Monday 25 January 2016

Film: 'The Big Short'

A serious subject for sure - the origins and effects of the worldwide financial crash of 2008 (though here only from the American angle) - and very much a high-powered 'yakety-yak' film, i.e. virtually 100% of the 'action' being verbal. It's expected to pick up a sheaf of awards in the upcoming ceremonies and I think it might deserve at least something.
If you see this film referred to as a 'comedy' - and there certainly are some amusing asides and one-liners - don't let that sidetrack you from its having a dark tone which points up the fragility and vulnerability of claims of economic stability.

I can't help making comparisons with another financial 'talkie' film, 'Glengarry Glen Ross' of 1994 (significantly extended for the screen from the original stage play) which fizzed along at great pace, always involving, managing to keep me engrossed all the way through and leaving me practically out of breath by the close. 'The Big Short' didn't quite make it to that standard but there is a roughly equivalent high level of testosterone-fuelled energy. Of course, this new film is about money dealings on a national and international scale, whereas 'G.G.R.' was completely localised within one commercial firm.

I'm afraid the technicalities of all these financial transactions didn't take longer than a few minutes to completely lose me. But what do I know? I was an accountant for only 25 years! However, the terminology is American-speak, so words and phrases particular to that country will probably be called something else in Britain. Even so, I can't say that even if I'd known the terms it would have been much clearer to me. 

There are some big names in the cast. Christian Bale, whose own story (a wise-brain who foresees the inevitable sorry outcome) is somewhat set apart from the hustle and bustle of the centrally depicted, over-heated arguments. I gather that the questionable issue is something akin to pyramid selling, though with home mortgages as the building bricks. It's only a matter of time before individuals and financial institutions become aware of what's going on, and general nervousness spreads like a forest fire before the whole caboodle gets incinerated.
Then in the central roles there's Steve Carrell, (very ably once again playing serious after his impressive 'Foxcatcher'), Ryan Gosling, Rafe Spall - and Brad Pitt (who's also one of the executive producers) in a slightly more marginal part.
There's quite a bit of talking to camera by various cast members which works rather effectively.
The few women taking their short turns on screen are peripheral figures, nearly all seen just once and then gone.

There are very few scenes longer than two minutes. In fact much of the film looks like a pop video - fleeting images that hardly have time to register. It's all busy-busy-busy, never less than interesting, notwithstanding the fact that I was lost from the discussions for much of the time.
However, the conclusion, of which we all know, carries a terrific punch - namely showing how those responsible for this folly were baled out by the government (as also happened in the U.K.), whose largesse they could use to financially further reward themselves for their 'success' in escaping justice and avoiding gaol, while those who suffered most by losing jobs and homes, were the poorest and most vulnerable. And at the close there's the warning that it's all bound to happen again. In fact the seeds of a repeat scenario are sprouting again right now.

Adam McKay (director of the two 'Anchorman' films) manages this film capably in very flashy style, which befits the Las Vegas gambling milieu it parallels.  
I have a feeling that my opinion of this may well rise in time. I can't say for sure, whereas for 'Glengarry' I knew it was a superior film from the first time I saw it, and having seen it several times since, it doesn't pall. 
If I give that '94 film an '8', then my rating for 'The Big Short' is.......................6.5.

16 comments:

  1. I will wait for this to come to DVD as I can stop it and google what they are talking about. Else I will feel like I got nothing from seeing it. You know what I mean...?

    Hope you are well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may help, Sol, but it's really the emotions that are topmost and I felt that it wasn't an absolutely vital part of the film to fully understand what the the characters were on about for much of the time. It still has a fair amount of entertainment value as it is.

      Delete
  2. We almost saw it but couldnt be arsed it looks worthy but dull

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, it's by no means 'dull', J.G., though it's hardly an arresting subject matter, notwithstanding the fact that it's affected every single one of us. I'd still give it a fair recommendation.

      Delete
  3. I'll be watching out for it. As you rightly point out about the bale out here - I had an account with Northern Rock!
    JP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, being affected even more than some of us, you have less excuse to avoid this. I ought to point out that, though it's classed as a 'comedy' in some circles (I've just inserted to that effect above) there'll be plenty to make you uncomfortable and even angry.

      Delete
  4. I'd wondered whether to see this film or not. I have trouble understanding "financial speak" in times when I can look up the terms and try to digest meaning. I doubt I could keep up with it in a movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although understanding it might help, Strayer, I don't think that is its main selling point. What's more important is the emotions behind what the characters are saying, and that's abundantly clear throughout. There's a level of 'fun' to it which holds ones attention. Even if you don't follow much of it, as I didn't, I don't think you'd get bored.

      Delete
  5. A very good review Ray. However, I will skip this film because of the "talking to the camera." I find that breaking the "fourth wall" too distracting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment, Ron. Interesting because I don't recall others being put off by the technique, at least unless it's used to excess, which is not the case here. But if you find it off-putting, then fine.

      Delete
  6. I sense this one is 'slumming' but will you review 'dad's army" for me? I am keen to see it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's had a very big opening here, Dr Spo, and I shall be seeing it, maybe in w/c 8th Feb. I'm surprised you've even heard of it as I'd have expected its appeal to be very parochial, with characters created for a 1970s TV sitcom, which has hardly ever stopped having repeated screenings ever since, and always on one of BBC's main channels too.
      I don't know if you've ever seen it. Although I'm a moderate fan I don't myself crease with laughter as many others seem to do.

      Delete
    2. I remember seeing the old shows between Monty Python and Are you being served?

      Delete
    3. Monty P., I can well understand you seeing, but the other? I never watched, and have still never seen, a complete programme of 'Served' as it was first showing in my 'militant' days and the Mr Humphries camp character was, I found, so cliched and silly, representing everything that we were fighting to try to get away from.

      Delete
  7. I just posted about this film on my blog. I liked it. I am not familiar with the 1994 film to which you refer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, I've just come back from your own blog, FB, where I've repeated my opinion that this is a fine film. Perhaps my view might have been even higher had I not seen 'Glengarry' as a comparison. If you have the inclination I'd urge you to seek out the latter. If you didn't already know, it has a large clutch of some VERY big names in it. I say no more.

    ReplyDelete