I think the letter’s film criticism component is particularly weak.
We understand that the movie is intended to be an indictment of excessive, dangerous and illegal actions. We hope that audiences condemn not just dwarf tossing, but all of the destructive behavior portrayed in the movie. Yet, based upon reaction to the film, it is clear that not all audiences leave the theater with the same message. A film critic with a Chicago publication wrote, “Scorsese’s helpless attraction to the very behavior he wants to indict becomes the movie’s serrated edge, (Chicago Reader, JR Jones).” Film critic Oliver Gettell of the Los Angeles Times suggests that the lines between condemnation and celebration may be “distinctions without a meaningful difference between them, (The Wolf of Wall Street bares teeth, if not soul, critics say, Los Angeles Times, December 27, 2013).”
Consider one of Scorcese’s more masterful works-- Goodfellas. Is Scorcese endorsing the murders, the brutality, the sexism, the extortion? No. Did he glamorize it? Yes. Oh, god, yes. The true crime stories circulating around the Lufthansa heist make it clear that these were cruel, brutal men. The real life characters behind Tommy Devito are stripped bare of whatever Pesci brought to the role. To argue that Goodefellas could be read as " [an] indictment of excessive, dangerous and illegal actions," and to judge the film on the basis of that simplistic reading would be to displace everything that makes the film a work of art.
One thing that bugs me is that de Caprios concerns over liability are played for laughs. Throughout the movie, there’s a theme of
- Belfort sidles up the cliff edge.
- He considers the risks of stepping off that cliff.
- He somehow persuades himself that he can fly
- And takes that next step, with predictable results.
In this film, Belfort is seen protesting over liability reasons. Those are apparently very serious concerns. that the film essentially downplays. What the film seems to be saying is “Belfort is so wrapped up in minutia of liability concerns that he can’t see the fundamental dignity of the little person.”
The incongruity of this particular scene thus depends on the audience contrasting its (flawed, but) intuitively obvious conception of reality with Belfort’s (serious, but) intuitively flawed conception of reality.
People will always find ways to defend a Scorcese film-- because they like the emotional rollercoaster that Scorcese provides. I’m not the exception. Unless one is well versed in film theory, trying to argue that Scorcese’s portrayal of dwarf tossing makes for a poorer film is a futile endeavor.
