"HAIL, CAESAR!" (2016) Review
When I first that Joel and Ethan Coen was about to release a new film, I rejoiced. When I learned that this new movie - called "HAIL, CAESAR!" - would be set in old Hollywood, my joy increased. Then I discovered that this new film would be released in February of this year. And . . . my anticipation decreased. Somewhat.
Now, why would my anticipation for "HAIL, CAESAR!" dampened after learning about its release date? Simple. February is one of those months that is considered by the movie industry as the graveyard for second-rate films. A Coen Brothers film set in February. This did not sit well with me. But my enthusiasm had not dampened enough for me to forgo "HAIL, CAESAR!". I simply had to see it.
"HAIL, CAESAR!" is the fictional story about one day in the life of Eddie Mannix, the head of "physical productions" at Capitol Pictures and a "fixer" who keeps the scandalous behavior of its stars out of the press. The Lockheed Corporation has been courting him with an offer of a high-level executive position, but he is unsure about taking it. While Mannix contemplates a career change, he has to deal with the following problems for his studio:
*Unmarried synchronized swimming actress DeeAnna Moran becomes pregnant and Mannix has to make arrangements for her to put the baby in foster care and then adopt it without revealing herself as the mother.
*Mannix is ordered by the studio's honchos to change the image of cowboy singing star Hobie Doyle, by casting him in a sophisticated drama directed by Laurence Laurentz. Unfortunately, Hobie seems uncomfortable in starring in a movie that is not a Western and gives an inept performance.
*While fending off the inquiries of twin sisters and rival gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker, the former threatens to release an article about a past scandal involving Capitol Pictures veteran star Baird Whitlock and Laurentz, when they made a movie together some twenty years earlier.
*Mannix's biggest problem revolve around Whitlock being kidnapped, while filming one of Capitol Pictures' "A" productions, an Imperial Roman drama called "Hail, Caesar!". A ransom note soon arrives, written by a group calling itself "The Future", who are a group of Communist screenwriters, demanding $100,000 for their cause.
There were a good deal about "HAIL, CAESAR!" that I enjoyed. Primarily, I enjoyed the fact that the movie was set during the Golden Age of Hollywood and that it was about the Hollywood industry during that period. I enjoyed the fact that this was one Old Hollywood movie that was not a murder mystery, a biopic about the rise and downfall of some actor, actress or director. And I was especially relieved that it was no borderline nihilist portrayal of Hollywood like 1975's "THE DAY OF THE LOCUST". I had no desire to walk out of theater, harboring a desire to blow out my brains. Instead, the Coens' film gave audiences a peek into a Hollywood studio circa 1951 with a good deal of irony and humor.
Out of the five story arcs presented in the film, I really enjoyed three of them - namely those story lines that focused on Hobie Doyle, DeeAnna Moran and Mannix's new job offer. Although I suspect that the DeeAnna Moran character was at best, a superficial take on Esther Williams, I believe the storyline regarding the character's pregnancy was based upon what happened to Loretta Young in the mid-1930s. I found this story arc mildly enjoyable, thanks to Scarlett Johansson's funny performance as the blunt-speaking DeeAnna. But I would not regard it as the movie's highlight. I also found the story arc about Mannix's new job offer from Lockheed mildly interesting. There almost seemed to be a "would he or wouldn't he" aura about this story arc. As any film historian knows, the real Eddie Mannix never received a job offer from Lockheed. Then again, he worked at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), not the fictional Capitol Pictures. And he was married twice with no kids, not married once with kids. So, at one point, I did find myself wondering if the events of the day would drive this Mannix into accepting Lockheed's offer.
However, I felt that one of the movie's real highlight centered around the Hobie Doyle and Capitol Pictures' efforts to turn the singing cowboy into a dramatic actor. Why? It was funny. Hilarious. Not only did Alden Ehrenreich give a rather enduring performance as the charming Hobie Doyle, he was funny . . . very funny in one particular sequence. In fact, I could say the same about Ralph Fiennes, who portrayed the elegant director Laurence Laurentz tasked into transforming Hobie into a dramatic actor. I did not find this scene mildly amusing, as I did many of the film's other scenes. Instead, watching Laurentz trying to direct the limited and very awkward Hobie in a sophisticated drama nearly had laughing in the aisle. Both Ehrenreich and Fiennes were incredibly funny and talented. The other highlight proved to be Josh Brolin's performance as the much put upon Eddie Mannix. Brolin did an excellent job of carrying the film on his shoulders. More importantly, he gave a tight and subtle performance that allowed his character to serve as the backbone to all of the surrounding chaos.
"HAIL, CAESAR!" was set in 1951, a time when the Hollywood studio system was going through a traumatic shake-up. And this period was definitely reflected in two story arcs - Mannix's job offer and the kidnapping of Baird Whitlock. However, a part of me wishes that the movie had been set in the 1930s - especially the early 1930s, when Hollywood was battling the censors and the Great Depression. Oh well, we cannot have everything. But I was not that particularly impressed regarding the story line involving Mannix's concerns over Thora Thacker's knowledge about some past scandal regarding Baird Whitlock. Why? The movie's screenplay barely focused upon it. The entire story arc was wasted. And so was Tilda Swinton. I find this doubly sad, considering that Swinton gave a sharp and funny performance as the Thacker twins. Instead, the Coens used the Baird Whitlock character for another story arc - the one centered around his kidnapping at the hands of a group of Communist writers and a Communist contract player named Burt Gurney.
I might as well put my cards on the table. This story line featuring Baird Whitlock's kidnapping did not strike me as well written. In fact, I did not like it at all. Neither George Clooney's funny performance or Channing Tatum's dancing skills could save it. The main problem with this story is that Whitlock was basically kidnapped to provide funds for Gurney, a song-and-dance performer who was a thinly disguised take on actor/dancer Gene Kelly, who was known to be a hardcore liberal. The end of the movie revealed that Gurney took with him, the ransom from Whitlock's kidnapping, when he defected to the Soviet Union via a Russian submarine. The entire story arc struck me as simply a waste of time. And I found myself wishing that Whitlock had been used for the scandal story line, featuring Thora Thacker.
I certainly had no problems with the movie's production values. Jess Gonchor did a fairly decent job in re-creating Los Angeles in the early 1950s. His work was ably assisted by the film's visual and special effects teams, Nancy Haigh's set decorations and Roger Deakins' cinematography. However, in the case of the latter, I could have done without the occasional use of sepia tones. I also enjoyed Mary Zophres's costume designs. But they did not exactly knock my socks off. One aspect of the film that I truly enjoyed were the different "film productions" featured in the movie - especially the ones for DeeAnna Moran and the Hobie Doyle/Laurence Laurentz debacle. I know what you are thinking . . . what about the dance sequence featuring Burt Gurney and dancing extras portraying sailors? Well, I found it well executed. But the whole number, including Tatum's performance, seemed to be more about skill, but with little style.
In the end, I rather enjoyed "HAIL, CAESAR!". I believe the Coen Brothers did a fairly successful job in creating an entertaining movie about Hollywood's Golden Age. The movie also featured excellent performances from a talented cast - especially Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich and Ralph Fiennes. However, I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if it had ditched the kidnapping story arc in favor of the one featuring the potential Baird Whitlock scandal. Oh well, we cannot have everything we want.
"THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" (2013) Review
I can think of only three previous times in which one of director Martin Scorsese's films has courted controversy. The first time the director courted real controversy was the release of his 1976 film, "TAXI DRIVER". He also encountered controversy from two other movies - "THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" (1988) and 1997's "KUNDUN". Scorsese and controversy have met once again . . . this time in the form of his latest release, "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET".
As the world now knows, "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" is a film adaptation of the memoirs of Jordan Belfort, a New York stockbroker who ran a firm that engaged in securities fraud and corruption on Wall Street in the 1990s. The movie begins when Belfort lands a job as a stockbroker at a Wall Street firm. His boss, Mark Hanna, advises him to adopt a lifestyle of sex and cocaine in order to succeed. Unfortunately for Belfort, the firm fails after the stock market crash ofBlack Monday within a few months. Now unemployed, Belfort is pushed by his wife Teresa to take a job with a Long Island boiler room which deals in penny stocks. Belfort's aggressive pitching style soon earns him a small fortune and he also befriends Donnie Azoff, a salesman who lives in the same apartment building. The pair decides to start their own firm together and name it Stratton Oakmont. They recruit some of Belfort's friends - among them, experienced marijuana dealers, colleagues from the boiler room and his parents as accountants. Despite the respectable name, the firm is basically a pump and dump scam. The movie depicts the decadent lifestyle enjoyed by Belfort and his employees, the break-up of his marriage to Teresa and his second marriage to lover Naomi Lapaglia. However, due to an exposé in Forbesmagazine, Stratton Oakmont attracts more enthusiastic employees and the attention of F.B.I. Agent Patrick Denham.
What can I say about "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET"? I thought it was one of the most outlandish and crazy movies I have seen in years. Out . . . landish! And I loved every moment of it. Well, most of it. Who would have thought that after forty years as a director and producer, Martin Scorsese could still astonish moviegoers? Or even piss them off? I had first heard about the negative reactions to "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET", when I read about veteran actress Hope Holiday's angry post on her Facebook page about the Motion Picture Academy's screening of the film. But her reaction was not the first. I have come across a good number of negative reactions to "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" since learning about Holiday's reaction. Curious over the hullabaloo, I found myself becoming very eager to see the film. And it did not fail.
It is possible that some might assume that I enjoyed the film simply for the characters' excess - the sex and drug use that could have easily turn this film into one with a NC-17 rating. Actually, I did not feel one way or the other about the characters' exercises in degeneracy. I simply accepted it, due to the fact that his excesses had been a part of his life during those years as head of Stratton Oakmont. And from what I have learned about the financial world of the super rich, such excesses were and still are very common. Some have claimed Scorsese had not only glorified Belfort's lifestyle and crimes, but also allowed the character to get away with the latter with very little punishment - less than two years in a "Club Fed" prison, before becoming a motivational speaker. The U.S. government is responsible for Belfort's scant punishment, not Martin Scorsese. And I cannot accept that the director glorified Belfort's lifestyle. All I saw on the movie screen were a bunch of silly men behaving like a bunch of overindulged adolescents with too much money and too many "toys" (namely women, drugs and other expenses) on their hands. Thanks to Scorsese's direction and Terence Winter's screenplay, Belfort and his cronies merely struck me as pathetic and infantile.
More importantly, Scorsese's movie frightened me. Belfort's willingness to exploit the desires of ordinary men and women to satisfy his own greed struck me as off-putting. Scorsese emphasized this negative aspect of Belfort's profession by conveying the latter's lack of remorse toward his victims. I am not lacking in compassionate when I say that I did not need to see the effects of Belfort's machinations toward his clients. The amoral attitudes of the stock broker and his employees seemed more than enough for me to get an idea on how much those clients suffered. I still have memories of that bizarre scene in which Belfort and the Stratton Oakmont staff treated shoe designer Steve Madden with great contempt, as Belfort expressed his intent to invest in Madden's company . . . a scene that almost left me shaking my head in disbelief. But if there is one scene that scared me senseless was the one that featured the business luncheon between Belfort and his boss at L.F. Rothschild, Mark Hanna. In this scene, Hanna gave the newly hired Belfort tips on how to become a successful stockbroker. A good deal of those tips involved the use of drugs and sex. But the one tip that really comes to mind was Hanna's instructions that Belfort prevent clients from cashing out their investments for the profit of the firm and the stockbroker. Hanna's advice reminded me of how Las Vegas casinos try to keep even winners playing so the latter would eventually lose what they had gained - something I learned from Scorsese's 1995 film, "CASINO". That was some scary shit. One other scene proved to be just as scary . . . the last one that found post-prison Belfort hosting a sales technique seminar in Auckland, New Zealand. That last shot of the audience drinking in Belfort's words they believe will make them rich struck me as a sure symbol of the greed in human nature that really never dies - even if humanity would rather pretend otherwise.
I certainly cannot complain about the movie's production values. "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" proved to be a sharp and colorful looking film, thanks to the crew that contributed to the movie's visual style. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto is the man mainly responsible for that sharp and colorful look that I had commented upon. But I also have to commend both Bob Shaw's production designs and Chris Shriver's art direction for taking movie audiences back to the excessive greed era of New York during the 1980s and 1990s. Legendary costume designer Sandy Powell contributed to this look by basing many of the men's costumes on Giorgio Armani's archives from the 1990s. I also enjoyed her costumes for the female cast members, especially those for actress Margot Robbie. Long-time Scorsese collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker took a movie with a four-hour running time and managed to trim it into a movie one-minute short of three hours. She did an excellent job, although I believe the movie could have benefited with another twenty minutes or so trimmed from its running time. In fact, the extended running time is my one major complaint about the film - especially the sequence that featured Belfort's downfall.
Other than the frank portrayal of Jordan Belfort's career as a stockbroker and the financial world of the 1990s and Martin Scorsese's excellent direction, the one other major asset of "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" was its talented cast. Once again, the man of the hour is Leonardo Di Caprio, who gives one of the best performances of his career as the charismatic and corrupt Jordan Belfort. When I say it is one of his performances, I damn well mean it. Not only did he give an excellent performance throughout the movie, he gave one of the funniest and probably the best acting moment during the entire year of 2013 - namely a sequence in which Belfort, high on Quaaludes, struggle to get into his car and drive home in order to prevent his partner Donnie Azoff from revealing too much during a telephone conversation bugged by the F.B.I. My God! It was hilarious.
Portraying Donnie Azoff (who is based on Danny Porush) was comedy actor Jonah Hill, who proved he could mix both comedy and drama with great ease and hold his own with the talented Di Caprio. His portrayal of Azoff's forays into excess and egotistical behavior was a marvel to behold. Margot Robbie, who I remembered from the ABC series, "PAN AM", portrayed Belfort's second wife, Naomi Lapaglia (based on Nadine Caridi). She really did an excellent job in portraying the sexy, yet very tough Naomi - especially in one difficult scene in which her character had to deal with marital rape before she put an end to their marriage. The always impressive Kyle Chandler portrayed F.B.I. Special Agent Patrick Denham (based on Special Agent Gregory Coleman), the man responsible for Belfort's arrest. Superficially, Chandler's Denham seemed like a quiet, straight-laced type whose dogged investigation brings Belfort to his knees. But Winter's screenplay and Chandler's subtle performance allows a peek into the possibility that Denham, who had harbored ambitions to become a stock broker, envies the lifestyle that Belfort managed to achieve, despite the corruption that surrounds the latter.
The movie also featured outstanding performances from Jon Bernthal, who portrayed Belfort's muscle-flexing Quaaludes dealer. I was amazed at how much Bernthal resembled a younger and better-looking Danny Trejo. Joanna Lumley gave a charming performance as Belfort's British in-law, Aunt Emma. I especially enjoyed one scene in which Belfort asked her to engage in money laundering on his behalf and both ended up wondering about the other's attraction. Jean Dujardin gave a sly and funny performance as Swiss banker, Jean-Jacques Saurel, whom Belfort used to hide his money from the Federal authorities. The movie also featured solid performances from Cristin Milioti ("The Mother" from "HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER"), Kenneth Choi (from "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER"), P.J. Byrne, Jon Farveau, Rob Reiner (who was especially funny as Belfort's accountant father), Shea Whigham and Christine Ebersole. But the one supporting performance that really had me rolling with laughter came from Matthew McConaughey, who portrayed Belfort's L.F. Rothschild boss, Mark Hanna. Despite the scary content of Hanna's advice, I must admit that McConaughey really did a great job in making the most in what almost proved to be a cameo role.
"THE WOLF OF WALL STREET" proved to be appreciative enough for the Academy of Motion Arts and Pictures to give it several nominations, including Best Picture. And there seemed to be a good number of people who seemed to understand what this movie is really about. But I get the feeling that too many are determined to write off this film as nothing more than a glorification of Jordan Belfort's excessive lifestyle and corruption. I cannot share this feeling. I believe that Martin Scorsese, Terence Winter and the first-rate cast led by Leonardo Di Caprio gave us a movie that many should view as a cautionary tale. I mean, honestly . . . if I ever consider investing my money in stocks, I will whip out a copy of this film to remind me there are plenty of people like Jordan Belfort in this world - even in reputable investment firms - who would not blink an eye to separate me from my money for their benefit. I once read an article that compared stock investments to casino gambling, to the detriment of the latter. After viewing "THE WOLF OF WALL STREET", I cannot help but wonder if both means of "gambling" are a lot more similar than we would like to believe.
