The Wolf Of Wall St Sparknotes
Warning: If you are easily offended, you may want to request to review a different essay.
Personalities are expressed very differently through film than through classic literature such as books. A person may seem very eccentric on paper, but simply mimicking those actions on film does not necessarily convey that personality. We can see this through the book/movie of the Wolf of Wall St. The personality of Mark Hanna was expressed beautifully in the book, yet acting out the exact actions in the form of film would not have done justice to this eccentric character, and this why the director took several artistic liberties to ensure the film fully conveyed the richness of the character.
In synopsis, The Wolf of Wall St is a book about the rise and fall of Jordan Belfort, a white Jewish boy from Queens. The story starts with the young and money hungry Jordan getting a job on Wall St as a connector, a low level job where the goal was to get and keep people on the phone and move them on to a broker. He eventually lost this job because the brokerage firm he worked for closed down. The insanity in his life really started when he opened his own firm “Stratton Oakmont” as this firm slowly drifted away into sleazier and more lucrative ventures. The most intriguing thing about Jordan was not how he made his money, but …show more content…
what he did with it. Jordan lived a highly eccentric life with lots of drugs, sex, and material pleasures. This glamor is what ultimately attracted Hollywood to make it into a major motion picture. Although Jordan specifically states that “this is a cautionary tale” and one should not aspire to be like him Hollywood seems to have purposely missed this point, and it is likely this idolizing of money, and sex, that drew such big crowds at the box office. The way Hollywood paints his life to be so awesome is greatly skewed because Jordan himself referrers to his past life as “highly dysfunctional”. Although they do occasionally have a scene that shows the ramifications of drug addiction, it is far outweighed by scenes glorifying his lifestyle. This is the main underlying difference that I noticed from the book to the movie.
Lost in translation is a well-known phenomenon, it essentially states that some of depth of phrase is lost when translated between languages. There are language specific saying that were each word to be translated individually would not do justice, and would sound stupid. One must translate as a whole and even then some elements may be lost in translation. A good translation needs understanding of what works in both languages to make the translation come alive in it’s true form. One interesting story/legend that come to mind when I think of lost in translation is the legend of Septuagint. The legend has it that the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus forced seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek. He placed them in 72 separate chambers so as not to allow for any funny business. The scholars were concerned that if they translate the words exactly they may misrepresent the views of the Torah so they thought to take some creative liberties to accurately portray the views of the Torah, however, the pitfall was that if each one translated it differently the king would be pissed that it was a bullshit translation. The legend has it that God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did. Although this most definitely did not happen, it goes to show that the idea of lost in translation has been around for 1000+ years.
This principle surely applies to the translation between book and film. Some talented people can translate a phrase to compensate for what would be lost in translation and the same is true by film. This compensation was done flawlessly with the character of Mark Hanna. What comes to mind when you think of the character Mark Hanna? Crazy motherfucker, sex crazed junkie, and mindless money grubber, are just a few of thing that come to my mind. The book excellently portrays Mark Hanna’s bizarre personality, with his excessive drug consumption and his peculiar questions about Jordan’s masturbation habits. This is partially because of the creative liberties that the directors took. Without their genius Mark Hanna would have been a seemingly irrelevant character. His total screen time is about eight minutes, but he still manages to make his mark. This shows the power a good character to captivate audiences. This character allows viewers to take a peek into the brain of denigrate stockbroker. People like this do really exist, as the book is based on true story. The character is done so well that it allows one to simultaneously sympathize with the swindler and the swindleey. Mark Hanna is just trying to make a buck, in reality nobody knows if the stock market is going to go up. However Mark Hanna is not concerned whether or not it will go up, Mark is simply concerned about his commissions. This seems like almost reasonable position from his perspective.
Hmmmm-Hmmmm-Thud-Thud- Hmmmmm-Hmmmm-Thud-Thud-Hmmm-Hmmmm. Doesn’t really read that well, does it? Well that was arguably one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. This highlights how film and classic literature do not always translate perfectly. Here we have a scene that would be quickly passed over while reading, yet in film becomes a memorable scene. This phenomenon is well understood as the difference between languages, or “lost in translation”. Simply mimicking the book would not have done justice. With nothing short of genius, the writers crafted this brilliant and bizarre humming song which brought the character out of the page and on to the screen. The song was a huge hit with people; there are a surprising number of articles about it scattered across the internet. One of them discussing how a major league baseball player used it as his walk on song. For a short time after the movie’s release this tune was unavoidable, one would always hear someone humming it at some point in their day. The popularity of the hum and the character of Mark Hanna clearly shows how one must take some artistic liberties when translating books into film. It is also worth noting that Matthew McConaughey won an Oscar for his performance as Mark Hanna, when in the book he was not much of a centerpiece.
There are those that argue that by adding these peculiarities the directors did not stay true to the reality of the character and by doing this they ended up exaggerating the character of Mark Hanna. I however do not maintain this position, I personally think that there portrayal can be considered accurate. Some things are so nuanced that the slightest deviation from its original form will cause it to be inaccurate, however, I don’t think that the personality of Mark Hanna is like that. It is flexible and up for interruption, this is how their changes still stayed true to his original form.
Although the previous stated difference between the book/ and movie was quite profound, the largest difference was Jordan taking/not taking the deal with the Securities Exchange Commissions. The movie had the SEC offer Jordan the identical deal as offered in the book, but the movie had Jordan defiantly decline the offer, and give a rousing speech to his employs based on his supposed invincibility. This seemingly blasphemous difference was crucial to make Jordan seem like the ultimate Bad Ass. Bad Asses don’t obey government agencies. This further illustrates how sticking religiously to the literal script may be detrimental portraying to the full breadth of a character.
Film and books both have their advantages and shortcomings.
Film is a primarily visual medium, while books rely heavily on the reader’s imagination. Books have an advantage when expressing thoughts and feelings as they can focus on what a person was thinking during their actions. This is much more difficult to do with films. This is similar to how each language has its own advantages and shortcomings. Some languages may be better at expressing certain types of ideas, while others may be better at expressing different types of ideas. Ultimately the difference between languages is very similar to the difference between books/film. They are all forms of
expression.
Film and books are both forms of expression with their own advantages/disadvantages. A Books will not translate perfectly into a film, therefore a directors must take creative liberties when adapting a book into a movie. This is shown with the Mark Hanna in the book and movie of the wolf of wall St. A similar phenomenon occurs with language translations, as some of meaning of phrase can be lost when translated. One must overcompensate in both cases if they wish to have the adaption be accurate to its original form.
Personalities are expressed very differently through film than through classic literature such as books. A person may seem very eccentric on paper, but simply mimicking those actions on film does not necessarily convey that personality. We can see this through the book/movie of the Wolf of Wall St. The personality of Mark Hanna was expressed beautifully in the book, yet acting out the exact actions in the form of film would not have done justice to this eccentric character, and this why the director took several artistic liberties to ensure the film fully conveyed the richness of the character.
In synopsis, The Wolf of Wall St is a book about the rise and fall of Jordan Belfort, a white Jewish boy from Queens. The story starts with the young and money hungry Jordan getting a job on Wall St as a connector, a low level job where the goal was to get and keep people on the phone and move them on to a broker. He eventually lost this job because the brokerage firm he worked for closed down. The insanity in his life really started when he opened his own firm “Stratton Oakmont” as this firm slowly drifted away into sleazier and more lucrative ventures. The most intriguing thing about Jordan was not how he made his money, but …show more content…
what he did with it. Jordan lived a highly eccentric life with lots of drugs, sex, and material pleasures. This glamor is what ultimately attracted Hollywood to make it into a major motion picture. Although Jordan specifically states that “this is a cautionary tale” and one should not aspire to be like him Hollywood seems to have purposely missed this point, and it is likely this idolizing of money, and sex, that drew such big crowds at the box office. The way Hollywood paints his life to be so awesome is greatly skewed because Jordan himself referrers to his past life as “highly dysfunctional”. Although they do occasionally have a scene that shows the ramifications of drug addiction, it is far outweighed by scenes glorifying his lifestyle. This is the main underlying difference that I noticed from the book to the movie.
Lost in translation is a well-known phenomenon, it essentially states that some of depth of phrase is lost when translated between languages. There are language specific saying that were each word to be translated individually would not do justice, and would sound stupid. One must translate as a whole and even then some elements may be lost in translation. A good translation needs understanding of what works in both languages to make the translation come alive in it’s true form. One interesting story/legend that come to mind when I think of lost in translation is the legend of Septuagint. The legend has it that the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus forced seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek. He placed them in 72 separate chambers so as not to allow for any funny business. The scholars were concerned that if they translate the words exactly they may misrepresent the views of the Torah so they thought to take some creative liberties to accurately portray the views of the Torah, however, the pitfall was that if each one translated it differently the king would be pissed that it was a bullshit translation. The legend has it that God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did. Although this most definitely did not happen, it goes to show that the idea of lost in translation has been around for 1000+ years.
This principle surely applies to the translation between book and film. Some talented people can translate a phrase to compensate for what would be lost in translation and the same is true by film. This compensation was done flawlessly with the character of Mark Hanna. What comes to mind when you think of the character Mark Hanna? Crazy motherfucker, sex crazed junkie, and mindless money grubber, are just a few of thing that come to my mind. The book excellently portrays Mark Hanna’s bizarre personality, with his excessive drug consumption and his peculiar questions about Jordan’s masturbation habits. This is partially because of the creative liberties that the directors took. Without their genius Mark Hanna would have been a seemingly irrelevant character. His total screen time is about eight minutes, but he still manages to make his mark. This shows the power a good character to captivate audiences. This character allows viewers to take a peek into the brain of denigrate stockbroker. People like this do really exist, as the book is based on true story. The character is done so well that it allows one to simultaneously sympathize with the swindler and the swindleey. Mark Hanna is just trying to make a buck, in reality nobody knows if the stock market is going to go up. However Mark Hanna is not concerned whether or not it will go up, Mark is simply concerned about his commissions. This seems like almost reasonable position from his perspective.
Hmmmm-Hmmmm-Thud-Thud- Hmmmmm-Hmmmm-Thud-Thud-Hmmm-Hmmmm. Doesn’t really read that well, does it? Well that was arguably one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. This highlights how film and classic literature do not always translate perfectly. Here we have a scene that would be quickly passed over while reading, yet in film becomes a memorable scene. This phenomenon is well understood as the difference between languages, or “lost in translation”. Simply mimicking the book would not have done justice. With nothing short of genius, the writers crafted this brilliant and bizarre humming song which brought the character out of the page and on to the screen. The song was a huge hit with people; there are a surprising number of articles about it scattered across the internet. One of them discussing how a major league baseball player used it as his walk on song. For a short time after the movie’s release this tune was unavoidable, one would always hear someone humming it at some point in their day. The popularity of the hum and the character of Mark Hanna clearly shows how one must take some artistic liberties when translating books into film. It is also worth noting that Matthew McConaughey won an Oscar for his performance as Mark Hanna, when in the book he was not much of a centerpiece.
There are those that argue that by adding these peculiarities the directors did not stay true to the reality of the character and by doing this they ended up exaggerating the character of Mark Hanna. I however do not maintain this position, I personally think that there portrayal can be considered accurate. Some things are so nuanced that the slightest deviation from its original form will cause it to be inaccurate, however, I don’t think that the personality of Mark Hanna is like that. It is flexible and up for interruption, this is how their changes still stayed true to his original form.
Although the previous stated difference between the book/ and movie was quite profound, the largest difference was Jordan taking/not taking the deal with the Securities Exchange Commissions. The movie had the SEC offer Jordan the identical deal as offered in the book, but the movie had Jordan defiantly decline the offer, and give a rousing speech to his employs based on his supposed invincibility. This seemingly blasphemous difference was crucial to make Jordan seem like the ultimate Bad Ass. Bad Asses don’t obey government agencies. This further illustrates how sticking religiously to the literal script may be detrimental portraying to the full breadth of a character.
Film and books both have their advantages and shortcomings.
Film is a primarily visual medium, while books rely heavily on the reader’s imagination. Books have an advantage when expressing thoughts and feelings as they can focus on what a person was thinking during their actions. This is much more difficult to do with films. This is similar to how each language has its own advantages and shortcomings. Some languages may be better at expressing certain types of ideas, while others may be better at expressing different types of ideas. Ultimately the difference between languages is very similar to the difference between books/film. They are all forms of
expression.
Film and books are both forms of expression with their own advantages/disadvantages. A Books will not translate perfectly into a film, therefore a directors must take creative liberties when adapting a book into a movie. This is shown with the Mark Hanna in the book and movie of the wolf of wall St. A similar phenomenon occurs with language translations, as some of meaning of phrase can be lost when translated. One must overcompensate in both cases if they wish to have the adaption be accurate to its original form.