The Big Short (2015); Best Movie Oscar nominee
R
4 Stars out of 5
Director Adam McKay (Oscar nominee)Writer Charles Randolph, Adam McKay, (Oscar Winner, Best Adapted Screenplay)
Book Michael Lewis – “The Big Short – Inside the Doomsday Machine” (2010)
Editor Hank Corwin (Oscar nominee)
Music Nicholas Britell
Ryan Gosling Jared Vennett
Christian Bale Michael Burry, M.D. (Oscar nominee for Supporting Actor)
Steve Carrell Mark Baum
John Magaro Charlie Geller
Finn Wittrock Jamie Shipley
Cameos Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez, Margot Robbie
What would be the proper tone for a movie that explored the
2007/2008 market collapse in the United States? Would it be comical, fast
paced, satirical, and salted with celebrities explaining the various arcane
terms of credit default swap or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)? I would
not have made these choices, but in fact this was exactly the tone intentionally
chosen by writer Charles Randolph and writer/director Adam McKay in 2015’s “The
Big Short”. This movie is particularly fast-paced and filled with people
speaking a language that sounds like English as they attempt to explore the
fraud and incompetence displayed by a variety of large banking institutions in
the first decade of the new millennium. The writing, editing and acting are
superb though some of the choices in music and the use of cameos quite frankly
detract rather than add to this film. And, I wonder how many viewers will walk away
from this movie with a better understanding of what was done by the bankers vs.
simply an uneasy feeling that the crooks involved got away with it, and have
virtually nothing in their way from doing it all over again.
“The Big Short” focuses on three story lines that somewhat,
kind a reach the same end point – and it’s not really the end point any of the
three groups thought or hoped it would be. The story begins with Dr. Michael
Burry (Christiane Bale) , a former neurologist now Hedge Fund manager that
seems to suffer from Asperger-like symptoms. His social skills may be
problematic but not his intellect. By dint of his intuition and hard work he
finds evidence that the real estate bond market, thought to be extremely safe
is anything but. Evidently, it is necessary to fill these bonds with a large
number of mortgages. If said mortgages are 30 year mortgages made out to fully-employed
workers that have been properly vetted for their loans, no problem. If on the
other hand the bond is filled with people not vetted properly or perhaps not at
all, and if they hold multiple loans, variable rate loans, then Burry rightly
deduces a disaster is on the way. He makes the decision to persuade several
banks to create a financial instrument that from one point of view is a form of
insurance on the bonds, and from Burry’s point view allows him to “short” the real
estate bonds in question. That is to say, he pays a monthly premium that allows
him to “bet” the value of those bonds will drop once a certain percentage of
the mortgage holders default on their home loans. And Burry’s data says this
will happened in the 2Q07; that is about two quarters away in time from his decision
to short the bond market.
One of the amazing aspects of Burry’s plan is that his
contact with the banks to set up the short is overheard by another banker,
Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling). Vennett’s own research and experience at his bank
tell him quite quickly that Burry is right. Vennett then goes about trying to
sell the short financial tool to other investors; all turn him down except for
another Hedge Fund manager, Mark Baum (Steve Carrell). Baum is a man beset with
anxiety at the greed and disregard of Wall Street – even though he works there,
too. Baum’s team starts to buy up as much of Vennett’s product as they can
afford. And lastly, a pair of naïfs, Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie
Shipley (Finn Wittrock) find out about Vennett’s plan and decide with the help
of an experienced and connected trader, Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to start their
own run at shorting the real estate bond market.
Where this movie sets itself apart from other tales from
Wall Street (e.g. “Wolf of Wall Street”, 2013) is that there is no
glorification of these traders, there are no heroes in this tale, and no drunken
or drug-induced frenzies. Instead, we have a cast of capable people, each with
at least a residue of conscience left that are faced with the apparent fact
that Wall Street is run by extremely venal and in some cases, completely
clueless parasites. Some of the members of the three groups that short the
banks are shown to be concerned from the beginning (Baum and Rickert) with the
awful system they work in or they get there by the movie’s end (Baum is even
more discouraged, Burry closes his fund, and young Charlie moves to a farm). Yes
there is comedy and satire in this movie, but mostly there is just a sense of
disgust and a feeling that the wealth Wall Street commands, and their reach
into congress as a result of that wealth will prevent any meaningful
legislation ever being passed, let alone enforced. Consider the movie’s closing
comments: only one banker was imprisoned, and Wall Street has since introduced a
clone of the CDOs that got the country (indeed the whole world) into the
problems of the Great Recession of 2008 in the first place. History will surely
repeat itself.
As a movie, this one excels primarily with the acting,
directing and editing. The director and his editor do an incredible job of
creating a tone and pace that propels this movie forward at a pace that is at
times frantic, but not to the degree that the viewer is totally lost. The
Oscar award notwithstanding, the writing upon which this movie is anchored has problems in my opinion: the
inclusion of the celebrity cameos is pointless and detracts from the narrative
flow. There seems little purpose in having a soap opera star (Margot Robbie) sit
in a bubble-filled bath tub defining financial terms to the masses. I get it is intended
to create an atmosphere of arrogance and superiority, but it really feels more
like a derailment from the story-line. It is true that telling this story
without a careful explanation of the financial terms in play would also detract
from the film, but the Robbie cameo was a mistake in my opinion. The use of
Selena Gomez placing a bet in a casino as she explains what CDOs are, worked
much better – her explanation about the CDO style of gambling placed in the
context of her losing at Blackjack was a great metaphor and did not deviate
much from the tone or pace of the overall movie.
But the acting, this is where I think the movie has its best
moments. Christian Bale’s performance of the one-eyed and smartest man in the room, who is
also a likely Asperger’s patient, is a brilliant idea. Here is a man who has
lived his life minus an eye, has struggled with his social interactions, and
yet is the only one in the room that truly sees the problem that the CDOs were.
He plays his character as a man living on the edge of main stream society
pounding on his drums as he listens to some heavy metal music that only he can
hear. Again, the metaphors are as clear as possible. My big objection to the musical
choice though is that Music Director Nicholas Britell would have benefitted the
movie immensely had he decided to use Led Zepplin throughout the movie rather
than just as a closing number. The raucous, heart-pounding effect would have been
the same, but the music far better written, performed, and recognizable to the audience.
Lastly, the acting of Steve Carrell just gets better and better. His performance
of the guilt-wracked Mark Baum as he works through the suicide of his brother
and the same time tries to fix every wrong in the world (no doubt as he tries
to salve his sense of guilt over the loss of his brother) is in fact better
than his Oscar nominated performance in 2014 of John DuPont in “Foxcatcher”. He
is able to capture with great subtlety a range of emotions a Mark Baum, most
notably his closing sense of futility – surely the best emotion for anyone
watching this movie and thinking about how Wall Street (and the corporations) run
things from behind the curtains.
In any event, this is a good movie. I do not think I would
have nominated it for Best Picture, but I strongly agree with the director,
editing and acting nominations – they are well deserved. This movie tells a complicated tale about
greed and financial control that I think every thinking American needs to ponder.
It uses a comedic tone that I find more annoying than entertaining; certainly
it detracts from the message in my view. But then how does one tell a story
about the dismal science (i.e. economics) without putting the audience to
sleep. Maybe this was the perfect tone; it was a perfect pace and some near
perfect acting. I recommend this movie, but I think with some reservations.
I really liked this movie. How dry is mortgage and banking? SO dry. Apparently with intent. The director I think was wise to be off color in presentation to keep you listening, to keep you aware.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the end we will always blame immigrants and the poor. We will find that one welfare ugly story and point - there that's why our economy is in the shitter, that's why I lost my job, etc. Not because of the big business that is robbing us blind while the pay off the government.
Great comments, my Dear, but then we are both from that particular wing of political thought. I still think the attempt to introduce levity into the topic while not misplaced, was overdone with the pointless bathtub/Robbie scene. It really was the worst point in the movie. Whereas the similar tone used in the casino with Selena Gomez was spot on.
Delete