Last night Martin Scorsese's 'Wolf of Wall Street' came home, and premiered at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York City.

I went.

Let me premise this review by saying that I don't go to these things — these Hollywood glitterati everyone-hold-your-breath-there's-Leo things. These suck-it-in-you're-on-the-red-carpet-now-smile things.

But I had a killer, killer time. It wasn't hard. The crowd was positive, the movie — the story of a crooked Wall Streeter and his opulent rise and ugly fall — had chops (though I'll get to my qualms in a moment), and the after party was fun.

The movie started early, at 6:00 pm. This may have something to do with the fact that it is about three hours long (a problem). I had one drink before the film started rolling. I wish I'd had two, as I skipped the red carpet anyway.

And I recommend that all civilians (non-film) people do this. In skipping the red carpet I skipped the squealing, flashing, and crowding that more resembles Times Square traffic than an actual celebration. Plus, you get a good spot to watch people walk in and out of the theater. Those are the money sightings. Remember that.

Now for the movie. The Wolf of Wall Street is the story of Jordan Belfort, a Queens kid turned penny stock hustler who made a fortune on Long Island in the 80s and 90s. The way Scorsese tells it, Belfort's firm, Stratton-Oakmont, was basically a non-stop orgy of greed, drugs, money and sex. Belfort's personal life was like that too.

The first hour or so of the movie was hilarious. This was Belfort's rise — his introduction to Wall Street and his A-Ha moment. The moment he realizes he can teach any idiots to sell stocks to idiots. The idiots he finds to do the selling are pitch perfect, especially Donnie Azoff (played by Jonah Hill in a perfect pair of prosthetic teeth).

Some coke, crack and a ton of Quaaludes later Belfort is rich beyond belief and married to his second wife, a bombshell named Naomi, played by Margot Robbie. Both Robbie and Hill team up to steal the show from DiCaprio. He was good, yes. But they were better.

If I had driven to the North Shore of Long Island directly after the movie and cut off a Escalade on the highway, it could easily have been Robbie and Hill flipping me off from the front seat as they drove away. That's how spot on they were.

Plus, Bo Deedle played a private investigator in the movie, Fran Lebowitz had a cameo, and the soundtrack was full of 90s dance party tunes that had me thinking about MTV Jamz and In Living Color re-runs.

There were some issues though. Belfort's real victims, the investors who lost money, were nowhere to be found. That made it harder to see how he was more than a degenerate, he was a criminal. He lied to people and took their money. That shouldn't be forgotten.

Additionally, the movie was too long. I won't mention where I started to fidget in my seat — I've already said much too much — but (and I never thought I'd type this) maybe there was too much yachting.

None of this, obviously, is what makes a premiere special, though. Anyone can see the movie in the theater. What's cool about the premiere is that a guy behind me whispered "hey, that's my pillow," during one of the scenes in Belfort's living room. The people that made the movie were there. They finally got to celebrate the furniture they donated, the money they spent, the actors they dressed — what have you. That's what makes a premiere cool. You get to pretend you're part of the family.

And after-parties. Those make it cool too. The Wolf Of Wall Street after-party was at the Roseland Ballroom in NYC. It's a venue that sees more "18-and-over" concerts than Hollywood blow-outs, but it looked great.

The party was a mix of freezing girls in cocktail dresses dresses, New York City social royalty, film industry folk, and of course, the stars.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese were there sitting at a table near the DJ. I didn't get close because they were mobbed, and it seemed like a lot of work. Like, real "cut through body guards, avoid the girl having a silent melt-down and don't spill your drink" work.

The key to the after-party is not to spend your time stalking people, but to find a bar and post up. Everyone needs a drink, and in doing that you'll watch a lot of key people go by, like Kevin Connolly from Entourage (I've always had a soft spot for E, don't judge me).

More importantly, try to go with an industry person who actually knows the people that made the event happen — the planners, the media connectors, the sponsor finders. They are the silent force that moves this entire show along.

The night in general was about that force. At a premiere, the movie is the icing, the celebration is the cake.

Let them eat cake.

SEE ALSO: Photos From Last Night's 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Premiere

Join the conversation about this story »

Last night was the New York City premiere of the highly-anticipated film, "The Wolf Of Wall Street." 

The movie is an adaptation of Jordan Belfort's best-selling tell-all memoir that chronicles his boozy, drug-fueled hard-partying lifestyle as a Wall Street hustler running a 90s-era boiler room. 

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Margot Robbie Matthew McConaughey and Jonah Hill. It's directed by Martin Scorsese. 

Business Insider's Linette Lopez got to see it last night and has a review of the film.

We've also included photos from the red carpet in the slides that follow. 

The highly coveted tickets for last night's NYC premiere and after party.

The 'red' carpet...

The NYC premiere was at the Ziegfeld Theater in Midtown Manhattan.

Leonardo DiCaprio‘s latest film is called The Wolf Of Wall Street, but it’s a chimpanzee that’s making headlines after the actor consented to scenes with a trained primate.

Animal rights organization PETA slammed the star last week for allegedly perpetuating animal cruelty, and revealed today that more than 40,000 fans have signed a petition taking DiCaprio to task for his actions.

DiCaprio acted with the ape, named Chance, in a scene that shows a raucous party in his characters stock brokerage.

PHOTOS: Leonardo Dicaprio Kisses Cristin Milioti On Set Of The Wolf of Wall Street In New York City

“Someone as committed to environmental concerns as Leonardo DiCaprio should know better than to support well-documented cruelty involved in using great apes for entertainment,” PETA primatologist Julia Galluci said in a statement.

“PETA hopes that the next time Leo receives a script with an ape ‘actor’ in it, he’ll remember that these sensitive animals are stolen from their mothers at birth and subjected to physical abuse, and he’ll demand a rewrite.”

In particular, PETA claims, the young chimpanzee filmed for the flick was provided by the Rosaire family, “which is notorious for operating a traveling circus that forces chimpanzees to perform cruel and unnatural acts.” 

According to PETA, the Rosaires have been cited by the USDA for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In addition, a whistleblower allegedly told PETA, the on-set monitor assigned to the film by the scandal-ridden American Humane Society had no experience with primates.

PHOTOS: Naked Do-Gooders: Ladies Who’ve Stripped Down For A Cause

With that information in mind, PETA’s petition begs DiCaprio, “Please pledge never to work with great apes again!

The petition currently has more than 40,000 signatures. DiCaprio has yet to comment.

SEE ALSO: We Saw 'Wolf Of Wall Street' With A Bunch Of Wall Street Dudes And It Was Disturbing

Join the conversation about this story »

Does Jonah Hill take himself too seriously?

That seems to be the theme of most conversations when you bring up the actor who first made us crack up as sex-crazed clown Seth in Superbad.

During James Franco’s record-setting roast on Comedy Central it was the go-to stab. In his interview for Rolling Stone's cover story earlier this year, it seemed to be the prevailing take away for many readers.

Perhaps it’s true. Or perhaps there's just that inevitable skepticism that greets comedic actors who attempt to portray a character of any depth. Hill's backed up his transition into serious film roles, though.

His portrayal of Peter Brand in Brad Pitt’s Moneyball landed him an Oscar nomination and this week, he returns as Donnie Azoff in The Wolf of Wall Street, another role that has people buzzing. 

Rolling Stone spoke with Hill about why he needed Best Buy to help him with his Wolf part, fighting on set with Leonardo DiCaprio and what to expect from 22 Jump Street.

See Where 'Wolf of Wall Street' Ranked on Peter Travers' Top 10 Movies of 2013

You’ve had a pretty diverse couple of years. How are you feeling about the movies that you’re doing right now?

These last few years have been awesome. It’s incredibly surreal. When I heard that this project existed, I heard that I was on a list to play this part with a bunch of actors who I respected and who I had every belief would get the part before me.

I love getting to do different kinds of pictures and what Moneyball and an Academy Award nomination did bring me was an opportunity to be in a conversation with these people. To be very frank, an Oscar nomination for the most part made me a person that exists in the world of Martin Scorsese. Which I’m incredibly grateful for.

How well did you know The Wolf of Wall Street material?

I read the book a few times actually. I read the script many times.

Then Leo and I spent a lot of time with the real Jordan Belfort. He was unbelievable helpful and he was actually available to us pretty much at all times. We could text him, give him a call or go to dinner with him in the city. He was just a well of information and history on the subject.

It’s my favorite way to work and in Moneyball I was working in a similar situation where I got to talk to Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta. It’s really invaluable in these kinds of pictures with real life characters in place.

Your character Donnie Azoff has some ridiculous teeth in this movie. Was it hard to get used to those?

It was written into the script that I had crazy veneers that I wore. When I put them in for the first time I had this serious lisp; it was to the point where it was hard to hear me so I figured I needed to practice.

None of my friends would stay on the phone and talk to me, so what I would do is call random Best Buy locations and ask for customer service and just chat with strangers. People hung up on me pretty quick but it did work after a number of those. I got rid of the lisp.

There are a couple moments that are very physical between you and Leo. Did you worry about injuries?

We have a fight scene where we’re on Quaaludes and it’s really physical. We were all deep in character and tried to make it feel real. I think Leo got so into it he forgot his own strength and essentially I got beat up. For real. So I got hurt, but it looks awesome on screen.

Do you think you'll work with Scorsese again?

Every project I do is about collaboration. No man is an island and nobody builds anything by themselves. When I’m doing a film, I’m looking for people that I connect with and when we’re able to create together I want to keep those people around. It makes things familiar and the best work comes out of it as well.

Do you have any projects lined up next?

I have no idea right now. I will tell you this. I’m not going to do anything that I’m not incredibly passionate about.

Is that something that you decided recently?

It’s a lesson that took me some time to learn. There were movies that I "had to do" that I "couldn’t not do." When you’re a young actor you have this constant fear that there will be no work. I would say yes to anything and everything, whether or not I was passionate about it.

Now, for my own benefit, and for the people who want to come see my work, I owe it to them to do roles that I am personally moved by.

You just wrapped 22 Jump Street. How was it getting that crew back together?

It was great. I had just got off of doing two really serious and heavy films in a row, this movie and True Story with James Franco. Getting back on that set with Channing [Tatum] was just cathartic and fun. We let loose and had a blast.

What can we expect from this one?

It’s got the same feel as the last movie. It’s just pure entertainment. We just have a really, really good time. I’m not sure how to explain our friendship. We’re combustible together. Like gasoline and a match.

SEE ALSO: The 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Was An Amazing Movie With An Important Moral Message

Join the conversation about this story »

I saw "The Wolf Of Wall Street" yesterday. I don't know how to write a proper movie review, so I'll just say a few quick things.

The first is that it was an incredibly entertaining Martin Scorsese classic. The story is funny, dirty (tons of sex and drugs), and the directing is top notch (it's Scorsese so the soundtrack is great throughout). It's just really enjoyable. It was three hours long and I never got bored.

There's been some whines about how the film glorified Jordan Belfort (who made a fortune starting his own boiler room, pump-and-dump brokerage) and didn't focus on any of the victims. And there's truth to that. But that doesn't mean it was an amoral movie.

In fact it had a pretty fascinating message, which was: The American Dream isn't about becoming middle class and having your kids go to college, it's about becoming ridiculously rich. But the institutions that allow people to become ridiculously rich (Wall Street banks, etc.) aren't open to people with the wrong background and without the correct connections and breeding. So in light of that contradiction, the only way for normals to achieve the American dream is to find something that's in a grey area of the law.

Thus the story depicts how Jordan Belfort took a group of losers from Long Island and turned them into sales geniuses that could sell stocks like crazy (many of them penny stocks or scammy IPOs or other schemes). 

The movie features several scenes where Belfort delivers powerful, motivational speeches to the brokers at Stratton Oakmont (his brokerage) and to some they may recall the famous speech of Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street." But they're actually more similar to Tom Cruise's character in "Magnolia," who gives workshops to losers purporting to teach them how to be as successful as he is with women (even though they all lack his charisma and good looks).

It makes for an inherently interesting theme of how people who lack resources (connections, education, social graces, good looks etc.) can achieve wild success.

SEE ALSO: Watching Wolf Of Wall Street with a bunch of Wall Streeters was disturbing

Join the conversation about this story »

Martin Scorsese unleashed his latest, The Wolf of Wall Street, on unsuspecting audience members Christmas Day.

It turned out to be an unusual film with which to commemorate the birth of baby Jesus.

Sex, drugs, sex, violence, butt candles, sex, midgets, sex and more sex crammed each frame of Scorsese’s depiction of financial corruption and excess. Critics fawned.

The debauchery-laden drama has a healthy 77% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, with our own Eric saying that the movie is DiCaprio and Scorsese’s best collaboration yet.

Audiences don’t seem to agree, however. Though the movie got off to a fast start, earning north of $9 million on Christmas Day, those lured to the cinemas by the promise of DiCaprio and Scorsese bombarding Wall Street are leaving disappointed.

CinemaScore polls moviegoers as they exit theaters, calculating "a distinctive CinemaScore grade" that gives the industry a ballpark reaction.

"Wolf," so far, has earned a C. That sounds average. On CinemaScore, it isn’t. It’s terrible. Audience rarely trash a movie to the CinemaScore pollsters.

Currently, "Wolf" has the lowest grade, behind such movies as "47 Ronin" (B+), "Walking With Dinosaurs" (B), "Homefront" (B), and "Jackass: Bad Grandpa" (B). Yes, "Bad Grandpa."

I can’t say I’m surprised. In fact, I tend to agree with the general consensus on this point. But critics created such a stir on Twitter about the disconnect between movie and audience that we thought it required further analysis. (Read CinemaScore pollster Kenny Miles’ feed for some of the general, hateful reaction.)

There has to be a reason why a movie trumpeted by critics is failing to connect with mainstream America. Here are the three that jump to mind.

1. Scorsese’s Ode To Excess Is Too Excessive

"Wolf" has no interest in moderation. The point of Scorsese’s movie (I believe) is that power corrupts those who lack a moral compass.

And it’s entertaining, in a depraved sort of way, to see financial wunderkind Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) abuse his fortunes, paying for competitive dwarf tossing in his Wall Street office, dropping untold fortunes on drugs and women, and narrating every step of his own personal orgy.

That high lasts, in my own opinion, for about an hour. Scorsese needed to shift focus away from Jordan after establishing what an asshole this character is if he hoped to keep audiences invested in this slog through sleaze.

Instead, "Wolf" gives us two additional hours in the presence of this douchebag.

By the midpoint of "Wolf," I’d had more than enough. The experience is exhausting in the way it shovels Jordan’s excessive abuses.

There’s a two-hour cut of "Wolf "begging to emerge, if Scorsese had more time and wasn’t racing to reach an end-of-year deadline for awards consideration.

2. Christmas Was the Wrong Date

Not that Hollywood hasn’t released counter programming on the most joyous holiday of the year.

Just last season, audiences were invited to Tom Hooper’s "Les Miserables," a depressing musical march through several individual hardships that at least had the backing of a famous stage show in its corner.

I’m guessing that audiences looking for something different this Christmas season were shocked (and possibly appalled) by the gratuitous nature of Scorsese’s latest. It recently caught an Academy member by surprise.

Personally, I was prepared for extreme levels of debauchery in "Wolf," and was still taken aback by the amount of profanity in the director’s theatrical cut. Not that I’m a prude. Sex, violence, drug use and debauchery have a place when they are helping to make a point in a movie.

I’m not sure Scorsese’s "Wolf" has anything to say about the empty suits on the Wall Street circuit … at least, nothing we haven’t heard before, especially in earlier Scorsese films about men who are obsessed with (and ultimately corrupted by) power.

Guy Lodge says it best on InContention: "I wasn't left with much when the circus was over: its moral stance, such as it is, is laid out early on, leaving us jogging furiously in place for three hours." Audiences tended to agree.

To be honest, I'm not sure WHEN Paramount should have dropped "Wolf" into theaters. Perhaps in October, when controversial Oscar fare seeks approval (though Scorsese's opus wasn't ready, so NEXT October would have been the option). It's merely possible that Christmas was an odd time to unleash a sex-and-drug-fueled extravaganza.

3. It Was Marketed Incorrectly

This doesn’t necessarily put the blame on Paramount, which had a new Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio collaboration on its plate and knew a certain audience would turn up, no matter the content.

Watch that trailer, though. It paints "Wolf" as "Goodfellas." A couple of colorful characters pull themselves up by their bootstraps (illegally, mind you), but pay the price when the FBI catches on to their schemes. That’s only a small sliver of "Wolf," as anyone who has seen it knows, and the debauchery is barely hinted at in the film’s full trailer.

Now, buyer beware, right? It’s up to an individual to read up on a movie, to see what they are in store for. And there have been plenty of in-depth think pieces analyzing the filth and depravity Scorsese willingly put into "Wolf."

But the CinemaScore, accurate by its own standards, illustrates how audience members checking out "Wolf" on Christmas Day either didn’t know what they were getting, or simply didn’t like what they got.

SEE ALSO: 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' Was An Amazing Movie With An Important Moral Message

Join the conversation about this story »

Like most filmmakers of his generation, Martin Scorsese went to film school (NYU in his case), and there he made a number of shorts during the course of his training and study.

A few of these student films survive, including 1963′s What’s a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?, which may be his earliest use of a narrator telling his life story in the first person.

This is the structure he uses once again with his latest feature, The Wolf of Wall Street. But the protagonist of that 50-year-old 9-minute effort (which you can find all over YouTube) bears little similarity with the one Leonardo DiCaprio plays in the new movie.

Scorsese’s following student film, 1964′s It’s Not Just You, Murray! (the young director clearly liked punctuated titles at the time), features a few more parallels and even seems like a template for a number of later works, including Goodfellas, Casino and now The Wolf of Wall Street.

The fact that It’s Not Just You, Murray! is about gangsters aligns it more with the former two films.

But I believe we’re supposed to think of The Wolf of Wall Street as a kind of gangster film — or at least a crime film, which is often the same thing. Where the early short and the very long new feature start off being alike is in their opening sequences.

The narrator of Murray, who is also the title character (played by Ira Rubin), begins by breaking the fourth wall and showing us his expensive clothes and car and then sets out to tell us how he wound up so wealthy.

In Wolf, Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) also begins by telling us of his riches, showing us his house and car and yacht and trophy wife, and then sets out to tell us how he got there.

Murray starts as a bootlegger before doing time at Sing Sing. Jordan starts as a legit broker before the 1987 crash. After their respective snags, they each become instrumental in a new empire of corruption.

Where Wolf doesn’t stick with Murray, the way Goodfellas and Casino do, is in its lack of multiple narrators. But the films connect again in their employment of a main character who is an unreliable narrator.

For Murray, Scorsese sticks with the idea throughout, almost always showing us something that at least partly contradicts with what we’re hearing. Sometimes Murray is straight-out lying and playing the victim, as in the way he describes his bootlegging bust as a “misunderstanding,” and other times he seems to be clueless of what’s going on around him or behind his back.

That kind of trickery isn’t done in Wolf, but we are reminded of Jordan’s untrustworthiness in a sequence of events that we see play out twice — not that the first version is a lie so much as an illustration of how the events appeared to a heavily drugged Jordan at the time.

Murray is actually a victim to his dominant business partner, Joe, who lets Murray take the fall and is clearly having an affair with Murray’s wife (apparently co-writer Mardik Martin‘s sister, Andrea Martin, who it’s pretty clear is not the same person as the SCTV comedienne, despite some sources stating the contrary).

Jordan, on the other hand, is the Joe, the ringleader who ends up screwing over his partners and employees. Wolf also doesn’t conclude with a lift of the ending from Fellini’s 8½, which is a real shame if you ask me (though the end of Wolf is perfect).

But I’m not saying the new movie is a remake of the short start to any degree, anyway. Just noting some correlation. It’s interesting that with Murray, Scorsese borrows so much from other films, including the Fellini, some Busby Berkeley style choreography and camera tricks and, of course, the great crime films of the 1930s, which he’s spoofing.

Today, though, it’s like he’s primarily influenced by his own half-century’s worth of films, most precisely giving us a companion piece to Goodfellas, which itself is a descendent of Murray.

The way Murray ends with that 8½ homage has been said to indicate that the character Murray appears to have taken over Scorsese’s film in this moment, a way to symbolize that he’s finally taken control of his own life as opposed to being a character in someone else’s story (Vincent LoBrutto in Martin Scorsese: A Biography, page 61).

To me that corresponds more literally with how Jordan Belfort to some extent seems to be the ultimate master of Wolf in the way he gets to remain the sole narrator and has apparently even gotten some special deals out of his permissions for the film to be made.

The last scene of Wolf can then be read as a kind of 8½ carnival dance, but I won’t get into the specifics of that ending. Instead, it’s time we actually get to the short start and enjoy the 15-minute forebear consisting of far less debauchery, the film debut of Mama Scorsese and — this is my favorite credit on the short — a score performed by junior high students.

SEE ALSO: Real 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Jordan Belfort Is Shopping A Reality Show

Join the conversation about this story »

Martin Scorsese has never shied away from telling stories about dark, damaged or even evil protagonists.

Movies like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Casino all center on characters who the audience witness doing terrible, terrible things.

As a result, there are many who take moral issue with the films the director makes, and his most recent title, The Wolf of Wall Street, is no exception to that rule.

According to star Leonardo DiCaprio, however, anybody who sees the feature simply as a glorification of ridiculous excess has "missed the boat entirely."

With The Wolf of Wall Street out in theaters now and getting a mixed reaction from both professional critics and fans, HitFix had the chance to sit down with the star and took the opportunity to ask him about the controversy surrounding the film.

In it, DiCaprio plays real-life stockbroker Jordan Belfort, who lives a life filled with drugs, sex and other forms of debauchery paid for by cheating people out of their money. The story does feature comeuppance and consequences for its leads, but the lifestyle is treated with a great deal of humor and fun energy.

The actor admits that the audience is meant to enjoy the madness of Belfort's world from a non-judgmental point of view, but in reflection he doesn't see it as love-letter to horrible behavior. Said DiCaprio,

"It's exciting to be a part of a film, in a way, that is kind of bold and is taking a chance like that, and I think that anyone that thinks this is a celebration of Wall Street and this sort of hedonism — yes, the unique thing about Marty is that he doesn't judge his characters. And that was something that you don't quite understand while you're making the movie, but he allows the freedom of this almost hypnotic, drug-infused, wild ride that these characters go on. And he allows you, as an audience — guilty or not — to enjoy in that ride without judging who these people are. Because ultimately, he keeps saying this: 'Who am I to judge anybody?' I mean ultimately I think if anyone watches this movie, at the end of Wolf of Wall Street, they're going to see that we're not at all condoning this behavior. In fact we're saying that this is something that is in our very culture and it needs to be looked at and it needs to be talked about. Because, to me, this attitude of what these characters represent in this film are ultimately everything that's wrong with the world we live in."

As I noted in my own review of film, one thing that I appreciated about The Wolf of Wall Street is the way in which Belfort's fourth wall-breaking narration always keeps the audience at an arms length and maintain an objective view point on the characters' behavior.

As a big fan of the movie, I entirely agree with DiCaprio's view point, particularly the part about the movie being a wild ride. The films winds up stepping insanely far over the line so many times that it's practically impossible not to enjoy the over-the-topness of it all.

For those of you who have seen The Wolf of Wall Street, what do you think? Is the movie a glorification of a disturbingly excessive lifestyle, or do you agree with DiCaprio that at the end of the day we recognize Belfort as a villain?

Let us know your opinion in the comments section below.

SEE ALSO: Real 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Jordan Belfort Is Shopping A Reality Show

Join the conversation about this story »

Is "The Wolf of Wall Street" what Wall Street is really like? Former trader Raj Mahal offers his review of the movie — and some real-life stories about just how wild it was.

I think "The Wolf of Wall Street" is Martin Scorsese's best movie since "GoodFellas"— though I'm probably a little biased. I worked as a trader on trading floors since the mid 90s, was a managing director at the age of 28, and often the ringleader of having fun on the trading floor so I have seen a lot of things. I would organize stuff on the trading floor like Chicken McNugget contests and if a guy could eat every item in the vending machine. It was fun and unfortunately will never happen again on Wall Street.

The first scene of the movie involves a midget-tossing contest in the middle of Jordan's Belfort's firm, with Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Belfort, doing cocaine off a hooker's behind, followed by an ad for Belfort's firm, Stratton Oakmont. Talk about getting straight to the point.

Now the question I know that everyone wants to know — is this what Wall Street is really like? Well, yes and no. I can definitely say there was never midget tossing. We tossed small interns instead. (Kidding.) In all seriousness, I have had breakfast with a guy where there was dwarf tossing at his bachelor party. Before you rush to judgement — who really is the victim here? The dwarf was paid like a giant.

I was at a Wall Street party for St. Patrick's day once, where dwarfs were hired to dress up as leprechauns. I remember i was sitting in a crowded room and someone rubbing my shoulders. I thought it was a female friend of mine that I knew liked me. I remember looking across the room and seeing her so I looked behind me and didn't see anyone. I looked to my left — nobody. I looked to my right — the same. I looked down and I noticed this female dwarf rubbing my shoulders and her telling me, "I have this fetish for tall guys (I am 6'5")." I was a little freaked out but I thought one of my friends put her up to it. 

(Read more: An interview with the real 'Wolf of Wall Street')

About an hour later, I wanted to go downstairs for a smoke so I went into the bedroom with all the coats. They were all on a bed. From under the coats jumps out the same dwarf who is now naked and she says, "I have been waiting for you." Now, I was the head of trading and rarely got flustered. I said, "Wait for me. I will be right back." Then I went straight home.

Belfort starts off as a straight-laced kid — sort of like me. His first boss, Mark Hanna (played brilliantly by Matthew McConaughey), gives him the advice that the only way to do this job is with coke and hookers. Hanna says this over lunch as he's knocking back his third martini. He also gives this sage advice which is sure make the 99 percent cringe: "Money is a drug that makes you a better person."

(Read more: The top 10 ways sharks and bankers are alike)

The movie portrays this as an everyday occurrence. I am not saying coke and hookers don't exist on Wall Street but it's only on really special occasions. Like Tuesdays. And Wednesdays. And Thursdays. But never on Sundays. You see Wall Streeters are like God. On the seventh day, we rest.

In all seriousness, I had a friend who was a legend in the business. Let's call him, "John." I was a 24-year-old kid and I had never seen cocaine. John had a counter in his kitchen about 50-feet long. I saw him put a whole eight ball of coke down that stretched across the whole island — and do it without coming up for air. It was quite a feat. John was at least 20 years older than me and his "girlfriend" at the time was a beautiful 21-year old who went to Harvard — or so she said. I told her that I went to Penn and she said, "What's that?" (Harvard and Penn are both Ivy League schools.)

I remember one time I was over there and she said, "Do you want to see the diamond earrings John bought me?" I said, "Yes." She was so coked up that she came out naked and was pointing at her ears. I told her she had no earrings on. She was completely oblivious to the fact she was naked but she freaked out about the earrings and started throwing things so I left.

Some of the other characters in this movie are very accurate. Jonah Hill's character, Donnie Azoff, is an amazing caricature of a Wall Street guy that all Wall Street guys know and that 100 percent of America loathes. He is fat, crude and disgusting. He is the guy who was a loser, befriends the right guy and becomes rich. When he becomes rich, it changes him into a terrible human being. He takes his penis out in the middle of a party when he sees a beautiful woman. He bullies a gay butler. He treats people like they are worthless slime. He berates a junior broker in front of everyone and eats his goldfish. 

(Read more: Want a job on Wall Street? 'Let me sleep with your girlfriend')

The shady Swiss banker in the movie who helps them launder money (Jean Dujardin) is simply amazing. He reminds me of a guy I used to work with at a French bank. Every time he gets upset, his English turns into French. He is spot on as all the negatives stereotype of French guys on Wall Street. Shady, untrustworthy, hates Americans. This guy used to sleep on the trading desk at lunch because he would be up all night with his stripper girlfriend he moved to New York from Tokyo. The first time we hung out was at a party at his beautiful Central Park penthouse. The second time, we went to the club where his girlfriend worked. He kept paying her to give me lap dances which was awkward for me. He kept saying, "She looks a lot different on my couch, huh?" Then she kept trying to get me to go in the back room with her. I didn't really know how to feel about that.

All in all, I really enjoyed the movie. It was a little over the top but if it wasn't, it wouldn't be as entertaining. All the Wall Street people I know enjoyed it — especially since that kind of stuff won't ever happen again. The fun has been taken out of the industry and there really is no personal touch anymore. All communication is done by IM, text and email. It is nostalgic for a lot of us. All in all, a must see for the 1 percent, everyone who hates the 1 percent and everyone that wants to be in the 1 percent.

Join the conversation about this story »

The controversy over “The Wolf of Wall Street” appears to have helped it at the box office.

Director Martin Scorsese’s R-rated black comedy starring Leonardo DiCaprio finished a solid fourth this weekend with $13.5 million on 2,557 theaters. 

That’s only a 28 percent drop from the $18.3 million first weekend for “Wolf,” and encouraging news for distributor Paramount, since a 50 percent hold is considered good and the severe weather on the East Coast probably cost it another million dollars.

The R-rated film’s explicit portrayal of the sex-and-drugs-fueled 1980s stock market boom has divided moviegoers, and the “C” CiinemaScore that it received after its opening made its long-term playability a question mark.

Also read: War Over ‘Wolf of Wall Street’: Scorsese’s Latest Ignites Online Brouhaha

But the strong second week suggests the emotional discussions – centering on whether it glorifies the lifestyle of DiCaprio’s character based on real-life stockbroker Jordan Belfort – aren’t hurting and may actually help it.

“We embraced the controversy and dialogue, because ultimately it makes more people aware of the film and curious, and we think if we can get people out, the film will speak for itself,” Paramount’s distribution chief Don Harris told TheWrap. “This weekend number is significantly above what we were projecting.”

The film’s roughly three-hour running time is a hurdle, too, but Harris said that moviegoers that have carved out time to see the latest Scorsese-DiCaprio teaming have found two things surprising.

Also read: ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Backlash: 10 Other Movies That Made Crime Seem Cool (Photos)

“They say, ‘I didn’t think it was that long, and I didn’t expect to laugh so much,” he said.

It’s up to $63 million domestically since opening on Christmas Day, and the $100 million film financed by Red Granite now looks to have a shot at hitting $100 million domestically.

If “Wolf,” Scorsese or DiCaprio can get some love at next Sunday’s Golden Globes and the Jan. 16 Oscar nominations it should get a further boost.

“This is up there with Scorsese’s best work, and that’s why this film is going to do just fine,” said Harris. “The Wolf of Wall Street” scored a strong 76% among film critics on aggregator site RottenTomatoes.com, with an even more impressive 79% from fans.

SEE ALSO: What Mark Cuban, A Dead Guy, And 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' Have In Common

Join the conversation about this story »

"Wolf of Wall Street" director Martin Scorsese is being blasted by some for glamorizing the corrupt true story of former stockbroker, Jordan Belfort.

But instead of responding to his haters, Scorsese has written a positive, open "Letter to my Daughter" about the "bright future" of film and how movies can now be made for much cheaper than when the acclaimed director first started his career.

In the letter to his youngest daughter, Francesca — which was first published in Italian news magazine, L'Espresso — Scorsese explains:

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, it’s the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

He stresses, however, that "the tools don't make the movie, you make the movie."

Read Scorsese's full letter about the future of film below:

Dearest Francesca,

I’m writing this letter to you about the future. I’m looking at it through the lens of my world. Through the lens of cinema, which has been at the center of that world.

For the last few years, I’ve realized that the idea of cinema that I grew up with, that’s there in the movies I’ve been showing you since you were a child, and that was thriving when I started making pictures, is coming to a close. I’m not referring to the films that have already been made. I’m referring to the ones that are to come.

I don’t mean to be despairing. I’m not writing these words in a spirit of defeat. On the contrary, I think the future is bright.

We always knew that the movies were a business, and that the art of cinema was made possible because it aligned with business conditions. None of us who started in the 60s and 70s had any illusions on that front. We knew that we would have to work hard to protect what we loved. We also knew that we might have to go through some rough periods. And I suppose we realized, on some level, that we might face a time when every inconvenient or unpredictable element in the moviemaking process would be minimized, maybe even eliminated. The most unpredictable element of all? Cinema. And the people who make it.

I don’t want to repeat what has been said and written by so many others before me, about all the changes in the business, and I’m heartened by the exceptions to the overall trend in moviemaking – Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, Alexander Payne, the Coen Brothers, James Gray and Paul Thomas Anderson are all managing to get pictures made, and Paul not only got The Master made in 70mm, he even got it shown that way in a few cities. Anyone who cares about cinema should be thankful.

And I’m also moved by the artists who are continuing to get their pictures made all over the world, in France, in South Korea, in England, in Japan, in Africa. It’s getting harder all the time, but they’re getting the films done.

But I don’t think I’m being pessimistic when I say that the art of cinema and the movie business are now at a crossroads. Audio-visual entertainment and what we know as cinema – moving pictures conceived by individuals – appear to be headed in different directions. In the future, you’ll probably see less and less of what we recognize as cinema on multiplex screens and more and more of it in smaller theaters, online, and, I suppose, in spaces and circumstances that I can’t predict.

So why is the future so bright? Because for the very first time in the history of the art form, movies really can be made for very little money. This was unheard of when I was growing up, and extremely low budget movies have always been the exception rather than the rule. Now, it’s the reverse. You can get beautiful images with affordable cameras. You can record sound. You can edit and mix and color-correct at home. This has all come to pass.

But with all the attention paid to the machinery of making movies and to the advances in technology that have led to this revolution in moviemaking, there is one important thing to remember: the tools don’t make the movie, you make the movie. It’s freeing to pick up a camera and start shooting and then put it together with Final Cut Pro. Making a movie – the one you need to make - is something else. There are no shortcuts.

If John Cassavetes, my friend and mentor, were alive today, he would certainly be using all the equipment that’s available. But he would be saying the same things he always said – you have to be absolutely dedicated to the work, you have to give everything of yourself, and you have to protect the spark of connection that drove you to make the picture in the first place. You have to protect it with your life. In the past, because making movies was so expensive, we had to protect against exhaustion and compromise. In the future, you’ll have to steel yourself against something else: the temptation to go with the flow, and allow the movie to drift and float away.

This isn’t just a matter of cinema. There are no shortcuts to anything. I’m not saying that everything has to be difficult. I’m saying that the voice that sparks you is your voice – that’s the inner light, as the Quakers put it.

That’s you. That’s the truth.

All my love,

Dad

SEE ALSO: Jonah Hill Says ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ Behavior 'Leads To A Very Bad Ending'

MORE: Leonardo DiCaprio Says 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Characters Represent Everything Wrong With The World

Join the conversation about this story »

After this morning's Oscar nominations, the Academy released a bunch of "fun facts" about this year's nominees.

We've put picked out 10 of the most interesting factoids about the actors and directors up for awards this March.

You can read the entire list here.

1. There are eight first-time nominees: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Matthew McConaughey, Barkhad Abdi, Michael Fassbender, Jared Leto, Sally Hawkins, Lupita Nyong'o, June Squibb.

2. Meryl Streep's Best Actress nod for "August: Osage County" is the actress' 18th (!) nomination. (She previously won three Oscars for "The Iron Lady" (2012), "Sophie's Choice" (1983), and "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1980).)

3. At 23, Jennifer Lawrence is the youngest actress with three Oscar nominations.

4. This is the second time a Pixar film ("Monsters University") has not been nominated for Best Animated Feature and has been shut out at the Oscars."Cars 2" received the same fate in 2011.

5. Megan Ellison is the first woman to get two Best Picture nods in the same year (for "Her" and "American Hustle"). She's the fourth person to have that honor joining Francis Ford Coppola and Fred Roos ("The Godfather Part II" and "The Conversation"), and Scott Rudin ("The Social Network" and "True Grit").

6. "American Hustle" received nominations in all four acting categories AND for Best Picture, Directing, and writing. That's been done twice before — by "Reds" in 1981 and "Silver Linings Playbook," another David O. Russell film, last year.

7. Martin Scorsese received his eighth nomination for Best Director with "The Wolf of Wall Street." He has previously won for "The Departed" in 2007.
8. Composer John Wiliams ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakaban") is the most-nominated living person with 49 noms. (Overall, Walt Disney holds that record with 59 nominations.)9. This is Leonardo DiCaprio's third nomination for Best Actor and fourth Oscar nod overall. If he wins, it will be his first Academy Award.

10. Disney's "The Wind Rises" is Hayao Miyazaki's third nomination for Best Animated Picture.

SEE ALSO: All of this year's nominees

AND: The biggest Oscar snubs and surprises

Join the conversation about this story »

The real-life "Wolf of Wall Street" Jordan Belfort got grilled on CNN by Piers Morgan last night when Morgan forced him to go through a list of people who had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of Belfort's dirty dealings.

Back in the 1990s, Belfort ran a boiler room on Long Island called Stratton Oakmont. Belfort and his stockbrokers pushed penny stocks and defrauded investors.

Belfort served 22 months in federal prison. He was also ordered to pay back $110 million to his victims. 

Belfort wrote a tell-all memoir chronicling his boozy, drug fueled, high-flying Wall Street lifestyle.  His book was adapted into a movie directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. (Read Linette Lopez's movie review here)

There's been a lot of criticism that the film glorified Belfort instead of focusing on the victims who lost money with Stratton Oakmont.   

On CNN last night, Morgan read off names of victims who suffered losses ($250,000 and $130,000) because of Belfort's boiler room. Things got a little tense when Morgan started asking Belfort about his victims and whether or not he's reached out to them personally. 

Morgan:"That's why I'm surprised you would then say that you didn't think thousands of people lost their money or ..."

Belfort:"You said life savings." 

Morgan:"Some of them did, right?"

Belfort:"I don't know anyone who lost their life savings ... Again, I'm not saying that makes it right. Let's just be accurate here." 

Morgan:"How do you feel about these people losing a lot of money and in some cases having their lives turned upside down?

Belfort:"I think it's awful. It's terrible. I think it's terrible."

Morgan: "On a human level, have you ever met any of them? Have you ever met one of your victims?"

Belfort: "Ummm, I have not."  

Morgan:"Why not?"

Belfort:"No one has sought me out."

Morgan: "Why haven't you sought them out?"

Belfort:"You know, I don't want to intrude on anyone's life and." 

Morgan:"Come on! That's a cop out." 

Belfort: "No, it's not. I don't think it's appropriate to seek my victims out." 

Morgan:"Wouldn't part of your self-redemption be to actually track some of these people down? We know some of their names. We know what they're saying about you. If you actually called them up and said, 'I'd actually like to talk to you. I would like to apologize personally to you for what happened." 

Belfort: [chuckles] "I've never really considered it before. But I think a better way for me is the next fifteen years to go around the world and continue to speak and do my stuff. All the money that flows in. I think actions speak louder than words. I think by doing what I'm doing here by turning over 100 percent of the profits is probably the most genuine thing I can do." 

Belfort said that he feels awful about what happened in the past and that he's trying actively to right the wrongs. 

Watch the rest of the interview below:  

Join the conversation about this story »

A $60,000 pay check for a seven-month film shoot may sound nice to most — but by Hollywood standards, it's the Screen Actor's Guild minimum pay.

But when Jonah Hill was offered the $60,000 to star as stockbroker Donnie Azoff in the Martin Scorsese-directed "Wolf of Wall Street," he still jumped at the chance.

"I got to f------ be in a Martin Scorsese movie and I just got nominated for an Oscar,"Hill told Howard Stern yesterday on "The Howard Stern Show.""I'm tripping out, Howard ... I'm in shock. I'm totally in shock."

The 30-year-old actor admits he would have done anything to be in the film.

"They gave me the lowest amount of money possible, that was their offer," he continued on Stern's radio show. "I said, 'I will sign the paper tonight. Fax me the papers tonight.' I want to sign them tonight before they change their mind. I said I want to sign them before I go to sleep tonight so they legally can't change their mind." 

"So you got paid $60,000 for that movie?" Stern clarified.

"It was the minimum. I think SAG minimum is something like $60,000 before commissions and taxes,"Hill confirmed. "Yeah, for an almost seven-month shoot. I would sell my house and give him all my money to work for [Scorsese] ... I would have done anything in the world. I would do it again in a second."

But unlike some of his peers in the industry, Hill says "It's not about money for me. None of this s--- is about money. I want to make money to pay my rent, and hopefully have a family one day and have kids and stuff."

The pay cut paid off. Hill was nominated for an Oscar last week for his role in the film.

"I am in complete and total shock," Hill said in a statement after receiving the nod in the Best Supporting Actor category. "I honestly was not expecting this, on a level you can't even imagine. Again, I'm clearly in shock. I didn't have a plan for celebrating today because I truly did not expect any of this ... Truly, this is shocking."

Hill was previously nominated for an Oscar for 2011's "Moneyball." 

SEE ALSO: Jonah Hill Says ‘Wolf Of Wall Street’ Behavior 'Leads To A Very Bad Ending'

MORE: Jonah Hill Got His Big Break Making Prank Calls For Dustin Hoffman

Join the conversation about this story »

"The Wolf Of Wall Street" character Nicky "Rugrat" Koskoff was known as a toupee-wearing, drug and hooker-using party animal who took part in illegal business activities.

But Andrew Greene — the real head of corporate finance at Stratton Oakmont on which the "Rugrat" character is based — is arguing in a new $25 million lawsuit that his on-screen portrayal is now damaging his professional reputation as an investment banker.

Greene, played by actor  P.J. Byrne in the film, is suing director Martin Scorsese's production company and Paramount for $25 million over his on-screen portrayal, claiming the movie is defamatory by showing him as a criminal, drug user, as well as mocking his premature hair loss, according to documents obtained by TMZ.

Greene argues that the filmmakers never got his permission to use his name, likeness or identity. While the character is nicknamed "Rugrat" in the blockbuster, Greene was called "Wigman" by his real-life coworkers.

“In multiple scenes in the movie, ‘Rugrat’s’ use of a toupee is accentuated and mocked in an egregiously offensive manner,” the complaint reads. “The motion picture introduces ‘Rugrat’ by referencing his ‘piece of shit hairpiece.’ In another scene, investigators ask whether his hair is real. Characters are also seen attempting to grab the toupee in a scene.”

In the film, some of the character-in-question's antics include him shaving the head of an employee, who, in exchange, is rewarded with $10,000 for breast implants as well as having sex with an employee in the office.

The suit continues, “Mr. Greene will be permanently linked to the crimes and loathsome behavior portrayed by his likeness in the motion picture, despite never having been interviewed, questioned, charged, imprisoned, or even arrested for the illicit and despicable behavior shown in the motion picture."

"Not only does he want $25 mil in damages from Paramount and Scorsese's production company," adds TMZ, "he also wants them to hand over all copies of the film ... and yank it out of theaters. Good luck with that."

Greene is not the first Stratton Oakmont employee to claim that he was falsely portrayed in the film that has gone on to gross over $308 million worldwide and is nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

Danny Porush, the "Donnie Azoff" character who was played by Jonah Hill in the film, slammed his depiction as a figment of Jordan Belfort's imagination. He denied taking illegal drugs and engaging in threesomes with Belfort at work — but does admit to eating a live goldfish that belonged to a Stratton employee.

"The character in the movie is not me," he said after the film's release. "I had nothing to do with the film and I don't live in the past. It's not me, and anyone that knows me will know that I never did any of those things."

He adds, "It comes from the imagination of Hollywood writers and is based on several characters, not just me."

SEE ALSO: NYC Entrepreneur Slams 'Wolf Of Wall Street' Scene In Which He Introduced Jordan Belfort To His Future Wife

Join the conversation about this story »

For "The Wolf of Wall Street," the road to Oscar was a bumpy one, to say the least.

In 2006, a fresh-out-of-prison Jordan Belfort chose Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese to option his book rights in a $330,000 deal based at Warner Bros.

Broke and indebted to his swindled victims — yet full of hope for the future — Belfort was sure his memoir being made into a movie would pull him out of financial ruin. But he never thought it would take seven years to see his life story come to life on the big screen.

As Belfort soon learned, "when Marty and Leo commit to something, it doesn't mean it's getting done. And then the problems start," he explained to The Hollywood Reporter in a new interview.

Here's where things first started to go wrong in 2006:

One, Marty is over at Paramount, which gives Paramount the right to co-finance. But Warners is like, "F--- you!" and they start butting heads. Marty was really concerned that the studio would make him tone it down. And then the writers strike hits and it falls apart: Marty and Leo go off and do Shutter Island, and I'm devastated.

After the project stalled for a few years, Belfort says there were many "false starts" with new people attached.

[After Warners renewed its initial option, in 2010] Leo's option expired a second time, and we had like five false starts. Ridley Scott commits, then Fox says, "We're going to make you do Prometheus." There were rumblings Warners wanted Ben Affleck to do it. And Megan Ellison offered to buy the whole thing — I had a celebratory dinner with her — then two days later it fell through.

Ultimately, it was DiCaprio's passion for the role that saved the entire film.

Leo just refused to let it die, and after the option expired, in 2011 Scott Lambert called a meeting with everybody — me, [DiCaprio's manager] Rick Yorn, Leo and Alexandra — at the Polo Lounge. And Leo goes, "We're going to get Marty." Then I start hearing about Red Granite. They buy it, they announce it in Cannes. They said, "Listen, we're going to make Marty an offer he can't refuse." 

Throughout the filmmaking process, DiCaprio took Belfort under his wing — while Scorsese remained aloof.

I spent hundreds of hours with Leo doing everything you could imagine, from hanging out socially to showing him what it's like to be on drugs. I took him through the stages [of taking Quaaludes] and I was rolling on the floor in his house as he was filming me. [But] I never met Marty till the end of the shoot. I did a cameo: I'm the MC that first introduces Leo.

And despite being "the whipping boy of the world" after the film's release, Belfort says he understands Scorsese's vision for the film and why he chose to end it the way he did.

It's laughable when people say [Scorsese is] glorifying my behavior, because the movie is so obviously an indictment. I could have easily been redeemed at the end of the film, because I am redeemed in real life, but [Scorsese] left all that out because he wanted to make a statement — and I respect that. Even though I'll be the whipping boy for the world.

Since its Christmas Day release, "The Wolf Of Wall Street" has raked in $338 million at the global box office and is up for five awards at Sunday's Academy Awards.

Check out Belfort talking "The Wolf Of Wall Street" success in his Hermosa Beach home:

To read Belfort's full interview with The Hollywood reporter, click here >

SEE ALSO: How Jordan Belfort's Prison Bunkmate — Tommy Chong — Inspired Him To Write 'Wolf Of Wall Street'

Join the conversation about this story »

Another year, another Oscar ceremony in the books.

Once the booze wears off from Matthew McConaughey’s final “Alright, alright, alright,” of our year in film, we can get down to the really important part of the Oscars and start second-guessing the winners.

Sunday night is all about rewarding actors and filmmakers for their hard work in the past year.

Monday morning is reserved for the art of tearing down our sacred idols, convincing our coworkers that we always thought American Hustle was a little overrated or that Dallas Buyers Club was more than just a Philadelphia knock-off. And somewhere in the middle of all these conversations, someone will ask about Leonardo DiCaprio.

When will the poor guy ever win an Oscar?

Last month, Esquire ran a story on Leonardo DiCaprio titled “The Moment Leonardo DiCaprio Became a Man.” In a throwaway line intended to highlight his perpetually boyish good looks, his agent Rick Yorn refers to DiCaprio as a character actor in a leading man’s body. This intended compliment instead offers a great deal of insight into DiCaprio’s performances and why he is so often overshadowed by those around him.

Including last night’s nomination for The Wolf of Wall Street, Leonardo DiCaprio has been nominated for four acting Academy Awards (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator, Blood Diamond, WoWS) without taking home a single statue. During that same period, DiCaprio’s films have generated an additional eleven nominations for his co-stars and supporting cast, with Daniel Day-Lewis, Cate Blanchett, and Christoph Waltz each walking away with the final prize. 

This statistic fails to highlight actors such as Jack Nicholson (The Departed) or Tom Hanks (Catch Me If You Can) who did not receive Oscar nominations for their performances but are widely considered among the best actors of their generation.

While Oscar nominations are only one criterion, these statistics help highlight an ongoing trend in DiCaprio’s career; namely, that he is frequently the least interesting performer in his own movies. This is the inherent difficulty in being cast as the leading man.

Characters like Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and Bill “The Butcher” Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) are highlight performances intended to show the intensity of the actors. Likewise, Michael Shannon in Reservation Road is allowed to yell and scream in a movie otherwise filled with quiet desperation. Hollywood tends to reward—and remember—bombastic performances over more subtle fare, and DiCaprio’s frequent casting as the stoic protagonist allows his scenes to be eaten away by his supporting cast. He is asked to play a focal point character; actors like Nicholson, Day-Lewis, and Shannon are free to play the biggest possible version of themselves while orbiting.

DiCaprio also struggles with his penchant for multi-year biopics. Films like J. Edgar and The Aviator (for which he got a Leading Role nomination) require him to play a single character through many stages of his life, never allowing the actor to fully inhabit characters at a single point in time. The past, present, and future versions of the actor weigh heavily on his performance; his role becomes one of continuity, the personification of the narrative thread that holds the entire piece together.

When paired onscreen with actors living fully in the present—playing characters who are defined by their relationship with the lead rather than by their own complicated backstories—DiCaprio is again made to suffer. Cate Blanchett in The Aviator plays Katharine Hepburn as she was at the height of her popularity and influence. We do not need to see her rise to prominence to understand her interactions with Howard Hughes; this narrow focus allows Blanchett to carve out a character an inch wide but a mile deep, a markedly different approach than the man with which she’s sharing screentime.

Interestingly, the past few years have seen DiCaprio move away from the confines placed upon him by his persona as a leading man. In Django Unchained, DiCaprio moved back to a supporting role, freeing himself of his straight-man straitjacket and allowing him to play an antagonist with both humor and venom.

Then there’s The Wolf of Wall Street. This may be the first time that DiCaprio was genuinely free to be the most energetic and commanding character in a film, not left to share his spotlight with a veteran actor in a flashier role. This is partially due to the lack of progression for the film’s primary character, Jordan Belfort. While Belfort’s methods may change over the course of his career, his underlying motivations—greed and self-interest—remain a constant. Here DiCaprio’s singular focus on Belfort as an unbalanced addict keeps his performance elevated above his supporting cast, even with Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey doing their best to play spoiler. He is allowed to be both a character and a lead, a perfect match for his sensibilities as an actor.

Do these performances mean that DiCaprio is growing as an actor? Or is he just learning to play the game? It could be said that the villain and the addict are easier roles to play than the straight man, marked more by physicality than emotion. It seems to me that DiCaprio is an actor who has always given a great deal of thought to his craft, choosing each role as an opportunity to work with directors or actors he admires. Perhaps his clout within the industry will direct him towards smaller or secondary roles that allow him to show more personality. In fact it may happen soon as his production company recently acquired the rights to the Richard Jewell story, reportedly with the intention to cast Jonah Hill as the lead and DiCaprio as his attorney.

DiCaprio may be a very good actor who has hitherto been eluded by AMPAS greatness, but he is also one who also knows the industry well enough to play to his strengths. When DiCaprio finally wins that first Oscar, don’t be surprised if it comes in a supporting role.

SEE ALSO: This Star-Studded Oscar Selfie Breaks Record As Most Retweeted Photo Ever

Join the conversation about this story »

The real-life Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, now a motivational speaker, said at a conference in Dubai that he expects to make more than $100 million from his speaking tour this year, Bloomberg reports.

Belfort is the author of a best-selling tell-all memoir that chronicled his boozy, drug-fueled Wall Street lifestyle running the Stratton Oakmont boiler room, a firm that used high-pressure sales tactics in the 1990s.

His book was adapted into a film, "The Wolf of Wall Street," which was directed by Martin Scorsese and starred Leonardo DiCaprio.

Belfort was arrested and convicted for securities fraud and money laundering. He served a 22-month prison sentence after being sentenced to four years.

He was also ordered to pay $110.4 million in restitution to victims of Stratton Oakmont. He hasn’t finished paying them back yet, but he said at the Dubai conference that he would be able to finish doing so thanks to his speaking tour. 

"My goal is to make north of a $100 million so I am paying back everyone this year," he told the audience, according to Bloomberg.

As a stockbroker, he made about $50 million per year.

Join the conversation about this story »

Martin Scorsese's plan to film a documentary on Bill Clinton has apparently stalled over the former president's attempts to control filming due to concerns it could reflect poorly on his wife Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign.

The New York Times reported Friday that the already partially-filmed documentary hit a roadblock when the former president insisted on having approval over interview questions and other aspects of the film. According to unnamed sources, Scorsese balked at the prospect.

"Clearly, the film carried the risk that an unflattering camera angle, unwelcome question or even an obvious omission by Mr. Scorsese would become a blemish to Mr. Clinton’s legacy or provide fodder for Clinton critics as the 2016 campaign approaches," the Times' Amy Chozick and Michael Cieply wrote. "Apparently to avoid such problems, people close to Mr. Clinton sought to approve questions he would be asked in the film, and went so far as to demand final cut."

The Clintons' daughter, Chelsea Clinton, also reportedly factored into the brouhaha over the movie. She recently left her high-paying job at NBC News and "was expected to figure in the documentary in some way, and some in the Clinton circle had speculated that she would be credited as a producer." 

Spokespeople for the Clintons denied the various parts of the Times report, but the impasse is nevertheless notable because parts of the film were already shot over the last two years, including on Bill Clinton's philanthropic trips to Africa.

"Scorsese clearly had a soft spot for the Clinton project," Chozick and Cieply wrote.

Join the conversation about this story »

A tragic accident on the Taiwan set of Martin Scorsese's upcoming film, "Silence," resulted in one death and two injuries, reports The Daily Mail.

After a scaffolding collapsed, three men were rushed to the hospital. Construction worker Chen Yu-lung was pronounced deceased, and the other two maintained head injuries and fractures. All three had been working on the set of the film, which is based on the Shusako Endo novel of the same name.

A spokesperson for the film released the following statement to Deadline:

“Today there was an unfortunate accident at CMPC Studios in Taiwan, where the Martin Scorsese film, Silence, is in pre-production. An existing structure on the CMPC backlot had been deemed unsafe by the production, and accordingly a 3rd-party contractor was hired to reinforce and make it safe prior to any production-related work commencing in this building. Sadly, during this process, the ceiling collapsed, resulting in the death of one of the contractor’s employees and injuries to two others. Everyone is in shock and sorrow and expresses their deepest concern and sympathy to the families of the individual who died and those who were injured.”

The movie is in pre-production and will star Liam Neeson, Adam Driver, and Andrew Garfield.

A video of the collapse is below.

SEE ALSO: Martin Scorsese Writes Open Letter To His Daughter On The Future Of 'Affordable' Filmmaking

Join the conversation about this story »