"The Wizard of Lies" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

“The Wizard of Lies” is a film directed by Barry Levinson that aired this past weekend on HBO.  The film stars Robert De Niro as Bernie Madoff, the infamous broker and investment adviser who built the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.  In just a matter of months Madoff went from being one of the most revered investors on Wall Street to pleading guilty to eleven felonies and being sentenced to 150 years in prison. Over the course of around two decades he had stolen billions of dollars from unwitting and innocent investors, some of whom lost their entire life’s savings with Madoff.  For the most part, “The Wizard of Lies” is a matter-of-fact kind of biopic about Madoff, mainly detailing the period between the revelation of his scheme and his prison sentencing.  However, “The Wizard of Lies” betrays its own title.  The film is less about Madoff’s ability to deceive, and more about his apparent indifference to his crimes and his own family’s tragic demise.

Aside from Bernie, the main characters include Madoff’s wife Ruth (Michelle Pfeiffer) as well as his sons Mark (Alessandro Nivola) and Andrew (Nathan Darrow).  Levinson casts Madoff’s family as victims who were unaware of Bernie’s scheme.  Much of the film is about the unraveling of their respective lives, as they are treated as accomplices in the fraud.  Ruth visits her longtime hair salon, where she is denied service.  Andrew is verbally and physically attacked by a distraught investor while walking around Manhattan.  The worst torment is reserved for Mark Madoff, who languishes in his apartment hiding from paparazzi, slowly being crushed by the weight of his father’s crime.  Just a few years after their father’s arrest, Mark committed suicide and Andrew succumbed to cancer.  Ruth was forced to relocate to Florida to live with her sister, having lost all the luxuries of her former life.

The devastation of the Madoff family is a point of focus in “The Wizard of Lies”, and it is a tough angle to take.  A scene in which Andrew Madoff speaks to a group of college students narrows in on the difficulty of looking at the Madoff’s with compassion. One student asks Andrew, “Why didn’t you go on TV and state your case? Why didn’t you defend yourself?” to which Andrew replies, “I don’t know if I’m that sympathetic a character. At the end of the day I lived a life of great wealth and privilege… All of that subsidized by my father’s victims.”  It is a poignant moment in the film, and addresses the difficulty of depicting the hardships endured by the Madoff family. 

Although Levinson provides a lot of intriguing material on Madoff’s family, he glazes over much of what makes the case a recurring interest.  For example, we never get a good look at what got Madoff started in the first place: his ability to earn people’s trust.  De Niro’s sneering portrayal feels authentic, but is never offered a scene to depict the composure that Madoff employed to snag investors. Instead we get glances at Madoff in the final days of the scheme, when he was on the ropes trying to secure investments.  Furthermore, a crucial aspect of the Madoff fraud was his ability to leech from a trusting Jewish community in New York City. In his court hearing, audible shouts from the crowd decry Madoff’s betrayal of his religious family including Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz survivor and the author of “Night”, who had invested everything with Madoff.  Madoff’s exploitation of his religious community is important in understanding the final point of the film, yet “The Wizard of Lies” provides little more than references that must be plucked from swathes of dialogue.

“The Wizard of Lies” also doesn’t offer much insight into the paradoxical nature of the scandal.  Anyone who is familiar with a Ponzi scheme knows one thing: it will eventually fail.  Yet Madoff never planned an escape route, or even thought of one to begin with.  Why would you rob a bank without a getaway car?   From my viewing, I think “The Wizard of Lies” is missing an adequate explanation for the banality of evil.  A 1988 Dutch murder-mystery film called “Spoorloos” or “The Vanishing” expounds on this topic when the filmmakers flip the script and follow the logic of the killer.  Throughout “Spoorloos”, we discover that the killer, who seems like a normal guy, committed murder for the same reason anybody might twiddle their fingers or stretch their legs.  Perhaps Madoff is cut from the same cloth as the villain from “Spoorloos”.  Perhaps he started his scheme because he could.  No goals, no pleasure, no intent, just because.

The ending of “The Wizard of Lies” takes a swing at the idea of “Spoorloos” when it suggests that Madoff is a sociopath.  In an interview with a reporter in prison, Madoff steams about a New York Times article that compared him to the mass-serial killer Ted Bundy.  The film ends as Madoff asks the reporter, “Do you think I’m a sociopath?”  The reporter’s response is not provided, but we have an idea for ourselves as the camera lingers on Madoff’s emotionless face.  The man betrayed his family, his friends, and even his entire religious community.  What values could he possibly have?  

Ultimately, “The Wizard of Lies” is a very good film.  It is crisply shot, methodical, and well-acted.  And yet, it somehow feels unfulfilled.  Madoff ruined thousands of people’s lives and a crime of such magnitude demands a reason.  Unfortunately, the most plausible one is simply, just because. “The Wizard of Lies” is a noble attempt to breathe life into such a vapid explanation, even if it misses a few notes here and there.

Life Lessons From San Antonio

No NBA team in history has climbed out of a 3-0 deficit in a playoff series.  The San Antonio Spurs must face that daunting fact, as they play a historically great Golden State Warriors team in Game 4 of the Western conference Finals tomorrow night.  Furthermore, they must confront the challenge without the help of Tony Parker and MVP-Finalist Kawhi Leonard.  Tony went down with a ruptured quadriceps tendon in Game 2 of the Spurs series against the Rockets.  Kawhi is injured on account of what may or may not have been a nefarious defensive play by Zaza Pachulia that occurred in Game 1 of the Warriors-Spurs series.

Normally, I’m okay with accepting a Spurs playoff exit if they are bested by a clearly superior opponent.  And the Warriors may very well be superior.  Indeed, we’re talking about a Warriors lineup of four 2017 NBA All-Stars, two of whom have been league MVP before.  They are going up against a Spurs lineup with just one 2017 NBA All-Star, whose name is Kawhi Leonard, and wont be playing.  The Warriors are undeniably more talented.  But are they the better team?  The answer, unfortunately, is unclear.

Watch that clip of Kawhi crumpling under Pachulia’s extended leg again.  Look at the score: 76-55.  The Spurs were rolling in that game.  But after Kawhi left, the Warriors ripped off an 18-0 run, ultimately coming back to win the game 113-111.  If Kawhi doesn’t go down in Game 1, then dollars to donuts we are looking at a 2-1 Golden State lead in the series, at the very worst for San Antonio.  Who knows what would have happened in Game 2 and Game 3 if Kawhi had been able to play.  But regardless, that Game 1 outcome totally shifts the landscape of the series.  The hypotheticals are torturous. 

When Kawhi went down, I was enraged at Pachulia.  The Macedonian big man has a reputation for rough play, and I was convinced he intentionally walked under Kawhi, who had injured the same ankle just a few plays before.  Now, looking back on the series Pachulia’s potentially dirty play could have blown the entire series for the Spurs.  And on a more basic level, he may have intentionally taken out a good and honest man, who wanted nothing more than to lead his team and compete in the NBA playoffs.  Any Spurs fan, or basketball fan in general, would be justified to be angry.

However, over the past few years the Spurs have taught me a lot personally about how to react in such a situation. Because there are times in real life when you feel like you have a 20-point lead, and then fate slides a foot under you. I've been through a few moments when I felt like I was crumpled on the sideline, totally helpless and feeling like life is unfair. In such moments it's easy to be weighed down by the burdens of cynicism and regret.  It is easy to be angry, and dwell on your misfortune.

But the Spurs have shown me that there are other options.  Instead of idly rotting away, you can choose to snatch the pen from the authors of cruel circumstance and write your own next chapter.  The Spurs did this recently when they endured a long season beneath the looming shadow of their horrific 2013 NBA Finals loss against the ideologically opposite Miami Heat.  I remember watching Spurs games during that 2013/14 season, and the Game 6 three-point dagger from Ray Allen would be mentioned every matchup.  I’m just a fan, and during that season every commentator’s mention, or replay from the series would sting like new. Watching this video right now is still tough. I cannot imagine how the players felt having moments from that series on constant repeat.  However, during the season following the loss, the Spurs kept their heads down and focused all of their heartache into reaching the NBA Finals once again.  Once they got there, the Spurs throttled the very same Miami Heat in the 2014 NBA Finals, winning in just 5 games. The Spurs won by a combined 74 points, the largest deficit in Finals history. 

So now, with Tony out, with Kawhi out, and a postseason on the ropes, I'm not going to blame Pachulia or feel like this series is unfair. Because I know that come off-season, the Spurs won't either. They'll do what they have always done, keep fighting, and one day in the near future Pachulia's extra step will be a minor footnote in a great journey.  Having said that, let’s come out tomorrow night and win one for Kawhi. Go Spurs Go!

"Guardians of the Galaxy 2" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

“Guardians of the Galaxy 2” opens with all the familiar characters from the first film: Peter “Starlord” Quill (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and the reincarnation of Groot (Vin Diesel) who is now “Baby Groot”.  In the first scene the Guardians are tasked with fighting off a space monster that seeks to destroy some invaluable space batteries belonging to the gold-crusted “Sovereign People” in exchange for Gamora’s criminal sister Nebula (Karen Gillan).  The intro credits role as the motley crew struggles to fend off the monster and Baby Groot dances around the battleground to the tune of Electric Light Orchestra’s “Mr. Blue Sky”.  After killing the monster, Rocket decides to steal the batteries just for the fun of it.  However, Rocket’s selfish act leads to a near deadly attack by Sovereign spaceships and the Guardians are forced to crash land on a woodland planet called Berhert.  Within minutes of landing, the group is confronted by a dapper, kingly looking man named Ego (Kurt Russell) who emerges from a spaceship that looks like a white chocolate Cadbury Crème Egg.  Ego declares that he is Quill’s father, and insists that everyone come visit his home planet. After some deliberating, Rocket is left on Berhert to repair the ship with Nebula and Baby Groot as company.  Quill, Gamora, and Drax all board Ego’s ship, where they are introduced to Mantis (Pom Klementieff), Ego’s “empathic” servant girl.

            In the next few scenes, Rocket encounters some trouble when Yondu (Michael Rooker) and his Ravagers from the previous film track down the crash-landed ship.  But the far stranger development occurs on Ego’s planet, which is aptly named “Ego’s Planet”.  Upon arriving Ego explains that he is a “celestial” which is essentially a god.  Over millions of years Ego learned to create his human form and subsequently build his own planet.  However, being lonely, Ego sought out other life forms ultimately leading to Earth where he met Peter Quill’s late mother.  This whole timeline is explained as Quill, Gamora, and Drax amble through Ego’s palace; the scenes from the timeline are depicted through peculiar shape-shifting ceramic statues.  Despite Ego’s warm welcome, Mantis tells Drax that he and his friends are in danger.  I won’t spoil the twist, but it comes shortly after a scene in which Peter Quill and Ego bond by playing catch with a conjured ball of shining blue energy. 

            If any of that explanation sounded too strange, well, it’s what happened.  By the time we enter Ego’s Planet, “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” has ramped up the weirdness a full ten notches above the previous film, which was bizarre in its own right.  While this second installment of “Guardians of the Galaxy” shares many similarities with its predecessor, there are two definitive characteristics that set it apart.  For one, the outlandishness of the film is over the top.  Ego’s planet is akin to a colorful, bubbly, LSD-induced trip.  In one scene Drax asks Mantis, “how did you get to this weird, dumb planet?” The audience is asking themselves the same question.  The second major difference is that the plot revolves around Quill’s relationship with his absentee father and similarly around Gamora’s relationship with her abused little sister, Nebula.  These strained bonds culminate in different ways, yet are equally cheesy in their execution. 

This brings me back to when I saw the first “Guardians of the Galaxy” at a dingy little theater in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The seats reeked of that blue chemical stuff you find in port-a-potties and the screen was dented squarely in the center.  Usually, these things would be enough to ruin a movie for me. Yet, by the time Quill had put on his Walkman and queued up Redbone’s  "Come and Get Your Love", the nastiness of the theater had melted away. That is what "movie magic" does. It transports you away into a different world. The first “Guardians of the Galaxy” was funny, weird and imaginative all while being neatly wrapped into a standard Marvel plot.  This second installment feels like a cheap knockoff of that first charming film. It feels like “Guardians of the Galaxy: The TV Special”, with all of the secondary plot lines, jokes, and songs that didn't make the first cut.  Peter Quill’s quips are less spontaneous; Rocket’s jabs pack less punch, and Drax’s literal interpretations go from being funny to overdrawn by the end of the film.  The soundtrack is still strong, but references to it are so obvious that it robs the subtlety from the tunes.  Furthermore, the plotline is dominated by phony father-son, sister-sister relationships that sap the energy right out the action.  Perhaps the first film was just as weird, and the camaraderie piece just as tacky, but those aspects were unnoticeable because of the sheer joy elicited from watching such a peppy, original film.  Is “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” overwhelmingly bad? No. But it is less inspired in every category.  It is a prime example of what Hollywood movies have become in America today.

            Walking into the theater for “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” I passed posters for “Spider-man: Homecoming”, “Alien: Covenant”, “Baywatch”, “Transformers: The Last Knight”, “The Mummy” and “The Nut Job 2: Naughty by Nature”.  Notice anything these advertisements have in common?  They are all remakes or sequels.  Granted, some of those films may turn out to be very good.  But if the history of sequels and remakes is any indication, maybe one of them will truly be worth watching.  In the long hallway of posters there was a single fresh adaption: “Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie”.  That is where we are at now.  It brought to mind a 2014 article called “The Birdcage” from the now defunct website Grantland.  In the article the author insightfully describes the sequelization of Hollywood, and how to be a great studio executive you “make your bones by showing you can maximize the potential monetization of a preexisting brand or reawaken a dormant one.” The result is a bevy of prepackaged, hackneyed films. Reading that article a few years ago, I didn’t feel the author’s same dread.  I had seen “Guardians of the Galaxy”, a Marvel summer blockbuster, mainstream of the mainstream, that was completely novel.  But if there is anything to take away from “Guardians of the Galaxy 2”, it is that no franchise is immune to being recycled, tweaked, and re-released at the expense of the viewers.

Link to Grantland article: 

http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office/