Mark Kermode and (Sir) Kenneth Branagh talk Wolf of Wall Street
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 01. 2014
- Mark and Kenneth debate about the means of portraying excess in film with particular emphasis on Scorsese's newest offering.
Please tell us what you think of the interview - we love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
"Don't' come in here with your opinions Branagh" :)
Simon, to the guy who made a 4 hour film adaptation of Hamlet: 3 hours is too long for a movie, isn't it?
Mark: It's nuts too long.
Branagh: ....
Mark was still referring to WOWS with that line, not all movies. Simon is obviously wrong, though.
3 hours is too long for a movie? Kidding me, there's epics that really are worth that time. Wolf of Wall Street was a 2 hour flick stretched to the brink.
THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is a comedy Mark. Not a drama.
Branagh is definitely right in my opinion. Scorsese intentionally plunges us into the excess of this lifestyle, and the three-hour runtime is part of the point. It's *supposed* to be excessively long and indulgent, because that's who these guys are. Scorsese has talked about it being edited as though *the characters* themselves edited it, so it's indulgent, gives no f's about the "rules" of continuity, and is "ferocious" in its cuts. And as for "unlikeable" characters...again, that's part of the point. Mark makes a good comparison to Henry Hill or Rubert Rumpkin, but Leo here is playing a very different kind of animal. Those guys had to have more shades of sympathy to their characters because we, as a society, tend to romanticize the "daring outlaw" and tend to pity the "self possessed loser". But we do not romanticize or pity the Wall Street 1%. Not anymore. There may have been a time that was seen as more glamorized (the 80s) but post 2008, America has viewed this kind of excessive wealth differently. Also, when dealing in a more violent world like "Goodfellas", we need some sympathetic moments to balance out the bloodshed. Here, it's just one moment of excess to another to showcase the way that these men lived. So in other words, yes, Mark is correct in his analysis of the run time and the character, but in my opinion these elements are not flaws. Instead, these are very intentionally crafted by Scorsese to truly emphasize the moral decay of this world, and the abominable trajectory of his characters.
Totally. Scorsese is a master and a tonal choice like that is definitely intentional. Doesn't mean its good though.
@@pietrpiepir6444 If the choice is intentional, and perfectly serves its purposes artistically, what would prevent it from being “good”? And what does that really mean? If someone subjectively just does not care for the choices made due to their own personal tastes, that’s one thing and totally understandable. But to label something as not “good” for this reason just makes no sense to me.
@@matthewrocca4197 Well that's the rub isn't it, Mark and myself aren't sure that the choice perfectly serves its purposes artistically. I would also add that a choice or an artist serving their own purposes doesn't make their art of a high quality, especially in an entertainment medium, which make no mistake, this film is absolutely meant to be. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense.
@@pietrpiepir6444 Ah that makes sense for sure, I thought you were saying that the artist’s choice was intentional and yet somehow was objectively bad. Now I see you meant subjectively. I’m just curious, why do you disagree with the choices made by Scorsese in “Wolf”? I’m asking purely out of curiosity as I think it’s a masterpiece
I am SO MUCH agaisnt Mark's opinion on this film.
First, it's not about "caring" for a character, it's about exploring a situation, a circumstance, an idea, etc. Second, personally, I never hated the guy, I think Scorsese is successful in achieving that "rooting for the bad guy" situation, even though rationally you know his attitude is appalling; and if you actually hate him, then you are not indifferent, you have a much more active response; so I think he's just hiding behind a moral curtain, he can't get rid of that lens.
Third, sir Kenneth exposes the technique rather simply, and I think it works. Don't just tell the audience that these depraved people go through extremes of debauchery, show it to the audience, in a way that it is so exuberant that movie watchers get repulsed and sick by it.
And finally, this is a film that allows you to see to sides of the audience: while some mistakenly take this as an extreme comedy, a three hour excess ride; myself and others see it for what it is, a modern epic about greed in a "free market capitalist" society.
i enjoyed every single minute of twows. it could have watched it for 3 more hours.
Agreed, I still think DiCaprio should have won the Oscar for it.
It is 3hrs
@@abinashmohanty3201 they’re saying “3 more hours” lol.
I do really like Mark but I swear mine and his opinions vary a lot sometimes...
this channel is such a gem!
I'm loving this.
There are still loads of movies of which I do not understand how it got a budget.
I feel like Mark completely missed the point on this one. Personally I hated Jordan Belfort, but I felt much the same way about Jake LaMotta or even more so about Henry Hill. As Leo has said, depicting something is not to say it is glorified. It's difficult cinema like this that has film critics completely misunderstanding the intentions - another couple of films that come to mind include Zero Dark Thirty and Killing Them Softly. You would think after all the philosophising and analysing of Scorsese's earlier work you could get your head around this film - for me it's the best he's done with DiCaprio to date and shows a man who can still make something ugly and raucous feel poignant at points. There are two moments basically dialogue-free towards the end of the film that I think drive home the message of the film and open up thought and discussion about the nature of greed and the aspirations of those who seek success in a capitalist society. To feel that way after laughing out loud and cringing for 3 hours is a great payoff. The duration was not a problem for me - the response from people who just didn't like the film is more of a problem. The film doesn't have to be taken 100% seriously or 100% not seriously; it's a film for you to make up your own mind about, and hold it up against how you'd view our society today. It just happens to be a lot of fun in the process. Ugly fun, but still fun.
+velocirapta The problem is what Mark said, Belfort just isnt interesting even if the performance is great. He lacks complexity, confliction or vulnerability like Lamotta, Henry Hill etc. Goodfellas is a masterpiece but without Henry Hill the film would lose its core and Wolf of Wall street is exactly that; Goodfellas with just Deniro and Pesci. Pretty good but not amazing. The film was hilarious and fun, if slightly too long.
The Wolf of Wall Street is similar to Fight Club in that they both seem to rush or accidentally miss the target in the final quarter of their run time. The majority of people I know that have seen it (wolf) think that Jordan Belfort is a genius maverick who just went a bit over-board, just like most people I have spoken to think that Fight Club is about rejecting capitalism, materialism and fighting back against society. Now I know people will say "but then your film will be too didactic and manipulative", I fully agree with this but there are more subtle ways to hint or show the truth lurking below. The film is far too irreverent, any critical thought about its issues has to come from the viewer and the second time I watched it I never thought once seriously about the issues because the film is so fun and light hearted (even at the end).
I think he just likes movies that reenforce his prejudices/morality. The art of cinema is secondary.
Couldn't There Will Be Blood's Daniel Plainview be described in the same way?
TulseLuper I'd agree but that isn't really the point. I don't see how you could sympathize with Plainview if you couldn't with Belfort.
GiantSandles Everytime I watch There Will Be Blood I am begrudgingly fascinated by Plainview, I was more or less bored by Belfort. He just isn't a very interesting character.
I aint seen WoWS, probably won't. But it sounds very much like Plainview is far more nuanced and complex.
3 hours is long if it feels long. Green Mile was over 3 hours and I never felt a single minute.
Still don’t get this banging on about him being a hateful character - would you watch Downfall and say “this lead bloke with the moustache isn’t a very nice bloke, this film is crap.” The excess is a reflection of a culture that was not only allowed to happen but actively glamorised to the detriment of women, society and the people who partook.
Then he goes and directs Belfast ♥️
and what films have u made mr kermode
The one comment that I sorta get but also kinda bugs me is when Mark says the movie portrayal of women is problematic. Now listen, I am a woman and a feminist, and I liked the movie's problematic portrayal. We are watching the events of the film from Belfort's eyes, and Belfort is a gross, selfish, hedonistic, and sexist character. He treats women like shit and only really interacts with women who are sex workers and trophy wives. Scorsese isn't into spoon-feeding the audience messages, but it was pretty clear to me that we were not supposed to approve of the men's actions including their view of women. I can understand the concern that some movie-goers don't pick up on the nuance (like the same dudes who consider Belfort's greed speeches "motivating), but I think Scorsese gives his audiences more credit.
Also I disagree with the fact that you need to like a character in order to enjoy the story. I enjoy the book Lolita, but I absolutely despise the main character Humbert Humbert and I would seriously question the morals of any reader who doesn't.
Loved WOWS
I enjoy watching the good doctors being a bit star-struck. And, rightly so. Sir Kenneth is a global treasure! Sandy from. Baltimore, MD, USA... BA, JD, CIPM
Also I can't really place much on this "debate" given how it's Branagh attempting to defend a film he hasn't seen.
+Steven W I don't think he's "defending" it. I think he's playing devil's advocate to hear Mark's opinion.
I was so outraged by the film I saw I twice!... :-/
3 hours is too long for a movie ?!!?! Well, The Godfather Part II, Barry Lyndon, Lord of The Rings, Lawrence of Arabia, Magnolia, The Right Stuff, HAMLET DIRECTED BY KENNETH BRANAGH, Gone with the Wind, Nixon etc... all disagree with that statement.
Not saying that a movie that is 3hrs is too long it is whether what is there in the movie justifies that length, he thinks it doesn't.
rockinchimp I'm sorry but Simon clearly says : "3 hours is too long for a movie isn't it ?" I've been listening to this radio program for years, and it used to be the best film program available, but now it feels like it's just a program about two old men complaining about film length. They keep going on about it! Frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Cinema to me isn't like a fast food restaurant. If a film is good, I don't care how long it is, and I want it to last as long as possible, and get my money's worth. It all just sounds like lazy film criticism to me. Maybe they should bring back intermissions, and then Mark might be able to stomach sitting through a film that's longer than 120 minutes.
5eurocups2005 I still say that film length shouldn't matter that much when it comes to criticizing a film. Mark is a film critic, not an editor. He doesn't know how the film would play with a shorter runtime. Removing 20 minutes of what he might think is pointless material, might affect the pacing in a negative way. Let's not forget that a shorter film can sometime feel longer than a longer film. I saw an interview with Martin Scorsese where he said he wanted to add a couple of lines he cut from the film, but he realized that adding those lines affected the rhythm of the picture, and had a repercussion on the following scenes. Scorsese is a precise filmmaker. He knows what he's doing. The film kept my interest from beginning to end, and it just flew by. It felt like a two hour film to me. You can do a 3 hour film on any subject if it's done right. Scorsese does it right.
Pauline Kael once wrote that Kenneth Branagh's Irish face reminded her of James Cagney...Apropos of nothing.
Branagh knows it. He did a stage play very young that played on it. Danced in it I think.
How exactly was Taxi driver unlikeable character?
Loner, porn addict, stalker, would-be assassin, vigilante killer. From the outside (say, a newspaper reporter) he's easily painted as a villain. Through the use of voice over (his journal), he becomes a sympathetic man who's rightfully disgusted by the filth that surrounds him and wants to make the world a better place.
He's disgusted by filth, but he's also so much of a misanthrope that he can't reconcile himself with the parts of the world that even he doesn't think are filth. The way that he goes about trying to make the world a better place is destructive and self-destructive, even if his desire to save Jodie Foster's character is in the right place.
The people who think The Wolf of Wall Street is good should watch (or re-watch) Goodfellas. Its clear which one is superior. Goodfellas marks the cracks in The Wolf of Wall Street in terms of both character development and how the lifestyle was presented.
Wolf of Wallstreet is recent and as such it has not gained the classic status of Goodfellas. I saw Goodfellas when it was first released and it took years, decades even before it was recognised. Wolf of Wallstreet will grow in appreciation. As of typing this it is already grown significantly in popularity amongst audiences and critics alike. As for character ark. That's plain dumb. Henry Hill had no character ark to speak of either. He was just as selfish towards the end as he was in the beginning. He went into witness protection to save his life, not because he changed.
Completely Agree
branagh is on point here mark is just i agree with him generally but he is just a little too stubborn om this
I love how Mark wanted to talk about anything other than the film Sir Ken came to promote 😂😂
I think its ridiculous that a professional movie critic says that he doesnt like a film cause he doesnt like the main character.
Id like him better if it was 'Barnagh'
I liked the film and hated Leo's character. I don't think I needed to have liked Leo's character to be invested in it. I wanted him to get his comeuppance. I think Branagh is right, the excess was good in that it showed the 80s and that culture in all it's sickening decadent glory.
Mark is too stubborn about this one. He seemed upset Branagh didn't agree with him.
who is more handsome than kenneth branagh?
nothinh
I don't particularly like Rupert Pupkin, or Henry Hill although I like aspects of Henry Hill's character he has more of a moral compass than most of the characters in Goodfellas. Rupert Pupkin like Jordan Belfort I'm laughing at him and not with him, Scorcese character's aren't easy going but because of that I find them all the more fascinating he doesn't sugar coat or dilute by making them sentimental. I find a lot of thing's Jake La Motta does reprehensible I don't find him a redeemable person in a lot of ways but I find his struggle for forgiveness an atonement moving, he may not be given a free pass for all the thing's he done but the importance of that character is his willingness to try, an then move on. In short I disagree with Mark Kermode just cause a character's unethical or immoral shouldn't mean you can't enjoy the film. Thank God Scorsese challenges audience's. We can't watch superheroes all the time, I love fantasy as much as the next guy but the fact something as crazy as what Belfort an company did you could argue should have been fantasy but sadly is a reality.
Everything Mark brought up contributes to why I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be the most disappointing film of 2013 (it came out on Christmas here in America). Even movies like Spring Breakers and The Bling Ring have completely unlikable and hollow, hedonistic characters, but they're handled in an interesting manner with subtle characterization. I even, in a way, cared for the titular character of We Need to Talk About Kevin, even though he's a sociopath with no morals. It's his developmental issues and the parenting of Tilda Swinton's character that sheds light on his behavior and the origins of his psychosis. I felt massive sympathy for Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange due to his immoral treatment and the social commentary that Kubrick raises. Both of those films also had great source material. The Wolf of Wall Street has none of that, and it's incredibly self-indulgent with its 179-minute runtime, and not even ironically self-indulgent at that.
Spring Breakers nor The Bling Ring had any real conscious message for me. They were completely hollow and naïve, and I was especially surprised by Coppola as she had such a good setup but created nothing particularly interesting - it was as vapid as the 'reality' it intended to satirise. The Wolf Of Wall Street on the other hand used its indulgences to its advantage - the reason why it is so hedonistic, so OTT, so excessive and indulgent is to drive the entire point home: is this what we would aspire to be like, or more specifically are these the kinds of attitudes we want people involved in our global economy to have? I realised towards the third part of the film that what the brokers seemed like were mindless teenagers or even children, with twisted ambitions for success and wealth, and following Belfort's character we saw him completely sacrifice his morals and prospective modesty for a quick buck. If anything his character was so despicable it highlighted everything he partook in - constant drug abuse, stock swindling, sexual frivolity, backstabbing, lying, misleading, spousal abuse, money laundering etc - as immoral and hopefully (if you have a level head) completely undesirable things to aspire to be involved in. The sheer pessimism felt at the end of the film is the comedown - after seeing almost 3 hours of some of the most irresponsible behaviour I've ever witnessed on film, is that really the path we would aspire to tread again? The two cold closes, of Kyle Chandler's FBI agent, and Jordan addressing the audience in New Zealand pretty much sums it up - are we destined to repeat ourselves and not learn from what has happened in the past? Economies taking the fall when things go awry and nobody specifically taking the blame - the ending is as bitter as it is in reality; with bankers getting bonuses in times of crisis for example. You'd think this film would be seen as topical as ever.
The Wolf Of Wall Street is great, Mark Kermode is wrong on this one..
I don't think so, I thought it was dreadful 3 hours of sketches about excess with absolutely nothing about central characters and the story. It would have made a great hour long documentary.
I ask you to compare it to goodfellows or Casino which I believe scorcese tried to mirror, but he couldn't because the material was not there in the origional story. There is no substance to this film,
firekind1980 Everyone, including critics, gets a couple of films wrong. But he's right about The Wolf of Wall Street. I thought it was a decent, maybe even good film but I found myself looking at my watch quite a few times and that's not a good sign. Wolf... isn't even close to the energy of Goodfellas despite using a similar narrative style. The actors are great, but the story really drags after a while because it's just excess after excess.... The film has a 77 % rating on RT proving that Mark isn't the only critic who had problems with it.
Kermode could not be more wrong on this one...
Sorry Kermode, you're on your own. I just watched Wolf on Wall Street and I thought it was incredible. Funny, scary and despite all your protestations, I didn't actually hate Belfort. I had heard his negative review before I watched it, I am annoyed that some people might not go and see it because of his misleading write up.
Branagh nailed it. Kermode has that feminist chip on his shoulder. We get it Mark, chauvinism is bad Zzz Zzz
Rare that Mark gets it wrong but he's way wide of the...mark with this.
This film is great… the first time. The second time is too much
Wolf of Wall Street is great, the performances are brilliant.
Heh! Well Ken didn't get much of a word in edgeways.
Take yer (Sir) & fundamentally shove it 😃👍
For me, it wasn’t so much that I hated Jordan Belfort that turned me of The Wolf of Wall Street, I just didn’t find him interesting. I can think of other movies where the main characters were utterly awful (Once Upon a Time in America, Reservoir Dogs, GoodFellas) but I still found those to be interesting characters and stories. In The Wolf of Wall Street, it was a good performance but I just didn’t get it. So what. He ripped people off and lived a life of excess, why should I care? Why does this story deserve my attention. With GoodFellas, the story unfolded, there were multiple interesting people in an interesting story in an interesting time. I didn’t get any of that in The Wolf of Wall Street, and that made it really hard to get through all three hours
How can you moralise about a crime film? It's a film about a bad person. I'm not a bad person so I don't like it. By this rationale, every crime film is bad.
Wolf of Wallstreet is even more popular now than when it was released. People harp on about Goodfellas but it took decades before that was recognised as a classic. At the time they where complaining about that movie as well. As for character ark, Jordan Belford has an ark since he is pretty innocent at the beginning of the movie and a demon towards the end. Henry hill on the other hand is the same character throughout. His first line is as far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster. When he turns on the mob it is not because he has seen the light, rather it is because he will be murdered otherwise. He complains that he still missis his old life and is sick at the thought that he has to live his life like a nobody.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I watched it in theater and thought it was way too long. The beginning of the movie is awesome but it drags wayyyyy tooo loong. I re-watched it recently and found it even more boring and terrible. I had memories of a better movie than that. People I speak to who watched it don't consider it as a great movie either. This has absolutly no substance.
I thought it was a pretty bad film especially for Scorsese's standards, so little character development.
I absolutely agree ... 'The Wolf of Wallstreet' is way to long and overrated!
Dude what do expect it based on a true story.
I really really really dislike Mark whoever....he always misses the mark. So far up his own behind
Well said Kermode the film is utter tripe in every way.
Maybe I will get shouted down for this but Scorsese has lost his way. Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, good films. Goodfellas onwards nothing special. I am just one of these unaccomplished people criticising someone who has accomplished a great deal, so ignore me.
Obama/Milliband fans crying at how decadent Wolf Of Wall street is.
Luv it.
Its not Scorceses best in my view.
couldn't agree more with Kermode, Wolf of Wall Street is nowhere near Scorsese's finest..
I'm sure Kermode M can't tolerate the film because he can't see past his lefty world view.
Scorsese is a bad director now.
Whaaaaaaaaat did you just say
Ollie Maltby not 'just.' 5 months ago. I was a child back then, now I'm a man.