Revisiting the 'Wolf'
"On a daily basis I consume enough drugs to sedate Manhattan, Long Island, and Queens for a month. I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, pot to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome." — Jordan Belfort, "The Wolf of Wall Street."
I do things backwards. It works for me, but most people think it's strange. But when I go to a movie, if I like the story and know it's based on a book, I will get the book and read it. I never read the book first. I only read the book if I liked the movie/show. Then I feel I can appreciate both.
Around Christmas "The Wolf of Wall Street" hit theaters. It was a wild, debaucherous ride — one you can now see on DVD and Blu-Ray. After seeing it, I liked the movie more than I figured. So I got the book and was curious to see what it said.
After the movie came out, there was a lot of controversy. People said the film glorified Jordan and his lifestyle. I didn't think that was really true, but I guess I could see what they were saying. Then I finished the book on Friday.
For those that haven't read the book, it's everything the movie is and more. It's 519 pages. It's wild, ridiculous, and hard to believe at times. And you know what, nothing bad really happens to Jordan in the book. Losing his wife, losing his life, and going to prison is briefly mentioned in the final three pages. He doesn't have problems, really, until the epilogue.
That's where it differs from the movie. The movie is a black comedy, and it's not for everyone. But the movie does show some consequences for Jordan. He loses control, and it costs him his wife and kids. He believes his own hype, and it leads him to jail. That's not really the case with the book.
If "The Wolf of Wall Street" had wanted to stay faithful to its source material, it would have been more crude and there would have been no consequences. It didn't do that. Having read the book and seen the movie, I don't see how you could argue the filmmakers were glorifying this lifestyle. They told a story. And as with most true stories, the truth was more unsettling than the fiction.
Comments
Post a Comment