Christian Bale

Ford v. Ferrari: Driven to Win

November 14, 2019 by Steve Norton Leave a Comment

Based on the true story, Ford v. Ferrari takes us back to the year 1966 when the Ford Motor Company was at a crossroads. Losing money and having failed in their attempt to buy Ferrari, they decide that they ultimate opportunity to turn around their company is to compete against the race cars of Enzo Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in France. In an effort to redesign their vehicles for racing, Ford enlists the help of American automotive designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and fearless British race car driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale). However, with innovation comes new ideas which threaten the status quo and, as a result, the two men must battle corporate interference, the laws of physics and their own personal demons in order to change history.

Shot with energy and excitement, Ford v. Ferrari feels a throwback film to the such classic ‘guy films’ as Days of Thunder and Top Gun at times. Similar to these other films, Ford v. Ferrari shoots its race sequences with vigor, intensity and fun while emphasizing the stakes at hand. Simple and straightforward in its approach, the film is entertaining and engaging with solid chemistry between its characters. Though the entire cast remains engaged throughout the film, it’s really enthusiastic performances by stars Damon and Bale that push the film forward as their brotherly bromance serves as the film’s backbone.

Given that some of his most recent work includes Logan, 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line, it should come as no surprise that director James Mangold continues to explores the masculine identity here as well. However, while these other examples seek to explore the complexity of the male ego, Ford v. Ferrari instead celebrate masculine intensity and competitiveness. While women in the film are held with respect, this really is a film about men looking to prove the size and power of their engines. When Henry Ford’s masculinity is threatened by Enzo Ferrari, his immediate response is to crush his enemies on their home turf of La Mans. Meanwhile, within Ford’s company, right-hand man Leo Beebe reminds Shelby who signs the paychecks by insisting that he does things the ‘Ford way’. Money, winning and power are the gold standards in this world as men scratch and claw at one another for dominance.

Christian Bale and Matt Damon in Twentieth Century Fox’s FORD V. FERRARI.

Where the film differs in this approach however is through Shelby and Miles who, although driven to prove their worth on the racetrack, get most excited when invited to create. Their purest joy comes through developing new technology and breaking barriers. Rather than being driven to win, their primary interest in Le Mans is based on breaking new barriers and showing the stodgy old regimes in power that their ideas and improvements matter. For Shelby and Miles, progress and innovation are the ultimate victory. Even though winning the competition at Le Mans is the goal, there is a freedom in their creativity that creates an almost divine sense of joy in these men that gives them life and energy. For Shelby and Miles, hope lies in the challenge of making something new, as opposed to maintaining the status quo.

In the end, Ford v. Ferrari races across the finish line with fun and fervour. While the film does slightly miss an opportunity to explore the fragile nature of the male ego, it also proves highly entertaining and engaging. As a result, solid performances and high-octane energy ensures that Ford v. Ferrari crosses the finish line well.

Ford v. Ferrari recently had its Canadian premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival and roars into theatres on November 17^th, 2019.

TIFF ’19: Ford v. Ferrari

September 10, 2019 by Steve Norton Leave a Comment

Ford v. Ferrari recently had its Canadian premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival and roars into theatres on November 15^th, 2019.

Vice – Humble Servant to Power

January 4, 2019 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

John Nance Garner (one of FDR’s Vice Presidents) observed that the Vice Presidency “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” But that was different when Dick Cheney became Vice President. Cheney seemed to many to be the real power during George W. Bush’s presidency (at least the early years). Adam McKay’s Vice is a wide-ranging, sometimes satirical, sometimes cynical, sometimes funny, sometimes deadly serious, sometimes factual, sometimes imagined biopic of Cheney. It is by no means free of prejudice (many might call it ‘liberal spin’), but even with that understanding, it raises important questions for us to consider about how power is used by some.

The story follows Cheney (Christian Bale, in a superb performance) and his wife Lynne (Amy Adams, also great here) from his “ne’er-do-well” or “dirtbag” days after flunking out of Yale to being perhaps the most powerful man in the world. The terms “power” and “opportunity” come up frequently in the first part of the film. It should be noted that if we think of Cheney as the power behind the throne, this film portrays Lynne as the power behind the power. As a woman, she knew that the road to power was not open to her at that time. Instead, she formed Dick into the one through whom she would access power.

Christian Bale (left) stars as Dick Cheney and Amy Adams (right) stars as Lynne Cheney in Adam McKay’s VICE, an Annapurna Pictures release. Credit : Matt Kennedy / Annapurna Pictures.2018 © Annapurna Pictures, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

As Cheney progresses up the ladder of success, there are many of those moments that he sees as a key opportunity to enhance his power, beginning with interning with then Congressman Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carrell), who becomes a mentor. It moves through his own congressional career and into his time in the White House and Defense Department, before heading to the private sector before he found his way to become George W. Bush’s (Sam Rockwell) Vice President. It also shows how Cheney took the opportunity (there that is again) to fill the Bush White House with his people.

Christian Bale (left) as Dick Cheney and Steve Carell (right) as Donald Rumsfeld in Adam McKay’s VICE, an Annapurna Pictures release. Credit : Annapurna Pictures 2018 © Annapurna Pictures, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

McKay has put together a film that constantly surprises us. While much of the film follows the basic plot, there are some twists in the way that the story is told. For example, in one scene the Cheneys have an iambic pentameter pillow-talk discussion of the possibilities of power that would have made Shakespeare jealous. And there are times when a narrator (Jesse Plemons) breaks the fourth wall to speak directly to the audience to add some commentary or teach us about certain concepts such as Unitary Executive Theory. (The narrator’s relationship to the story is kept secret until near the end.) At one point, McKay creates a happy ending and starts rolling credits, but the film is only half done at that point. Through all this there are edited in some scenes of fly fishing (Cheney is an avid fisherman), which seem to symbolize the way he would lure people into a situation and then reel in the power. (And be sure to check out the flies that accompany the credits at the film’s end.)

So what kind of picture does this paint of Cheney (and others in the story)? Is it a political hatchet job? My thought is that for the most part the film portrays Cheney as a generally sympathetic person. He is a good family man. When his daughter comes out as gay, his response is to affirm his love for her. And before accepting to run for Veep, he makes it clear that he won’t run against LGBT rights. (Although later, when his other daughter is running for Congress, that position is set aside in the struggle to win.)

Jesse Plemons as Kurt in Adam McKay’s VICE, an Annapurna Pictures release. Credit : Annapurna Pictures 2018 © Annapurna Pictures, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

But even though he is treated sympathetically, we also see him as willing to do what is needed to achieve more power. Early on, he makes the statement that he would be a “humble servant to power”. We never see any evidence that he serves anyone or anything other than that. (The story of the temptation of Jesus may be applicable here.)

Christian Bale as Dick Cheney in Adam McKay’s VICE, an Annapurna Pictures release. Credit : Annapurna Pictures 2018 © Annapurna Pictures, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

And when we consider some of the policies that Cheney advanced, we may find that the film serves as a shibboleth that defines orthodoxy of either the right or the left, giving insight into our own understanding of what we want from our leaders. Do we want a strong leader who will never apologize for what they have done? Do we support the kinds of things done in the aftermath of 9/11? We continue to be divided on such issues. I suspect that some who watch this film will have a very different take on it than I did. I think that is especially true when we consider the final scene, as Cheney is doing a TV interview and himself breaks the fourth wall to turn to us and deliver a final aside.

As to the idea that this is a liberal political hatchet job, the film itself addresses that in a coda (another reason to stay for the credits) that explicitly makes that charge. Here too I think there is a bit of a chance for each viewer to think of their own reaction to the film and to the political situation it speaks to.

Hostiles – Journey Between Life and Death

January 21, 2018 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“When we lay our heads down out here, we’re all prisoners.”

In Scott Cooper’s new western Hostiles, the cowboy-and-Indian genre is used to consider the power that prejudices hold over us. But it also gives a glimpse of the possibility of reconciliation that can overcome even lifelong animosities.

Cavalry Captain Joseph Blocker (Christian Bale) is a former war hero. He now spends his day chasing down renegade bands of Comanches and bringing them to jail. He’s due to retire, but instead he is assigned a public relations mission—to escort a dying Comanche chief to his ancestral lands in Montana. Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi) has been imprisoned in New Mexico for decades. Now dying of cancer, he is granted permission from the President to return to Montana with his family (who will again be imprisoned after his death).

Blocker wants nothing to do with this. Yellow Hawk has killed many of his friends through the years. But when threatened with a court-martial and loss of his pension, he reluctantly agrees. Blocker and a small detachment set out on the journey that will be a bit like The Odyssey with various trials and dangers on the way.

Soon after they leave, they come across a homestead that has recently been attacked by a band of Comanches. Only the wife/mother, Rosalee Quinn (Rosamund Pike), survived the attack. She is near catatonic watching over her “sleeping” children. Blocker brings her along on the way to the next fort. The women of Yellow Hawk’s family share their clothes with Rosalee, the first act of compassion by either side. As the journey progresses there will be much that gives those on each side insight into the life of the others.

The most obvious theme of the film is the way racism and prejudice have been central in our national understanding. The attitudes with which Blocker and his cohort, and Yellow Hawk and his family view each other is not really as persons but rather as stereotypes. It is only as they slowly see each other’s strengths and weaknesses that they begin to see the common humanity. But even with racism so front and center, the film also subverts our ideas. One of Blocker’s party is African-American, a buffalo soldier with whom Blocker has served for some time.

But there are also deeper conversations to be drawn from the film. This is a story that is permeated with death. Yellow Hawk is dying. Rosalee’s family is already dead. Death can come upon them in many forms at any moment. The soldiers (as well as Yellow Hawk and his son Black Hawk (Adam Beach)) are all trained in killing. Death is seen as loss, as tragedy, as inevitable, as fulfillment, as an escape, and as punishment at various points of the film. Killing may happen as a necessity, as desperation, or as an act of anger and revenge.

As we study the various characters in the film, we may well see signs of what is now recognized as Post Traumatic Stress and Moral Injury. After an early encounter, a young Lieutenant (Jesse Plemons) is disturbed because this was his first time to kill a man. Master Sergeant Metz (Rory Cochrane) tells him that after enough killing, you don’t feel anything. The lieutenant responds, “That’s what I’m afraid of.” MSgt Metz and Blocker, both long time Cavalry soldiers exhibit signs of “melancholia”—they are weary of all the killing and of all the men that they have lost.

The paradox of the film is that it simultaneously is a journey from life to death and a journey from death to life. Yellow Hawk grows more ill as the journey progresses. There are various deaths along the way from a variety of reasons. Few of those who set out will make it to the end. But there is also movement in the other direction. Those who are dead on the inside find a chance for new life if they are willing to seek it. It is this hope that makes Hostiles more than just a rehash of the exploitive history of the American West. It allows the story to reflect the conflicts that continue to fill our culture and if we will choose to see them as journeys of death or towards life and fullness.

Photos courtesy Yellow Hawk, Inc.

The Promise – Love in a Time of Genocide

April 17, 2017 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“Our revenge will be to survive.”

The modern concept of genocide did not begin with the Holocaust; it started with the attempted extermination of the Armenians during the early years of World War I. The Promise tells the horrifying tale through the story of a love triangle (or perhaps quadrangle). It is a story of heroism, but also of flawed people who are face dire circumstances. They must not only seek to save themselves, but to try to save the identity of their community.

In 1914, at the dawn of World War I, Michael Boghosian (Oscar Isaac) leaves his village in Southern Turkey to study medicine in Constantinople. Turks and Armenians live and study side by side. Michael is staying with his well-to-do merchant uncle. There he meets the beautiful Ana (Charlotte Le Bon), who is from a village near his, but she has been traveling the world for many years. She is with an American journalist, Chris Myers (Christian Bale) who has come to cover the Ottoman Empire’s place within the war. Although Ana and Chris have a life together, there are certainly sparks between Ana and Michael. But Michael, too, has someone in his life. In his village awaits his fiancée Maral (Angela Sarafyan), whose dowry he is using to study medicine.

When the Ottoman Empire allies itself with Germany, they begin trying to destroy the Christian Armenian population. Many are jailed and slaughtered. Whole villages are destroyed. Michael is arrested and used for slave labor, but in time escapes, returns to his village and marries Maral before going into hiding. Meanwhile Chris and Ana are trying to help an American pastor smuggle orphans out of the country. Later Chris runs afoul of the authorities, is imprisoned, and expelled from the country. The dynamics of the Michael/Ana/Chris relationship shift throughout the story.

The love story serves to humanize this story of an atrocity. The promises that are made between them (some spoken, others not) sustain them in difficult times. But sometimes those promises are not kept. And sometimes those promises are ripped away by the circumstances.

Even though the story is set over a century ago, it is extremely timely. There continue to be those who flee persecutions and genocides. Director Terry George has previously dealt with genocide as the writer and director of Hotel Rwanda. Many of the scenes in the current film ominously reflect what we have seen on the news the last few years: swimmers in the Mediterranean seeking to escape to freedom, piles of dead bodies—even a dead baby beside the water.

This film serves to teach us history (because the Armenian Genocide really gets little attention outside the Armenian community. (The US and UK have never officially recognized the genocide because Turkey is such a strategic ally. Turkey refuses to acknowledge it at all.) But it also speaks to events happening in the world today. European and American politics struggle to respond to the refugee crises, especially dealing with people from the Middle East—the same region that this film is set in. This film reminds us that saving others is a courageous act. It may not always be safe, but it demands to be done.

Photos courtesy of Open Road

The New World (2005) Criterion Collection: Malick’s Love Triangle #TBT

July 21, 2016 by Jacob Sahms Leave a Comment

In 2005, Terrence Malick delivered a sweeping, epic vision of the seventeenth century love triangle inhabited by the singular Native American princess Pocahontas (Q’orianka Kilcher) and her two English explorers, John Smith (Colin Farrell) and John Rolfe (Christian Bale). Thanks to the experienced filming eyes of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and Malick’s direction, the story beautifully appears in its extended cut, while maintaining the timeless sensation of exploration, love, and faith that fills the lives of these three.

When I first saw the film over a decade ago, I found it slower than I’d expected, and a bit dull. After unraveling several other works by Malick since then, and reading the included essay by film scholar Tom Gunning (“Dwelling in Malick’s New World”), I’m convinced that there’s a genius here that I didn’t see at first. Malick’s New World is truly a moving canvas, a painting of what life might have been like in the 1600s, for Pocahontas and her two lovers.

While Pocahontas first meets, rescues, and loves Smith, making their relationship slightly more ‘true’ than her next with Rolfe, the purity of Pocahontas’ spirit shines in both of the relationships. For Smith, she is his rescuer and redeemer; for Rolfe, she is his admired, exotic jewel to be rescued and redeemed. In fact, watching the film as a minister, I am somewhat troubled by the image of what conversion looks like for Pocahontas: is she forced, coerced, or manipulated? Audiences will probably differ on how full-on her experience of the Christian God is. But in Malick’s world, the tension remains.

The beauty of Malick’s vision for the world Pocahontas inhabited is wonderful. While the editing and cinematography usually ride in the backseat to my understanding of story, Malick has made this visual depiction of the early Americas a plot in itself. Can natural beauty be captured by humankind – or by the camera? Can Pocahontas’ spirit really be controlled? One walks away from the film believing that if they can in fact be ‘owned,’ then we have lost something of ourselves as well.

The Criterion Collection’s stellar package also includes the additional footage, allowing the audience to choose from the 172-minute, 150-minute first cut, or 135-minute theatrical cuts. Interviews with Farrell and Kilcher, as well as those behind the scenes, allow the audience to experience a depth to the way that the film was put together; the documentary shot during the filming of the epic, “Making ‘The New World,'” adds even more to the experience.

Knight of Cups: Finding the Pearl

March 4, 2016 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come; Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream”

Those words open Terrence Malick’s Knight of Cups. They are the full title of John Bunyan’s seventeenth century allegory of Christian life. The film itself is not really allegory, but it does take the form of a journey in search of . . . .

First, it must be noted that Malick’s films, especially his last few, have a very esoteric quality. They are visually stunning, but many may find them difficult to understand because they are so different from most other films. This comes from being highly visual and often dreamlike films that care more about evoking emotional response than they care about storytelling per se. That is not to say that there is no plot to his films. However for Knight of Cups the story itself is of minor importance. The story actually exists as implied plots—we see bits of stories play out, but we may not be sure just what story we are seeing. Even within those stories, some of the dialogue really isn’t meant for us. It may be covered up by voice over that may seem like a distraction, but in fact brings new understanding to the experience Malick is creating.

The film focuses on Rick (Christian Bale), a screenwriter working in Hollywood. It feels to him that he is “living a life of someone I didn’t ever know.” Throughout the film he wanders through the affluent lifestyle and we see encounters with a variety of people. The supporting cast includes Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Isabel Lucas, Imogen Poots, Freida Pinto, Wes Bentley, Antonio Banderas, and Cherry Jones. In press notes I’ve read who all these characters are, but the film never explicitly identifies them. Rather we just get these glimpses into Rick’s past and current life.

Early in the film we hear the tale of a prince sent to search for a valuable pearl. But when he gets to the city, he is given a drink that makes him forget who he is and what he is to do. That tale becomes the metaphor of Rick’s life—and perhaps of modern life in general. The opulence of Los Angeles and Las Vegas is not portrayed as empty, but neither is it fulfilling in itself. That life style is just where Rick has found himself, but is there something more to life than what he has found? The various encounters he has along the way are all bits that may show him a way forward–“from darkness to life”—from forgetfulness to remembering who he is and why he is here.

Rick’s wandering is essentially a spiritual search. He is directionless, without an idea where he is going. In that sense, he is lost, although he doesn’t seem to recognize that. This is a journey that includes pain and joy, hope and despair, dreamlike beauty and harsh realities. Malick peripherally brings in various spiritual traditions (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu) as a part of this “pilgrim’s progress.” All the experiences, the people, the concepts Rick encounters all serve as reference points for this existential journey. Rick’s journey is really a metaphor for our own lives. Perhaps we don’t have quite as many decadent trappings, but we do live in a world of wealth. And, like Rick (and the prince searching for the pearl), we also may be lost—having forgotten what the meaning of our sojourn here is really about.

As is often the case with Malick’s films, Knight of Cups is an immersive experience. It is best approached not with logic or by seeking symbols to interpret (at least not at first viewing). Rather viewers need to let go of the more cerebral parts of ourselves and just let the film surround us and overwhelm us. I believe those who are able to see the film in this way may find great meaning, but perhaps not meaning that can be put into words. It is the kind of meaning that may dwell deep within us and allow us to discover that we are all on the same kind of pilgrimage that Rick experiences.

And The Winner Is…or Should Be (Oscar Spotlight)

February 22, 2016 by Jacob Sahms Leave a Comment

The Oscar races this year are absolutely clear cut… in my mind. Having seen fourteen of the nominated films (out of approximately sixteen films in the major categories), these are my favorites to win.

At Best Actor, the portrayal of screenwriter and Communist Dalton Trumbo by Bryan Cranston put him in rare air, not that of the illicit drugs he manufactured as Breaking Bad’s Walter White. I was immensely moved by Cranston’s depiction of this flawed-yet-heroic man, and the way Jay Roach framed all of the movable parts around Cranston. Sadly, he’ll be runner up to Michael Fassbender, whose turn as Steve Jobs delivers something that Noah Wyle and Ashton Kutcher couldn’t: a performance that gets to the soul of the man. (Film I missed: The Danish Girl -my apologies to Eddie Redmayne.) Here’s a mad genius who lacks the emotional power to connect with others – until those who care about him the most challenge him spiritually.

I’ll openly admit that I’ve only seen a few of the five films in the Best Actress category but I have a hard time believing anyone could surpass Brie Larson’s portrayal of the kidnapped and raped young woman who raises her son in a garden shed in Room. While another year might produce more wins, this will be Room’s lone trophy. It’s harrowing and powerful, both in captivity and in the world outside, but all of it is made human by the quiet power of Larson’s delivery.

While this is a “makeup call” (a term ripped from other contact sports), I’ll predict that the Academy awards a lifetime achievement award to Sylvester Stallone for his Best Supporting Actor turn in Creed. Simply put, there are too few scenes in The Big Short, The Revenant, Spotlight, or Bridge of Spies for the other nominees to salt away a win. It’s Stallone by default, even if Michael B. Jordan deserves much of the credit for making Stallone look good (and recovering from the insufferable Fantastic Four).

Consider this your commercial break before we reach my big two awards for the year – consider it burying the lede.

Best Original Screenplay: Straight Outta Compton delivers the time, the music, and the mythos of NWA. Were these guys prophets? Exploiters? Exploited? This complex story spins a tale that entertains, reminisces, and challenges us to think about how we define our worldview.

Adapted Screenplay: Michael Lewis’ The Big Short over Emma Donaghue’s Room robs the latter of a double win. Three times nominated, this one has to finally pull off the win. Greed sucks the life out of you in the long run – and proves there are no victimless crimes. It’s not the best film I saw this year, but it serves as a morality tale for all of us to consider in our day-to-day spending and relationships.

Cinematography: Director Alexandro Inarritu can do amazing things with film (think last year’s Birdman). This year, The Revenant dukes it out with The Hateful Eight (only win: Best Original Score). Both films are beautiful in their brutality, with the elements and humanity playing against each other for spellbinding cinematic moments.

And now… Best Director goes to … Mad Max: Fury Road’s George Miller. Having established a dystopian world decades ago, he returns to the world that Hardy said was in Miller’s head and delivered it in a sprawling, dialogue-short film that visually does everything. No stone was left out of place, and every moment mattered to the overall picture. [Unfortunately, Inarritu will probably win… There, I said it.]

So, does that make Mad Max: Fury Road my Best Picture? Not exactly. While it (and Creed) was my favorite film of the year, it doesn’t qualify as the most important film of 2015. [It also came too early in the year, and surprised everyone with its depth.] A story about working within society to change it (versus running from the world we live in and hitting a restart) makes for a powerful testament of humanity in the midst of an apocalypse. It should be a challenge to us all – global warming, AIDs, violence, racism, whatever – be the change you want to be.

Is it The Revenant? No. Leonardo DiCaprio’s ability to grunt, Inarritu’s ability to shoot enigmatic scenes, and the makeup crew’s ability to generate the ferocious aftermath of a bear mauling do not make a complete picture. If you push me, I’ll admit this film looked cool but I thought the storytelling was shallow. (It’s why I preferred Mad Max: Fury Road.)

How about Bridge of Spies? Nope. While Tom Hanks delivers a tour de force performance, the film is almost entirely on his shoulders. Yes, it speaks to the way we are divided and guarded in society today, but it’s not enough to just have a strong lead. The film itself was good but not great; without Hanks, it’s a dud.

Does The Big Short…? An ensemble cast with solid performances couldn’t save a primarily financial film (here’s looking at you, Margin Call and Moneyball). Brooklyn? Didn’t see it. (Gulp). Room? Too claustrophobic.

And suddenly, we’re down to two.

With the look on Matt Damon’s face as he accepted his award at the Golden Globes, I can tell there were fewer people laughing at the “comedy” that was The Martian. With the ridiculous categorization of the film, The Martian was condemned to be remembered not for Andy Weir’s story but the ridiculous politicization of the awards. And this isn’t even the best film where a dedicated group of brave people willingly sacrifice their lives to bring Matt Damon home or the best film where someone is castaway without human companionship…

So, Spotlight it is. While Birdman and The Artist (2015 and 2012, respectively) proved that the Academy sometimes falls in love with the visuals, the track record of 12 Years a Slave, Argo, The King’s Speech, and The Hurt Locker show a trend toward based-on-a-true-story moments that highlight something about our society. With Spotlight, there’s an effort to show the power of the press (ding!), expose a hidden darkness (ding! ding!), and confront a powerful force in the world, the Catholic church (ding! ding! ding!)

Let’s hear the counter arguments. I know Chris Utley will be sharpening his knives… This should be fun.

The Big Short – Winning Is(n’t) Everything (Oscar Spotlight)

February 18, 2016 by Steve Norton Leave a Comment

Christian Bale plays Michael Burry in The Big Short from Paramount Pictures and Regency Enterprises

The Big Short is set in 2008 and tells the true story of Michael Burry (Christian Bale), a Wall St. guru who foresaw the downfall of the US economy due to sub-prime mortgage fallout. As a result of his discovery, he places over a billion dollars of investors money against the economy, drawing the attention of banker Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), hedge-fund specialist Mark Baum (Steve Carell), and other greedy investors. When these men throw their financial weight into the same endeavour, they make a fortune on the backs of millions of failed mortgages across the country.

If you’re like me, I know what you’re thinking: a movie about hedge funds, mortgages and investments? Thanks but no thanks.

But you’d be wrong.

One of the most remarkable things about Charles Randolph and Adam McKay’s screenplay is that it manages to walk the tightrope between maintaining the integrity of high financial concepts and the financial knowledge of the average moviegoer. Somehow, they make these incredibly difficult concepts (seem) accessible without ‘dumbing them down’. In fact, the film’s asides are absolutely hilarious, recruiting the likes of Margo Robbie (drinking champagne in her bathtub), Chef Anthony Bourdain or even Selina Gomez to keep us up to speed with financial language. What’s more, the performances are top notch with all the players working together and no one attempting to ‘one up’ anyone else. In fact, one gets the distinct impression that these men joined this film because of its important message, as opposed to any particular individual Oscar glory.

Left to right: Steve Carell plays Mark Baum and Ryan Gosling plays Jared Vennett in The Big Short from Paramount Pictures and Regency Enterprises

Interestingly, the film grapples with the idea of our own desire to be distracted by celebrity glamour or pop culture rather than be educated about the ways that those in power manipulate the people for their own gain. In other words, rather than seek out the truth about the greed of the banks and governments that affect us every day, too often we allow ourselves to focus on popular fluff in an effort to forget our problems. (Incidentally, this also adds an additional element of irony to those ‘asides’ where celebrities explain key financial concepts. Are we supposed to listen more effectively? Or are we meant to be distracted by Selina Gomez and her gambling?)

This leads the film to explore greed as an addiction in many ways as well. As each member of the ‘team’ discovers new ways to take advantage of the banks (who are taking advantage of the rest), we see them experience a sense of glee as they ‘out-manipulate’ the manipulators. However, once they realize that their success lies on destroying the backs of the average home-owner, the film completely changes its tone. No, these men aren’t the ‘heroes’ that they have made themselves out to be. Make no mistake: These ‘Robin Hoods’ are equally guilty of being ‘Prince Johns’ as well.

These men simply allowed themselves to be caught up in the river of sin and greed that they were in opposition to in the first place. In many ways, the film is as much a word of warning about diving in to personal sinfulness as it is about our own lack of awareness of others. All too easily, because of our sin nature, we can find ourselves serving our own needs (and that rabbit hole is awfully deep).

Is The Big Short Oscar-worthy? A resounding “Yes!” from this corner. The film’s tightly written script is remarkable and it offers us a fresh perspective on events that recently shaped our current financial climate.

But will it take home the gold?

I wouldn’t bet on it.

The Big Short

January 15, 2016 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“Not our fault—simply the way things work.”

Perhaps your eyes glaze over when someone tries to explain the economics that lead to the housing bubble and Great Recession. It is indeed complicated, but The Big Short is an interesting way to try to understand it. It also is a great blend of comedy and pathos as we watch how it all developed and unfolded—and shows that there is a cost to it all that cannot be measured in dollars.

The main characters through which the story is told are Michael Burry (Christian Bale), a nerdy hedge fund manager who discovers that the supposedly wonderful investments in mortgages are not as much a sure thing as everyone thinks, so he begins the idea of credit default swaps (which pay if the mortgage investments go bad). No one believes it can really be a good investment, but a few others begin to see the problem as well. Also central is Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a fairly angry and aggressive fund manager, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to big financial institutions. He gets involved because he wants the banks to get in trouble. The investments they make are at first ridiculed by most of the financial experts, but in the end, they were right. Also along for the ride are a pair of young relatively naïve small investors who see a chance of making the big time. They are mentored by Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), a paranoid former banker who understands fully what is going on and what can happen. All of these are people who in some way see themselves as fighting against the system.

Along the way, the film brings in some non-economic types to explain the various kinds of investments. Best of these is when Chef Anthony Bourdain explains Collateralized Debt Obligations by the analogy of fish stew made in a restaurant on Sunday night. (You’ll never order that again.)

What is interesting is that the film really pays little attention to the greed that is often thought to be the very basis of capitalism. Yes, we do see greed and a great deal of hubris on display, but the spiritual issues that come up in this film are much more nuanced. At one point, when the two young investors are celebrating how rich they could become, Richert reminds them that they are betting against the American economy. If they are right, it will mean many will be unemployed, lose their homes, their savings. That is who will be paying the cost of their wealth. (That scene takes place about half way through the film and marks a shift in tone from the comedy that comes before to a more serious mood.)

As the expected burst of the bubble doesn’t come, Burry and Baum are hard pressed to explain the failure. But when it does finally happen, they are not at all happy about it. For Burry, his success seems to carry with it a spiritual malaise. At the start of the film, he seems to be only interested in the whole economic situation as almost a game. He sees the mistake that has been made, and is going to follow it to a kind of win. But that win, when it comes is not satisfying. Rather it is filled with so much angst that he closes his fund and leaves for other endeavors.

For Baum, when banks begin to fail (most to be bailed out by the government and taxpayers), he is in a position to reap the rewards of his investments. But he keeps putting it off, because, as he puts it, “When we sell, we’ll be just like the rest of them.” For him, the profits off those investments and the real life costs have become a burden. Being right about the greed of the banks doesn’t make him feel any better about his own wealth.

This is a film that does not attack capitalism, but it does want us to see the spiritual costs that are inherent in the system in which we work and live. The film does not try to argue that it is wrong to make money but it asks us to pay attention to what unseen costs there are to the profits that we believe drive the economic engines of our society. And lest we think it is all a matter of the big corporations, most of us are invested in those corporations in some way. It’s not “them;” it’s all of us.

Photos courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Christian Bale

Ford v. Ferrari: Driven to Win

TIFF ’19: Ford v. Ferrari

Vice – Humble Servant to Power

Hostiles – Journey Between Life and Death

The Promise – Love in a Time of Genocide

The New World (2005) Criterion Collection: Malick’s Love Triangle #TBT

Knight of Cups: Finding the Pearl

And The Winner Is…or Should Be (Oscar Spotlight)

The Big Short – Winning Is(n’t) Everything (Oscar Spotlight)

The Big Short

ScreenFish Articles

Monster Mondays: Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974)

The Last Victim: Lost in the Darkness

Christian Bale

Footer

ScreenFish Articles