The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013)

[FrauBlucher]

The real Nicky (Rugrat) Koskoff is allowed to sue producers.

[hearthesilence]

The FBI reportedly believes that $100m of the film’s budget came from a Malaysian state fund connected to a scandal that has damaged a senior Goldman Sachs banker and led investigators to examine the lifestyle of a notorious New York playboy.

[Black Hat]

The NYT did a big story about him last year.

[Never Cursed]

Glenn Kenny and Nick Pinkerton have recorded a commentary for this together - I can't imagine that this film would get a boutique label release, but I also don't know why else this would have been made

[domino harvey]

Arrow is releasing it, it was teased in a postcard I believe

[Pavel]

Is it more likely to be a Video or an Academy title?

[therewillbeblus]

As for whether Scorsese condones these characters' action or not, I feel like that's too simplistic a view to take. I think Scorsese is very aware of the allure of this kind of lifestyle and doesn't necessarily look at them with a moralizing or judgemental eye. I think he's more interested in exploring the idea of people going way past the socially acceptable limit...of ambition and appetites left unchecked rather than what they're doing is "right" or "wrong." Scorsese also definitely acknowledges that people like Belfort will always have an advantage over others simply because of how ambitious and charismatic and aggressive they are. The chilling ending more than anything seems to suggest that Belfort, for all he's lost, will land on his feet and thrive in his new role as a "motivational" speaker (and from what I hear, Belfort really is doing quite well). These types of people know what they want and they go out and get it. It's a jungle out there and the predators that hunt the best, thrive the most. I think some of the jungle beats, chants, and animal references that are evoked throughout the film alludes more to this rather than what some have interpreted as Scorsese criticizing their baser instincts. To a certain degree, I think Scorsese can even empathize with Belfort's unquenchable rage to succeed from a status and materialistic standpoint...but also suggesting perhaps you have to be a sociopath to do what Belfort did and go as far as he does. I think most people usually are hardwired with something in their brains that stops them from going past a certain limit, whether it be socially or legally. I guess this makes this a very cynical film, but that's hardly a bad thing in my mind. Scorsese has said in interviews that he wanted to keep pushing the limit in this film...always asking himself if he was going too far. But for Belfort, there were no limits. Nothing was "going too far" for him. And there's something very dangerous but very attractive about the idea of going as far as you can without a mental stopper telling you "is this too much?"

As some have mentioned, this is also my favorite Scorsese film (well, along with Bringing out the Dead and Taxi Driver), and a revisit only clarifies that on a level of pure entertainment this is just as good as biopic cinema gets. jojo's post is the one I most agree with in this thread, though I strongly disagree with the last point about most people having a 'hard stop' and the sociopath angle.. Scorsese constantly moves between subjective and objective engagement in this film, makes us laugh at the absurd behavior of these characters devolving their interactions to screwball and slapstick degrees of lunacy, and then shifts our attention to how horrifying and unfunny it all is too (most notably in the first part of the Lemmon scene, which strikes a balance between competing tones so perfectly that it feels right out of an AA meeting). Morally, he does the same thing- Belfort is an unreliable narrator who rationalizes his behavior early on by refusing to explain himself beyond an arrogant proclamation that the money from the people he's screwing over is better off in his pocket than theirs. The truth is that underneath that bragging facade of self-delusion is a valid drive within the American Capitalist Dream to promote one's agency in the act of 'selling' or monetizing an identity, just as there is a comfort in being sold to. Like any relationship dynamic, the seller-sellee engagement is one that services both sides in some way, even if not in the superficial results either cite as reasons for the exchange.

The power of social transactions is linked to the individualistic desire to 'feel good,' and Scorsese acknowledges the grey space this motive occupies, by measuring out emotional/physiological and ethical/logical extremes. The completely hedonistic manipulation, greed, and excess fulfill basic human drives but also service a philosophy that isn't much different than many's, which is why I refute the sociopathy. Jordan's big speech near the end, where he discusses cutting a single mom a check five times what she asked for, and the room full of people absolutely in love with Jordan's ambiance, are a family system with a code promoting the teaching of skills and living-for-today attitude, even if it is selfish. His choice to refuse the safe path impulsively is one to choose that philosophy- which rationalizes away the conscience like many but isn't sociopathy just because it ignores invisible harm. Jordan and his crew are playing the system, which doesn't make them 'right' but it exposes the inherent immorality in the capitalist systems and individualistic cultures to begin with, and if we're feeling self-reflective, reminds us that we all choose ignorance toward some moral issue on a regular basis. This isn't a lecture in comparison but it uses loud setpieces and behavior to draw both audience comparison and identification. If it were only the former, I don't think this film would be meaningful.

We see Jordan and his friends act like complete idiots and also present with genuine emotions and respect, but unlike a lesser biopic that would be taking a clear linear path to the rise-and-fall in didactic fashion, Scorsese chooses to use these polar extremes to put both forth problematic and understandable pros and cons. I love how he includes the shot of Chandler actually glancing around bored on the subway- revealing his baiting earlier as a sad truth- to visually juxtapose DiCaprio's life, and the greatest point to the film seems to be to both glamorize and de-glamorize the wild highs and lows of Jordan's chaotic life, and the moral path of Chandler that fits safely in a square middle but objectively is less interesting and fun on a few meaningless levels, and a few meaningful ones too. Scorsese, a fellow addict, gets that there are good times to be had despite the horrors and maturely allows for a satirical skewering to be one of compassion and intrigue too. The final scene with the pen-selling is perfect, starkly staring out at this sea of people desperate to be able to sell themselves with a skill to give them uniqueness, which is both sad and affirming that it's, on some basic level, something we all want. Jordan has a skill, and even though he won't ever admit it to himself or others, that's his Rosebud: the ability to actualize the power of persuasion, and feel good off of other people. That might sound sick said like that, but everyone- and I mean everyone- feels good off of other people, just not this aggressively! Scorsese, always one to make uncomfortable content and dense themes digestible, has made his magnum opus in providing an avenue for confrontation that doesn't need to break the existential bank, and holds the entertainment as an equal intent so unapologetically that the viewer cannot possibly be damned.