Hollywood Relativism

[Brainwrong]

Bear with me here.

So, we have two films, made by the same director, two absolute classics (in my opinion), well acted, well scripted.

One is about mafia crime, the other is about white collar crime.

Both, to an extent, glamorise the criminals in exactly the same way even though both main protagonists are misogynistic, womanising, drug using, amoral, and to all intents and purposes; loveable rogues who leave a trail of broken, shattered lives in their wake and ultimately rat out their friends to save their own skins.

But, the reaction to both films is very different.

The mafia film is quite rightly lauded for the excellent piece of cinema that it is. Whereas the white collar movie is castigated for not having likeable characters.

Now, forgive me for saying so, but is this not a massive hypocrisy? Picking and choosing what we find acceptable because white collar crime isn't as easily romanticised as mafia crime apparently is?

That's before you even mention the fact that not liking a movie because you don't like any of the characters is a ludicrous assertion in the first place.

My own feelings on this are that the folk that don't like it, don't like it due to inverted snobbery. They feel they can't like it because white collar criminals are part of the machine they rail against and identify as an enemy. Possibly a little simplistic.

The two films?

Goodfellas vs. The Wolf of Wall Street.

Thoughts?

 

[Jack]

That's Hollywood!

They tell you a story.

In every part of that story you are in their clutches; every emotion; every feeling; everything you experience; love, hate, empathy, anger, while watching that movie is manipulated so that you become part of the story for an hour or two. There is nothing on screen (expect for the odd blooper) that isn't meant. Its absolutely fascinating to me how they do it and I can hardly watch a film for the story for watching how they do do it.

 

[Brainwrong]

That's Hollywood!

They tell you a story.

In every part of that story you are in their clutches; every emotion; every feeling; everything you experience; love, hate, empathy, anger, while watching that movie is manipulated so that you become part of the story for an hour or two. There is nothing on screen (expect for the odd blooper) that isn't meant. Its absolutely fascinating to me how they do it and I can hardly watch a film for the story for watching how they do do it.

Did you view this on mobile? The reason I ask is when I look at this on mobile, my whole post isn't there, only a small paragraph nearing the end of my point. Which would make your post make more sense i.e. if you hadn't seen my whole post.

 

[Jack]

Did you view this on mobile? The reason I ask is when I look at this on mobile, my whole post isn't there, only a small paragraph nearing the end of my point. Which would make your post make more sense i.e. if you hadn't seen my whole post.

Hollywood makes money for its investors.

My post was more about how it makes money and the fact it is more shallow than I could ever aspire to.

They do ironing to a level us mere mortals can only dream of.

 

[Two Headed Boy]

Henry Hill stole from big companies, banks and had an honour amongst thieves thing going on for most of the movie. Whereas Jordan Belfort made his millions by ripping off your average joe and exploits everyone in his life right throughout. That's probably the difference rather than the two characters behaviour, both of whom were equally despicable.

For what it's worth I thought both films were brilliant.

 

[Sancho Panza]

I have to disagree. Goodfellas was criticised at the time for glamourising its subject matter. The fact that it doesn't make any moral judgements about its protagonists seriously counted against it in the academy awards. That ending, with Henry Hill bemoaning his fate as an average nobody before slamming the door and Sid Vicious singing My Way over the closing credits, was effectively a massive two fingers to the audience and was reflected in the fact that the film and Scorsese were passed over in the Oscars for that worthy Kevin Costner tripe Dances With Wolves (Joe Pesci's Supporting Actor gong notwithstanding). That still boils my pish after all these years as Goodfellas may well be my all-time favourite film. :pullhair:

 

[aggie]

I have to disagree. Goodfellas was criticised at the time for glamourising its subject matter. The fact that it doesn't make any moral judgements about its protagonists seriously counted against it in the academy awards. That ending, with Henry Hill bemoaning his fate as an average nobody before slamming the door and Sid Vicious singing My Way over the closing credits, was effectively a massive two fingers to the audience and was reflected in the fact that the film and Scorsese were passed over in the Oscars for that worthy Kevin Costner tripe Dances With Wolves (Joe Pesci's Supporting Actor gong notwithstanding). That still boils my pish after all these years as Goodfellas may well be my all-time favourite film. :pullhair:

Still amazes me to this day.

 

[Brainwrong]

Henry Hill stole from big companies, banks and had an honour amongst thieves thing going on for most of the movie. Whereas Jordan Belfort made his millions by ripping off your average joe and exploits everyone in his life right throughout. That's probably the difference rather than the two characters behaviour, both of whom were equally despicable.

For what it's worth I thought both films were brilliant.

Yes, Belfort started off with the Penny Stocks but moved on to the twisted Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to himself. Henry Hill I suppose started that was from the off but there was the added factor where human life rather than financial collateral damage was a large, breezed over factor. What I'm trying to say, whilst accepting the differences you state, is that really, both men were selfish bastards but in retrospect Goodfellas is not now judged in the same way as Wolf is by certain movie goers & critics.

I have to disagree. Goodfellas was criticised at the time for glamourising its subject matter. The fact that it doesn't make any moral judgements about its protagonists seriously counted against it in the academy awards. That ending, with Henry Hill bemoaning his fate as an average nobody before slamming the door and Sid Vicious singing My Way over the closing credits, was effectively a massive two fingers to the audience and was reflected in the fact that the film and Scorsese were passed over in the Oscars for that worthy Kevin Costner tripe Dances With Wolves (Joe Pesci's Supporting Actor gong notwithstanding). That still boils my pish after all these years as Goodfellas may well be my all-time favourite film. :pullhair:

You're right. My comparision was that folk castigating Wolf for the same reasons Goodfellas was castigated on release are comparing the two films now and in retrospect ignoring the fact that both protagonists are essentially the same amoral bams, and coming to the conclusion they don't like Wolf because the characters are unlikeable. I think they're just as abhorrent in both films on a moral level but both films are total escapsim romps that defy the viewer to not enjoy some viceral voyerism.

Also, for the record; I love both films. Goodfellas probably being my favourite of the Mafia genre.