1

Recently I watched 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and was quite disturbed by the many naked/nude scenes. They seemed a little unecessary to me, as they could as well have been shot as legs alone or similar instead of showing their entire sex process and their nude bodies. The same goes for the use of abusive language (like "f--k" and other strong adult words). But maybe I just don't see the further use this imagery and language had for the rest of the movie.

So my question is why those particular scenes are included? Is this a technique for marketing their movie or does it contribute to the rest of the movie's story and themes in any way? Is this a necessary part in the movie?

  • 10
    It was a movie about excesses, and excesses are shown. It was not a documentary. Maybe your expectations were wrong. If you want to avoid such there are databases you can query before watching a movie, and the rating gives a hint too. (The disgusting and disturbing part of the movie was their lack of morale and the system that allowed them to continue to"work", not the naked skin.) – his May 29 '15 at 12:41
  • 6
    @NapoleonWilson I'm not a mod so I don't know if this question is on-topic or not but it feels to me an unnecessary question as it appears to be based on the OP's feelings towards the usage of nudity and strong language in this film when 1) it's a scorcese film 2) it's an adult (18 rating in the UK) rated film 3) the trailer gives a clue as to what this film will be about 4) one could argue that everything is unnecessary when it boils down to it so it becomes an opinion based question are my thoughts – EdChum May 29 '15 at 13:54
  • 2
    I'm with Ed on this. Napoleon, there is no solid objective answer to this type of question. There's certainly plenty of good subjective answers, of course, but now it's a discussion rather than a Q/A. Also, from the OP's original post, it's clear that their intent is mostly puritanical in nature. – DA. May 29 '15 at 17:23
  • 2
    @Napoleon This sort of question can be asked about every aspect of every movie. Anything can be questioned. This question is purely subjective, not "good subjective", unless the director/producer/etc. happens to have put out a statement on this specific subject. Any argument anyone else could make is exactly as valid as every other argument. It turns into a poll and voting becomes a popularity contest instead of being based on accuracy, usefulness, or other appropriate metrics. – Matthew Read May 29 '15 at 18:40
  • 2
    @MatthewRead That's why you have to base your subjective ramblings on the actual movie, so that it is an objectively reasoned good subjective answer and not just a subjective answer. It's the "why" that counts. – Napoleon Wilson May 29 '15 at 18:46
5

Much of these scenes never happened and the movie isn't similar at all with the book "The Wolf of Wall Street"; these scenes don't contribute at all in the main theme of the movie, which is the "pump-dump" scheme Belfort did and the reason why they found it guilty at court. About why Scorsese made the sex, money wasting-style changes, Donnie Porush (in the movie is Donnie Azoff), Belfort's partner said in a interview with Mother Jones:

"Hey, it's Hollywood. I'm not a communist; I know they want to make a movie that sells. And Jordan wrote whatever he could to make the book sell. His greatest gift was always that of a self-promoter."

Some scenes are real, for example:

Porush (Azoff) eating the golden fish:"I said to one of the brokers, 'If you don't do more business, I'm gonna eat your goldfish!' So I did."

There is an interview with the real Jordan Belfort about what is real and what is not. But, if you're interested to know deeper about the real and the fiction of the movie (if he was drogadict, they had sex in a pile of money) History versus Hollywood made a great post about it with real photos of the Jordan Belfort.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .