The Wolf of Wall Street is a story about one man’s questions for thinking power.
Scorsese himself thought so because the full-frontal was more Robbie’s idea than his.
It certainly enhances the effect though. The camera puts us quite literally in Jordan’s shoes; we are seeing her from skills.
Truth be told, Robbie’s full-frontal isn’t even the most explicit depiction of excess in the film. And while it wasn’t entirely ‘necessary,’ it was undoubtedly effective.
There’s a larger debate to be had here about how Scorsese depicts Jordan’s hedonism and excess.
At its heart, The Wolf of Wall Street is more a cautionary tale than an aspirational one.
And Scorsese structures Jordan’s ‘rise and fall’ narrative in the vein of Goodfellas – he had to take Belfort to heady heights so that the fall would land harder.
Now, in doing that, could he have surrendered to the very decadence he was attempting to critique?
Because in essence, that is the question that Robbie’s full-frontal poses.
I don’t think the shot was necessary, and I don’t think the film would have been worse without it because the ideas that shot communicates were going to be conveyed either way.
But Margot Robbie, the actress who plays Naomi thought it was necessary, and Scorsese agreed.
And I give Martin Scorsese the benefit of the doubt, every day of the week.
Thanks for Reading
0 Comments