Review: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) was released to the theaters nationwide on Christmas Day. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese the film is based on the life of Jordan Belfort, a wealthy stockbroker who, along with his partners and other company members, took advantage of his clients, committed fraud and other white collar crimes, and was eventually brought down by the federal government. Belfort's New York Times bestseller book was used to create the film, which made some people, and most likely many of his victims, feel that Belfort and his crimes were being glorified. They aren't wrong.

The film is entertaining from the very beginning as well as sexually graphic. The audience is shown Belfort's rise from the beginning of his life on Wall Street to its end. Drugs, girls and what money can buy are repeatedly seen on screen. If you are looking for themes of love, support or trust, you came to the wrong movie. Furthermore, don't even think about running into remorse. It is Wall Street, right?

Though enjoyable, the film is longer than it needs to be at a whopping 3 hours. This isn't Lord of the Rings, and there are scenes that seemed to drag at times. There are also some musical choices that don't match up with the scenes they're played in causing a kind of audio-visual cacophony that can be distracting. Overall, it's an enjoyable film and DiCaprio doesn't disappoint (does he ever though?).

Real Talk: Django Unchained

I have to admit that I have been avoiding writing anything about Django Unchained. It might be because I really liked the movie and know that many others didn't or have some serious criticisms. I knew that I couldn't do a run of the mill review of the film because though I was watching it critically, I was carried away by the story and nuances presented. Nuances that are often missing and are the reason why I often leave movies about slavery/maids/servitude disappointed. Was Django fantastical at times? Yes. Were there instances of hyperbole? Of course. But, the film was directed by Quentin Tarantino, the man who had a character kill a man by doing elaborate palm movements to his heart and had another kill a theatre full in nazis and Hitler using explosives, so I thought it was to be expected.

I appreciated the recognition of slavery hierarchies and especially enjoyed love-hating Samuel L. Jackson's character Stephen. Black men, and women, like him existed. Field slaves, house slaves, comfort women along with other categories were a part of slavery and came with their own burdens. There were parts of the movie that I believe were meant to be funny that I didn't laugh at, but I feel the need to take into consideration Tarantino and producer Reginald Hudlin's desire to create a balance of horrifying truth and moments of levity. I don't necessarily like all of those moments, but I am saying that I understand why they exist. This film contains some raw, violent scenes depicting in many cases the milder side of terrible punishments and death. This is not fiction and for many Black Americans it hits home. Interpretations and feelings about this film are going to range the spectrum.

Django Unchained was a hybrid slavery-western where the cowboy is a black man and the bad guy is a slave owner and arguably slavery itself. The good guy gets the girl and we get a story about slavery that is not like the rest. I'm not saying it's the best that we can do, but I definitely don't think it's a bad pit stop on the way there.

Also, why in the world is Jamie Foxx not nominated for an Oscar? I'm really glad that Christopher Waltz is, but honestly Foxx was robbed of a nomination. DiCaprio was as well for that matter.

If you are interested in reading an interview with Producer Reginald Hudlin from the Root, click here.