes in. The Cinematic Catholic serves two masters, creating a modern Sodom and filling the screen with so much sex and language I can’t believe this got an ‘R’ Rating. He manages this without being stylistically excessive or indulgent. (Despite this being three-hours long, I’d be interested in seeing the original four-hour version.) The greatest piece of luck for this film may be that it came along right as Scorsese was beginning to mellow with age.
Leave A Comment