With all the Maddux talk, my mind has been on the 80s Cubs. I was too young at the time to fully comprehend personnel moves, but now it is pretty clear. Jim Frey was a horrible general manager. How bad? Keep in mind that he took over the job from the highly regard Dallas Green. Green made quick fixes to the team through trades-Sandberg, Dernier, Moreland, Sutcliffe, Matthews, and Eckersley were all acquired, while giving up Carter and Buckner. Green rejuvenated the Cubs' minor league system by drafting Maddux, Moyer, Palmeiro, Grace, Dunston, Girardi, Smith, and Walton.
So Frey had big shoes to fill, and he proved to be not up to the task. One of the first things he did was trade Lee Smith to Boston for Calvin Shiraldi and Al Nipper. This looks like it might have been a salary dump. Whatever the reason, it was a disaster in 1988. To replace Smith Frey traded Moreland to San Diego for an over the hill Goose Gossage. Gossage still had good enough stuff to be a setup man, but his days as a competent closer were over.
The next offseason Frey, desperate for a closer, traded Palmeiro and Moyer for Mitch Williams. The trade made little sense, as Palmeiro and Moyer were still very young, were coming off good seasons, and Mitch Williams had been little better than mediocre for Texas. The trade looked a lot better when the Cubs won the division that year with Williams saving 37 games, but Williams reverted to bad after that. It should be noted that it took Moyer several years before he fine tuned his control enough to be a consistent winner, and Palmeiro needed some extra "help" on his way to 500 home runs. So even if Frey had not made the trade, it is not clear whether Palmeiro and Moyer would have benefited the Cubs.
When Williams bombed out, Frey turned to free agency and signed Dave Smith. Smith was awful. Paul Sullivan has the details about Smith, Gossage, and other horrible Cub closers.
Frey also signed George Bell and Danny Jackson. Bell had one ok year for the Cubs before Himes, the Cubs replacement for Frey, traded him for Sammy Sosa. Danny Jackson was one in a long line of erratic left handed pitchers for the Cubs (Shawn Estes and Rich Hill being two other examples).
Himes must be grateful that Jim Frey was so bad. Otherwise Himes might have the title of "worst Cubs G.M." Letting one of the greatest pitchers of all time (Maddux) leave over two million dollars ranks as the worst Cubs move ever.
One last tidbit from my 80s Cubs memory archives-when I was in high school one of my teachers, a big Cubs fan, hung up a poster or a magazine page that was titled "Future Stars." It was a grid divided into four square pictures of "future stars." Who were these future stars? I don't remember exactly, but looking at the date (the class was the fall of '87 and spring of '88) I think those four players would have been Maddux, Palmeiro, Moyer, and the one who did not pan out, Drew Hall. If that is true, then this would be quite the poster. Anyone else remember a poster like that?
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Controversy Becomes Her
For forty years, Meryl Streep has avoided controversy. Her life outside of movies has been nondescript, to say the least. So it is nice to read that she is taking a stand on Walt Disney. And no, I do not buy the argument that Walt Disney was a product of his time. Plenty of intelligent people during this time period were enlightened in their opinions about "commonly accepted" views. They might have been a small minority, but that doesn't forgive Disney or anyone else who really should have known better.
The Maddux Narrative
Watching the baseball stuff today I was amused by the talk about how Greg Maddux was calm and collected on the mound. That is not the Maddux I remember from the Cubs years. Whenever there was an argument with an umpire it was fairly common for cursing to be heard over the crowd mics. Well, any Cubs fan who paid much attention in the late eighties should remember Maddux cursing whenever he missed his location. It was easiest to hear in a road game with a sparse crowd. The smaller the crowd (especially make up games or games interrupted by really bad weather), the more one could make out individual voices. Maddux would let loose with G__Dammit! time and time again. I never heard the broadcasters acknowledge this, and I have never heard anyone else talk about this, but it did happen. He might have calmed down by his first Cy Young year, and probably seemed very mature when pitching with the Braves, but I remember the guy who was temperamental.
Back then Maddux was a half-season guy. He would be spectacular for half a season, and then struggle to do anything right for the other half of the season. I do not remember his debut season, but in 1988 he had one of the most spectacular pre-All Star Breaks halves that any pitcher has ever pitched. 15-3 record. The only reason that he did not start the All Star Game is that he pitched the Sunday before-a win against the Padres if I am remembering correctly. [yes, i did remember] After the break he went 3 and 5. I think it was less about the league figuring him out and more about Maddux losing his way with his control. He would have similar years in 89-91, before his Cy Young season in 1992.
Two specific games involving Maddux stand out in my mind. The first was when I saw him win against the Cardinals at Busch Stadium. Maddux was textbook Maddux. Great fielder on the mound, and back then he made more of an effort at hitting, frequently legging out infield hits.
The second game was also against the Cardinals. I think it was in that 1988 season. Wow, I just found the box score for that game. I must have been in school that day, but I must have gotten home just in time to see the end of the game, because I remember it clearly. Or, at least, I thought I remembered it clearly. According to the box score, Maddux pitched into the 11th inning. Even more incredible, Maddux threw 167 pitches. 167 pitches! Today, a manager would be fired for leaving a 22 year old in for 167 pitches. Now I wonder if Maddux had a tired arm in the second half of the 1988 season. Anyway, Maddux got the first two outs in the 11th. Then after two singles, he gave up an infield hit to third base. Even with the bases loaded, Zimmer left him in. Which is a good thing, because Maddux forced a weak grounder to second-OH WAIT! THE BALL HIT THE SEAM AND BOUNCED OVER SANDBERG'S HEAD! So that was one of the losses that Maddux had when he went 15-3 before the break.
Back then Maddux was a half-season guy. He would be spectacular for half a season, and then struggle to do anything right for the other half of the season. I do not remember his debut season, but in 1988 he had one of the most spectacular pre-All Star Breaks halves that any pitcher has ever pitched. 15-3 record. The only reason that he did not start the All Star Game is that he pitched the Sunday before-a win against the Padres if I am remembering correctly. [yes, i did remember] After the break he went 3 and 5. I think it was less about the league figuring him out and more about Maddux losing his way with his control. He would have similar years in 89-91, before his Cy Young season in 1992.
Two specific games involving Maddux stand out in my mind. The first was when I saw him win against the Cardinals at Busch Stadium. Maddux was textbook Maddux. Great fielder on the mound, and back then he made more of an effort at hitting, frequently legging out infield hits.
The second game was also against the Cardinals. I think it was in that 1988 season. Wow, I just found the box score for that game. I must have been in school that day, but I must have gotten home just in time to see the end of the game, because I remember it clearly. Or, at least, I thought I remembered it clearly. According to the box score, Maddux pitched into the 11th inning. Even more incredible, Maddux threw 167 pitches. 167 pitches! Today, a manager would be fired for leaving a 22 year old in for 167 pitches. Now I wonder if Maddux had a tired arm in the second half of the 1988 season. Anyway, Maddux got the first two outs in the 11th. Then after two singles, he gave up an infield hit to third base. Even with the bases loaded, Zimmer left him in. Which is a good thing, because Maddux forced a weak grounder to second-OH WAIT! THE BALL HIT THE SEAM AND BOUNCED OVER SANDBERG'S HEAD! So that was one of the losses that Maddux had when he went 15-3 before the break.
A Big Dustup
A few years ago I had to stop using Tidy Cats litter because of excessive dust. Three months ago I noticed the successor to that cat litter was suddenly very dusty. I chalked it up to a bad bag/pallet of bags. Two months later a third bag contained the same dusty litter. Maybe I should have heeded the warning when a few months back I noticed that the packaging now advertised "low dust" litter instead of "99% dust free" litter.
The dusty litter was not a long term option. The litter is under the stairwell in the basement. An out of the way place, but it is part of a larger room and the litter dust coats everything in the room, and some of it manages to float out into the rest of the finished basement. I tried an air purifier in that room a few years ago, but it could not keep up and seemed to spread the dust around. And that was when the litter was not so dusty.
So I tried a different litter. I was worried about this because I was not sure how the two cats would like it. The one cat has already had bladder issues, and the last thing I need is for this to make his situation worse. Luckily that cat had no problem with the litter. The other cat did not take to it very well. I mixed some old litter in with the new litter, and he jumped right in. He still seems to prefer that mixture, but he is doing some of his business in the purely new litter, so the old litter will be going away very soon.
The litter I switched to is World's Best Cat Litter-the green bag. It is a corn litter, and has a strong odor up close, but I am happy with it. It is a huge improvement in that there is very, very little dust. It also is much easier to scoop. I broke one of the big plastic scoopers trying to scoop the old litter.
The bad part is that this litter is more expensive, but I expect it to last longer. Regardless, the extra cost is worth it.
The dusty litter was not a long term option. The litter is under the stairwell in the basement. An out of the way place, but it is part of a larger room and the litter dust coats everything in the room, and some of it manages to float out into the rest of the finished basement. I tried an air purifier in that room a few years ago, but it could not keep up and seemed to spread the dust around. And that was when the litter was not so dusty.
So I tried a different litter. I was worried about this because I was not sure how the two cats would like it. The one cat has already had bladder issues, and the last thing I need is for this to make his situation worse. Luckily that cat had no problem with the litter. The other cat did not take to it very well. I mixed some old litter in with the new litter, and he jumped right in. He still seems to prefer that mixture, but he is doing some of his business in the purely new litter, so the old litter will be going away very soon.
The litter I switched to is World's Best Cat Litter-the green bag. It is a corn litter, and has a strong odor up close, but I am happy with it. It is a huge improvement in that there is very, very little dust. It also is much easier to scoop. I broke one of the big plastic scoopers trying to scoop the old litter.
The bad part is that this litter is more expensive, but I expect it to last longer. Regardless, the extra cost is worth it.
Cold as Ice
Frozen
Full of spoilers, and I don't care.
The princess, let's call her Ten Inch, for that ten inch waistline, is not the brightest bulb. She chooses to confront her sister at the coronation in front of a lot of people. She also wants to marry some guy she just met. At least the story acknowledges this blunder.
Then there is the newly-crowned queen, let's call her Twelve Inch, for that twelve inch waistline. Evidently she put on a couple pounds while in hiding. Never mind that shut-ins are not normally the healthiest looking people. For whatever reason she goes years without divulging her secret to her sister. One has to wonder what she is waiting for. There does not seem to be anyone to confide in, and keeping yourself confined to one room for years is a rather lonely existence. And then we have the whole young mutant "cannot control my power" aspect that has been done to death in X-Men comics for the last few decades. I guess it could not be more appropriate that Disney now owns Marvel.
Which brings me to the deceased king and queen. They are so concerned about the health of their children that they go visit trolls to save their daughter's life. And yet, they run off on a boat for no apparent good reason, in what amounts to child abandonment. Even if they were not parents it would seem ludicrous. In recorded history, kings and queens rarely if ever left their homeland, or even their castle. There are very good reasons for this. First, who is left in charge? In this movie, apparently NO ONE is in charge except for the princesses. Second, leaving creates a fantastic opportunity for a rival to move in and take over. Third, how reckless is it to go off in a ship? In the 21st century it is not even all that safe to vacation on a cruise liner.
The animation is fine. What it is lacking is a creative spark. The wow factor is lacking. Part of the problem is a lack of direction. Say what you will about Spielberg, but he does know how to ramp up thrilling moments. Brad Bird is another example. Frozen inexplicably has two directors, which ironically enough might explain the lack of direction. Functional, and nothing more.
The story is ordinary. The usual Disneyfied characters are on display. They could not come up with enough humor for the main characters, so they added in a wacky snowman. Great. Some people have raised the fact that the main hero is a woman. Is that really much to brag about for a movie in 2013? Not really a Brave stance, and it ignores the fact that the princess still needs help from the ice merchant.
We are signaled beforehand that Hans is not all he seems to be. First, there are those mutton chops. What Disney hero has a physical trait like that? Once the ice merchant comes into the picture, it is clear that either Disney will uncharacteristically present a love triangle, or Hans will be exposed as a fraud. And of course Disney took the easy way out. After all, you can never have too many villains.
The songs are weak. Typical Broadway schlock. The music is forgettable, and the lyrics are bland. There might have only been ten songs, but it sure felt like more. Anyone who likes these songs must have really low standards for what is good in a musical.
Unfortunately the success of Frozen means that we will have more animated mediocrity in the future. Notice that while recent Pixar and Dreamworks films have diminished in quality, other studios are taking advantage of the void, and Disney branded films are now creeping back into the dominant position. It is a sad state of affairs for animation.
Full of spoilers, and I don't care.
The princess, let's call her Ten Inch, for that ten inch waistline, is not the brightest bulb. She chooses to confront her sister at the coronation in front of a lot of people. She also wants to marry some guy she just met. At least the story acknowledges this blunder.
Then there is the newly-crowned queen, let's call her Twelve Inch, for that twelve inch waistline. Evidently she put on a couple pounds while in hiding. Never mind that shut-ins are not normally the healthiest looking people. For whatever reason she goes years without divulging her secret to her sister. One has to wonder what she is waiting for. There does not seem to be anyone to confide in, and keeping yourself confined to one room for years is a rather lonely existence. And then we have the whole young mutant "cannot control my power" aspect that has been done to death in X-Men comics for the last few decades. I guess it could not be more appropriate that Disney now owns Marvel.
Which brings me to the deceased king and queen. They are so concerned about the health of their children that they go visit trolls to save their daughter's life. And yet, they run off on a boat for no apparent good reason, in what amounts to child abandonment. Even if they were not parents it would seem ludicrous. In recorded history, kings and queens rarely if ever left their homeland, or even their castle. There are very good reasons for this. First, who is left in charge? In this movie, apparently NO ONE is in charge except for the princesses. Second, leaving creates a fantastic opportunity for a rival to move in and take over. Third, how reckless is it to go off in a ship? In the 21st century it is not even all that safe to vacation on a cruise liner.
The animation is fine. What it is lacking is a creative spark. The wow factor is lacking. Part of the problem is a lack of direction. Say what you will about Spielberg, but he does know how to ramp up thrilling moments. Brad Bird is another example. Frozen inexplicably has two directors, which ironically enough might explain the lack of direction. Functional, and nothing more.
The story is ordinary. The usual Disneyfied characters are on display. They could not come up with enough humor for the main characters, so they added in a wacky snowman. Great. Some people have raised the fact that the main hero is a woman. Is that really much to brag about for a movie in 2013? Not really a Brave stance, and it ignores the fact that the princess still needs help from the ice merchant.
We are signaled beforehand that Hans is not all he seems to be. First, there are those mutton chops. What Disney hero has a physical trait like that? Once the ice merchant comes into the picture, it is clear that either Disney will uncharacteristically present a love triangle, or Hans will be exposed as a fraud. And of course Disney took the easy way out. After all, you can never have too many villains.
The songs are weak. Typical Broadway schlock. The music is forgettable, and the lyrics are bland. There might have only been ten songs, but it sure felt like more. Anyone who likes these songs must have really low standards for what is good in a musical.
Unfortunately the success of Frozen means that we will have more animated mediocrity in the future. Notice that while recent Pixar and Dreamworks films have diminished in quality, other studios are taking advantage of the void, and Disney branded films are now creeping back into the dominant position. It is a sad state of affairs for animation.
PEDs and the Baseball Hall of Fame
The 2014 nominees for the Baseball Hall of Fame are soon to be announced. If I had a vote, I would not vote for someone who I feel used PEDs to enhance his performance. Of course, not everyone who used PEDs has been outed. So then how do I decide who to vote for? Somewhat similar to the way that juries decide whether someone is guilty. Only I am using a civil burden of proof, i.e. more likely than not.
What evidence do I use? What do your eyes tell you? With Mark McGuire, it was obvious. With Maddux, it was obvious that he was not using. Statistics are really more useful than the eye test. Did the player accomplish something in a season that seems incredible, if not record breaking? Did the player achieve some of his better seasons at an advanced age (35+)? Those two questions go a long way toward eliminating all the questionable candidates.
Some people claim that this is merely guesswork, and that it is impossible to be sure about the PED use that has not been confirmed. Yes, it is guesswork, but the HOF voters have already made a lot of questionable choices in the past, and my choices will at the very least match that level of responsibility.
The steroid era pretty much began with Canseco in 1986. McGuire showed up in 1987. Lenny Dykstra was a small guy who appeared more bulked up each year, culminating in statistics that did not look right for a guy who was a mediocre hitter for the Mets. Regardless of Dykstra's PED use, his career numbers are nowhere close to HOF caliber.
1993 was Mike Piazza's rookie year. Piazza's numbers each year were stunning for a catcher, very Yogi Berra like. Not for a second do I believe that they were legitimate. The story on Piazza is that he was drafted in the 62nd round by the Dodgers as a favor to Tommy Lasorda. Lasorda thought so little of Piazza's hitting ability that he advised him to learn the catching position. And yet, Piazza was able to quickly transform himself into one of the greatest, if not the greatest, hitting catchers of all time. Steroid use probably became much more widespread beginning in 1992, and the numbers started to become outrageous in the strike shortened season of 1994. The first testing of any kind was 2003. Piazza's peak years were from 1993 to 2002. After 2002 his highest batting average was .286 and his highest homerun total was 22. Are we to assume that it is a coincidence that his numbers immediately dropped off the very same year that testing began? He turned 34 in 2003, so a fall in production could be expected. But still, it is quite a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence for me.
Jeff Bagwell is another guy whose best years fit almost entirely in the peak steroid era. He didn't hit over 20 homers until his fourth full length season. That season, 1994 was the strike year. He hit 39 home runs in only 110 games. 39 home runs, in a shortened season, when he had never hit over 20 home runs before, and last but not least, playing half his games in the hitter unfriendly Astrodome. Seems like quite an unlikely feat. Bagwell's last productive year was 2004 (which was also Bonds' last big year), the year that baseball began penalizing players for testing positive. Bagwell admitted taking Andro, which was later named a banned substance. Sure, his career essentially ended at age 36, which seems "normal." But with the testing in place it would have been very difficult for him to take the same substances that prolonged the careers of so many hitters pre-2004. Another peculiar aspect of Bagwell's career is that he was not much of a power hitter in the minor leagues (only 6 homers?), which is why Boston traded him for relief pitcher Larry Anderson. Bagwell fails the "more likely than not" standard.
The other guys, Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, and Thomas all pass the test. Biggio is a little iffy to me because he was more of a longevity guy. I would not put him in this year. Thomas is the stereotypical big first baseman with a natural body type that is going to result in a lot of home runs. Is it possible he took something? Sure. But Thomas was a first round draft pick who was always expected to be a big power hitter. He also always had that big hulking body throughout his career-no huge transformation during the off-season. Originally Thomas was given a football scholarship at Auburn before switching to baseball due to injuries.
What about Jack Morris? Well, it is kinda ridiculous that one of the writers voted for Morris and left Maddux off his ballot. However, it is hard to argue with his reason that he would not vote in players from the steroid era. Except, Morris played well into the 90s. Who can say for sure that Morris didn't have help during those later years? Morris is quite the anomaly for somehow managing to stay healthy throughout his career despite throwing a ton of forkballs and a ton of innings. In fact, I cannot think of another pitcher who threw that many forkballs who came close to having a long career. Suspicious, but I'm just going to call Morris a freak of nature and assume he did not use PEDs. But was Morris good enough for the HOF? The numbers seem to say no. But I would put him in for one reason-he was the most dominant pitcher in the 80s who had good enough numbers to be seriously considered for the HOF. Go ahead and look at the list of the top pitchers from the 80s. Either they had better decades in the 70s or 90s, or they flamed out too quickly. The two Dodgers pitchers, Valenzuela and Hershiser, are good examples of guys who were dominant for a few years and then played out several seasons of mediocrity. Morris should be in, though evidently he will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to put him in.
What evidence do I use? What do your eyes tell you? With Mark McGuire, it was obvious. With Maddux, it was obvious that he was not using. Statistics are really more useful than the eye test. Did the player accomplish something in a season that seems incredible, if not record breaking? Did the player achieve some of his better seasons at an advanced age (35+)? Those two questions go a long way toward eliminating all the questionable candidates.
Some people claim that this is merely guesswork, and that it is impossible to be sure about the PED use that has not been confirmed. Yes, it is guesswork, but the HOF voters have already made a lot of questionable choices in the past, and my choices will at the very least match that level of responsibility.
The steroid era pretty much began with Canseco in 1986. McGuire showed up in 1987. Lenny Dykstra was a small guy who appeared more bulked up each year, culminating in statistics that did not look right for a guy who was a mediocre hitter for the Mets. Regardless of Dykstra's PED use, his career numbers are nowhere close to HOF caliber.
1993 was Mike Piazza's rookie year. Piazza's numbers each year were stunning for a catcher, very Yogi Berra like. Not for a second do I believe that they were legitimate. The story on Piazza is that he was drafted in the 62nd round by the Dodgers as a favor to Tommy Lasorda. Lasorda thought so little of Piazza's hitting ability that he advised him to learn the catching position. And yet, Piazza was able to quickly transform himself into one of the greatest, if not the greatest, hitting catchers of all time. Steroid use probably became much more widespread beginning in 1992, and the numbers started to become outrageous in the strike shortened season of 1994. The first testing of any kind was 2003. Piazza's peak years were from 1993 to 2002. After 2002 his highest batting average was .286 and his highest homerun total was 22. Are we to assume that it is a coincidence that his numbers immediately dropped off the very same year that testing began? He turned 34 in 2003, so a fall in production could be expected. But still, it is quite a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence for me.
Jeff Bagwell is another guy whose best years fit almost entirely in the peak steroid era. He didn't hit over 20 homers until his fourth full length season. That season, 1994 was the strike year. He hit 39 home runs in only 110 games. 39 home runs, in a shortened season, when he had never hit over 20 home runs before, and last but not least, playing half his games in the hitter unfriendly Astrodome. Seems like quite an unlikely feat. Bagwell's last productive year was 2004 (which was also Bonds' last big year), the year that baseball began penalizing players for testing positive. Bagwell admitted taking Andro, which was later named a banned substance. Sure, his career essentially ended at age 36, which seems "normal." But with the testing in place it would have been very difficult for him to take the same substances that prolonged the careers of so many hitters pre-2004. Another peculiar aspect of Bagwell's career is that he was not much of a power hitter in the minor leagues (only 6 homers?), which is why Boston traded him for relief pitcher Larry Anderson. Bagwell fails the "more likely than not" standard.
The other guys, Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, and Thomas all pass the test. Biggio is a little iffy to me because he was more of a longevity guy. I would not put him in this year. Thomas is the stereotypical big first baseman with a natural body type that is going to result in a lot of home runs. Is it possible he took something? Sure. But Thomas was a first round draft pick who was always expected to be a big power hitter. He also always had that big hulking body throughout his career-no huge transformation during the off-season. Originally Thomas was given a football scholarship at Auburn before switching to baseball due to injuries.
What about Jack Morris? Well, it is kinda ridiculous that one of the writers voted for Morris and left Maddux off his ballot. However, it is hard to argue with his reason that he would not vote in players from the steroid era. Except, Morris played well into the 90s. Who can say for sure that Morris didn't have help during those later years? Morris is quite the anomaly for somehow managing to stay healthy throughout his career despite throwing a ton of forkballs and a ton of innings. In fact, I cannot think of another pitcher who threw that many forkballs who came close to having a long career. Suspicious, but I'm just going to call Morris a freak of nature and assume he did not use PEDs. But was Morris good enough for the HOF? The numbers seem to say no. But I would put him in for one reason-he was the most dominant pitcher in the 80s who had good enough numbers to be seriously considered for the HOF. Go ahead and look at the list of the top pitchers from the 80s. Either they had better decades in the 70s or 90s, or they flamed out too quickly. The two Dodgers pitchers, Valenzuela and Hershiser, are good examples of guys who were dominant for a few years and then played out several seasons of mediocrity. Morris should be in, though evidently he will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to put him in.
The Wolf of Wall Street
Start with the title. The animal metaphor runs throughout the movie. Where is the humanity here? That is the whole point, is it not? A story detailing a hero's showdown with a villain is too easy. The FBI agent would have been the hero if the adaptation had been in other hands. Here he is shown as just another cog in the machine, waiting for orders from above and riding the subway home.
The likeness to Goodfellas is obviously intentional. Who is more gangster? Except for a couple instances, Goodfellas "wins" in the area of violence. Otherwise, the difference in profession is in name only. Even Belfort's "captains" start out as small time hoods. No one had to be dangled from the top of a building for the comparison to be valid.
Sometimes the general response to a movie can shape one's perception. The more objections there are, the more I am convinced that Wolf is a brilliantly constructed movie. Whereas Goodfellas had a bleak ending, with Henry Hill's life uprooted and the threat of revenge hanging over his head, Belfort's ending suggests something different. Some people have qualms with that last five minutes, as if movies are supposed to follow the old Hays Code (1930, though it was not really enforced until Joseph Breen took over in 1934, which is why movies released before 1934 are considered to be pre-code). If the evildoer does not receive appropriate comeuppance, it is an offense to society. Or, as the Hays Code enumerates, "the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin." Even in 2014 people object to being told that crime pays. I am reminded of the classic episode of The Simpsons where Bart learns that "crime doesn't pay" only to observe the line of limos owned by Fat Tony. The main indictment in Wolf is not Belfort at all, but the system that propagates, encourages, rewards, and protects people like Belfort. Some viewers evidently do not see it that way, but to me it is obvious.
The impetus for Scorsese to make this movie had to be The Great Recession of 2008 and its aftermath, which made the literally dated events relevant again. The parallel between Belfort selling worthless penny stocks to lower class people and the bankers who sold mortgages to people who could not really afford them in the early 2000s is striking. The lack of prosecutions by the Justice Department in the wake of the recession really point to the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime cases of stocks and investments, even with the added regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley (2002). Paper or digital trails do not seem to be enough, perhaps because much of the trail can be eliminated with the click of a button. Consider also the top lawyers that millionaires can afford, and the case becomes very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Better for the government to settle than embark on a costly prosecution. These defendants have the bargaining chip of many millions of dollars, enabling them to buy their way out of jail time. If that is not enough, then rat out your friends. All of this assumes that the government has some kind of case. The government did not have much on Belfort until the the flukey Florida bust, when they found someone willing to testify against him. Eyewitnesses must be hard to come by.
While Goodfellas is also memorable for its music, the music in Wolf did not make much of an impression on me. Or rather, it failed to enhance the viewing experience. Maybe I need a second viewing to better appreciate it. When I say music, I mean the multitude of songs that are used throughout the movie. The songs reflect several genres, and their use is often anachronistic. As far as I noticed Wolf does not have a score. What it does have is "The Money Chant," which is almost as memorable as "Layla" was in Goodfellas. By the way, "The Money Chant" appears to be a new creation from frequent Scorsese collaborator Robbie Robertson.
The Wolf of Wall Street is not the first movie with that title. Go all the way back to 1929 for the first version. Leonard Maltin provides plenty of details on his blog
Wolf has only played for about ten days, but already many critics have weighed in above and beyond "review" critiques:
Andrew O'Hehir-"The War over Wolf of Wall Street." Plenty of links herein.
David Haglund-"How Accurate Is The Wolf of Wall Street?"-Not that it really matters for the purposes of the movie, but this is an interesting rundown of the real people and factual events.
The likeness to Goodfellas is obviously intentional. Who is more gangster? Except for a couple instances, Goodfellas "wins" in the area of violence. Otherwise, the difference in profession is in name only. Even Belfort's "captains" start out as small time hoods. No one had to be dangled from the top of a building for the comparison to be valid.
Sometimes the general response to a movie can shape one's perception. The more objections there are, the more I am convinced that Wolf is a brilliantly constructed movie. Whereas Goodfellas had a bleak ending, with Henry Hill's life uprooted and the threat of revenge hanging over his head, Belfort's ending suggests something different. Some people have qualms with that last five minutes, as if movies are supposed to follow the old Hays Code (1930, though it was not really enforced until Joseph Breen took over in 1934, which is why movies released before 1934 are considered to be pre-code). If the evildoer does not receive appropriate comeuppance, it is an offense to society. Or, as the Hays Code enumerates, "the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin." Even in 2014 people object to being told that crime pays. I am reminded of the classic episode of The Simpsons where Bart learns that "crime doesn't pay" only to observe the line of limos owned by Fat Tony. The main indictment in Wolf is not Belfort at all, but the system that propagates, encourages, rewards, and protects people like Belfort. Some viewers evidently do not see it that way, but to me it is obvious.
The impetus for Scorsese to make this movie had to be The Great Recession of 2008 and its aftermath, which made the literally dated events relevant again. The parallel between Belfort selling worthless penny stocks to lower class people and the bankers who sold mortgages to people who could not really afford them in the early 2000s is striking. The lack of prosecutions by the Justice Department in the wake of the recession really point to the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime cases of stocks and investments, even with the added regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley (2002). Paper or digital trails do not seem to be enough, perhaps because much of the trail can be eliminated with the click of a button. Consider also the top lawyers that millionaires can afford, and the case becomes very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Better for the government to settle than embark on a costly prosecution. These defendants have the bargaining chip of many millions of dollars, enabling them to buy their way out of jail time. If that is not enough, then rat out your friends. All of this assumes that the government has some kind of case. The government did not have much on Belfort until the the flukey Florida bust, when they found someone willing to testify against him. Eyewitnesses must be hard to come by.
While Goodfellas is also memorable for its music, the music in Wolf did not make much of an impression on me. Or rather, it failed to enhance the viewing experience. Maybe I need a second viewing to better appreciate it. When I say music, I mean the multitude of songs that are used throughout the movie. The songs reflect several genres, and their use is often anachronistic. As far as I noticed Wolf does not have a score. What it does have is "The Money Chant," which is almost as memorable as "Layla" was in Goodfellas. By the way, "The Money Chant" appears to be a new creation from frequent Scorsese collaborator Robbie Robertson.
The Wolf of Wall Street is not the first movie with that title. Go all the way back to 1929 for the first version. Leonard Maltin provides plenty of details on his blog
Wolf has only played for about ten days, but already many critics have weighed in above and beyond "review" critiques:
Andrew O'Hehir-"The War over Wolf of Wall Street." Plenty of links herein.
David Haglund-"How Accurate Is The Wolf of Wall Street?"-Not that it really matters for the purposes of the movie, but this is an interesting rundown of the real people and factual events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)