Le nouveau film de Martin Scorcese ne me semble pas à la hauteur de ses précédentes réalisations. Si le personnage du jeune courtier Jordan qui va se transformer en requin de la finance est bien campé et relativement plausible, la bande d'associés véreux qui l'accompagne l'est beaucoup moins. En outre, Le métier de courtier semble être un jeu d'enfant , il suffit de "pigeonner" de riches clients en faisant passer des actions hors côte pour des blue Chips, ce qui est évidemment assez loin de la réalité!
Le courtage est régi par des règles bien plus complexes : un acheteur de titres vous appelle et en fonction du marché et des autres contreparties que vous avez en face, vous proposez un prix. Entre-temps, si le marché décale (c'est à dire si le titre s'apprécie par rapport au cours annoncé ) vous devez payer l'acheteur de titres la différence de cours car vous vous êtes engagé à un cours donné, on est bien loin du mécanisme d'enrichissement automatique présenté dans le film.
Les procédures de manipulation de cours évoquées dans le film sont bien trop rudimentaires pour ne pas être détectées par les autorités de marchés. Il y a là pas mal de naïveté dans le scénario. On ne voit pas bien d'ailleurs sur quel élément Jordan plonge.
Le manque de documentation au niveau de l'écriture du scénario est manifeste ; on est loin du scénario limpide et très réaliste de "Margin Call" qui décortique l'effondrement du marché des dérivés de crédit.
Il est en plus très difficile de se situer dans le temps , si on sait que le début du film est situé après le krach d'octobre 1987, la chronologie est difficile à suivre car il n'y a pas de repère daté. Il est un moment question de la bulle internet et des valeurs de nouvelles technologies, mais c'est dix à douze ans plus tard alors que l'aventure est censée durer cinq ans!
Les scènes très crues assez répétitives n'ajoutent rien au propos du film, elles servent sans doute à meubler des longs vides dans le scénario.
Il reste heureusement la prestation de Leonardo Di Caprio qui est éblouissante et qui sauve finalement le film.
Le cinéma américain semble désormais braquer ses projecteurs sur les financiers de Wall Street avec l'intention de dénoncer leurs forfaits, certes, les exemples récents sont nombreux pour alimenter cette chronique cinématographique : de Madoff à Fabrice Tourre mais lorsque cela tourne à la caricature, on peut s'interroger sur la portée de cette dénonciation.
Martin Scorcese's new film does not seem to a par wih his former production. Indeed, if Jordan, the young broker who will turn a shark of the financial world is well portrayed, and relatively plausible, it is far more difficult to believe in the gang of shady partners surrounding him. Being a stock broker is a mere game which merely consists in cheating rich clients by telling them that unlisted shares are in fact blue chips, well of course, such a picture is far from real.
Brokerage must follow much more complex rules : A security buyer calls the broker and according to the market and also to the other couterparts, the broker offers a price. In the mean time, if the market moves forward (that is if the security rises against the quoted market price)then the broker must give the security buyer the difference between the two prices, since he has commited himself on a given price, so we are very far from the automatic way which enables brokers to become ever richer in the film. The price tampering dealt within the film is far too rudimentary not to be discovered by the market security authorities. As regard to this question, the script seems to show a certain lack of subtlety.
Besides which, it is not made very clear what makes Jordan go under.
The lack of proper knowledge in the conception of the script is obvious ; we are far from the clear-cut and realistic script of "Margin Call" which graphically describes the collapse of the credit derivative market.
Moreover, it is very difficult to know when the events take place: we know that the beginning of the film occurs after the krach of 1987 ; but afterwards, it's difficult to know where we stand since we are given no reference point. At one point, the internet bubble and the new technology stocks are referred to, but this in fact occurs ten or twelve years later, when in fact the story is supposed to last only five years.
The numerous coarse scenes don't add much to the meaning of the film ; perhaps they are meant to hide the lack of financial accuracy in the script. Fortunately, Leonardo Di Caprio's excellent acting saves the film.
American movie makers now seem focussed on wall street finance kings, and bent on exposing their misleads ; and true it is that recent events will offer plenty of examples almost ready made fodder for new films : from Madoff to Fabrice Tourre, there is much to say. But when exposure turns to caricature, it risks losing much of its impact.
Martin Scorcese's new film does not seem to a par wih his former production. Indeed, if Jordan, the young broker who will turn a shark of the financial world is well portrayed, and relatively plausible, it is far more difficult to believe in the gang of shady partners surrounding him. Being a stock broker is a mere game which merely consists in cheating rich clients by telling them that unlisted shares are in fact blue chips, well of course, such a picture is far from real.
Brokerage must follow much more complex rules : A security buyer calls the broker and according to the market and also to the other couterparts, the broker offers a price. In the mean time, if the market moves forward (that is if the security rises against the quoted market price)then the broker must give the security buyer the difference between the two prices, since he has commited himself on a given price, so we are very far from the automatic way which enables brokers to become ever richer in the film. The price tampering dealt within the film is far too rudimentary not to be discovered by the market security authorities. As regard to this question, the script seems to show a certain lack of subtlety.
Besides which, it is not made very clear what makes Jordan go under.
The lack of proper knowledge in the conception of the script is obvious ; we are far from the clear-cut and realistic script of "Margin Call" which graphically describes the collapse of the credit derivative market.
Moreover, it is very difficult to know when the events take place: we know that the beginning of the film occurs after the krach of 1987 ; but afterwards, it's difficult to know where we stand since we are given no reference point. At one point, the internet bubble and the new technology stocks are referred to, but this in fact occurs ten or twelve years later, when in fact the story is supposed to last only five years.
The numerous coarse scenes don't add much to the meaning of the film ; perhaps they are meant to hide the lack of financial accuracy in the script. Fortunately, Leonardo Di Caprio's excellent acting saves the film.
American movie makers now seem focussed on wall street finance kings, and bent on exposing their misleads ; and true it is that recent events will offer plenty of examples almost ready made fodder for new films : from Madoff to Fabrice Tourre, there is much to say. But when exposure turns to caricature, it risks losing much of its impact.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire