Movie Analysis (Part 3): “The Big Short” — Characters

Another in our bi-weekly series in which we analyze movies currently in release. Why? To quote the writing mantra I coined over 5 years ago: Watch movies. Read scripts. Write pages. You will note which one comes first. Here are my reflections from that post about the importance of watching movies:

To be a good screenwriter, you need to have a broad exposure to the world of film. Every movie you see is a potential reference point for your writing, everything from story concepts you generate to characters you develop to scenes you construct. Moreover people who work in the movie business constantly reference existing movies when discussing stories you write; it’s a shorthand way of getting across what they mean or envision.

But most importantly, you need to watch movies in order to ‘get’ how movie stories work. If you immerse yourself in the world of film, it’s like a Gestalt experience where you begin to grasp intuitively scene composition, story structure, character functions, dialogue and subtext, transitions and pacing, and so on.

Let me add this: It’s important to see movies as they get released so that you stay on top of the business. Decisions get made in Hollywood in large part depending upon how movies perform, so watching movies as they come out puts you in the same head space as reps, producers, execs, and buyers.

This week’s movie: The Big Short which won the 2016 Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay, based on the book by Michael Lewis. You may download the script here.

Our schedule for discussion this week:

Monday: General Comments
Tuesday: Plot
Wednesday: Characters
Thursday: Themes
Friday: Dialogue
Saturday: Takeaways

For those of you who have not seen the movie, do not click MORE as we will be trafficking in major spoilers. If you have seen The Big Short, I invite you to join me in breaking down and analyzing the movie.

Previously I have suggested there is no character who might qualify as a ‘hero’ in the traditional sense of the word. But such is the nuance of the script that there is latitude among this profligate troop of profiteers. PaulG offers this take:

And two of them, Charlie and Jamie, did go to the Wall Street Journal (p. 101–102), but the reporter didn’t want to believe them, didn’t have guts to run the story. They suffered the fate of the mythological character Cassandra who was blessed with the gift of foreseeing the future and cursed with the fate of nobody believing her.

Which would have been the fate of all of them. They were specialists, small fish, menhaden, swimming in a pod of whales. Nobody would have paid attention to them. Nobody wanted to believe them.

And yes, they made a lot of money by betting right. But it’s chicken feed compared to the trillions of dollars in equity losses, the millions of people who were thrown out of work and out their houses.

David argues this:

I would say Burry’s actions were something more than nothing “remotely heroic”. He accomplished his duty to make his clients money. And that he did, as almost all other investors were losing their heads. He sacrificed any good will with his client base, even preventing them from making withdrawals from the fund, for his clients’ benefit. It takes a kind of courage and fortitude not often seen. As the market kept going against Burry, he’d note the losses on the whiteboard outside his office. But never did we get the sense he questioned his original analysis and decision.

I don’t see any of the guys in the movie having responsibility beyond their clients. Nobody was listening anyway. At that scale, I don’t see a traditional heroic role being possible.

And pkthewriter observes this:

I’m gonna go for Baum as the hero. No one said Heroes have to be likable, but his disdain for the entire process is a heroic quality. The twist is, “Oh, you’re so wrong and I should take you down, BUT I’M NOT.”

Plus, we know of Burry’s marriage and a bit of his kid, but we know more about Baum’s emotional battle — wanting to go back and have a second chance at saving his brother — and his desire to save others. He actually wants to help the people he’s taking advantage of, but the banker in him doesn’t let him. It’s interesting in the postscript that he gives his money to charity to help others who have been bullied.

These comments demonstrate how the script for The Big Short manages both to paint characters in broad strokes, yet also traffic in nuance. The movie is not a polemic, rather it engages us as we are forced to consider the world views of those who would profit at the expense of the working class.

What did you think of the characters in The Big Short?

Comment Archive