criterionforum.org

Steven Soderbergh’s “Behind the Candelabra” is not a TV show but it’s not a movie, either

Not gunning for Denby's job, are ya, Brody?

domino harvey wrote:

Steven Soderbergh’s “Behind the Candelabra” is not a TV show but it’s not a movie, either

Because it's HBO, duh.

From Brody's Best of 2013 list:

Worst movies (those with the greatest disproportion between the emblazoned ambition and the mediocrity of the result): “Before Midnight,” “The Great Beauty,” and “All Is Lost,” with “Gravity” close behind (or ahead).

Um, OK... I certainly wouldn't put even the worst of these (Gravity) in the mediocrity bucket, but I'm not a film critic employed at a preeminent national magazine, so what do I know? Certainly seems like there are plenty of other failures worth singling out above these four, which are precisely the type of auteur-driven, uniquely structured, technically audacious films that (were I doing some very public polemical advocacy) I'd be pushing the independent and studio film industry to embrace and pursue in the future, especially if I had just complained that Soderbergh couldn't get his Liberace biopic funded through the usual funding sources.

I certainly hope he's right when it comes to Wolf of Wall Street, however, which has been my most anticipated film all year.

Not surprised that he thrashed Before Midnight, he absolutely hated the other two films, and the directorial approach isn't different in the third one so I can't see how he would like it.

Peter Travers' Top Ten

The Wolf… at #3, right behind Gravity, so at least one mainstream critic really liked it.

DarkImbecile wrote:Um, OK... I certainly wouldn't put even the worst of these (Gravity) in the mediocrity bucket, but I'm not a film critic employed at a preeminent national magazine, so what do I know? Certainly seems like there are plenty of other failures worth singling out above these four, which are precisely the type of auteur-driven, uniquely structured, technically audacious films that (were I doing some very public polemical advocacy) I'd be pushing the independent and studio film industry to embrace and pursue in the future, especially if I had just complained that Soderbergh couldn't get his Liberace biopic funded through the usual funding sources.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... avity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Gravity,” ultimately, is a perfect example of the liberal cinema of excitement, of quietly moralized entertainment that’s self-congratulatory in its choice of method and perspective. It rigs the rooting by fixing its meticulous gaze on characters endowed with fine feelings that admit of no wild excess, filtering out any troubling desires and controversial ambitions. It celebrates humanity by reducing the spectrum of human life to a narrow consensus of decency. “Gravity” is a thriller that passes muster of seriousness, but its amazing technological extremes are yoked to the service of a musty, mild worldview. Neither vulgarity nor fantasy, neither visionary scientific ambitions nor strange personal impulses intrude on its earnest methodical complacency.

It's an ongoing theme with Brody (see also his article on Neo-Neo Realism).

I wonder what troubling desires and controversial ambitions Cuaron could have slathered onto a film about the urgency of near-death in total isolation? I can't say I really see Brody's point.

I was going to roll my eyes and infer that NASA missions aren't exactly a hotbed of troubling desires and controversial ambitions, but to be fair, there was this.

He just wanted to see Clooney and Bullock get it on.

It's an ongoing theme with Brody...

I might sympathize with Brody's perspective here (and I do get where he's coming from in general) if his decision to affix it to Gravity and All Is Lost weren't wholly inappropriate to the context of those films. It's somewhat like bemoaning the lack of snappy, rapid-fire dialogue in screenwriting these days in general and using that as cudgel against these same movies...

Saw this one today. Besides some dead weight that often comes with a film this long, it's one of the better parables of greed to come along in this recent economic downturn.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Saw this one today. Besides some dead weight that often comes with a film this long, it's one of the better parables of greed to come along in this recent economic downturn.

I agree, there were some parts that seemed added in purely for comedic effect but otherwise it's a perfect updating of the Scorsese style that was successful in Goodfellas for the modern day

I didn't mind the funny stuff at all, really. If it was done as a serious po-faced drama about greed and excess, those three hours would have felt interminable.

Just give Jonah Hill all the awards now, btw.

Roger Ryan wrote:

felipe wrote:...Dustin Hoffman isn't actually listening to a song called Mrs. Robinson, you know...

Actually, his character whistles the tune in one scene of THE GRADUATE!

Very few directors have better taste in using popular songs in their films than Scorsese, so I'll wait to see what the end result is.

As if a little punchline to this earlier thread discussion on the use of popular songs in period films, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET actually features "Mrs. Robinson" prominently in one of its scenes! However, it's the period-accurate Lemonheads cover version from 1992. Given that Scorsese employs Robbie Robertson and Randall Poster again to handle music selection, the soundtrack is wonderful as the songs subtly evoke the theme of the scenes they accompany ("Mrs. Robinson" does this with its line "we'd like to know a little bit about you for our files" and again with the "where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?" verse).

I agree that the film is overlong and simply cannot sustain the feverish pace of the comedy for 180 minutes. However, I would be hard-pressed to know what to cut since the film is filled with great set-pieces and vivid characterizations. A sense of fatigue begins to set in after the second hour, not from the material becoming boring but because one good scene after another plays to the same effect as the one before it. I think the film would have worked better as a two-night miniseries on HBO so the viewer could take a breather from the assault. I guess the film's afterlife on home video will allow the viewer to do just that.

Speaking of music, on a somewhat unrelated note it's nice that Paramount is trying theme music for their logo again.

Charlie Rose conducted a pretty good discussion of the film with Leo and Martin earlier this week, which I wisely chose to watch after seeing the film because there are some revelations best not known until you see it. Scorsese's thoughts on where cinema is going is quite interesting.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Charlie Rose conducted a pretty good discussion of the film with Leo and Martin earlier this week, which I wisely chose to watch after seeing the film because there are some revelations best not known until you see it. Scorsese's thoughts on where cinema is going is quite interesting.

Any thoughts on where 3-D is going? He seemed to think it was indeed the future a few years ago and that he planned on making all films 3-D after Hugo.

It didn't come up. He did say Wolf Of Wall Street was shot on both film and digital, and touched on that a little bit. It was mostly about where things are going in Hollywood and where he and others fit into that. He and Leo seemed positive that there will be room for films like this out there in today's climate, mentioning that there are financiers and producers out there willing to fund people like Martin or PTA or the Coen's.

Roger Ryan wrote:I agree that the film is overlong and simply cannot sustain the feverish pace of the comedy for 180 minutes. However, I would be hard-pressed to know what to cut since the film is filled with great set-pieces and vivid characterizations. A sense of fatigue begins to set in after the second hour, not from the material becoming boring but because one good scene after another plays to the same effect as the one before it. I think the film would have worked better as a two-night miniseries on HBO so the viewer could take a breather from the assault. I guess the film's afterlife on home video will allow the viewer to do just that.

It reminds me of the anecdote (I can't quite recall where I read it) where a scriptwriter, responding to Otto Preminger's assertion that every scene in the screenplay had to be perfect, that if it was all excellent, then it would be boring, to which Preminger replied after a long pause, "You write it all brilliantly and I shall direct unevenly," (paraphrasing from memory).

Just got back from the film and I have mostly positive feelings about it. While a bit overlong, it was entirely entertaining throughout, and though I'm not the biggest Scorsese fan, it certainly made for a good night at the movies.

It felt a bit overlong because what felt like would be the moral turning point of the film really wasn't:

Spoiler

The night taking the vintage Quaaludes was masterful. From the trip through Leo's eyes to the confrontation with Jonah Hill, the scene was patient, hysterical, and incredibly well-done. I thought surely at that point we'd see their luck change, but that wasn't it. I think this was a case where three hours felt a bit overlong. This scene almost made the yacht scene seem redundant for me.

With that said, the film's pacing was excellent. It never felt manic. There was always time for a conversation, whether the

Spoiler

first day on the job at the restaurant, on the boat with the FBI agents the first time, or with his dad or in the speeches, Marty builds really great pacing and takes his time.

Was anyone else by the way a bit bothered that the film didn't come down a little harder on

Spoiler

condemning the atmosphere of Wall Street itself? Obviously the jungle scene (Reiner's words) towards the end when Leo decides not to quit was an indictment. So was the fishbowl scene which obviously was critical of that mob mentality. But those nice points didn't seem to tie into any sort of greater whole. They just stand on their own. Leo's only comeuppance seems, at the end of the day, like he had careless friends.

Jonah Hill was fantastic, as was the music (mostly 1950s Chess stuff), which was a real treat as well.

Drucker wrote: Was anyone else by the way a bit bothered that the film didn't come down a little harder on

Spoiler

condemning the atmosphere of Wall Street itself?...

As A.O. Scott said in his review, this film is "an essential artifact for future archaeologists trying to figure out what destroyed our civilization", so I think the criticism is there.

Spoiler

Notably, the faces shown on the subway train near the end as well as the eager faces seen in the film's final shot puts all of the Wall Street shenanigans in proper context. Belfort goes unpunished because...well, he wasn't punished much in real life and, suitable to the theme of the film itself, the greed and disregard he represents continues on today with little corrective.

*I don't think I include any spoilers here, though it's best to avoid my review until after you have seen the film.

The Wolf of Wall Street is the perfect depiction of debauchery and excess that has only been exacerbated in America. The film doesn't have a whole lot to say about the subject other than the obvious, though fortunately this isn't a major flaw when the rest of the film works so well.

Martin Scorsese doesn't just direct The Wolf of Wall Street -- he directs the hell out of it. This film is complete, bat shit, balls-to-the-wall insanity that really has to be seen in order to be believed. I kept thinking to myself throughout the film, "Goddamn, did it really go down this way? Was it really this off the wall"

Scorsese's style is bold and brash. Music plays throughout the entirety of the film, and as always, Marty completely understands the manner in which sight should combine with sound, the manner in which the image should meet the music.

On a side note, I was actually surprised at many of the song choices which seemed rather unorthodox, especially for a Scorsese film, yet they still worked perfectly.

Though besides the wonderful, Fellini-esque depiction of excess and corruption, Scorsese manages to direct the film in a manner that never praises nor glorifies the main characters.

The film is first and foremost a black comedy, and it is this pathos that allows the audience to laugh at the ridiculous nature of the characters and the hollow individuals that they are. Never did I feel emotionally attached to Jordan Belfort or any other of the other characters at the center of the film. Right from the beginning, I detested these immoral and soulless individuals.

Sure, it is most definitely entertaining watching the insanity depicted on screen and the eventual downfall that results from it. But, that doesn't mean I approve of the debauchery, and Scorsese clearly understands this. As an audience member, it was almost as though I was looking on at the film as if it was a car crash, disgusted and appalled by the horrible individuals being depicted on screen, yet simply unable to look away.

If one would want to witness a film that does glorify the actions of the monsters involved in their respective debauchery and excess, I would direct you towards Michael Bay's latest monstrosity, Pain & Gain.

The performances all around are fantastic. A supporting performance by Jonah Hill is most definitely deserving of the praise that it has received, though the real standout is Leonardo DiCaprio.

It is funny too, because I was just recently thinking how much I was really waiting for Leo to do a truly great role, something unique that with a little extra pizzazz that I felt was missing from his last few performances.

And he did exactly that with The Wolf of Wall Street.

Leo is fucking insane in this film. Totally turned all the way up to eleven. Emotional, crazy, comical, dramatic, and downright fantastic. I was truly blown away by his performance. It's brilliant.

Scorsese reunites with his longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker. The film may run a lengthy three hours, though it certainly doesn't feel this long. The time simply breezes by.

Many have claimed that the film becomes rather repetitive with its frequent party sequences. Yes, there are a lot of such moments that are repeated throughout the film, though I think that this is necessary to depict the cyclical nature of the ongoing excess. The scenes themselves are also incredibly memorable and entertaining. I found myself laughing non-stop throughout the film (and I can say the same for the sold out audience that I saw the film with).

Though there is more to The Wolf of Wall Street than it being just an endless barrage of excess. Scorsese does allow scenes to breathe, moments to develop, characters to have important conversations with one another (DiCaprio's first meeting with Kyle Chandler comes to mind).

As I said in my opening, The Wolf of Wall Street doesn't have too much new too say about the excess and corruption of capitalism. It's more about the depiction of it, the experience of the excess and how each individual reacts to it.

But, in the film's final moments, Scorsese does manage to hammer home a significant message about the excess that he has depicted for the past three hours. It's not very subtle, nor does it need to be. It simply serves as the perfect ending, the perfect coda to the debauchery that precedes it.

I think that The Wolf of Wall Street will bare a major significance in later years. The film and its message are timeless and will probably be looked upon one day as being the representation of what America has become.

Scorsese (ably abetted by some of Thelma Schoonmaker's very best work) directs like a man 40 years his junior, and for three hours depicts the allure of indulging every hedonistic desire without regard to consequence. Those three hours move in such a fleet and kinetic way, and with such tremendous humor, that they make an epic tale feel like a three-minute pop song. I would love to see the fabled fourth hour that Scorsese and Schoonmaker had such a hard time cutting, though I'd hate for anything interfere with the present rhythm. This is a movie that moves. Yes, part of that energy comes from the parties, drugs, and girls that Jordan Belfort craves, but it also comes from Scorsese's restless camera, flashbacks, slow-motion, freeze frames, doubling back narrative tricks, Ferris Bueller narration, and half a dozen great supporting performances from actors doing their very best work. This is also easily Leonardo DiCaprio's most fully realized performance, and he deserves as much credit as his mentor for the degree to which the movie works. He's so fearless, magnetic, intense, and driven in his depiction of this depraved asshole that you never wonder how Belfort swindled so many and built an army of acolytes.

Unlike many, I've liked (to some degree) pretty much everything Scorsese has done in the 23 years since Goodfellas. The Departed and Hugo were my favorite films of their respective years. For me though, The Wolf of Wall Street is easily the greatest film from the second half of his career. It belongs to that special class of masterpieces that look to present the dark side of pursuing the "American Dream" and how that pursuit is as likely to end in self-destruction as happiness. It's destined to be misunderstood and under-appreciated for some time due to both the unprecedented level of Caligulaesque debauchery depicted in a mainstream R-rated film, and the inexplicable need some seem to have for Uncle Marty to sit them down and patiently explain that

Spoiler

bilking good people out of their life savings, cavorting with thousands of prostitutes, doing a mountain of coke before attempting to kidnap your daughter, and punching your wife in the stomach

are very naughty things to do. It may not get the love it deserves this year (surely not from the prudish Academy), but of all of the very good films I've seen this year, this one strikes me as the one filled with scene after scene that enthusiastic cinephiles will still be discussing decades from now.

Completely agree, Jeff. I'm not much of a Scorsese fan myself as most of his oeuvre leaves me rather cold outside of After Hours and Taxi Driver, but this had a masterful momentum to it. Scorsese lines the film with debauchery and pure scumminess, and while I think some scenes could use trimming the overall effect is still fresh, with DiCaprio and Hill working great off of each other.

This is sure to become a Boiler Room-like staple for the Masters of the Universe crowd. The behavior depicted is so on-the-nose that I can just imagine every snot-nosed wannabe broker seeing this and comparing himself to Belfort's egotistical money-sucker.