One thing I've been struck by with movies and films like the Wolf of Wall Street, the film Wall Street, Fight Club, or even the Great Gatsby is how many people end up coming away with the exact opposite message of the movie. They end up idolizing the vapid, shallow lifestyle that the movie is critiquing, because even though the film is critiquing that it can't help but also make it glamorous. Michael Douglas has said that he has had people come up to him and tell him that Gordon Gekko inspired them to get into finance, so it's not surprising that Belfort is now inspiring a new generation.
It's because film is a visual medium, and in these movies the protagonist always looks cool. He may be doing terrible things, but he's wearing hip clothes and driving a gorgeous car while he does them. The visual language is all screaming "this guy's great!", and it ends up overwhelming the message the story is trying to tell.
If you want to know what most people will think of a character in a movie, watch the movie with the sound off.
Fight Club gets a lot of retroactive flak now that people know how they were "supposed" to read it. The book was a dramatization of the way young men feel about life. If the author and book had any valid insight, then of course young men would identify with the "bad" lifestyle in the movie, and not suddenly turn into old men while watching the movie. The movie is entirely showing the fantasy from the "vapid" perspective. It does nothing in itself to destroy the fantasy except at the very end where it shows "maybe it's possible to take this too far?"
This always perplexed me. With Mad Men and Breaking Bad too, people idolized the main characters, which is interesting not only because they are bad people but because they are deeply unhappy, too.
There's something extremely surface-level about people's takeaways from film characters. They want a certain level of panache that the characters can muster, but they ignore that even the characters themselves are miserable.
A big part of this to me, is the idea of yourself as an archetypal character. People are different each day, some days you are having conversations with strangers at coffee shops and patting yourself on the back for being so socially adept, other days you just don't want to talk to a soul. Some days you love your career path, other days you wish you had chosen something else. The idea of some reliability in your mood, desires and personality is attractive: "I am the computer guy, everyday, all day, 100%".
The idea of these characters who are so certain of who and what they are, and are driven by some greater purpose is very alluring, even if the personality is toxic and the purpose immoral.
These films are meant to depict a certain type of person, one who is drawn to the appeal of wealth and particularly the excess and display present in certain communities. I can imagine how someone who had this type of predisposition would feel inspired if they were exposed to that lifestyle by one of these movies and develop an aspiration for the specific position where previously it was a more amorphous longing for wealth and privilege.
Think of it this way: It's a lot easier to look at someone ostentatiously wealthy and just say "well, I'll just cut out the bad parts like doing hard drugs and pissing it all away by being an asshole" than it is to look at Mother Teresa and say "I'll be just like her, except a billionaire".
That is to say, making a ton of money seems a lot harder than just not being an asshole.
Same thing happened with Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker [1]. Written as a parody. Now distributed to junior bankers as a handbook of hustle and an advertisement of the good life promised.
I think one reason is that in these movies those actors you mention are the “heroes” of the story, in the sense that they’re the ones who undergoe the transformation. The flip side, all the people who have lost everything because of Belfort are not portraited at all.
Another reason might be that many people are simply greedy and the consequences for the main actors weren’t that bad in the end after all. I think the real Belfort made an appearance at the end of the movie and gives speeches nowadays...
I remember in Marketing class they taught us about "Herb the Nerd".
In the 1980's Burger King was expanding and as part of this came a big advertising campaign centered around a nerdy-looking guy called Herb, who was the only person who hadn't been to a Burger King. If you could spot him in a Burger King restaurant, you could win money. It was a colossal failure, and instead of increasing customer volume, ended up having the opposite effect and decreasing it.
Why? Because the overt message of
"Herb the Nerd" <-> "The only person who hasn't gone to Burger King"
was shortened in people's minds to
"... Nerd" <-> "... Burger King".
It's fascinating: indirect/subtext messaging will beat direct messaging every time.
Interestingly, American Psycho isn't on that list. Nor should it be.
It's easy to come up with a few theories as to what sets it apart, but I would love to see a proper analysis of how it tackles the subject matter without glorifying the lifestyle unnecessarily--and what other films should learn from it if they aim to accomplish the same
I don't think that these films critique anything, they just tell a story and it's up to the people's judgement to critique the events and characters in the story.
I wouldn't say that people who idolize these characters have poor judgement or bad morale though. I mean, we shoot people or do illegal street racing in virtual environments for fun all the time, maybe it's just a human nature to entertain the idea of what we could have done if sociatal norms or laws wouldn't stop us.
Idealization of a persona usually doesn't mean wanting to become exactly that person but to have some quality of that person.
Maybe those people who actually do something are simply racionalizing their actions through these fictional characters?
I think what people attach to (rightly or wrongly) is that these characters usually have wrestled themselves into a position of total control over their own lives. Most people watching the film won't have that freedom to stick it to the man, or run away from their situation and live a life that's their selfish own: there are usually financial, family, or even self-doubt constraints.
Control over your own life is something that everybody craves and it's clear that these characters have it in abundance,
even if it's only for a brief period of time - i.e. to the end of the film. But up until that point, they're seen as individuals who have broken free from their respective shackles.
This also applies to almost every single gangster movie. "Scarface" being really the case study.
I believe it is mostly due to the last scene of these movies where the hero dies in some crazy action scene. Lot of adrenaline, and it looks so "cool" on screen that you can't help thinking "wow this guy was awesome!".
One movie that dealt with that really well was "Goodfellas". During the 2nd part of the movie, the downfall is filmed in a very slow, almost boring manner. And the end is boring as f*ck, specifically to avoid this pitfall of glorifying the "hero".
It's like how Truffaut said it's impossible to make an anti-war film, it looks too cool and exciting on the screen and there's no real understanding of the human costs involved.
It's part of the appeal of a popular movie: striking a chord with multiple audiences simultaneously, one with irony, another without. In many ways, if movies didn't do this, you probably would be less likely to have seen them.
Because excitement, notoriety, achieving exceptional status - regardless of the specific around it - is wildly different than the average, mediocre, mundane life (relatively speaking).
It's not like those viewers are stupid. People just see what they want to see. It's very hard to focus on an external stimulus in a way that really lifts you out of your own private world.
I am always amazed by how many people get into this "Beat the system and make tons of money" mindset.
If there's anything that has proven itself time and time again, it's that people who seek immediate wealth, and who fantasize about their "million dollar idea", are absolutely not the kinds of people who become successful and wealthy.
The people who become devoted to a field or a technology - who make the business their passion, and focus on filling a need - these are the people who earn a fortune.
You can't just make money by trying really hard to be rich, unless, of course, your business model is funneling cash off of suckers with a predatory get-rich-quick scheme.
Worked for one the biggest - and most "respectable" player in this "industry".
Between terrible security practices - had to fight for basic stuff that would make any of you grab pitchforks, attempts to get away with as much as they could with regards to regulation and finally the terrible ethics of the system, I didn't last long.
>”I’m never going to work for someone,” Oyefeso says in one of his videos, in a somewhat cartoonish, nasal voice, while he drives his Rolls dressed in a bathrobe.”
What’s with this obsession of not working for someone else? American/British managers in particular are some of the most democratic and “least power distance” bosses out there, especially compared to other countries where there is still a very hierarchical management structure.
The only time I ever hear now seriously about “your boss is horrible time to quit and start your own business!” or “time to escape cubicle nation!” is with someone selling a particular product.
Maybe it’s time the EU took a look at advertising. I mean, we’re building things like the GDPR and a lot of legislation to protect minors from the dangers that come from social media. We see loot boxes, underage gambling, traders selling you recommendations for their own products, scammers, young people prostitute them selves to get photo shoots at exotic locations or for luxurary stuff for likes. Probably worse than that too, and at the heart of it is advertising and how it makes money on popularity, lies and knowing every about everyone.
Popularity will always be worth money to someone, but the current business practices surrounding it just don’t seem healthy.
I was hoping, based on the title, that this was going to address the exploding popularity of people starting IG accounts for their huskies and then claiming the animals are part-wolf. This is a real phenomenon with (albeit smaller) consequences.
I know of a guy who “pivoted” from exotic car rental operator in Florida to Forex and Drop Shipping coach via Instagram. His Lamborghini, chartered jets and 30k followers really shine but I also know he still buys fake shoes. Wouldn’t trust him with $1.
Gary Vaynerchuk is spot on in that there are too many experts and not enough practicioners. Showing others how to make it is how these guys are trying to make it.
Slightly OT, but for the rest of us "fake it till you make it" is terrible advice. Because if you don't make it, you have lived a fake life and this will eat on you.
The number of layers of meaninglessness at play in being a fraudulent media influencer who pretends to be rich so they can make a buck off of selling artificial bets against the abstract perceived value of companies which employ the people who (in some cases) spend their time doing actual real things is staggering.
This article describes essentially rough influencers that use their social media marketing capabilities to fuel pyramid schemes with cheap high-risk financial products as their fig-leaf.
While selling those products is regulated in many markets they apparently seem to get around that through obscurity.
Nothing new! Same as the Crypto bubble / hype. Seen many people ploughing money because they wanna get rich quick. All because bitcoin or *coin is going up & 'blockchain'.
[+] [-] neaden|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|7 years ago|reply
If you want to know what most people will think of a character in a movie, watch the movie with the sound off.
[+] [-] gowld|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonsarris|7 years ago|reply
There's something extremely surface-level about people's takeaways from film characters. They want a certain level of panache that the characters can muster, but they ignore that even the characters themselves are miserable.
[+] [-] ericmcer|7 years ago|reply
The idea of these characters who are so certain of who and what they are, and are driven by some greater purpose is very alluring, even if the personality is toxic and the purpose immoral.
[+] [-] clojurestan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|7 years ago|reply
That is to say, making a ton of money seems a lot harder than just not being an asshole.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_Poker
[+] [-] thvu1k|7 years ago|reply
Honestly, they don't try hard not make it look glamorous. This extravaganza is totally part of what makes people watch it.
[+] [-] baxtr|7 years ago|reply
Another reason might be that many people are simply greedy and the consequences for the main actors weren’t that bad in the end after all. I think the real Belfort made an appearance at the end of the movie and gives speeches nowadays...
[+] [-] david927|7 years ago|reply
In the 1980's Burger King was expanding and as part of this came a big advertising campaign centered around a nerdy-looking guy called Herb, who was the only person who hadn't been to a Burger King. If you could spot him in a Burger King restaurant, you could win money. It was a colossal failure, and instead of increasing customer volume, ended up having the opposite effect and decreasing it.
Why? Because the overt message of
"Herb the Nerd" <-> "The only person who hasn't gone to Burger King"
was shortened in people's minds to
"... Nerd" <-> "... Burger King".
It's fascinating: indirect/subtext messaging will beat direct messaging every time.
[+] [-] ysavir|7 years ago|reply
It's easy to come up with a few theories as to what sets it apart, but I would love to see a proper analysis of how it tackles the subject matter without glorifying the lifestyle unnecessarily--and what other films should learn from it if they aim to accomplish the same
[+] [-] justicezyx|7 years ago|reply
hiking
hanging out with friends families
reading
learning
whatever that is not being mind-washing by the popular entertainment
[+] [-] mrtksn|7 years ago|reply
I wouldn't say that people who idolize these characters have poor judgement or bad morale though. I mean, we shoot people or do illegal street racing in virtual environments for fun all the time, maybe it's just a human nature to entertain the idea of what we could have done if sociatal norms or laws wouldn't stop us.
Idealization of a persona usually doesn't mean wanting to become exactly that person but to have some quality of that person.
Maybe those people who actually do something are simply racionalizing their actions through these fictional characters?
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louthy|7 years ago|reply
Control over your own life is something that everybody craves and it's clear that these characters have it in abundance, even if it's only for a brief period of time - i.e. to the end of the film. But up until that point, they're seen as individuals who have broken free from their respective shackles.
[+] [-] dudul|7 years ago|reply
I believe it is mostly due to the last scene of these movies where the hero dies in some crazy action scene. Lot of adrenaline, and it looks so "cool" on screen that you can't help thinking "wow this guy was awesome!".
One movie that dealt with that really well was "Goodfellas". During the 2nd part of the movie, the downfall is filmed in a very slow, almost boring manner. And the end is boring as f*ck, specifically to avoid this pitfall of glorifying the "hero".
[+] [-] fullshark|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrkel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ada1981|7 years ago|reply
When someone is narcissistically wounded, they are going to mimic the survival strategies of other high-status narcissists.
[+] [-] DisruptiveDave|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] trentnix|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdtang13|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] some_account|7 years ago|reply
To me, it's just a ridiculous person acting like a teenager and having no intelligence or wisdom whatsoever.
[+] [-] dade_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didsomeonesay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whistlerbrk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RIMR|7 years ago|reply
If there's anything that has proven itself time and time again, it's that people who seek immediate wealth, and who fantasize about their "million dollar idea", are absolutely not the kinds of people who become successful and wealthy.
The people who become devoted to a field or a technology - who make the business their passion, and focus on filling a need - these are the people who earn a fortune.
You can't just make money by trying really hard to be rich, unless, of course, your business model is funneling cash off of suckers with a predatory get-rich-quick scheme.
[+] [-] throwawaybo|7 years ago|reply
Worked for one the biggest - and most "respectable" player in this "industry".
Between terrible security practices - had to fight for basic stuff that would make any of you grab pitchforks, attempts to get away with as much as they could with regards to regulation and finally the terrible ethics of the system, I didn't last long.
Consider spending a few minutes reading this great article https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels...
Most of the big players might have moved away from binary options, they're still the same morally corrupt drain on society.
[+] [-] Bucephalus355|7 years ago|reply
What’s with this obsession of not working for someone else? American/British managers in particular are some of the most democratic and “least power distance” bosses out there, especially compared to other countries where there is still a very hierarchical management structure.
The only time I ever hear now seriously about “your boss is horrible time to quit and start your own business!” or “time to escape cubicle nation!” is with someone selling a particular product.
[+] [-] eksemplar|7 years ago|reply
Popularity will always be worth money to someone, but the current business practices surrounding it just don’t seem healthy.
[+] [-] vwcx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TaylorGood|7 years ago|reply
Gary Vaynerchuk is spot on in that there are too many experts and not enough practicioners. Showing others how to make it is how these guys are trying to make it.
[+] [-] philfrasty|7 years ago|reply
- 30k on insta (since 2014): instagram.com/elijah_oezz
- 3k on YouTube youtube.com/channel/UCk4fZzhD8fStRHITL4sP_LA
- 0 comments on any of his pics
Forex trading is certainly big on SM but this guy does not convert a single visitor.
[+] [-] BadassFractal|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amorphous|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bxg1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bomb199|7 years ago|reply
Helps if you keep in mind that Jeff Bezos could accidentally tip you enough money to live the rest of your life without a job.
[+] [-] swframe2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fwn|7 years ago|reply
While selling those products is regulated in many markets they apparently seem to get around that through obscurity.
[+] [-] baxtr|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16953005
[+] [-] foobaw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dzonga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|7 years ago|reply
sigh.
[+] [-] arlindi06546|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arlindi06546|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chinathrow|7 years ago|reply