Now his selling genius holds him in good stead for, instead of the 1 percent commission made selling blue-chip stocks, hereīrokers earn a 50 percent commission. But the crash of October 1989 endsīelfort’s first job, and soon he is reduced to working at a penny stock outfit, a “boiler room” operation, Lunches and suggests masturbation as a counter to the cerebral work of selling stocks. Rise to fame, starting with a job where he is taken under the wing of the hedonistic Mark Hanna, who snorts coke at three-martini Money, Belfort tells us, is his real drug, and we then see the bare bones of his The Wolf of Wall Street begins with a mock commercialįor the Stratton Oakmont brokerage that quickly shifts to a dwarf-tossing contest in the firm, followed by a montage of Jordanīelfort’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) life: a sports car, model wife, drugsĪnd prostitutes, drunken helicopter rides.
Of the film, then introduce Jameson’s system of thought, his ways of reading film and other cultural objects, and finally,ĭrawing on those ideas, situate Scorsese’s movie in the context of current films on the economic crisis.
The answer to that question is this book itself, and by way of introducing its argument, I want to first offer a synopsis Street would seem to be a gimme: what could be more obviously a capitalist film than one about capitalism? Even in the introduction, we are faced with the formal dilemma of how works that posit the end of history can offer any usable historical impulses, how works which aim to resolve all political differences can continue to be in any sense political, how texts designed to overcome the needs of the body can remain materialistic, and how visions of the “epoch of rest” (Morris) can energize and compel us to action.On Fredric Jameson’s brand of Marxist theory to criticize Martin Scorsese’s film about Wall Jameson’s strength is his ability to encapsulate paradox. While a sharper overarching thesis has eluded my reading, it may be that the double negation of Jameson’s slogan, “anti-anti-Utopianism” (xvi), inherently precludes an overt central claim. Reaching from Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) to Kim Stanley Robinson’s 1990s Mars nov- els, Part One (the new material on which I focus) is a rich meditation about how science fiction, its aliens, and its impos- sible worlds remain closely tied to his- tory. Ar chaeologies of the Future is a two-part volume in which Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson presents a new, 233-page study of Utopia-which he unfailingly capitalizes-alongside twelve previously published essays on the subject.
0 kommentar(er)
