I'm reminded of the reaction to the film "Compliance," current
available through Netflix. It's an ugly, disturbing story about the insane
lengths that seemingly ordinary people will go to comply with instructions from
perceived authority figures. Unfortunately, it's based on a true story and
reportedly does not take great liberties with it source material.During a screening at (I think) Sundance, people were walking out, yelling at
the screen, and others rebuked the filmmakers in a Q&A session for what they
deemed an exploitative, irresponsible film. To me, that kind of reaction would
only confirm I'd made a good film.If a story is largely
centered on ugly people and their ugly/decadent actions, the tone of the film
should reflect that. The last thing we need is an Elder's Quorum-friendly,
sanitized "Wolf of Wall Street" movie.
Corruption on Wall Street is nothing new. That is why I struggle with the
concept of free market economics. There has to be some degree of accountability
or the financial system could easily collapse as it nearly did and most likely
would have if not for government intervention. That is why I part ways with the
tea party and lean towards a more moderate conservative point of view. I
don't plan on seeing the movie.
I have not seen this movie and probably won’t – find the older I get
the less tolerance I have for graphic violence and extreme decadence. However, depictions like those mentioned here do not necessarily constitute a
lack of morality. Sometimes the most effective way to convey a morally uplifting
message is to realistically show the consequences of bad choices & actions.
To pick up on Hutterite’s mention of Scarface, after getting
over the initial shock (I still get edgy around chainsaws) the takeaway I got
was just how miserable Tony Montana became even before he was killed in the
final climax. And yet even he had some basic morality (his refusal to blow up
the car while the kids were in it).Sadly that overall message was
lost on many in the urban community (who even today glorify Scarface), so there
is an admittedly fine line here and I think we are right to call out movie
makers for creating entertainment with no redeeming value.
That's precisely the point with this cesspool called a movie. Without moral
courage, and no redeeming value, you bet it's bad. Frank Capra said the
following about movie makers: "It takes moral courage to tell stories to
people in the dark for two hours." Based on this standard, Martin Scorcese
fails the test of a real movie maker.
I'm not going to see it, because I suspect it's not the kind of movie
I'd like. Not because I'd be offended or atwist over the ratings or
stuff like that because a movie about decadent american abundance probably
should have drugs and alcohol and all kinds things like that in it. Haven't
you seen Pacino's Scarface? Same thing. No, the sex and drugs or whatever
are fine. It just probably wouldn't be very funny.
This article was very unbalanced and only promoted the negative. The movie
currently has an 8.8 rating on IMDb and has a 78% fresh rating on rotten
tomatoes. This movie may disagree with the authors values, but that doesn't
make it a bad movie.