I think a lot of people miss the importance of the ending as well because it ends in a very movie happy ending way but it has a different meaning. The movie starts out with him ripping off poor people, he switches to ripping off rich people and gets in trouble and goes to prison, then comes back to ripping off poor people by selling them dreams of getting rich quick without giving them any of the substance, and we know what that substance is because he tells it straight to the audience all movie, lie, manipulate, illegal practices etc. the stuff that made him successful which he couldn't ACTUALLY teach in a seminar. He's probably charging 300 a head to attend. The movie ends showing us the garbage men and mailmen they talked about earlier on. It all comes full circle. He found a way to scam legally and it he can't be fully discounted because he did have a reputation in the industry. thats the real ending of wolf of wall st and its basically the reality of what belfort did
@@mgsdini95 yeah I think it's extremely subtle, maybe a bit too subtle but Scorsese had to be to an extent to get Belfort to greenlight it, so I think it comes off a little bit too positive which kind of throws people. I actually edited my original comment to give more details.
I don’t think this film was misinterpreted, you said it yourself, the director isn’t sending a message, so it can’t be misunderstood. The people who don’t see him as evil in the film are just the same people who don’t see him as evil in real life. We were shown a life realistically and the viewers own moral and ethical compass dictate how his life and its retelling come across
@@shocknawe I havent watched but yes directors/writers/artists are always sending a message, but I think the commenter means the director isn’t sending a specific/clear black-and-white moral message like some movies do.
There’s some nuance here. Scorsese is never the kind of director that has a message. Good point there. But he always has a point of view and throughout his filmography he has depicted greed as a catalyst for moral failure.
The funny thing is that he romanticized himself less in the book, he exposed the dangers of his drug addiction and how it eroded him physically, mentally, and eventually financially.
But I think the point of the film is that, in reality, he got away with it virtually scott free. Like many Scorsese films, it's a critique on capitalism. Yes he's a despicable person, but the film highlights how many of us see these types as our heroes and something to aspire to. In the end, his comeuppance is nothing compared to those he's ripped off. He's still successful, free and in truth, there are no real consequences for his misdeeds. Other people suffer, but Belfort doesn't. But a person like that will always portray themselves to be a good guy, in this case someone who 'learned their lesson'. But that's his priveledge, because he's rich. I think Scorsese didn't want you to feel sorry for Belfort, or feel that he chose the wrong path because crime doesn't pay. He wanted you to feel that crime does pay, and that he chose the wrong path because it was immoral and grotesque.
@@keithwellerlounge74 critique on capitalism...nope. Scorcese's critique is of human greed. It isn't we should all be slaves under socialism unable to freely trade with each other, lol.
@@EJD339 it is haha, I posted this comment at a time where the video had only accumulated a few thousand views (I think it was about 1,2K or something)
What really irks me about The Wolf of Wallstreet is that even if there is clear subtext that says "This guy is bad", so much of the audience are now infatuated with the story and Jordan Belfort himself. Today, people spend money on the real Jordan Belfort's books and teachings, learning next to nothing of real value. Essentially, Belfort is the same now as he was then: getting rich by selling nothing but a fantasy to those who are desperate. Even if the movie is definitely against Belfort's actions, it undeniably brought him so much attention. Belfort will be set for life, while the scam victim's will likely never see their money again and have their situation forever be the premise of a "cool" movie.
Bc of hindsight I feel everyone thinks they can do it and get away with it, also he even mentioned it in the movie that no one likes to be poor even poor people so you can't help but look at his money
It's exactly the duality of "baddest" that punctuates Scorceses mastery with a cherry on top. We interpret the word to mean cunning, GOAT, etc., exactly because of the intonation. Intonation that the real man behind the myth, we just saw, had singled out as of particular importance for the selling of his schemes. In fact, this tactic is so effective that he was able to pierce through the seemingly security of a movie theatre and scam us right in our comfy chairs. Scorsese cleared 5s of screentime to allow Jordan Belfort to do what he does best - to con. We are his victims.
@@final_animal That's an interpretation that to me sounds perfectly sensible. However I do found that the alternative is more interesting. BTW I too was scammed when I first watched it. I didn't even considered to take the word at its basic meaning. What I don't understand is the flood of comments that once confronted with the possibility can't seem to even consider any alternative whatsoever. Not to mention the practical business optics of it all. How else would a Jordan Belfort figure would futher profit as a lecturer and with the tales of his wild crime life if he hadn't reformed his public image somehow. It's a bunch of rhetoric. Funny that just earlier today I found that apparently his estimated net worth is +$100 million even though he seems to own as much in restitution or something. In any case his annual revenue is like $18 millions.
My second job is retail investor and It really pissed me off when some colleagues invited me to the Jordan Belfort conference when he was at my city, it is literally everything I'm against to in the finance world
I really like that interpretation of the ending! I've seen people say it was weird to feature Jordan Belfort at the end even if the movie was actively portraying him as a POS, but this "being told he's the baddest guy in the world by the baddest guy in the world" is such a great approach. Loved the video!
"Baddest guy in the world" does not need to tell us "This guy is bad." Bad can mean so many things. If he wanted to be honest, he would use "worst." Just another trick. Baddest salesman can EASILY mean BEST. If he was a better man, he would have used honest language. And after all this praise of his persuasion, there is no pretending like he didn't know the difference. He chose the words because baddest can also mean badass aka cool. Coolest is what he said. So no, I am not going to accept that this obvious liar co-signed himself as anything less than what he thinks of himself as, baddest MFr around. The baddest MFr around is the guy that wins in all action movies. The cool, strong and heroic man.
Something is weird about this comments section. I had to scroll past like 50 comments genetically praising this mediocre video to find the first that could be considered a criticism.
@@BDnevernind The second comment is literally someone correcting me 🙃. But if there aren't any more negative comments, I guess that mediocre video is actually doing well.
@@BDnevernindI think the only mediocre thing here is your comment for not actually checking through this comment section well enough to realise English isn’t this guy’s first language. To be able to construct an argument and video this well in a language that you’ve learned is an amazing achievement - it’s more than understandable to mess up with colloquial uses of the word “bad”. Second thing is, I’m pretty sure you mean generically not genetically, and it completely changes the meaning of what you wrote. See how a language mistake can change the meaning of something without you meaning to or realising it? Idk man maybe hold off from criticising someone else’s language mistakes until you don’t have any either. And if English isn’t your first language, then maybe you should be more understanding of other people in a similar situation.
@@ameliadubin165 LOL I didn't criticize his language mistakes. Maybe you should hold off until you actually develop a capacity for reading comprehension. I was just pointing out that this was the first comment I saw that was at all critical, but at the time it was buried. I didn't even say I agreed with the criticism, so why are you jumping on me and not OP? I would never criticize a typo in a comment, but I think this is now the most liked comment on the vid because it's so ironic that the mistake it points out so thoroughly undermines the thesis of the video. It's impressive to make a video in a language other than your first, but maybe don't go making videos about audience interpretation of a movie in a language you're less familiar with, because maybe ironically that audience understood the movie better than you. However, I didn't say any of that in my earlier comment, the OP did.
i assumed the message, by the end with showing the audience is... "you just watched this movie. you sat through the whole thing, every frame and every line of dialogue, and you probably enjoyed it. he was terrible and he lied and cheated and robbed people, but man you had a lot of fun watching him do it though."
Most of Scorsese's biggest hits are essentially roller coaster rides in which men get to fantasize about being a powerful scumbag. It is funny how he was so critical of Marvel movies for this, which are honest films that unashamedly ask the audience to fantasize about being a hero. By contrast, he uses his great talent to endow pornographies of domination and villainy with an aura of respectability. Of course, he might be saying something deeper, but that is not the source of his commercial success and fame. The movies succeed because men get hard imagining themselves as whichever shitheel protagonist the story is centred on. This is quite obvious from looking at who and what gets quoted, who does the quoting, and the glee with which they do so.
i’ve been reading comments for longer than this one’s existed. i filter to newest and see this at the top. and i must say it hit home. as violated as i feel i do respect certain aspects of your post, although you were harsh on scorsese and his work ethic. in regards to men and fantasy, you are dead on. i know i’m guilty
Marvel isn't about fantasizing about being a hero. And the quality of Marvel stuff has been on a noticeable decline. Scorcese was right for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD "Marvel isn't about fantasizing about being a hero." LOL Of course it is. If a story about an ordinary person gaining super powers and becoming hero isn't a fantasy about becoming a hero, I don't know what is.
@@SupremeGreatGrandmaster I think the point of most of the marvel movies (at least the good ones) is not so much to daydream and lift ourselves into the shiny shoes of a superhero, but rather to use fantastical conflicts about gods and heroes to ask (a nd maybe answer)grounded, human questions of the audience, especially for youth. For example, Thor movies ask: what is your identity based in? Is vulnerability of trust worth the danger? Captain America Winter Sodlier and Civil War ask: How far would you go for your best friend? Does safety outweigh freedom? Are you driven by fear or prudence?
I have watched a couple of your videos now, and I really love what I see _(and hear)._ Easiest sub in a while! And, btw, the title of this video is *so* true. A huge part of the audience of this movie has misinterpret it *completely* - and to me, that's incredibly ironic. They see this, very obviously, flawed and quite oftentimes evil-spirited person, and they raise him up like he's some sort of messiah. It's absurd. I could probably analyze what this says about parts of our society today, but I don't have the energy nor the will to do that right now. It's interesting, none the less. Anyway, great video, and I'm now gonna go through the rest of your "library" :) Keep it up, you're really good!
I believe the worse case of audiences misinterpreting films come from Kill Bill and the superman speech The thing is that… he is wrong, completely wrong; the whole speech is about how he sees the world and the superman metaphor he uses doesn’t work but he can’t see or doesn’t want to see that
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259 Fight Club and Falling Down have had a similar fate as They Live, where they unintentionally work much better as an allegory which the creators didn’t necessarily have in mind. Taxi Driver, while misunderstood by many people, didn’t accidentally nail a different message in the same way those other films did. People usually just misinterpret Travis being more righteous than the lonely, ticking time bomb he really is.
@@TJLea-ps6cl The Superman metaphor is when Bill says that Clark Kent is the disguise and the real man is Superman. Anyone whose a Superman fan, or anyone who has some understanding of the character, knows that Clark Kent, a human raised in Kansas, is the real person and Superman, a superhero and Kryptonian, is second. If Bill wanted to be correct he should've used Batman as the example: "Bruce Wayne is the disguise that Batman uses" has more merit than Superman.
This is the kind of cinematic analysis I want. Its like that scene at the end of the Fablemans. If the horizons at the bottom or the top of the screen its interesting, if its in the middle its boring as shit! Just real stuff, great videos man.
Been watching your stuff since the monster house video man. You put out nothing but amazing quality videos and i dont know how you dont have more subscribers, keep up the great work 😁
I lost a friendship to this movie A close friend of mine for ten years was bit of a wannabe yuppie I even told him at the end he gave me Patrick Bateman vibes. But he was pretty much always on the borderline but his half brother died and it made him unhinged and he pretty much worshipped this movie like a Bible. Friendships didn’t matter anymore it was about making money as he felt like he should be way better off than his is now. Our friendship ended and I went off on a deployment (weekend warrior). Last I heard he got into steroids, coke and old friends tell me there hasn’t been a day where he didn’t mention having a lot of money to them
I have really enjoyed your content, and the perspectives that you are bringing to the video essay content on TH-cam. I appreciate that you are a smaller channel so I want to feed the algorithm with some engagement, and hopefully we get a conversation started in the comments, because I would enjoy seeing more of your content. I have watched 3 of your videos so far, and I want to give a bit of feedback on a couple of things that pulled my attention away from the content of your videos. I am not familiar with video editing or making (i.e. not an expert) so I am not sure how challenging this things are or if they are just tied to programs or processes you are using, so take all of this with a grain of salt, and that my intention is to help and provide another perspective. With that: 1. Audio levels - In the first 30 seconds of the video you have some excellent text interactions on the video which are eye catching and fun. For me the distraction comes in with the audio. There are 3 sources of audio, the clip of Scorsese and DiCaprio, your audio dub over the video, and the clip of Jordan afterwords. If we take the first clip as base volume level (100%,) the dub comes in after explaining the clip at like 85 or 90% (not a huge thing), but the distraction is that the next clip of Jordan comes in at like 130-140%. Like I said before, I don't know how challenging it would be to balance the audio of these clips with the programs or equipment you are using, but it did distract me from the content of the video. There were a couple of other times that I felt like your dub came in a bit quiet or flat and felt myself metaphorically leaning in to hear you better. 2. Pacing - I think more than the other point this could be much more of a personal thing, and therefore less objective. There have been a couple of times in the videos that I watched that I felt like you are rushing a bit from one thought to next without giving the audience a moment to absorb what you are saying. I don't know if it is because you are dubbing the video after you edit together the clips and so you are trying to get your script to fit the length of the video, or you are trying to get the audio to line up with the clever text overlays that you put on the videos (as a note: I do enjoy those very much, they allow you to emphasize words and phrases you want the audience to focus on). I will give one example from this video. At 6:26 you pose the question "How do you trust the book of someone whose main tool is persuasion?" This is followed by the answer in the form of another question, "Isn't the book a giant persuasion?" Personally I would have liked just a tiny moment longer on that first question before you asked the follow up question. I think it feels a bit distracting because if we were in the same room and we were talking casually I think I would expect a bit more of a pause between the two thoughts so it feels a bit unnatural to me. I don't know if it is tied to getting words and the wipe to match the elevator door closing, but it just felt a bit rushed to me. The slight feeling of rushing from one thought to the next came up a couple of times in the videos I watched, and pulled my attention away from the content. A creator that I admire that I think really nails the vocal pacing is Danny Boyde at CinemaStix. His commentary feels relaxed, and like he is having a conversation with the watcher. I don't want to pigeonhole your style or creativity to look exactly like his, it was just an example. I know this is subjective, and I maybe other people don't notice or maybe people like your pacing as it is, that is just my opinion. Overall, I really like your process and content and would like to see more of it, and I hope I didn't miss the mark or discourage you with my feedback.
Hey Nate! Thanks a bunch for your feedback, man. It means a lot that you took the time to write such a detailed message and share your thoughts on my content. Seriously, precise feedback like yours is always welcome and super helpful. You're spot on about me rushing things sometimes. With all this fast-paced content and TikTok craze, there's this fear lurking that people might get bored and swipe away. Cinemastix is a great reference for me, and you're right that maybe I need to learn a bit from him in that regard and trust the content and the viewer a bit more. On the other hand, otally agree about the audio too. I think it might have to do with the fact that I edited with some pretty bad headphones. But you're right that it's fundamental, and maybe in the coming weeks I can invest in better equipment. Anyway, I take all of your contributions to heart, and if you have any more, they are welcome. Already cooking up the next video and taking your pointers to heart. Cheers, and big thanks again!
@@lancelloti. I watched your most recent video right after this one, and it felt a lot less rushed. My thought was you might be getting more comfortable as you go making more content. Hopefully the audio balance is an easy fix, and glad that the feedback overall was so well received. Keep up the good work, and looking forwards to more.
Great feedback! It really resonated with me. I came here after enjoying the Andy Serkis one - really great work @lancelloti! But was disappointed by this, as it felt jumbled and i wasn't clear about the point being made. Also, I haven't seen the films in the clip and was horrified by the violence, it would be ideal if there was a warning upfront. Many thanks to both of you :)
My god, YT recommended me one of your videos about Andy Serkis and I loved it so I checked. And man, your work is insane ! Great job ! Imma binge the whole channel now haha. You earned yourself a new sub !
I get what this video is referring to, but isn't part of the point of the film also that it really was fun? It wasn't such a bad life afterall. We're all expecting some moral reckoning at the end, but he only gets even more rewarded, because that's the world we live in. Even the DEA agent was on the subway reflecting on this. Jordan played the cards right, despite our initial judgements of the character. And that to me is the ultimate point of this film, not to show that he was actually a bad person, but to show that we are all a bit like him. In a way, I think these ignorant people who "misinterpret the film" are actually half right. It is a glamorour and fun lifestyle, it is worth it, to a point. But it shouldn't be. That's the actual substance of this film for me. If people walk away from this film thinking it's about how bad Jordan Belfort is, then those too, are people who are missing the point
I worked at this place. My first job as a stockbroker. I learned how to sell thats for sure. This movie made Jordan a hero to people who never stopped to think if he actually adapted and had a room full of talented salespeople start buying good companies, he'd have built a beast of a firm. I can't blame the movie though, its meant to entertain
woah. I love videos that have a different perspective than my own. Its so fun and interesting to see the reasons why the director decided to do what they did. Great video! And congrats on almost 10k!!
there's a theory of comedy called benign violation. the theory is that comedy arises in situations where a violation of some sort occurs, but in such a way that it poses no harm or threat to the viewer. the reason wide shots are better for comedy is because it gives the audience some distance from the action, thereby giving them the space and safety to laugh at the scene. in contrast, a close-up shot puts the audience closer to the action and causes the audience to imagine themselves in the character's place. using the scene you use as an example: watching the character struggle to get to the car is funny, but imagining what it would be like to struggle to get to the car isn't funny.
Rowan Atkinson just explained 4D better than anything I've ever heard. Life is a tragedy in close-up and a comedy in longshot. If you look at any individual sliver of a moment in your time it's likely that literally everything is completely awful, but if you just zoom out a little... 👁️
this has become my favorite channel for cinematography and films and every upload keeps getting better and better! I was wondering if you'll ever do a video about Drive or Fantastic Mr. Fox like a specific scene or the overall film, even tho videos on both and their cinematography have been done to death I actually wanna see your thoughts and takes on either films that I consider as one of the greats in cinema's history
Hey I don’t mean this in a bad way, but maybe if you had a thumbnail that’s not just a screenshot it would lure in more people. Your content is awesome man I learn a lot from your videos (coming from an animation major).
thanks bro! I know, it's something that generates a lot of doubts for me and something I think about a lot, but I've seen that it's very trendy to make thumbnails like that, as Cinemastix or similar channels do. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, maybe I'll try out new styles!
@@lancelloti. Honestly I appreciate more of the thumbnails that are screenshots of the video. Sometimes, those are even better thumbnails than the actual thumbnails
I always interpreted the movie as being about the effects and status of wealth and hedonism, and not entirely about Jordan himself. Of course, the movie IS about Jordan, but I never thought of the point being about him, and the message I took away the most of the entire movie is about how money and status can bail you out of situations that would otherwise be impossible to get out of. The primary indication of this, to me, is when Jordan goes to prison and it's insanely laid back because he's a rich white man convicted of a wealth related crime(s). And the juxtaposition of the FBI agent who caught him heading home on the subway looking kinda sad (btw it's been a year at least since I've seen the movie, so feel free to correct me if I misremember) demonstrates the whole backing of what Jordan was saying to him on his boat.
I love Scorcese. I remember watching this movie, I remember enjoying it for what it was, but I've never revisited it. For most people I don't think it was a matter of misinterpreting the movie, I think it was a matter of realizing there's a difference between watching a movie and sitting through immoral torture, in order to reinforce a lesson that can easily be learned with a handful of parables from the Bible instead of 3 hours of weird debauchery that didn't even have the dignity of being actual footage.
The same audience that idolizes films like Fight Club and American Psycho for all the wrong reasons, are the types to do so with this movie. They love these films for all the wrong reasons. All are great films, but if you only like them for their shallow interpretation, you are to be avoided.
The problem with Scorcese entire "Goodfellas" way of telling a story is that he never dares to go dark, deprived and pathetic enough to nail the message home "what goes around comes around." He's too interested in making an entertaining movie to have Belford rolling around in his own puke, covered in windshield glass and sobbing because he's an complete mess. Scorcese never dares to make his characters pathetic. Even at the end of Goodfellas, when Henry is unraveling from paranoia and coke, there's still cool music playing in the background, snappy edits, fast pacing. You never get to see Henry sit in a couch for 5 minutes, just snorting coke, talking to himself like the looney he's becoming. That just doesnt work with the vibe Scorsese is trying to make. You dont see Belford cheating on his wife, his wife having an emotional breakdown and it all unraveling in a big emotionall, end of relationship fight. It's just Dicaprio humping models and him saying they divorced in a throw-a-way line. The worst part is that Scorsese has made movies like this, hard hitting gutpunches like Raging Bull, where you see "strong men" unraveling, snivelling, yelling at nothing, begging for forgiveness. It's not that the entirety of Wolf of Wall street needed to be that, but it would had been such a stronger movie if the movie landed on a somber note, the "dream" ended and reality kicked in and it kicks you straight in the teeth.
I get what you're saying, but I think the movie was supposed to be from Belfort's perspective. And I think he either didn't see his life and those situations that way, or doesn't want to let on that he did. That's why it carries that nonchalance
@@PushUphill I'm not so certain that was the point because we never hear anyone elses perspective other than Belfords that can set the record straight and talk about the events without the rosetinted college fratboy glasses Belford uses. That would actually have been great if the film played out like an interview and for 2/3ds of the movie, we get Belfords version, then in the last third, we get the version from all the people he hurt and scammed that flips the narrative on its head. But what we're left with is something that feels more like Jackass: Wall Street.
His newer works like the irishman and KOTFM really hit this home in my opinion, but since they are not entertaining movies according to the audience they have been mostly met with mediocre reception from the masses.
The car scene is beautiful because it mirrors how someone who is fucked up thinks they are behaving vs. how they are actually behaving. Jordan thinks he drives home okay and in reality, he has completely crashed the car into a bunch of things.
This is a problem I've been struggling with a lot lately... the fact that as a storyteller, I could do the absolute best job at making my message or thematic content as deep and meaningful as possible, and/or try to do something unique and unconventional, in a way that I feel will benefit the world if people were to take the lesson to heart... but it won't matter. People will misinterpret it and end up using it as encouragement to believe in things that I don't agree with, and probably in fact are in direct contrast to what I was actually trying to say. Or they'll just dismiss it or hate on it, because they think I'm saying something wrong or offensive, when I'm not. A lot of people don't understand dramatic irony in film, or stories in general... they don't understand that depiction doesn't equal condonement. They don't understand when a film is showing you something in order to say "Look at how bad this is."... they just assume if the movie wants to show it to them, it must be saying, "This is good. Look how COOL it is!" ... and if you try to work around this problem, you either end up with a story that's too obvious and on-the-nose with its messages, as a way of trying to avoid any doubt about what you're saying... or you have to make something as meaningless and shallow as possible to try to avoid saying anything at all, so nothing can be interpreted incorrectly, and you just hope people have fun. And that's okay sometimes... not every movie needs to be important or have a deep, relevant message... but a lot do. And I feel like I'm not the only filmmaker, aspiring or established, small or big... that is afraid of making meaingful stories for fear of either being attacked for saying something too controversial, or they just worry that people won't understand. I see it happening with Dune, where people don't realize that Paul isn't a typical hero and that he's going down a bad road of revenge and tyranny... they just think, "Cool, he got revenge! What a hero for saving Arrakis from the evil Harkoennens!" ... it happened with Game of Thrones, where people didn't understand the point of Daenerys' reveal being that she was a Mad Queen in the making all along, and that you're supposed to go back and rewatch the series to re-analyze what you thought you knew, and notice that the madness was bubbling beneath the surface the entire show.... instead they were too attached to their fan theories and love of an "epic badass feminist hero"... that they just saw it as bad writing because of how fast and shocking the reveal was, and then they refuse to ever challenge their original perception, because that would hurt their ego and they don't want a story to "teach them a lesson", they just wanted Dany to be the badass feminist hero with the awesome dragons... even though it should have been clear the whole way through that this was never meant to be a conventional story, and that there were always going to be shocking twists that seemed to break the rules at first, before you go back and reframe them in retrospect and notice the warning signs were there. But that's an unconventional, complex, and very meaningful rewarding but hard process for a viewer to go through, and most people don't want storytelling to actually challenge them THAT much. When they say they want something "original" and "not dumbed down"... I don't think most people actually realize what they're really asking for, and when they get it... they turn their nose up at it, because it's not meeting their conventional expectations for what a story is "supposed to do". Then you look at an example like this with Wolf of Wall Street, or The Matrix where conservatives took was meant to be a progressive allegory for minorities like trans people who are oppressed by the conservative systems of society and power... and turned it into a "RED PILL BRO!" cringe-fest of far-right libertarian type of bullshit that claims minorities like the LGBT community is somehow tyrannically controlling the world, so we need to get rid of liberalism/leftism... I would be mortified, if I was the Wachowskis, that I had helped inspire or encourage a movement like that. That is not what I want my stories to do if I put them out in the world. And that's why I can't just ignore the problem either. It'd be nice to say, "Ah, don't worry what people will think... just tell your stories for you and the audience you'll find." ... except that it won't just find my audience, it'll find whatever audience it does, and I don't just want ANY audience to have their bullshit pre-conceived notions somehow reinforced by misinterpreting my work. In a lot of ways, I would LOVE to be able to just put a film out there and never have to say anything about what I intended... I'd love to be Terrance Mallick and basically not exist in the public eye aside from my films and a "Written & Directed by" credit. That'd actually be ideal for my shy introverted self, who for some reason nonetheless wants to make famous movies.... the thing is, I actually do care about storytelling as a way of exploring ideas for humanity so that we can evolve and grow better... I think it can be more powerful than direct politics or any other forms of culture. But not when it falls on deaf ears or blind eyes, or gets twisted into something terrible. I don't want to put things out into the world if I fear, or know, they'll have a bad effect on the world. It's a matter of ethics and morality as a person, and you can't separate that from being an artist. And as an artist, I'm drawn to very complicated, politically/culturally/philosophically relevant and often hard-hitting type of content, and that's the type of stuff that people are most likely to misunderstand and possibly use badly... it's a real fundamental dilemma for me. I don't know what the answer is, but like i said... it's just something I'm struggling with.
The purpose of writing isn't to tell people what to think. It's to make people feel. What people think about your work or your characters is something you will never be able to control, only influence by what you make them say or do. Stop believing that you need to make people think a certain way, and instead focus on how it makes people feel. Feelings are easier to invoke than meaningful thoughts- and meaningful thoughts will manifest themselves out of the feelings you invoke.
I get the analysis of the shots for him getting to the car but something is missing here. They mention how other movies offer a perspective visually or by putting you in the actors shoes and that he doesn't do that but HE DID! Not only is the whole scene his perspective and narration with a big reveal of the reality when his car is obviously crashed and smashed up BUT when they switch shots they created exaggerations that only happened because of his state after taking the quaaludes. His vision or the shots that are made to be what Jordan is looking at shows a one and exaggerated staircase as well as when he's falling to make it seem like he's suffered this great fall only to reveal and re reveal that the actual stairs are just a few steps whenever they go to the wide/medium shot. So, even within the altered reality you're getting doses of "this is how he sees it but really look at it, it's just a few steps. I can't believe it wasn't briefly mentioned in the analysis when they kept focusing on that one scene (although hey maybe there's a whole video on it that I hadn't seen from this channel). Also, I never realized people were misunderstanding it when for me it seems obvious that the story is that he got successful but at what cost with a simultaneous side of saying "look at how easy it is to be a complete mess and a horrible person but if you have money you get away with it and people eat it up and think you're great because they're blinded by the fame or money"
Regarding the 'baddest mf' thing: English isn't my first language. I don't usually make these mistakes, but I think this time it tripped me up 🥲
What is your first language?
@@informationageenterprise2184 film.
Just a warning, there’s some stuff you forgot to blur
2:55 woman’s chest is nude, just warning before yt takes it down
@@goldsyerex4529 no it's not
Scorcese has ALWAYS had a message. His message is... "This could just as easily be you" or put another way... "This is Us".
Two of the films, this one and goodfellas, tells you (among other things), that the world isn't moral. It doesn't punish the bad or reward the good.
Scorcese says to me that a man has to live by a code of honor or he has no direction and will crash.
fax
I think a lot of people miss the importance of the ending as well because it ends in a very movie happy ending way but it has a different meaning. The movie starts out with him ripping off poor people, he switches to ripping off rich people and gets in trouble and goes to prison, then comes back to ripping off poor people by selling them dreams of getting rich quick without giving them any of the substance, and we know what that substance is because he tells it straight to the audience all movie, lie, manipulate, illegal practices etc. the stuff that made him successful which he couldn't ACTUALLY teach in a seminar. He's probably charging 300 a head to attend. The movie ends showing us the garbage men and mailmen they talked about earlier on. It all comes full circle. He found a way to scam legally and it he can't be fully discounted because he did have a reputation in the industry. thats the real ending of wolf of wall st and its basically the reality of what belfort did
never considered this point, might be worth a rewatch in that context
@@mgsdini95 yeah I think it's extremely subtle, maybe a bit too subtle but Scorsese had to be to an extent to get Belfort to greenlight it, so I think it comes off a little bit too positive which kind of throws people. I actually edited my original comment to give more details.
I don’t think this film was misinterpreted, you said it yourself, the director isn’t sending a message, so it can’t be misunderstood. The people who don’t see him as evil in the film are just the same people who don’t see him as evil in real life. We were shown a life realistically and the viewers own moral and ethical compass dictate how his life and its retelling come across
thats true, but if audeinces veiw the director as having a point to make they are misunderstanding the meaninglessness
What kind of idiot doesn't recognize that he is evil?
To think that “the director isn’t sending a message” tells me everything I need to know about your comment.
@@shocknawe I havent watched but yes directors/writers/artists are always sending a message, but I think the commenter means the director isn’t sending a specific/clear black-and-white moral message like some movies do.
There’s some nuance here. Scorsese is never the kind of director that has a message. Good point there. But he always has a point of view and throughout his filmography he has depicted greed as a catalyst for moral failure.
The funny thing is that he romanticized himself less in the book, he exposed the dangers of his drug addiction and how it eroded him physically, mentally, and eventually financially.
Which makes perfect sense as the movie portrays him when he was engaging in these actions, while the book is him looking back.
But I think the point of the film is that, in reality, he got away with it virtually scott free. Like many Scorsese films, it's a critique on capitalism. Yes he's a despicable person, but the film highlights how many of us see these types as our heroes and something to aspire to. In the end, his comeuppance is nothing compared to those he's ripped off. He's still successful, free and in truth, there are no real consequences for his misdeeds. Other people suffer, but Belfort doesn't. But a person like that will always portray themselves to be a good guy, in this case someone who 'learned their lesson'. But that's his priveledge, because he's rich.
I think Scorsese didn't want you to feel sorry for Belfort, or feel that he chose the wrong path because crime doesn't pay. He wanted you to feel that crime does pay, and that he chose the wrong path because it was immoral and grotesque.
@@keithwellerlounge74 critique on capitalism...nope. Scorcese's critique is of human greed. It isn't we should all be slaves under socialism unable to freely trade with each other, lol.
Lancellotti talks about that in this video dude
@@sterlinga8307 Slaves, socialism… Brother I don’t think you know what socialism is. Fooled by red scare propaganda how sad
Not sure how to tell you this, but in that context "Baddest" is a good thing
Exactly. That's the great misinterpretation here
English isn't my first language. I don't usually make these mistakes, but I think this time it tripped me up 🥲
@@lancelloti.what is your first language? if you don’t mind me asking
@@lancelloti. Makes sense. Reminds me of this stand up routine: th-cam.com/video/RAGcDi0DRtU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=D5TA-4AqA5sTrtM9
@@-Tarzan Arabic (aka Semitic) origin, he'll probably clarify with something more specific, but post-Mongolian -> Turk -> Ottoman Empires, why bother?
Starting when the ludes kick in with Belfort on the phone, Wolf of Wall Street has the funniest 20 minute stretch I've ever seen in a film.
I agree 😂. I was looking for this comment. It makes me laugh out loud just thinking about it
How can the algorithm choke this hard
Its coming along.
@@nuramoI'm glad it does, this entire channel is a gem
@@nathandebusschere7259I thought choke this hard was a bad thing lol
@@EJD339 it is haha, I posted this comment at a time where the video had only accumulated a few thousand views (I think it was about 1,2K or something)
@@nathandebusschere7259 the whole channel blew up to the point i'm wondering how this 2month old channel can accumulate 3M views on its new videos now
Criminally underrated
What really irks me about The Wolf of Wallstreet is that even if there is clear subtext that says "This guy is bad", so much of the audience are now infatuated with the story and Jordan Belfort himself. Today, people spend money on the real Jordan Belfort's books and teachings, learning next to nothing of real value. Essentially, Belfort is the same now as he was then: getting rich by selling nothing but a fantasy to those who are desperate. Even if the movie is definitely against Belfort's actions, it undeniably brought him so much attention. Belfort will be set for life, while the scam victim's will likely never see their money again and have their situation forever be the premise of a "cool" movie.
Bc of hindsight I feel everyone thinks they can do it and get away with it, also he even mentioned it in the movie that no one likes to be poor even poor people so you can't help but look at his money
It's exactly the duality of "baddest" that punctuates Scorceses mastery with a cherry on top. We interpret the word to mean cunning, GOAT, etc., exactly because of the intonation. Intonation that the real man behind the myth, we just saw, had singled out as of particular importance for the selling of his schemes. In fact, this tactic is so effective that he was able to pierce through the seemingly security of a movie theatre and scam us right in our comfy chairs. Scorsese cleared 5s of screentime to allow Jordan Belfort to do what he does best - to con. We are his victims.
There's no real duality there, it's intended as a compliment in that context. The rest of the video makes good points though.
@@final_animal That's an interpretation that to me sounds perfectly sensible. However I do found that the alternative is more interesting. BTW I too was scammed when I first watched it. I didn't even considered to take the word at its basic meaning. What I don't understand is the flood of comments that once confronted with the possibility can't seem to even consider any alternative whatsoever. Not to mention the practical business optics of it all. How else would a Jordan Belfort figure would futher profit as a lecturer and with the tales of his wild crime life if he hadn't reformed his public image somehow. It's a bunch of rhetoric. Funny that just earlier today I found that apparently his estimated net worth is +$100 million even though he seems to own as much in restitution or something. In any case his annual revenue is like $18 millions.
My second job is retail investor and It really pissed me off when some colleagues invited me to the Jordan Belfort conference when he was at my city, it is literally everything I'm against to in the finance world
Just came from the Andy Serkis video. Wonderful work you do. Can't wait for more. Subbed
just came from your breaking bad video, these videos are amazing i could binge em forever. subbed :)
same
I'll have to find that one!
I really like that interpretation of the ending! I've seen people say it was weird to feature Jordan Belfort at the end even if the movie was actively portraying him as a POS, but this "being told he's the baddest guy in the world by the baddest guy in the world" is such a great approach.
Loved the video!
Man I’m always excited to see another one of your videos, you’re going great
thanks bro! i hope not to disappoint
"Baddest guy in the world" does not need to tell us "This guy is bad." Bad can mean so many things. If he wanted to be honest, he would use "worst." Just another trick. Baddest salesman can EASILY mean BEST. If he was a better man, he would have used honest language. And after all this praise of his persuasion, there is no pretending like he didn't know the difference. He chose the words because baddest can also mean badass aka cool. Coolest is what he said. So no, I am not going to accept that this obvious liar co-signed himself as anything less than what he thinks of himself as, baddest MFr around. The baddest MFr around is the guy that wins in all action movies. The cool, strong and heroic man.
Something is weird about this comments section. I had to scroll past like 50 comments genetically praising this mediocre video to find the first that could be considered a criticism.
@@BDnevernind The second comment is literally someone correcting me 🙃. But if there aren't any more negative comments, I guess that mediocre video is actually doing well.
@@BDnevernindI think the only mediocre thing here is your comment for not actually checking through this comment section well enough to realise English isn’t this guy’s first language. To be able to construct an argument and video this well in a language that you’ve learned is an amazing achievement - it’s more than understandable to mess up with colloquial uses of the word “bad”. Second thing is, I’m pretty sure you mean generically not genetically, and it completely changes the meaning of what you wrote. See how a language mistake can change the meaning of something without you meaning to or realising it? Idk man maybe hold off from criticising someone else’s language mistakes until you don’t have any either. And if English isn’t your first language, then maybe you should be more understanding of other people in a similar situation.
@@ameliadubin165 LOL I didn't criticize his language mistakes. Maybe you should hold off until you actually develop a capacity for reading comprehension. I was just pointing out that this was the first comment I saw that was at all critical, but at the time it was buried. I didn't even say I agreed with the criticism, so why are you jumping on me and not OP? I would never criticize a typo in a comment, but I think this is now the most liked comment on the vid because it's so ironic that the mistake it points out so thoroughly undermines the thesis of the video. It's impressive to make a video in a language other than your first, but maybe don't go making videos about audience interpretation of a movie in a language you're less familiar with, because maybe ironically that audience understood the movie better than you. However, I didn't say any of that in my earlier comment, the OP did.
You guys are kinda dorks for being so harsh to this man ngl , he is putting effort, maybe you should instead of crying 😢
This is top tier stuff you are making. Great editing and informative narration. Easy subscribe.
i assumed the message, by the end with showing the audience is... "you just watched this movie. you sat through the whole thing, every frame and every line of dialogue, and you probably enjoyed it. he was terrible and he lied and cheated and robbed people, but man you had a lot of fun watching him do it though."
Most of Scorsese's biggest hits are essentially roller coaster rides in which men get to fantasize about being a powerful scumbag. It is funny how he was so critical of Marvel movies for this, which are honest films that unashamedly ask the audience to fantasize about being a hero. By contrast, he uses his great talent to endow pornographies of domination and villainy with an aura of respectability. Of course, he might be saying something deeper, but that is not the source of his commercial success and fame. The movies succeed because men get hard imagining themselves as whichever shitheel protagonist the story is centred on. This is quite obvious from looking at who and what gets quoted, who does the quoting, and the glee with which they do so.
i’ve been reading comments for longer than this one’s existed. i filter to newest and see this at the top. and i must say it hit home. as violated as i feel i do respect certain aspects of your post, although you were harsh on scorsese and his work ethic. in regards to men and fantasy, you are dead on. i know i’m
guilty
Marvel isn't about fantasizing about being a hero. And the quality of Marvel stuff has been on a noticeable decline. Scorcese was right for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD "Marvel isn't about fantasizing about being a hero."
LOL Of course it is. If a story about an ordinary person gaining super powers and becoming hero isn't a fantasy about becoming a hero, I don't know what is.
@@SupremeGreatGrandmaster I think the point of most of the marvel movies (at least the good ones) is not so much to daydream and lift ourselves into the shiny shoes of a superhero, but rather to use fantastical conflicts about gods and heroes to ask (a nd maybe answer)grounded, human questions of the audience, especially for youth.
For example, Thor movies ask: what is your identity based in? Is vulnerability of trust worth the danger?
Captain America Winter Sodlier and Civil War ask: How far would you go for your best friend? Does safety outweigh freedom? Are you driven by fear or prudence?
Not all, but too many yes and I‘m annoyed with them.
Your analysis of film is seriously stellar
Thank god your recent video is blowing up. Everything else you've put out is just as high quality, it's about time.
Your videos are fucking insanely well done. You deserve genuinely a million subs.
bro your videos are actually hidden gems
I have watched a couple of your videos now, and I really love what I see _(and hear)._ Easiest sub in a while!
And, btw, the title of this video is *so* true. A huge part of the audience of this movie has misinterpret it *completely* - and to me, that's incredibly ironic.
They see this, very obviously, flawed and quite oftentimes evil-spirited person, and they raise him up like he's some sort of messiah. It's absurd. I could probably analyze what this says about parts of our society today, but I don't have the energy nor the will to do that right now. It's interesting, none the less.
Anyway, great video, and I'm now gonna go through the rest of your "library" :) Keep it up, you're really good!
And to think after he made this film, he went to Japan and filmed one of his most beautiful, spiritual, and underrated films, Silence.
I believe the worse case of audiences misinterpreting films come from Kill Bill and the superman speech
The thing is that… he is wrong, completely wrong; the whole speech is about how he sees the world and the superman metaphor he uses doesn’t work but he can’t see or doesn’t want to see that
Why does it not work?
Your right his Metaphor doesn't work but it's only because he fundamentally doesn't understand the heart of Superman.
The worst is Fight Club. Then Falling Down and Taxi Driver.
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259
Fight Club and Falling Down have had a similar fate as They Live, where they unintentionally work much better as an allegory which the creators didn’t necessarily have in mind.
Taxi Driver, while misunderstood by many people, didn’t accidentally nail a different message in the same way those other films did. People usually just misinterpret Travis being more righteous than the lonely, ticking time bomb he really is.
@@TJLea-ps6cl The Superman metaphor is when Bill says that Clark Kent is the disguise and the real man is Superman. Anyone whose a Superman fan, or anyone who has some understanding of the character, knows that Clark Kent, a human raised in Kansas, is the real person and Superman, a superhero and Kryptonian, is second. If Bill wanted to be correct he should've used Batman as the example: "Bruce Wayne is the disguise that Batman uses" has more merit than Superman.
I cant believe this channel has only 8k subs. This video was amazing!
This is the kind of cinematic analysis I want. Its like that scene at the end of the Fablemans. If the horizons at the bottom or the top of the screen its interesting, if its in the middle its boring as shit! Just real stuff, great videos man.
FANTASTIC VIDEO!! this deserves more views
This is really good video but i'll definitely be needing the AI voice you used in this video. it's just too perfect
Been watching your stuff since the monster house video man. You put out nothing but amazing quality videos and i dont know how you dont have more subscribers, keep up the great work 😁
thank you so much bro! i really appreciate that
The fact that Jordan is put on a pedestal always bothered me esp. by people who misinterpreted the movie. Thanks for covering this topic.
Mate you are going to break out any day now. I have just binged like 20 videos! How does this not have 4 million views?!
Thank you so much bro!
You make the greatest film content I have ever seen on TH-cam. Amazing structure!!! Hope seeing more content from you in the future :)
I lost a friendship to this movie
A close friend of mine for ten years was bit of a wannabe yuppie I even told him at the end he gave me Patrick Bateman vibes. But he was pretty much always on the borderline but his half brother died and it made him unhinged and he pretty much worshipped this movie like a Bible. Friendships didn’t matter anymore it was about making money as he felt like he should be way better off than his is now.
Our friendship ended and I went off on a deployment (weekend warrior). Last I heard he got into steroids, coke and old friends tell me there hasn’t been a day where he didn’t mention having a lot of money to them
"Baddest" means "most awesome", bro.
Yeah as far as I can tell its a wholly positive statement
The irony lol
I think he meant double not good.
I have really enjoyed your content, and the perspectives that you are bringing to the video essay content on TH-cam. I appreciate that you are a smaller channel so I want to feed the algorithm with some engagement, and hopefully we get a conversation started in the comments, because I would enjoy seeing more of your content. I have watched 3 of your videos so far, and I want to give a bit of feedback on a couple of things that pulled my attention away from the content of your videos. I am not familiar with video editing or making (i.e. not an expert) so I am not sure how challenging this things are or if they are just tied to programs or processes you are using, so take all of this with a grain of salt, and that my intention is to help and provide another perspective. With that:
1. Audio levels - In the first 30 seconds of the video you have some excellent text interactions on the video which are eye catching and fun. For me the distraction comes in with the audio. There are 3 sources of audio, the clip of Scorsese and DiCaprio, your audio dub over the video, and the clip of Jordan afterwords. If we take the first clip as base volume level (100%,) the dub comes in after explaining the clip at like 85 or 90% (not a huge thing), but the distraction is that the next clip of Jordan comes in at like 130-140%. Like I said before, I don't know how challenging it would be to balance the audio of these clips with the programs or equipment you are using, but it did distract me from the content of the video. There were a couple of other times that I felt like your dub came in a bit quiet or flat and felt myself metaphorically leaning in to hear you better.
2. Pacing - I think more than the other point this could be much more of a personal thing, and therefore less objective. There have been a couple of times in the videos that I watched that I felt like you are rushing a bit from one thought to next without giving the audience a moment to absorb what you are saying. I don't know if it is because you are dubbing the video after you edit together the clips and so you are trying to get your script to fit the length of the video, or you are trying to get the audio to line up with the clever text overlays that you put on the videos (as a note: I do enjoy those very much, they allow you to emphasize words and phrases you want the audience to focus on). I will give one example from this video.
At 6:26 you pose the question "How do you trust the book of someone whose main tool is persuasion?" This is followed by the answer in the form of another question, "Isn't the book a giant persuasion?" Personally I would have liked just a tiny moment longer on that first question before you asked the follow up question. I think it feels a bit distracting because if we were in the same room and we were talking casually I think I would expect a bit more of a pause between the two thoughts so it feels a bit unnatural to me. I don't know if it is tied to getting words and the wipe to match the elevator door closing, but it just felt a bit rushed to me. The slight feeling of rushing from one thought to the next came up a couple of times in the videos I watched, and pulled my attention away from the content. A creator that I admire that I think really nails the vocal pacing is Danny Boyde at CinemaStix. His commentary feels relaxed, and like he is having a conversation with the watcher. I don't want to pigeonhole your style or creativity to look exactly like his, it was just an example. I know this is subjective, and I maybe other people don't notice or maybe people like your pacing as it is, that is just my opinion.
Overall, I really like your process and content and would like to see more of it, and I hope I didn't miss the mark or discourage you with my feedback.
Hey Nate! Thanks a bunch for your feedback, man. It means a lot that you took the time to write such a detailed message and share your thoughts on my content. Seriously, precise feedback like yours is always welcome and super helpful. You're spot on about me rushing things sometimes. With all this fast-paced content and TikTok craze, there's this fear lurking that people might get bored and swipe away. Cinemastix is a great reference for me, and you're right that maybe I need to learn a bit from him in that regard and trust the content and the viewer a bit more. On the other hand, otally agree about the audio too. I think it might have to do with the fact that I edited with some pretty bad headphones. But you're right that it's fundamental, and maybe in the coming weeks I can invest in better equipment.
Anyway, I take all of your contributions to heart, and if you have any more, they are welcome. Already cooking up the next video and taking your pointers to heart. Cheers, and big thanks again!
@@lancelloti. I watched your most recent video right after this one, and it felt a lot less rushed. My thought was you might be getting more comfortable as you go making more content. Hopefully the audio balance is an easy fix, and glad that the feedback overall was so well received. Keep up the good work, and looking forwards to more.
Great feedback! It really resonated with me. I came here after enjoying the Andy Serkis one - really great work @lancelloti! But was disappointed by this, as it felt jumbled and i wasn't clear about the point being made. Also, I haven't seen the films in the clip and was horrified by the violence, it would be ideal if there was a warning upfront. Many thanks to both of you :)
My god, YT recommended me one of your videos about Andy Serkis and I loved it so I checked. And man, your work is insane ! Great job !
Imma binge the whole channel now haha. You earned yourself a new sub !
Dude this channel deserves way more subs!
I get what this video is referring to, but isn't part of the point of the film also that it really was fun? It wasn't such a bad life afterall. We're all expecting some moral reckoning at the end, but he only gets even more rewarded, because that's the world we live in. Even the DEA agent was on the subway reflecting on this. Jordan played the cards right, despite our initial judgements of the character. And that to me is the ultimate point of this film, not to show that he was actually a bad person, but to show that we are all a bit like him.
In a way, I think these ignorant people who "misinterpret the film" are actually half right. It is a glamorour and fun lifestyle, it is worth it, to a point. But it shouldn't be. That's the actual substance of this film for me. If people walk away from this film thinking it's about how bad Jordan Belfort is, then those too, are people who are missing the point
I've always kinda viewed it as a "good things happen to bad people" ending
Glad this showed up
On my feed. Will share. Thank you! Excellent.
going through film school makes this a hard pill.
I'm the part of your first 16k subscribers. Good job with the video! 🙂
I worked at this place. My first job as a stockbroker. I learned how to sell thats for sure. This movie made Jordan a hero to people who never stopped to think if he actually adapted and had a room full of talented salespeople start buying good companies, he'd have built a beast of a firm. I can't blame the movie though, its meant to entertain
Just wanna say, this was the best Jonah role ever once he stopped being typecasted so much in this movie.
Amazing video. You will go far, man.
woah. I love videos that have a different perspective than my own. Its so fun and interesting to see the reasons why the director decided to do what they did. Great video! And congrats on almost 10k!!
there's a theory of comedy called benign violation. the theory is that comedy arises in situations where a violation of some sort occurs, but in such a way that it poses no harm or threat to the viewer. the reason wide shots are better for comedy is because it gives the audience some distance from the action, thereby giving them the space and safety to laugh at the scene. in contrast, a close-up shot puts the audience closer to the action and causes the audience to imagine themselves in the character's place. using the scene you use as an example: watching the character struggle to get to the car is funny, but imagining what it would be like to struggle to get to the car isn't funny.
Happy to be one of the first 10k subs:))
I really dig your approach to film analysis, and this/your Nightcrawler video sold me (pun intended) to subscribe! Great work, man :)
This guy’s channel is seriously good. He doesn’t even have 100k subs.
I wish you all the best pal 👊
Fantastic video, needs a bit more mixing / mastering with music and transition volumes to make things more audible. But great work mate!
Rowan Atkinson just explained 4D better than anything I've ever heard. Life is a tragedy in close-up and a comedy in longshot. If you look at any individual sliver of a moment in your time it's likely that literally everything is completely awful, but if you just zoom out a little...
👁️
you´ll probably blow up in no time. the production and writing is fantastic.
Thanks bro 🙏
Fun Fact: The movie was mostly funded by a scammer (Jho Low) who took the money from the malaysian enviroment fund and was referenced in the credits.
7:42 baddest in this context is not meant in a negative way, quite the opposite
this has become my favorite channel for cinematography and films and every upload keeps getting better and better!
I was wondering if you'll ever do a video about Drive or Fantastic Mr. Fox like a specific scene or the overall film, even tho videos on both and their cinematography have been done to death I actually wanna see your thoughts and takes on either films that I consider as one of the greats in cinema's history
Thank you so much
Keep making videos. You deserve well more than. 20k subs
Really good video man, keep up the great work!
one of the best vids ive seen abt movies
every videos of urs is so amazing
Great video super high quality and thought it was good commentary. Subscribedn
Excellent work, as always. The effort you make is impressive. Great channel!.
Thank you so much for your constant support!
You gained 50+ K subs in 2 months - thats pretty cool
Hey I don’t mean this in a bad way, but maybe if you had a thumbnail that’s not just a screenshot it would lure in more people. Your content is awesome man I learn a lot from your videos (coming from an animation major).
thanks bro! I know, it's something that generates a lot of doubts for me and something I think about a lot, but I've seen that it's very trendy to make thumbnails like that, as Cinemastix or similar channels do. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, maybe I'll try out new styles!
@@lancelloti. Honestly I appreciate more of the thumbnails that are screenshots of the video. Sometimes, those are even better thumbnails than the actual thumbnails
I always interpreted the movie as being about the effects and status of wealth and hedonism, and not entirely about Jordan himself. Of course, the movie IS about Jordan, but I never thought of the point being about him, and the message I took away the most of the entire movie is about how money and status can bail you out of situations that would otherwise be impossible to get out of. The primary indication of this, to me, is when Jordan goes to prison and it's insanely laid back because he's a rich white man convicted of a wealth related crime(s). And the juxtaposition of the FBI agent who caught him heading home on the subway looking kinda sad (btw it's been a year at least since I've seen the movie, so feel free to correct me if I misremember) demonstrates the whole backing of what Jordan was saying to him on his boat.
Great video man!
You should start a series where you dissect a scene from a viewers film and give criticism to help them improve.
I love Scorcese. I remember watching this movie, I remember enjoying it for what it was, but I've never revisited it. For most people I don't think it was a matter of misinterpreting the movie, I think it was a matter of realizing there's a difference between watching a movie and sitting through immoral torture, in order to reinforce a lesson that can easily be learned with a handful of parables from the Bible instead of 3 hours of weird debauchery that didn't even have the dignity of being actual footage.
Second video of yours I've watched, well worth the sub. Thanks!
thank you!
This was a good youtube video, thank you
I love your work. Please make many, many more cinema dissections.
Hola ElCarbono, I am really amazed with al the things your doing, keep it this way!
It's not misinterpreted, it is interpreted differently than (perhaps) Scorsese intended. Such is art.
He didn’t spend enough time with the victims or with his wife
He made him look like someone you wanted to be
Your videos are quality. Subbed
This channel is gunna blow up, vids are fantastic
great video, loved this
Amazing. And amazing how people want to be like him.
Love your videos man. Hope you'll get enough money to upgrade your mic lol
This channel is a sleeping giant. Keep it up!
been binging your stuff
Thank you, one of my best homies heavily misinterprets this movie and claims it's the best film ever? I subbed, good show!
Great, great analysis
Great cinematic content!
Your content is great
this should have way more views tf
your videos are so good
4:31 although not mentioned here it is heavily implied that Phil Leatardo spent 20 years in prison
Great vid!
The same audience that idolizes films like Fight Club and American Psycho for all the wrong reasons, are the types to do so with this movie. They love these films for all the wrong reasons. All are great films, but if you only like them for their shallow interpretation, you are to be avoided.
There is no "wrong reasons". Everyone choses his own reason.
@@RonsaRRRlol there are wrong reasons. No matter what ppl say art is supposed to be interpreted in the way it was intended to
@@kaekae1782 There are no wrong reasons. Everyone interprets art the way they want.
@@RonsaRRR they can do that and still be wrong lol.
@@kaekae1782 They are not wrong at all. You just don't understand that different people have different opinions.
The problem with Scorcese entire "Goodfellas" way of telling a story is that he never dares to go dark, deprived and pathetic enough to nail the message home "what goes around comes around." He's too interested in making an entertaining movie to have Belford rolling around in his own puke, covered in windshield glass and sobbing because he's an complete mess. Scorcese never dares to make his characters pathetic. Even at the end of Goodfellas, when Henry is unraveling from paranoia and coke, there's still cool music playing in the background, snappy edits, fast pacing. You never get to see Henry sit in a couch for 5 minutes, just snorting coke, talking to himself like the looney he's becoming. That just doesnt work with the vibe Scorsese is trying to make. You dont see Belford cheating on his wife, his wife having an emotional breakdown and it all unraveling in a big emotionall, end of relationship fight. It's just Dicaprio humping models and him saying they divorced in a throw-a-way line.
The worst part is that Scorsese has made movies like this, hard hitting gutpunches like Raging Bull, where you see "strong men" unraveling, snivelling, yelling at nothing, begging for forgiveness. It's not that the entirety of Wolf of Wall street needed to be that, but it would had been such a stronger movie if the movie landed on a somber note, the "dream" ended and reality kicked in and it kicks you straight in the teeth.
I get what you're saying, but I think the movie was supposed to be from Belfort's perspective. And I think he either didn't see his life and those situations that way, or doesn't want to let on that he did. That's why it carries that nonchalance
@@PushUphill I'm not so certain that was the point because we never hear anyone elses perspective other than Belfords that can set the record straight and talk about the events without the rosetinted college fratboy glasses Belford uses. That would actually have been great if the film played out like an interview and for 2/3ds of the movie, we get Belfords version, then in the last third, we get the version from all the people he hurt and scammed that flips the narrative on its head. But what we're left with is something that feels more like Jackass: Wall Street.
His newer works like the irishman and KOTFM really hit this home in my opinion, but since they are not entertaining movies according to the audience they have been mostly met with mediocre reception from the masses.
other title "you thought on your own for too long this is what YOU are SUPPOSE to think"
The car scene is beautiful because it mirrors how someone who is fucked up thinks they are behaving vs. how they are actually behaving. Jordan thinks he drives home okay and in reality, he has completely crashed the car into a bunch of things.
Here before this channel blows up
Uh huh
Great video. However I would point out you misspelled Belfort as Berfolt @7:37
This is a problem I've been struggling with a lot lately... the fact that as a storyteller, I could do the absolute best job at making my message or thematic content as deep and meaningful as possible, and/or try to do something unique and unconventional, in a way that I feel will benefit the world if people were to take the lesson to heart... but it won't matter. People will misinterpret it and end up using it as encouragement to believe in things that I don't agree with, and probably in fact are in direct contrast to what I was actually trying to say. Or they'll just dismiss it or hate on it, because they think I'm saying something wrong or offensive, when I'm not.
A lot of people don't understand dramatic irony in film, or stories in general... they don't understand that depiction doesn't equal condonement. They don't understand when a film is showing you something in order to say "Look at how bad this is."... they just assume if the movie wants to show it to them, it must be saying, "This is good. Look how COOL it is!" ... and if you try to work around this problem, you either end up with a story that's too obvious and on-the-nose with its messages, as a way of trying to avoid any doubt about what you're saying... or you have to make something as meaningless and shallow as possible to try to avoid saying anything at all, so nothing can be interpreted incorrectly, and you just hope people have fun. And that's okay sometimes... not every movie needs to be important or have a deep, relevant message... but a lot do. And I feel like I'm not the only filmmaker, aspiring or established, small or big... that is afraid of making meaingful stories for fear of either being attacked for saying something too controversial, or they just worry that people won't understand.
I see it happening with Dune, where people don't realize that Paul isn't a typical hero and that he's going down a bad road of revenge and tyranny... they just think, "Cool, he got revenge! What a hero for saving Arrakis from the evil Harkoennens!" ... it happened with Game of Thrones, where people didn't understand the point of Daenerys' reveal being that she was a Mad Queen in the making all along, and that you're supposed to go back and rewatch the series to re-analyze what you thought you knew, and notice that the madness was bubbling beneath the surface the entire show.... instead they were too attached to their fan theories and love of an "epic badass feminist hero"... that they just saw it as bad writing because of how fast and shocking the reveal was, and then they refuse to ever challenge their original perception, because that would hurt their ego and they don't want a story to "teach them a lesson", they just wanted Dany to be the badass feminist hero with the awesome dragons... even though it should have been clear the whole way through that this was never meant to be a conventional story, and that there were always going to be shocking twists that seemed to break the rules at first, before you go back and reframe them in retrospect and notice the warning signs were there. But that's an unconventional, complex, and very meaningful rewarding but hard process for a viewer to go through, and most people don't want storytelling to actually challenge them THAT much. When they say they want something "original" and "not dumbed down"... I don't think most people actually realize what they're really asking for, and when they get it... they turn their nose up at it, because it's not meeting their conventional expectations for what a story is "supposed to do".
Then you look at an example like this with Wolf of Wall Street, or The Matrix where conservatives took was meant to be a progressive allegory for minorities like trans people who are oppressed by the conservative systems of society and power... and turned it into a "RED PILL BRO!" cringe-fest of far-right libertarian type of bullshit that claims minorities like the LGBT community is somehow tyrannically controlling the world, so we need to get rid of liberalism/leftism... I would be mortified, if I was the Wachowskis, that I had helped inspire or encourage a movement like that. That is not what I want my stories to do if I put them out in the world.
And that's why I can't just ignore the problem either. It'd be nice to say, "Ah, don't worry what people will think... just tell your stories for you and the audience you'll find." ... except that it won't just find my audience, it'll find whatever audience it does, and I don't just want ANY audience to have their bullshit pre-conceived notions somehow reinforced by misinterpreting my work. In a lot of ways, I would LOVE to be able to just put a film out there and never have to say anything about what I intended... I'd love to be Terrance Mallick and basically not exist in the public eye aside from my films and a "Written & Directed by" credit. That'd actually be ideal for my shy introverted self, who for some reason nonetheless wants to make famous movies.... the thing is, I actually do care about storytelling as a way of exploring ideas for humanity so that we can evolve and grow better... I think it can be more powerful than direct politics or any other forms of culture. But not when it falls on deaf ears or blind eyes, or gets twisted into something terrible. I don't want to put things out into the world if I fear, or know, they'll have a bad effect on the world. It's a matter of ethics and morality as a person, and you can't separate that from being an artist. And as an artist, I'm drawn to very complicated, politically/culturally/philosophically relevant and often hard-hitting type of content, and that's the type of stuff that people are most likely to misunderstand and possibly use badly... it's a real fundamental dilemma for me.
I don't know what the answer is, but like i said... it's just something I'm struggling with.
The purpose of writing isn't to tell people what to think. It's to make people feel. What people think about your work or your characters is something you will never be able to control, only influence by what you make them say or do. Stop believing that you need to make people think a certain way, and instead focus on how it makes people feel. Feelings are easier to invoke than meaningful thoughts- and meaningful thoughts will manifest themselves out of the feelings you invoke.
Really well made video
I get the analysis of the shots for him getting to the car but something is missing here. They mention how other movies offer a perspective visually or by putting you in the actors shoes and that he doesn't do that but HE DID! Not only is the whole scene his perspective and narration with a big reveal of the reality when his car is obviously crashed and smashed up BUT when they switch shots they created exaggerations that only happened because of his state after taking the quaaludes. His vision or the shots that are made to be what Jordan is looking at shows a one and exaggerated staircase as well as when he's falling to make it seem like he's suffered this great fall only to reveal and re reveal that the actual stairs are just a few steps whenever they go to the wide/medium shot. So, even within the altered reality you're getting doses of "this is how he sees it but really look at it, it's just a few steps. I can't believe it wasn't briefly mentioned in the analysis when they kept focusing on that one scene (although hey maybe there's a whole video on it that I hadn't seen from this channel).
Also, I never realized people were misunderstanding it when for me it seems obvious that the story is that he got successful but at what cost with a simultaneous side of saying "look at how easy it is to be a complete mess and a horrible person but if you have money you get away with it and people eat it up and think you're great because they're blinded by the fame or money"