I just don't think there's enough of that in the film to say that the whole film is an indictment of Jordan. I'm not expecting Spring Breakers-style irony in every film, and I definitely don't expect Scorsese to lead me through the film. I do expect, however, that the visuals would say more than they did in Wolf, which is what really let me down about the film. If you look at Raging Bull, the visuals are what make the film critical of its protagonist. If you look at Wolf, I'm not sure if you can really tell anything from the visuals. The visuals are what should've helped his audience to know that this was an indictment rather than entertainment here. So I do think the film is MEANT as an indictment, but it's not successful enough from a filmmaking perspective to actually ever become one.

It's sex, drugs, and wild extravagence for 2 hours and 45 minutes, and in the last five minutes he gets a divorce, hits his wife, steals his kid, crashes his car, goes to jail… Except we barely see him in jail, and then he goes right back to making money hand over fist. I guess that's supposed to be a commentary on our incredibly weak justice system, but there's so little time spent talking about it it seems more like an afterthought. How much money did he ultimately lose? Why was it so easy for him to pay off people in prison? How did he pull that off? How long did the people he ratted on go to jail? How many of their clients went bankrupt because of his practices?

He spends the whole movie winning, then wins some more. The end.

*If Scorsese condones this behavior, why does he include the shots of Belforts daughter looking on in horror at her drugged up father? Those shots are clearly not from Belfort's perspective since he had no consideration for the consequences of his actions. The film revels in a certain kind of person's perspective for three hours. It is in the brief moments where it deviates from that reverie that the artist's true nature and opinion lies.

* We never see the victims because the film is told from the perspective of someone who didn't think about the victims. That was obvious to me from the beginning. Most of us don't need to see the victims because we are the victims. This film is about the same kind of addiction to money, greed and power that brought us the 2008 financial crisis. Sure, most of those Wall Street guys weren't having massive orgies and drug binges, but the film is using the story of one extreme individual to express an idea that goes farther beyond him alone.

*The film ends on a long still shot of an audience. An audience that has gathered in admiration of Jordan Belfort. The film indicts the audience that glorifies and longs for this lifestyle and behavior just as much as the people who partake in it. How many times did we hear people (ordinary middle class citizens) making excuses for the "Wolves of Wall Street" in 2008? A lot of people out there want that lifestyle.

* It seems to me that a lot of people are upset because the film doesn't use the same old conventional norms of wagging a finger at this behavior and instead tries to take a much more provocative (albeit controversial) approach. Scorsese is trying to change the form (whether successful or not) and in turn has started a fascinating conversation about people like Jordan Belfort. I definitely think Martin Scorsese is trying to make audiences angry with this film. It just seems they're more angry at him than Jordan Belfort.

* Please stop with this archaic film-school term, "character development." Believe it or not, some people go through life without any introspection, without ever changing. Are we not allowed to make films about those people? At the end of Dr. Strangelove, have any of those characters gone through any sincere change? The world is suffering from a nuclear holocaust and they're having an absurd conversation about procreation. The same "procreation obsession" that lead to nuclear war in the first place. Zero hint of any humility, wondering how they let it all happen. There are countless examples of successful films where characters go through zero character development. Those also tend to be films indicting the characters. (Speaking of Kubrick, I'm pretty sure A Clockwork Orange is told from the sole perspective of one despicable character, basking in the joy and ecstasy of his actions. Kubrick was passionately attacked by critics and audiences for "condoning" acts of violence.)

* I have often wondered, what is more deserving of praise… A perfectly made, great film, that recycles that same old conventional storytelling techniques? Or the film that tries to do something different, change the form, tell a story in a novel way, but fails?

I don't know if Wolf of Wall Street succeeds or fails, but it's got us talking more than any other film this year.