Skip to main content

The Big Short



The Big Short

The movie is about how what was declared by one and all in the financial industry as triple “A” quality—that is, top notch; throughly reliable—was actually “dog shit wrapped in cat shit”—the worst imaginable quality, and how the entire American financial system was leveraged upon this “pillar.” It is about how everyone in the financial sector was out to make dizzying amounts of money, and how almost everyone was caught in the trance-belief that it was impossible for there to be anything deeply wrong while ostensible “adults” in the industry—the upper echelon at well-established firms like Bear Stearns—rest unconcerned. You could come up with the craziest schemes for repackaging the same old investments into new ones—make an actually frozen environment seem ever-spawning and fecund—and so long as the execs at the like of Bear Stearns saw nothing of concern, there was ostensibly no way it could backfire.

If you worked within the financial industry and never really accommodated to it completely—a perennial outsider in your demeanour and attitudes, even as much as you factually were entrenched in the inside—it’s a sign that you haven’t lost contact with your roots. While others have allowed themselves to get lost in the high spawned from high finance, you never forget what is going on in the personal lives around you, or of all the mishaps, not just entitlements, that lead to your becoming a trader.  And so you, and you only, will be those who could learn that the entire banking industry was leveraged on mortgages that the struggling people of American society could no longer afford to pay, and not convince yourself out of your awareness pretty much instantly. You, who could make money on your awareness, in initiating a “Big Short,” and the people outside the industry—the common run of folk—“us”—who would be brutally bludgeoned with job losses and even loss of life when the system ultimately crumbled, were the only existing true beings of worth when everyone on the inside had inflated their phantom selves into visages of god-sized proportion. “Let’s see who is worth more,” is what they say in their minds to every one who meets them and doubts them, and so goes every doubter into a swirling pot, ever-stewing with their own incurred humiliation. 

The film, then, suggests that while the financial industry was something actually build on nothing, we normal everyday people possess integrity that can’t be undermined—we’re still unassailably triple “A” quality. We would never fool ourselves like Wall Street did, which is why the film stops in several places to decipher terms used by Wall Street to make plain just how truly insane their various machinations to make money were and are. We may be uniformed, but unlike them, our moral psychology is sound—with people looking out for us, there to explain the state of things to us in language we could understand, we would have been okay, for we would have insisted someone of authority reign things in. And therefore the film, as much as it is about explaining how the American financial system could collapse in 2008, is also about consolidating our own high estimations of ourselves. We exit the film feeling self-righteous, and buttressed—decent people who’ve been beset by vampires, or whatever of the demonic you might like to fairly call them.

Maybe this is just the way it is, but maybe also the film makers just like garnering easy kudos. I wish the film had considered giving greater consideration—or rather, any considerationto an ostensible truth it presents in an on-screen quote, perhaps halfway in. Quoting Murakami, we read, “Everyone, deep in their hearts, is waiting for the end of the world to come.” Come again? People have some kind of collective death wish, is that what you're saying? That they’d... that we’d, somehow engineer a system built to collapse, so to realize some glorious “end of days” scenario? 

Geez, if the people are at all like that, then the fed chairman who appears from behind the curtains at the end to reveal himself as someone who actually did know the system was built to collapse, but also that this itself could be rescued by an influx of tax payer money the president was sure to okay, was hardly the master of deception, the Mephistopheles, we suspected must be behind it all, but rather the adult ostensibly nowhere to be actually found at the core of Wall Street. He’d give us the doom we unconsciously wanted called down on ourselves—so to see the like of marvels like once-wondrous, intimidating structures, both deserted and reduced to squalor—a high society companion to the crocodiles swimming in the house pools of the hapless over-mortgaged—but not to the extent that society couldn’t still manage to continue on from there. Many thanks, Mr. Bernacke, sir! for safeguarding society against ourselves! You didn't let us down!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...