The Wolf of Wall Street - Analytical Essay

Kevin Smock

29 December 2013

            Martin Scorsese’s most recent film, The Wolf of Wall Street, is reminiscent of the fan favorite release Goodfellas in terms of its narration and structure. And, to make things clear, the term “narration” in this sense refers to the way in which information is distributed, not in the sense that the film has a narrator (even though both of these films do). While we’re on the topic of the narrator though, the big difference between the narrator in The Wolf and Goodfellas is the fact that we, as an audience, physically see DiCaprio talking to the camera. Scorsese puts to use what’s called “breaking the fourth wall”: making a character within the diegesis of the film aware that they are being watched by an outsider and therefore letting the character communicate directly with them. Essentially, during the moments that we witness DiCaprio speak directly into the camera, he is non-diegetic: he’s acknowledged by the audience but not by any other being within the diegetic, story world of the film. This attribute of the film will further demonstrate another component of the film, which is the fact that the whole story is simply a retrospective account of events via what Jordan knows and has experienced. An example of this within the film is when Jordan drives home from the country club to his home. He is shown to us cautiously driving home and making it there safe and sound. However, when the cops arrive at the house moments later, Jordan’s voice over narration kicks in and tells us that the way his drive home was just expressed to us moments ago was not the reality of the drive home at all, in fact. Then, we’re shown Jordan’s white sports car swerving through the roads and banging into everything on the way. This moment of subjectivity, which so wittily plays with the audience’s expectations, is in fact what the whole film is, just a guy telling us about what happened to him. For all we know, Jordan can be making the whole thing up, similar to the five flashbacks of Welles’s Citizen Kane. They’re completely subjective and bound to the memory of the five characters investigated by Thompson.

            The film opens up in the heat of it of it all. We’re given a wild montage of Jordan’s endeavors as a Wall Street big shot. However, we backtrack from that moment big time. We jump back in time to Jordan’s first day on Wall Street and then, in true Aristotlian fashion, a huge turn of the wheel is thrown at us: Wall Street essentially crashes. Jordan is now out of a job. Personally, I couldn’t of seen this coming from two feet away. I figured we were going to watch a small man on the job work is way up, and we actually do, but not in the way which I initially expected. Jordan builds his company, Stratton Oakmont, from the ground up... and I mean from the GROUND. He has a bunch of hometown bums working for his stock agency that he runs out of a car garage with some dude he met at a diner.

            The beginning of Act II begins with Jordan being able to legitimately utilize his business and open it publically in New York City. After a series of ups and downs and marrying his new wife, Naomi, the midpoint (central conflict) occurs when Jordan is forced to move the accounts of his illegal business to Switzerland, with Rugrat’s college friend, to ensure the safety of the business from the FBI. The climax, which I must say is questionable to me since so many game changing events occurred around the break into Act III, occurs when Donnie blows the cover of the money swap in the Long Island strip mall with Brad. I’ve boiled this moment down to being the climax because this is what causes the increase in emotionally negative scenes for Jordan to occur. Also, it’s because it has a lot to do with the welfare of Jordan’s business (along with all the other crucial plot points), which is able to produce his materialistic, addictive, and sexual needs which Jordan strives off of.

            Speaking of Donnie... He has much to do with the narrative development of the film. He is the reason Jordan is able to build the business he owns and operates (break into Act II); He is the reason the business gets caught (climax). In Christopher Vogler’s book, The Writer’s Journey, the character archetypes developed by psychologist Carl Yung are discussed in great detail. One of them includes “The Shapeshifter”: Basically, a character that is unpredictable and is responsible for many plot reversals. This archetype is strongly presented in another one of Scrosese’s films, Casino, where Sharon Stone’s character creates additional turmoil between Deniro's character and Pesci’s character.

            The film’s title, The Wolf of Wall Street, certainly connects to the context of the film, and not just in the sense that Jordan is a Wall Street big shot, it is much more subtle than that. Animals in general serve as an important motif throughout the whole film.

For instance, the film opens with what is, but we are not fully aware of at the time, a commercial for Jordan’s company. In the commercial there is a lion walking around the office which is probably meant to represent some sort of noble, powerful merit that this business exemplifies. However, this image is directly juxtaposed with a scene of the office members playing this sort of bizarre game with midgets as darts. Honestly, it is extremely difficult to describe what is occurring at that point, but what’s important is that the office members are acting like animals. Not noble animals though, wild animals. The lion is a metaphor for the mens' behavior. Also, the lion being tranquil also symbolizes a sort of façade that the men have to put on from time to time throughout the film. Such as when Jordan’s dad, who has a say in the financial matter of the business, is around or when some sort of investigator is around. Also, outside of work the men constantly have to conceal their barbarian like behavior of drug use and prostitutes.

            Another important use of the animal motif is that when we see Jean from Switzerland he is framed with a fish tank behind him. Then, later in the film, right before the company is preparing to sell Steve Madden stock, one of the employees is cleaning out his fish bowl. Donnie, in a fit of rage, swallows the man’s fish and then fires him. Well, this seems to really come back to haunt him during the climax when Rugrat blows the Swiss bank account cover. It can be said that Jean, who is constantly framed with fish, plays a part in “swallowing” the company.

            Also, after Jordan’s speech about sticking with Stratton Oakmont (even though the company being in his name will lead to great misfortune) the whole company explodes in celebration. Jordan ends up igniting an old chant that Mark Hanna taught him on his first day on Wall Street. While this moment also serves as a brilliant callback to Act I, it also gives the people in the office an opportunity to act like savages and in fact release animal noises. A vivid image that sticks with me is Donnie’s beastly bird call into the microphone.

            Another motif used in the film is a sound motif which occurs between Jordan and the only two major foreign characters in the film: Aunt Emma from London and Jean from Switzerland. During Jordan’s dialogue with Jean, we’re given subjective (or internal), diegetic sound of Jordan’s thoughts and Jean’s thoughts, which seem to be in agreement with one another but in a very harsh and sarcastic manner. During Jordan’s dialogue with Aunt Emma, he questions whether Aunt Emma is coming onto him or not. Perhaps this motif is only implemented with foreign characters to convey Jordan’s uncertainty with outside sources. After all, Jordan is an unflattering portrait of the American businessman.

            Scorsese puts to use a wonderful visual metaphor that conveys the importance of drugs to Jordan. After Jordan and Donnie, both overdosed on a highly paralyzing drug, have just had a blowout fight concerning the business, Donnie decides to eat some food but soon begins choking. Naomi is unable to help Donnie and begs Jordan to snap out of his comatose state and do something. Donnie looks up to the television set and notices that Popeye The Sailor Man is on. From that point, shots of Popeye consuming his spinach are intercut with Jordan sniffing his cocaine. This draws a mean parallel: Jordan is more likely to deal with something in a more level headed manner if he is under the influence of cocaine, just like when Popeye has his spinach. This moment is comical, witty, conceptual, and most of all, accurate.

            Another wonderful moment in the film occurs when Jordan is wired in the office. He sparks up a dialogue with Donnie while writing on a sheet of paper a warning not to admit any wrongdoings. What makes this moment so special is how true the rest of the scene is to the craft of visual storytelling. Donnie’s upset reaction at Jordan giving in to the demands of the law cannot be made clear by dialogue, only Jonah Hill’s performance, Thelma Schoonmaker’s emphasis via the edits, and some subtext. A close up of Donnie covering up the yellow sheet of paper is shown, and then is later shown during a recognition scene where the police arrest Jordan. No explanation of the arrest is needed, all the explanation Jordan needs is summed up in the presence of the yellow piece of paper. That paper simply means, “Donnie snitched on you.” Again, another great tribute to visual storytelling.

            The theme of this film is not simple nor singular. However, to me the most important theme is really tied up in the end when two images are juxtaposed: Jordan riding into jail by bus –vs- Agent Denham riding a dirty subway train home from work surrounded by strange folk. Both these images were discussed during the midpoint of the film, when Jordan and Denham met on the yacht. What it all boils down to is this: In a jungle-like world, no beast ever really turns out on top.