“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” So preaches Michael Douglas in his Oscar-winning role as immoral businessman Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. Stone’s follow-up to his Best Picture winner Platoon¸ Wall Street does not have quite the reputation Platoon does. I have not seen Platoon, but it seems that this makes sense because Wall Street is not a very entertaining or interesting movie because, although greed may be good, Stone forgot that clarity is good too.
The plot of this movie is simple enough. Charlie Sheen plays an ambitious young stockbroker named Bud Fox who possesses a will to do anything necessary to succeed in his career. A low-level grunt at a large firm, the film begins with Fox “cold-calling” people. Essentially, …show more content…
One of the bright spots in this film is Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko. As previously stated, Douglas won an Oscar for his performance. His portrayal of Gekko seems absolutely natural and organic. Viewers often cannot tell he is acting. Nevertheless, his performance did not blow me away. Douglas plays a thoroughly terrible person who must deceive and scheme, which necessarily involves hiding his vileness, to get what he wants. While Douglas plays both aspects of this duplicitous character well, I have seen it done more convincingly and memorably in other films (such as Jake Gyllenhall’s charismatic deceiver in …show more content…
One admirable technique the director employed was using handheld camera shots to implicate the audience in the illegal acts of the main characters. For example, when Bud Fox first uses his insider trading work to buy stock for a steel company, Stone uses a handheld camera that follows Fox throughout his office as he purchase stock for Gekko and tips off some coworkers to buy the stock. Since a handheld camera is naturally a bit shaky, and since it follows Fox (behind him, not in front or beside), Stone’s camerawork gives the impression that a person is following Fox. That individual is the audience. Therefore, Stone’s camera implies that viewers are accomplices in Fox’s misdeeds. This happens several times throughout the movie, but this is the most striking and effective
The plot of this movie is simple enough. Charlie Sheen plays an ambitious young stockbroker named Bud Fox who possesses a will to do anything necessary to succeed in his career. A low-level grunt at a large firm, the film begins with Fox “cold-calling” people. Essentially, …show more content…
One of the bright spots in this film is Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko. As previously stated, Douglas won an Oscar for his performance. His portrayal of Gekko seems absolutely natural and organic. Viewers often cannot tell he is acting. Nevertheless, his performance did not blow me away. Douglas plays a thoroughly terrible person who must deceive and scheme, which necessarily involves hiding his vileness, to get what he wants. While Douglas plays both aspects of this duplicitous character well, I have seen it done more convincingly and memorably in other films (such as Jake Gyllenhall’s charismatic deceiver in …show more content…
One admirable technique the director employed was using handheld camera shots to implicate the audience in the illegal acts of the main characters. For example, when Bud Fox first uses his insider trading work to buy stock for a steel company, Stone uses a handheld camera that follows Fox throughout his office as he purchase stock for Gekko and tips off some coworkers to buy the stock. Since a handheld camera is naturally a bit shaky, and since it follows Fox (behind him, not in front or beside), Stone’s camerawork gives the impression that a person is following Fox. That individual is the audience. Therefore, Stone’s camera implies that viewers are accomplices in Fox’s misdeeds. This happens several times throughout the movie, but this is the most striking and effective