All Spelled Out

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

"The richest 1 percent of this country owns half our country's wealth -- five trillion dollars," Michael Douglas's Gordon Gekko declared 22 years ago in Oliver Stone's Wall Street. "One-third of that comes from hard work, and two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do -- stock and real-estate speculation. [And] it's bullshit.

"You got 90 percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. You're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it."

As Hollywood & Fine's Marshall Fine observed in a 10.14 article, "This is the same message that Michael Moore is offering in Capitalism: A Love Story, except Moore is bemoaning, not celebrating, these ideas.

Gekko's "bullshit" speech "was overlooked at the time because people were so enamored of the more sound-bite-friendly line, 'Greed, for lack of a better word, is good,'" Fine writes. "As Douglas was prepping for Wall Street 2, he told interviewers that financial types regularly come up to him and tell him that his famous line inspired them to become corporate assholes like Gekko - thus missing the point of the film.

"But it's that other speech that nails it. Gekko delivers it to calm Bud (Charlie Sheen), who's angry at Gekko for dismantling an airline whose sale Bud engineered in order to save it. It's all there -- all the points that Moore makes. That our economy has become consumed with itself, with financial services and their assorted sordid byproducts. Stone was telling the future - and, as I recall, he was castigated at the time for being simplistic and alarmist."

It's an excellent piece -- please read the whole thing.

Mr. Cottonball<< previous | next >>Redford, Conspirators in Savannah

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM

comment #1

Bobby Cooper Superior says ...

'Nixon' may have broken his spirit and 'Alexander' broken it again, but Stone's films from this mega-streak will have true force for years to come.

Posted by Bobby Cooper Superior at October 16, 2009 6:04 AM

comment #2

snoop says ...

Here's the speech, layered over some images that attempted to make it more current:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mWAxHpeew

Posted by snoop at October 16, 2009 6:07 AM

comment #3

mccool says ...

If I recall correctly, that speech is given not after the Bluestar breakup, but near the middle of the film when Bud is resisting becoming Gekko's patsy.

Great speech. Very poetic. But so what?? When did net worth become the measure of a man? The "scraps" which we are given afford anyone with the desire plenty of opportunity to live an examined, fulfilling, meaningful life. It shouldn't matter how rich the rich are relative to the rest of us. Most Americans live the epicurean dream ... a lifestyle of comfort and convenience and, most importantly, security that people around the world and throughout history wouldn't even dare imagine. For those not satisfied with the mundane, bourgeois life that's provided by those scraps, well, there are plenty of ways to rebel and find meaning elsewhere.... no one forces anyone to buy their paper clips, or fly their airlines, or buy their cars. The great thing about America is that you're free to reject whatever you like and pursue whatever idea of happiness you might have. If the only way you measure happiness is by comparing your "net worth" and material wealth to the richest 1%, you'll never be happy.....and it's shame that your blessings--whether achieved individually or bestowed by the 1%, or some combination thereof--aren't enough.

Posted by mccool at October 16, 2009 6:58 AM

comment #4

Shadow And Act says ...

Let's hope "Wall Street II" hits the mark with those financial types who missed the point entirely of the first "Wall Street."

However, I wonder if Stone maybe glamorized Gekko's lifestyle a bit much, detracting audiences from his intended message. I recently watched "New Jack City" again, which was released around the same time; Van Peebles meant for it to be an anti-drug movie, but the film ended up glorifying the drug dealer lifestyle a bit too much instead, and didn't have much of an over impact. Although, it wasn't that good of a film anyway.

Posted by Shadow And Act at October 16, 2009 7:00 AM

comment #5

Sabina E says ...

But these greedy bastards DO have glamorous lifestyles-- oh, what lots of money can buy! Not so much anymore today.... heh

yeah, as for NEW JACK CITY, that's always the problem with making films about drug dealers, bank robbers, gangsters, serial killers, murderers, or terrorists. They end up looking iconic and mysterious, no matter how the director will try to rail against that.

Posted by Sabina E at October 16, 2009 7:27 AM

comment #6

QualityGibberish says ...

Sociopaths like those financiers will always find inspiration somewhere, but the easiest place to find it is in Hollywood's oeuvre. Crap, gangsters learned their vocabulary from the flicks.

Posted by QualityGibberish at October 16, 2009 8:15 AM

comment #7

arturobandini2 says ...

If you'll notice, a creepy pattern has emerged among some of Stone's most successful films (Wall Street, Scarface, Natural Born Killers). He claims to despise their central characters, yet audiences come away in awe of them and spend their lives trying to emulate them. If artistic success is measured by how well one gets his or her message across, then Oliver Stone is a dismal failure.

I'm no economist, but there's a basic undeniable law when it comes to capitalism: If you're making double what you need to survive, someone else is only making half of what they need to survive. If you make 100x what you need ... well, you shouldn't need Michael Moore or Oliver Stone to do the math for you. There's no infinite amount of wealth to go around for everyone who works for it. If you're one of the lucky bastards in that top 1%, the test of your character is how many people you allow to starve to death while you wallow in gilt-edged extravagance.

Posted by arturobandini2 at October 16, 2009 10:09 AM

comment #8

crazynine says ...

""One-third of that comes from hard work, and two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do -- stock and real-estate speculation. [And] it's bullshit. "

It *IS* bullshit, as in only a minor fraction of the "rich" in America inherit their wealth.

This cite says only 10%, which meshes with the numbers I've always heard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318431042373224.html

But hey, 10% is *like* two-thirds. . . can't confuse the "narrative".

Posted by crazynine at October 16, 2009 11:17 AM

comment #9

Gordon27 says ...

"But hey, 10% is *like* two-thirds. . . can't confuse the "narrative"."

You seem to confused by the nature of the comma. The comma following inheritance indicates that it is one of a list of things which, collectively, add up to two-thirds. It also should be pointed out that the one-thirds/two-thirds numbers seem roughed out, more for the purposes of making Gekko's point than actually hard and fast. Maybe it's as much as 40% hard work....

Posted by Gordon27 at October 16, 2009 12:36 PM

comment #10

Sean E says ...

I'm no economist, but there's a basic undeniable law when it comes to capitalism: If you're making double what you need to survive, someone else is only making half of what they need to survive.

Complete economic illiteracy.

If I provide a product or service you want, and you pay me for it, we are both better off. I have more money, and you have something you valued more highly than the money you spent - or else you wouldn't have spent it. That is how most people make their money in a capitalist economy - by providing things other people willingly give them money for.

And capitalism can - and does - create wealth. It's not magic that has caused the standard of living for the vast majority of the planet to increase so dramatically over the past hundred years. There isn't one static pile of money that we all divvy up. As productivity goes up, there is more stuff available for everyone. And that's all money is - a claim against stuff.

Posted by Sean E at October 16, 2009 1:38 PM

comment #11

DeeZee says ...

Man, I can't wait for the sequel to be akin to what Paramount wanted Spike Lee to do with Do the Right thing.

mccool: "The great thing about America is that you're free to reject whatever you like and pursue whatever idea of happiness you might have."

Not if the insurance lobby has its way with health care "reform".

"and it's shame that your blessings--whether achieved individually or bestowed by the 1%, or some combination thereof--aren't enough."

Well, unfortunately, it's not enough to even save the country.

Posted by DeeZee at October 16, 2009 2:22 PM

comment #12

Abbey Normal says ...

McCool @3: Your attitude of taking what you can get and being happy with it is comforting, and even has a feint hint of zen wisdom. So I suppose it's not entirely reprehensible. However, your blithe ignorance of the havoc and human tragedy wreaked by our skewed wealth distriibution, not just in America but in the rest of the world, is appalling.

I could spell it out for you, but maybe you should just open your eyes a little more and see the suffering that is created when so much is concentrated in the hands of so few.

Posted by Abbey Normal at October 17, 2009 10:47 AM

comment #13