The Big Short

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Adam McKay/Starring: Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, Marisa Tomei and Hamish Linklater

I thought all the horrors of the economic recession of 2008 had been dramatized in film. The Company Men, Margin Call and the more recent 99 Homes have all given movie audiences a taste of what preceded or followed the near collapse of the American economy; a tragedy whose impact is still being felt domestically and abroad. But with director Adam McKay's The Big Short; adapted from Michael Lewis' non-fiction book of the same name, we learn there is still much to say--and learn--about the subject. And what may or may not be surprising to the viewer is that a film about said crisis can still elicit a powerful gag response. McKay's film, which is at times darkly comic, is absorbing from the opening bell while challenging us to fathom the abstruse minutiae of the housing market's rise and fall. Unlike the aforementioned films, The Big Short makes an earnest attempt to educate the viewer about the hows and whys of how the bubble burst.

Though the story is factual, McKays's characters are wont to tell us when the story strays into the fictitious with into-the-camera asides that lend the film an element of stage theatricality.

The story is told from the perspective of several Wall Street outsiders. One of them; a numbers prodigy and former doctor named Michael Burry (Christian Bale), is a hedge fund manager who foresees the imminent collapse of the mortgage lending market; a prediction for which he asserts much confidence. Unable to find anyone who will heed his warnings, Burry buys what are called credit default swaps (CDS). I'm not nearly qualified to explain the nature and functions of CDS', though characters in the film make an earnest attempt to illuminate the audience. In essence, they allow the holder to profit from defaulted housing loans.
Burry is seen as a loon when he visits several investment firms; Goldman Sachs among them, to buy up CDS' in mass quantity. His bulk purchases draw the attention of Wall Street and a major investor under Burry's consultation, who is less than happy with what he sees as investment disaster in the making.

But not everyone believes Burry is out of his mind. An investor named Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) sees that Burry's prognostication is worthy of attention, which prompts his own high volume purchase.

A misdirected phone call brings Vennett's investment to the attention of a trader named Mark Baum (Steve Carell), who, along with his fellow group of traders, becomes intrigued with the sudden interest in CDS traffic. We learn early that Baum is a man of unassailable integrity; his crusade against foul play and fraud on Wall Street is his most salient characteristic. Sometime later, Vennett meets with Baum and his team and in explaining his interest in CDS, he also takes the time to explain the intricate workings of sub-prime loans.

Skeptical of Burry's prophecy, Baum and his team embark on a fact-finding mission to Florida; a hot-spot for housing loans. Among those Baum and his colleagues encounter are a couple of arrogant real estate agents, who divulge their unethical practice of loan disbursement to those who would otherwise be unqualified. Baum's probing questions reveal disquieting facts about said lending practices, which the two men hardly feel the need to hide. Baum's associates confirm the real estate agents' claims when they visit an upscale home in an upscale neighborhood; where they find one occupant living beyond his means. This is followed by an absurdly funny scene where Baum visits a gentleman's club to talk to a stripper who has also benefited from lax housing loan practices to secure not one but several loans. Confident that what they've found confirms Burry's warnings, Baum initiates his own purchase though his superiors balk at what they believe to be a foolish investment.

A couple of young novice investors; Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Charlie Geller (John Magaro) also hope to purchase CDS' but a lack of reputation and standing on Wall Street stands as an impediment. Needing investment capital to achieve their goal, the two men seek a Wall Street player who might vouch for them and serve as their entree into the lofty world of investing. The man they approach is an eccentric retired banker named Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), who sees Jamie and Charlie are on to a solid, money-making scheme but also recognizes their success might come at the expense of the American economy.

In time, as the collapse approaches, all the parties invested in the CDS purchases begin to realize the magnitude of fraud involved the housing market decline, which they rightly attribute to the banking system. And when the collapse actually occurs and the economy goes to hell, we see its horrific effects as Wall Street personnel are dismissed from their jobs en masse while many of the unemployed are forced to join long queues of those looking for work in the hourly-wage world.

And as the collapse commences, Burry, Baum and Rickert are all very aware of what is to come while the more amoral Vennett, seen sitting at his desk alone; stares contentedly at a 47 million dollar check; the noxious fruit of his investment.
Given the widespread unscrupulousness of Wall Street, it is astonishing to find anyone felt any of the mess to be sordid and immoral.

McKay's film gives us a valuable and penetrating portrait of the causes and the aftermath of the 2008 economic collapse. This is accomplished with an outstanding script, expertly adapted by McKay and screenwriter Charles Randolph. The jargon and terminology of the Wall Street world is never an impediment to the drama. Without oversimplifying the material, McKay ensures we can follow along without succumbing to the dizzying developments, which never seem to be completely comprehensible (at least to me).

The ensemble cast is one of the best I've seen this year. Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Christian Bale and Brad Pitt are all outstanding, as are the supporting cast. Carell's growth as an actor is proceeding swimmingly; showing us his flair for drama, which began with Foxcatcher.

McKay never adopts a self-righteous tone; the story itself speaks volumes about the evil perpetrated by the American banking system. We see a particularly affective scene near the end, where Shipley and Geller's exuberant celebrations are squelched by Rickert's sober reproach, who remind them that their windfall from their CDS' comes at the price of the lost jobs and homes.

The end subtitles tell us something about the aftermath. Rather than being punished, the bankers behind the disaster were instead bailed out by the American people. To render an already horrid tragedy ludicrous, the unrepentant bankers also received staggering bonuses. Another subtitle tells us about how Burry proposed informing the government how he came to anticipate the collapse, only to become the the subject of an investigation.

The Big Short is easily one of the best films of the year. Its intricate but riveting plot keeps our minds alert while showing us--contrary to what we've been taught--crimes do go unpunished, particularly those on Wall Street. It also demonstrates that accountability has become a whimsical notion in America. If only McKay's brilliant film could bring about some arrests...that would be lovely.

By The Sea--or--The Elegance of Suffering

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Angelina Jolie-Pitt/Starring: Angelina Jolie-Pitt, Brad Pitt, Niels Arestrup, Melanie Laurent and Melvil Poupaud

Angelina Jolie-Pitt follows up her 2015 drama Unbroken with her latest cinematic effort By the Sea; a stale, thinly-plotted, timid and stubbornly bland story about a couple seeking refuge in a French Mediterranean town. The couple seeks escape from marital woes, writer's block and recent tragedies that threaten to sunder their relationship. Jolie-Pitt's third film does little to build on a still budding directorial career that has showed little promise. If her new film can be said to make a statement, it is that she shows no flair for visual composition, storytelling or challenging her actors (including herself) in meaningful ways. She is neither a visualist nor a dramatist. But, that is hardly an impediment to one half of the most popular and glamorous acting couple on the planet. Being one of the world's most famous actresses allows one opportunities to pick and choose projects and write and direct, irrespective of said person's limited artistic range. Many actors step behind the camera and many demonstrate innate, directorial talents. One such actor is French actress Melanie Laurent, who happens to be in Jolie-Pitt's newest film and whose recent Breathe established her auteurist bona fides. One would be hard-pressed to find a wider disparity in talent. While Laurent's film was a psychologically dark portrait of a venomous friendship, Jolie-Pitt's is a shallow drama with dark pretensions. It is all pose and attitude and a little child with ideas too big to express.

The film settles quickly into its story as we see Roland (Brad Pitt) and Vanessa (Angelina Jolie-Pitt) arrive at seaside hotel in the French Mediterranean; their stylish convertible tells us economized traveling is hardly a concern. Within the first minutes of being in their room, which boasts a beautiful view of the Mediterranean, the couple rearrange the furniture to provide Roland a view in which to write.

In the days that follow, Roland seeks his own escape in the local restaurant/watering hole; run by a native named Michel (Niels Arestrup, from A Prophet), who listens to the writer's mopey tales of marital disenchantment. When not lending a sympathetic ear, he helps a drunken Roland to the door or in one instance, expels him for being an inebriated lout.

And while Roland wiles away the hours at Michel's establishment, Vanessa spends her time mostly cooped-up on the hotel room, looking stylishly tragic in her loose, flowing gowns. She never once wears slacks or dresses down the entire film. The suffering with which she copes is articulated in couture elegance. In fact, the way she lolls about the furniture in her gowns reminded me of a perfume commercial. I could almost hear a soothing, female voice say; Suffering...by Givenchy.

Providing some distraction are the sensual female, Mediterranean bodies she sees sunbathing below her room, which also awaken voyeuristic tendencies that become more manifest as the film progresses.

And why all the angst and dourness? What has the couple suffered that would make a moody sojourn on the French Mediterranean necessary?

Jolie-Pitt maintains the mystery; teasing the viewer with visual flashes that are supposed to offer clues but instead just keep us in the dark.

As the days pass; the couple remain alienated from one another in their respective daily distractions. They discover a French couple on their honeymoon have just occupied the room next to theirs and while sitting out on her patio one day, the man; Francois (Melvil Poupaud), and Vanessa make seemingly light conversation though the exchange bears some sexual tension.

Before the monotony of languorous living begins to take hold, Vanessa discovers a hole in the wall connecting her room to the couple next door. After an initial look-see, she begins to peep through the hole regularly, particularly when the French couple are in the throes of passion. I found this development very welcome because one wonders at this point if the film has anywhere to go. I thought; great, some Hitchcockian or David Lynchian psycho-sexual shenanigans to give the film a much needed defibrillation. Vanessa becomes titillated by the sight of French couple's lovemaking and before long, her husband learns of her new hobby and joins in.

Vanessa and Roland become acquainted with the couple while the wife; Lea (Melanie Laurent), proposes some girls-only outings. But though the couples establish a amicable rapport, Vanessa and Roland continue to spy on the couple through the wall.

The voyeurism Vanessa and Roland engage in is supposed to highlight the lack of eroticism and intimacy in their own marriage and though we (and Vanessa and Roland) expect to see something steamy and maybe kinky in their surveillance, they (and we) see nothing remotely erotic. Yes, the couple have sex but it is surprisingly mundane; the kind of love-making your average honeymooners might perform at a Quality Inn. More pitiful is the thought that 50 Shades of Grey offers more lascivious thrills; a damning criticism Jolie-Pitt should find embarrassing.

In time, we learn the nature of the Damoclean Sword hanging over the Roland/Vanessa marriage but the revelation is hardly a surprise, nor is it very interesting. In spite of Roland's earnest efforts to save his marriage, he encounters stiff resistance from his wife and we begin to wonder what it might have been that made her such a catch in the first place. We also wonder if any kind of wife-swapping activity will take place. Being that the story is set in the sexually-adventurous 70s', the idea is hardly out-of-place.

The movie always threatens to go somewhere but it ends up getting in its own way and Jolie-Pitt's script, which she penned herself, doesn't allow anyone to be real. Her characters are just flimsy and shallow caricatures who behave according to vague ideas in her head.

A man seen rowing out of the harbor in the morning and back in the evening is noticed by Vanessa and Roland but aside from idle speculation as to his identity and where and why he goes where he goes, we learn nothing about him or what symbolic purpose he serves.

Always a feeble actress unless she's playing a fairy-tale character like Maleficent, Jolie-Pitt does little to convince us her grief and suffering are anything but skin-deep. She pouts and glowers and looks very glamorous doing so. The other characters are also lazily conceived. The writer experiencing writer's block and a sexless marriage seems like a retreaded plot-line from a Philip Roth or a John Updike novel. Though Brad Pitt is an infinitely more capable actor than his wife, even he can't do much with what little he's given. Ditto for Arestrup and Laurent, who are accustomed to playing characters with more depth.

The story takes its time floundering and when the climax arrives in the third act, it is followed by a very neat conclusion.

The movie, which has vanished quickly from theaters after a very limited-release, is such an eye-roller and a wince-inducer. The biggest cringe bomb is the music that plays over the final scene; Chopin's 24 Préludes, Op. 28: No. 4 in E Minor. Not only is it clumsily deployed, it is a huge slab of seriousness grafted to an unbearably silly film. I guess it's there to show us how earnest the director is and how high-minded she can be.

Jolie-Pitt has made three films and all three have been pasted by critics and bloggers alike. I guess we can give her credit for being persistent. Will she ever surprise us with a deftly-made film or even one that is skillfully competent? I'm not holding my breath. At least the viewer gets to spend some time in the French Mediterranean.
That will have to serve as compensation for anyone unlucky enough to sit through this film.

Fury

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: David Ayer/Starring: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and John Bernthal

David Ayer, the helmsman behind the gritty 2012 cop drama End of Watch, brings a grittier film to theaters with the World War II story Fury. If you thought Saving Private Ryan was a bloody, violent affair, you might find Ayer's film more so. I don't know that I've seen a grimier, filthier, more brutal depiction of war. But the visuals aren't the only element that overpowers, the sound was also fairly extraordinary. Every explosion from ordnance and every discharge from a tank barrel rattled my seat. Fury leaves almost no sense unstimulated. Ayer makes certain the audience knows war is frightening, ugly business, and he succeeds exceptionally well in that regard. There is hardly a moment where one feels the characters are far removed from the savagery of battle. Ayer maintains a heightened sense of fear; allowing the audience to feel the soldier's anxieties and dread.

But the movie also borrows too heavily from many other war films. We're left with a technically and visually arresting film whose story succumbs often to cliche.

Titles before the film inform us that American tanks were outgunned and lacked the heavy armor of their German counterparts. The implicit message in this factoid is that American tank crews were very brave but the information also helps create an atmosphere of anxiety.

Brad Pitt plays Sargent Don "Wardaddy" Collier, a battle-hardened tank commander whose tank crew has seen action in every major American/British offensive; North Africa, D-Day and now the push into Germany.

His crew has just fought a ferocious battle where bodies and carnage litter the landscape. In the collection of wreckage, Collier emerges from his possum-playing tank to stab a German officer in the eye, who happens to be wandering among the smoldering, ruined tanks. We gather from Collier's gruesome act that the depictions of battle will be unsparingly grisly.

Collier's tank crew has just lost a gunner and has arrived at a camp to take on a new recruit; a former clerk/typist named Norman (Logan Lerman), whose appalling lack of experience disgusts the entire unit. Collier and his crew are dirty, tired and ragged and have the look of soldiers who have seen too much war. The crew is also gruff, edgy, war-weary and bear a ferocious hatred of anyone in a German uniform.

Collier's crew is made up of Boyd "Bible" Swan (Shia LaBeouf), who mans the main gun and is given to quoting Bible verse; Trini "Gordo" Garcia (Michael Pena), who mans one of the machine guns and Grady "Coon-Ass" Travis (John Bernthal), the gun-loader with a heavy southern accent. The crew has seen a lot together and like Collier, have little patience for Norman's inexperience.

Collier orders Norman to clean the machine gunner's seat inside the tank, which becomes a nauseating experience after the recruit finds the chair drenched in his predecessor's blood and half his face in a stew of bodily matter. Norman exits the tank to vomit-a justifiable response. We know Norman's innocence will eventually be shattered, along with his humane disdain for violence.

Collier's crew and the unit's tank, which bears the word "Fury" on its barrel, are commanded to take part in a search and destroy mission. Joining a convoy, Collier's tank proceeds slowly on a German road until the column passes a copse of trees. Norman sees a German soldier wielding an anti-tank weapon but doesn't shoot. The German fires at the tank ahead of Collier's, incapacitating it and causing the interior to ignite. American soldiers emerge from the burning interior, bodies ablaze and in the case of one soldier, a self-inflicted gunshot to the head precludes a lurid, fiery death. Collier is naturally livid with Norman for not firing his gun and when asked for an explanation, the recruit mentions the very young age of the enemy soldiers; some of them children. We know the encounter will be one lesson among many for the young gunner.

Shortly thereafter, we come to understand just how poorly armored and outgunned the American Sherman tanks were in battle as a much-feared German Tiger tank ambushes the four-tank unit. Repeated firing from the Sherman tanks merely glance off the substantially-armored Tigers and in the harrowing encounter, one turret is blown off its main body while in another American tank, a commander is decapitated by a German tank round. In the final hair-raising encounter, as Collier's Sherman faces the German monster alone, the American tank manages to make its way around to the Tiger's vulnerable rear area before crippling it. As the German tank crew emerges from the disabled tank, Collier and his men gun down the survivors.

In yet another battle, after the American army destroys another ambush, a German captive is paraded through the American soldiers. Collier sees the situation as an opportunity for Norman to execute the the soldier, thereby testing the new recruit's resolve and mettle.
It seems no war film of the past 30 years can resist the almost obligatory enemy soldier execution scene. We see it in Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan and now Fury. It's a tired go-to plot device and a cliche the film doesn't need.

The battle scenes are dazzling. Tracer fire zips back and forth between armies like a futuristic laser battle, tank shells ping off armor, tank treads roll mercilessly over dead bodies and mud seems to coat every soldier and mechanized surface, which ably serves the film's dirt and grim aesthetic.

After a significant incident involving two German women in a captured town, Collier and his men are ordered to guard strategic crossroads. When they arrive, a tank tread strikes a landmine, rendering the tank inert and leaving the tank without means to maneuver. To make matters worse, Norman spots an approaching German convoy--300 men strong. Rather than flee, Collier chooses to stand his ground. The puzzled crew joins him reluctantly, thus setting the stage for a climactic battle.

I liked so much about Fury but it is a film that often goes wrong. The execution scene aside, some dialogue rings unnatural and false and Ayers' script has Collier indulging in some war-movie philosophizing that strikes a discordant tone. Collier says to Norman: "Ideals are peaceful, history is violent." The statement seems too detached and very out of character for someone severely scarred by war.
I also found the final stand a Saving Private Ryan, against-heavy-odds-we-stand contrivance that seems very out place in a movie that works overtime to give the audience an authentic experience. I can't imagine battle-weary soldiers would fight against such heavy odds when they would be well within their rights to run. I'm not suggesting soldiers wouldn't be brave enough to take a stand, it just seems a character like Collier, who is doggedly-determined to see his crew survive, would be more sensible in such a situation.
And you're telling me 300 German soldiers, some armed with anti-tank weapons, couldn't surround or outflank one tank?

The character of Collier was plausibly established then betrayed by war movie cliches. In spite of said flaws, Brad Pitt's performance is fairly superlative. The rest of the cast are poorly served with stock characters and in the case of actor John Bernthal; he is saddled with a very broad, southern accent for a face that screams Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens. Every-time he opened his mouth, I expected a tough, New Yorky voice but was greeted with Huckleberry Finn instead. His performance, like that of the other cast-members, is hardly bad, but I think set design, sound design, visual effects and production design trumped characterization.

I came away from Fury quite impressed but hardly satisfied. It is a terrific technical film but makes a less-than-terrific artistic statement. It has many exceptional attributes but when it stumbles, it doesn't always recover.