No Shame in Game of 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) listens attentively as Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) tells it like it 'tis on The Street in "The Wolf of Wall Street." Photos from "The Wolf of Wall Street" Facebook page.

YOURS Truly has been mulling over “The Wolf of Wall Street” since she screened it more than a week ago.

The film, based on the best-selling book of the same name by former scheister Wall Street stock broker and current motivational speaker Jordan Belfort, had its world premiere in New York City on 17 Dec.

It opened wider in the country on Christmas Day (25 Dec.). Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the former defanged broker in a film directed by frequent collaborator Martin Scorsese. Both men are among the film’s producers.

“The Wolf of Wall Street” has been on the brain because I do not recall the last film that left me so conflicted. Pressed to produce a title, I’d cite “Gone With the Wind.” I love it, though I should not, considering its content.

The former film has filled me with a far greater disquietedness, however. It has only been the last couple of days that I have been able to articulate why, a disclosure that I will make shortly. Critically, “The Wolf of Wall Street” has been generally well-received. Already, LDiC and MS have been nominated for awards; other nominations are sure to follow. (See trailer below).

The accolades are understandable. Is it even possible for MS to misdirect a film? Of course, yet he rarely does. As for LDiC, he has become an actor with a capital A. He’s proved that he is a dramatic actor. But in “The Wolf of Wall Street” he shows that he can manage the far more difficult business that is the comedic performance.

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is definitely a dramedy. When LDiC has to be serious as Jordan, whom he resembles, he is quite good. However, when he is required to bring the funny, he is even better. The long scene that begins at the WASP country club and ends in Jordan’s kitchen about a mile away is uproarious. In those few minutes, LDiC brings to mind Cary Grant, specifically in “Bringing Up Baby.” There are numerous laugh-out loud scenes in “The Wolf of Wall Street. One of the most memorable is toward the beginning of the film and involves Matthew McConaughey.

MMcC has a cameo role as Mark Hanna, a top dog at the first brokerage that employs Jordan before the stock market crash of 1987. He makes very good use of his short time on screen and gives new meaning to the multiple-martini lunch. Don’t be surprised to see MMcC’s moniker on some “Best Supporting Actor” nomination lists; ditto for Jonah Hill’s (Donnie Azoff).

The latter plays Jordan’s partner (whose name has been changed in the film, the case for most of the main players) in Stratton Oakmont, the penny stock firm that Jordan founded shortly after the crash. Indeed, the film boasts a very strong supporting cast, including Margot Robbie as Jordan’s second wife, Naomi. Don’t be surprised to see the name of the Australian newcomer on some “Best Supporting Actress” lists, in part for her command of the Long Island, New York accent.

Katarina Čas as money mule Chantalle in "The Wolf of Wall Street."

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is well-directed. It is also well-acted. So, what’s not to like? It is important to note that Jordan Belfort was a drug and sex addict; this is chronicled in the book. In fact, during that memorable lunch scene, Mark gives an uncorrupted, but eager Jordan to know that the way forward in their business is drugs and sex – pretty much in that order.

Therein lies the crux of my consternation. “The Wolf of Wall Street” gorges itself on sex and drug scenes, as well as general hedonism. It is the sex scenes, however, that still haunt me. Women are terribly demeaned (and men, too, for that matter). In “Gone With the Wind,” blacks are demeaned, but the scenes are not grossly offensive.

No such defense can be made for “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Hollywood standards and practices have become so relaxed and permissive that almost anything goes. And in this film, almost anything does go. Indeed, the going was so bullish at one juncture that MS had to edit some sex scenes to avoid an NC-17 rating, almost certain box-office death for many films. Can't you just imagine that meeting with the suits from Paramount, the film's distributor, trying to diplomatically make such a suggestion to a legendary, Oscar-winning director who generally retains creative control of his projects?

Incidentally, it is too early to prognosticate about how "The Wolf of Wall Street" will do at the box office. Open in the United States at the moment in around 2,500 theaters, it did about $9.1 million and $6.6 million on 25 Dec. and 26 Dec., respectively. The top film for both days, "The Hobbitt: The Desolation of Smaug" on roughly 3,900 screens, brought in $9.3 million and $10.5 million. U.S. audiences won't likely gear into full moviegoing mode until this weekend. Stay tuned for more numbers on Monday (30 Dec.).

But I digress. I am of the school of thought that subscribes to the notion that just because something is written in a book or dreamed up in a mind does not mean that it has to be done precisely so on the screen. Some things can, must and should be left to the imagination. MS leaves very little room for imagining here.

Countless are the sex scenes that could have been excluded. The one featuring the “penny stock” prostitute belongs at the top of the list, closely followed by the airplane scene of Jordan’s Las Vegas-bound bachelor party, and the nursery scene involving his second wife, Naomi, in which she graphically informs her husband of what he will not be getting any of. These women are mothers, daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts. They deserve better, regardless of how far they've fallen or how much they have compromised.

Film audiences in many countries have been numbed by drugs, violence and sex. “The Wolf of Wall Street” continues the powerful anesthetic. MS could have easily borrowed a page from Vincent Minnelli's “The Bad and the Beautiful,” for instance. Kirk Douglas’ movie producer is far more depraved than Jordan Belfort and he was sober. Still, the 1952 film left much to the imagination, perhaps or not, owing solely to standards and practices of the time.

Martin Scorsese (center) directing Margot Robbie and Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street."

Of course, Wall Street will eat up “The Wolf of Wall Street,” and probably take inspiration from it. But one wonders on Main Street whether the film will prove equally disturbing for men as it should for women on any street. What am I saying – and I am not a prude or so-called feminazi? This film should prove colossally disturbing, in spite of the talent involved, for anyone who sees it.

In a word, shame. Shame on Martin Scorsese. Shame on Leo DiCaprio. Shame on Jordan Belfort, the son of accountants, for writing such smut – yes, smut!!! Just because these events happened and Jordan is required to turn over millions in restitution to those he swindled does not mean that a book about his boorish behavior had to be written and the most salacious aspects fed to the moviegoing public. These events have zero redeeming value.

Shame on me, Yours Truly, for not walking out of the screening, instead staying until the bitter, three-hour end of a film that does deserves an NC-17 or greater rating.

Shame, shame, shame on everyone involved in the making of “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Shame!

"The Wolf of Wall Street" is rated R for sequences of strong sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and language throughout, and for some violence; visit http://www.thewolfofwallstreet.com to learn more about the film.

For Better or Worse (Worse), 'The Great Gatsby' 2.0

ABOUT 10 minutes into The Great Gatsby, Yours Truly was tempted to walk out of the beautiful Ziegfeld Theatre.

Before I bolted I quickly schooled my thoughts to ponder why I would wish to do such as thing. The answer came soon enough: I did not like what I’d seen heretofore and was convinced that it would not get any better.

In the final analysis I was right. I stayed, though, because your humble guide doesn’t leave in the middle or beginning of films. I stay until the bitter or sweet end, after the final credit and the screen fades to black.

Besides new-fangled “The Great Gatsby” isn’t so bad that anybody should walk out on it. Indeed, it has a coupla three things to recommend it. The film opens widely in the United States and Australia today. Incidentally, it was filmed in Australia, not on Long Island in New York

No doubt, Dear Readers, you’re asking yourselves why I would even contemplate walking out on what has been one of the most hyped films of the year. Simple: my immediate impression less than a quart of an hour into it, was that it reminded me of a cross between “Animal House” and “Weekend at Barney’s.” The early party scenes at the mansion where mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) resides were too over the top and, frankly, boring.

Just another wild night at the Gatsby manse in "The Great Gatsby." Photos courtesy of Warner Brothers.

Writer, producer, director Baz Luhrmann&Co. seemingly decided that the way to suggest the loosening morals of this Jazz Age is to show a party that is one garment away from a full-on orgy. It is laughable. The partygoers seem like a bunch of children playing dress up in their parents clothing.

Perhaps it is unfair to compare this film, based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s now classic novel, to the 1974 version based on the same novel. Alas, comparisons are inevitable. Though “The Great Gatsby” 2.0 is more faithful to the novel, particularly in a larger focus on Nick Carraway’s (Tobey Maguire) recollections and featuring more ethnic diversity, it falls far short of the 1974 film starring Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Sam Waterston, Bruce Dern and Lois Chiles.

Jay Gatsby is over the moon in love with Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) who is now married to true bluebood Tom (Joel Edgerton.) Gatsby enlists Daisy’s cousin, Nick, as matchmaker. At this juncture the story really begins to unfold until it unravels.

“The Great Gatsby” 2.0 is so much like this current age and “relevant to now” as suggested in its production notes. It is loud, coarse, puerile, shallow and lacking in subtlety. Further, it plays more like a comedy rather than a tragic love story. “The Great Gatsby” is the story about the boundless love of one man for one woman. If only every woman at least once in her lifetime could be with a man who loves her thus.

Of the main five characters in “The Great Gatsby” 2.0., only LdiC as Jay Gatsby and Australian newcomer and recent college grad Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker shine in their roles. CM as Daisy Buchanan, the love of Gatsby’s life and TM as Daisy’s cousin and Gatsby’s neighbor, Nick Carraway, are particularly miscast. CM doesn’t convey Daisy’s vulnerability, while TM is more wide-eyed geek than a grounded Midwesterner.

Meanwhile, why, oh why did BL shoot this film in 3D? Just because the technology exists does not mean that one must avail himself of it. It works for a “Spiderman”; it’s out of place in “The Great Gatsby" 2.0. Ditch the infernal 3D glasses and enjoy the basic HD version. The film is sumptuous visually. Simon Duggan's cinematography is breathtaking. Sets and costumes by Catherine Martin are sublime.

Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) welcomes his woman Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and her husband Tom (Joel Edgerton).

The soundtrack, on which Jay-Z serves as executive producer, is an interesting mix, featuring Jay-Z, Kanye West, Fergie and others. The orchestration of Amy Winehouse’s “Back to Black,” performed by Beyoncé and André 3000, is both beautiful and haunting; Beyonce’s “Crazy in Love,” performed by Emeli Sandé, sticks out like a sore thumb.

"Young and Beautiful," performed by Lana Del Rey, is the album’s lead single. It plays during love and play scenes between Gatsby and Daisy. The song effectively captures the insouciance that Gatsby tries to recapture when he’s with Daisy that so marked their life before he went off to war and she married another.

Nick (Tobey Maguire) and Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki) are enablers in "The Great Gatsby."

Jay-Z is also a producer of “The Great Gatsby” 2.0. One wonders whether he used any of his influence to get blacks cast in roles other than as servants or whether this element is part of the director’s desire to be more faithful to the book.

After all, blacks (called Negroes at the time) would have been present in the various speakeasy joints, for instance or at the filling station. Or living in tenements amongst poor "ethnic" whites who were allowed to call themselves white but were accorded very few "white skin" privileges by the WASP power structure.

Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and Leo (Leonardo DiCaprio) have a moment in "The Great Gatsby."

One quibble: the black female speakeasy dancer might have looked a bit less like a hooker. Many of these women were beautiful and might have been mistaken for models …Owl eyes (Max Cullen) is one of the best things about the film.

Purists will think “The Great Gatsby” 2.0 hideous. Young people will be delighted.

Visit http://www.thegreatgatsby.warnerbros.com/ to learn more about "The Great Gatsby"; the film is rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language. Rx.