The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Review-

Jordan Belfort (Leo Dicaprio) likes to play. He plays with people, he plays with stocks, he plays with his clients, he plays with the law, he plays with his marriage, and more than anything...he plays with his life in the free world. What he finds most enjoyable is being put in a situation that he can, and must, turn to his advantage. Winning is something he doesn’t seem to ever get enough of. With every win, he feels less and less mortal, more and more invincible. Quitting seems like a slow kill to him, resigning to the life of a mere mortal in the normal world.  “But, who the fuck wanted to live there?” he asks bewildered. It’s only fun for Jordan when the stakes are continuously raised.

I would expect most people to characterize The Wolf of Wall Street as a dark crime-comedy, and while I agree with that categorization, I think the film is more a biopic than anything else. Jordan Belfort was a stockbroker convicted of stock manipulation, securities fraud and money laundering. Scorsese traverses his storyline while constantly evoking his inextinguishable spirit. And by the end of the film, I felt like I knew what made this guy tick.

The Goodfellas

You might be confused at seeing a prefix ‘The’ to the title of Martin Scorsese’s ‘Goodfellas’. The purpose of this article is to address, and expose, the characterization of Goodfellas. What makes the Goodfellas so appealing? They don’t give a fuck. The approach director Scorsese and Editor Thelma Schoonmaker employ at making them give off that vibe is more than meets the eye.

Scorsese chooses long tracking shots to introduce us to the Goodfellas. You come to know of their quirks. Take their style of nicknaming, Jimmy Two-Times who always said everything twice”I’m gonna get the papers, get the papers.” Or that the sons were named Peter or Paul and their wives were all Marie. The three principal characters here are Henry Hill(Ray Liotta), Jimmy Conway (Robert Deniro) and Tommy Devito (Joe Pesci). They work under caporegime Paulie (Paul Sorvino).

Let’s begin with Henry Hill and his ambition. “Ever since I can remember, I wanted to be a gangster. It meant being somebody in a neighbourhood full of nobodys. It meant belonging somewhere and being treated like a grownup.” The moment that line falls on your ears, you believe it.

Casino, revisited.

This isn’t a review. This is a write-up of my experience of revisiting, after a few years, the 1995 film Casino. Contrary to its title, Casino is not one of those gambling movies. It’s a follow up to Martin Scorsese’s mafia mob drama Goodfellas.

“When you love someone, you gotta trust them. There’s no other way. You gotta give them the key to everything that’s yours. Otherwise, what’s the point? And for a while, I believe that’s the kind of love I had” says Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein as he walks out with a cigar in his mouth and into a car that blows up. What does one make of that? Scorsese’s films rarely begin with the beginning. You’re given a glimpse of (mostly) some part of the middle. Just like how Kubrick began Lolita with its ending. By showing us where the story climaxes, our minds aren’t perched on the fate of the characters but instead on their functioning.

Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein (Robert Deniro) heads a Casino in Las Vegas. He might be working under the title of ‘Casino Executive’ in a Casino owned by Philip Green, who exists as the squeaky clean front man under the orders of the elders of a mafia family, but Sam was the boss. The first time the camera pans into his magnificent Casino, you see it brightly lit and adorned with slot machines lined up against each other. Sam explains about the business, “We’re the only winners. The players don’t stand a chance.”

Down in the Valley(2006)

It starts with a love story, moves on to a bit of family drama and slowly treads onto a different path, of character study. And that turn is taken all of a sudden eventually putting your thoughts on why Norton chose to do this movie, to rest. This is a nice movie, not a good or great film but a nice one. Not for a second does it care whether it will appeal to people or not. A daring move by screenwriter-director David Jacobson at such a trivial stage of his career.

The lead, Harlan is an interesting character played by one of Hollywood's most interesting actors, Edward Norton. Harlan is the kind of guy who can just feel and act on an impulse. He doesn't think, foresee or fear anything, let alone regret. However, he visualizes a life he fancies, that of a cowboy by affecting a folksy, cowboy style with his cowboy hat, cowboy boots and jeans. Whether he is delusional or not, isn't brought to notice, giving us the prospect to understand him by ourselves rather than from the director's eyes. This is why it feels like a REAL film. Loose ends are left deliberately and these particular elements which are considered minor are what gives us more scope to get really close to the film. When it comes to Norton's performance, it is flawless, consistent and played without stint.

Evan Rachelwood, although perfectly cast, does a fair job in portraying a rebellious teenager filled with contempt for her father. It is reminiscent to her performance in The Wrestler for which she was probably cast after making an impact in this film. David Morse as her conservative and protective father, does a decent job as well. There isn't more to say about their performances except that they were far outweighed by that of Norton.

This film reminded me of A Streetcar Named Desire where Vivien Leigh is a deranged person whose imagination seamlessly interweave with her real world. Harlan suffers from the same problem, only at a relatively smaller level. He also cites a reference to the Martin Scorsese masterpiece "Taxi Driver." Norton being one of the producers himself had a zealous belief in the script, the director and the film just as he did in "25th hour" and "The Painted Veil" which as a result became outstanding films. Down in the valley is a rare delight to movie buffs and shouldn't be missed, especially by Norton fans.

Rating - 7/10