Men Are Evil, Too: Defining the Homme Fatal in The Wolf of Wall Street
Jacob Wilkins
Heather Kiser
ENWR 1510
4/18/15
Men Are Evil, Too: Defining the Homme Fatal in The Wolf of Wall Street
[Status Quo: It is a genre that dates back to classic Hollywood. Its characters – most notably the femme fatale – date back to ancient myth. In 1946, Nino Frank coined the "black film" as the "film noir." (Brody) Since then, scholars have dissected the films, found the formula for its creation, individually decided on what defines a film noir – and, ultimately, what does not. However, the academic community as a whole is far from being decided on every aspect of the genre. Paul Schrader, for example, believes that all noirs have to be in black and white. Jason Holt and Todd Erickson would likely say that is bunk. So, when a scholar like Janey Place insists that “Film noir is a male fantasy,” (47) implying that the agent of a man’s destruction is always a female, or when a critic like Roger Ebert lists “Women who would just as soon kill you as love you, and vice versa” (par. 5) as a requirement for a noir film, I am compelled to disagree.]
[Destabilizing Condition: The homme fatal character, defined by Margaret Cohen as a character who "crystallizes contemporary social anxieties around material and ideological threats to a traditional gendered division of labor" (131) fills the same role as his female counterpart by leading a protagonist to destruction. A film does not need a femme fatale to be defined as noir. The story will remain exactly the same, the genre's character type is still fulfilled, and the film is still as "noir" as any other with the homme fatal.][Consequences: Acknowledging that the men can be just as duplicitous as the women in the genre can not only enhance the dialog – and thankfully distract it from those painfully sexist stereotypes that existed in the classic era of noir – but it will also allow those curious about the genre to consider some of other films as fitting the standard.][Response: Thus, this essay is dedicated to defining the homme fatal character in the neo-noir comedy The Wolf of Wall Street. Donnie Azoff, Jordan Belfort's accomplice and friend, is the perfect example of a homme fatal.]
In her essay The “Homme Fatal,” the Phallic Father, and the New Man, scholar Margaret Cohen argues that a homme fatal character exists in neo-noir that is extremely similar to that of the femme fatale from classic noir. She set the precedent for the character by claiming that the homme fatal is the result of a division in wealth and these characters ultimately epitomize that social anxiety. (114) Her primary example is Dennis Peck (Richard Gere) from Internal Affairs, a character who is ultimately responsible for destruction and was able to accomplish it through a place of power, despite his middle-class economic status. I would postulate that Max Cady (Robert Mitchum) from Cape Fear, a poor ex-con, is another prime example of a character exerting his will over others in an attempt to gain power.
It’s worth noting that Scorsese’s financial and legal manifesto The Wolf of Wall Street is no stranger to noir. The film is replete with overindulgent voiceover, corrupted protagonists, heroic antagonists, and a yearning for the American Dream. Belfort’s monologs are reminiscent of Walter Neff’s in Double Indemnity and Scorsese ends the picture with an ending that is as jarring and sadistic as Chinatown. Scorsese leaves his audience much like his audience did—with a disheartening moral: even when good prevails and evil fails, evil still wins. The story is the classic rise and fall of an American man finding his way in the world, like Michael Corleone and Charles Foster Kane before him. This film has nearly every element of a neo-noir, but it lacks that one “integral” character: the femme fatale. However, the film has a character just as noteworthy.
There are a few possible culprits responsible for Jordan Belfort’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) downfall – namely Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey), the senior broker at L.F. Rothschild (Belfort’s original employer), his wives Teresa (Cristin Milioti) and Nadine (Margot Robbie), and then Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), his partner in financial crime. But to define the agent of Jordan’s downfall, one must first evaluate the many catalysts.
Respected critic (and former Roger Ebert collaborator) Richard Roeper described Belfort’s downfall as the result of “sex, drugs, and investment rock n’ roll.” All, of course, link back to Belfort’s obvious inability to control himself—in any facet of his life—a flaw which, curiously, does not present itself until later in his story.
Hanna is the first in the line-up of the film’s cesspool of scum and villainy. He is Belfort’s wise old sage—the Merlin to his Arthur. In his book Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell described the archetypal character as a figure “whose words assist the hero through the trials and terrors of the weird adventure” and the one responsible for leading the hero to the “shining sword.” (9) Hanna’s words only echo in the first chapter of this story and perhaps his shining sword is a vial of cocaine, but otherwise he perfectly fits the description. And between his random moments of chest bumping and melodic humming, Hanna does point to the vices that will bring Jordan success—he advises him to drink on the job, to think only of himself, and ultimately to divulge in as much illegal debauchery as humanely possible. Many would likely see this figure here as the source of Belfort’s downfall.
However, Belfort does not truly believe much of what Hanna proclaims. He is still a doe-eyed youngster looking to make it big, but he has some morals about him. When Hanna states that the name of the stock game is to “move the client’s money from their pocket to your pocket,” Belfort laughs, indicating a touch of disbelief and disconnection from Hanna’s mentality of profit no matter the cost. He adds, rather naïvely, “But if you can make your client’s money at the same time, it is advantageous to everyone, correct?” He gulps when Hanna replies with a resounding “no.”
Hanna obviously has some effect on Belfort by releasing him into the wild jungle of the financial sector, but to what extent does Belfort take his advice? The following scene does show Jordan briefly engaging in nightlife at a strip club, but there is no cocaine, no sex—just a drink and some light extramarital fun. This encounter pales in comparison to what he will do later.
Teresa, his oblivious wife, is the Effie Perine of The Wolf of Wall Street. She serves as an advisor and counselor. When he loses his job at Rothschild, she searches the newspaper to find another. When he is down, she looks him in the eye and says, “you’re going to be a millionaire.” When they fear for their financial stability, she offers to pawn her engagement ring as a means for their survival. She is the perfect embodiment of the “virgin” character that Place describes. (47) Teresa also objects to his exploitation of the poor, and cannot be seen as even compliant in his by-any-means-necessary conquest for riches.
On the contrary, Nadine, his second wife, could probably be seen as a catalyst for part of his demise. She has that alluring charm that many of the femme fatales embodied in the days of yore. She certainly destroyed Jordan’s marriage with Teresa. However, despite her faults, while she does not object to any of Jordan’s (non-adultery related) debauchery, she certainly does not suggest or advocate for it. Nadine may be seen as a bystander, but it would be wrong to call her the agent of Belfort’s demise, especially considering he was already long down the proverbial road to Hell before she even entered the equation.
[A&R: Of the aforementioned influences in Belfort’s life, Mark Hanna seems like the most likely candidate. He instills many of the qualities in Jordan that lead to his destruction. However, he does not further perpetuate them, nor stimulate them. Donnie Azoff, however, does, and he embodies every flaw of Hanna and more. He is a two-bit, “waspy” furniture seller hitting it big by befriending Jordan and getting a job selling “garbage to garbage-men,” as Belfort so eloquently puts it. And in the end, when he’s gotten everything that he needs from Jordan, he doesn’t mind selling him out to save himself. It’s safe to say that the homme fatal character may best be exemplified by Donnie Azoff in this film.]
A prime example of Azoff’s mysterious power over Belfort can be seen in the scene in which Donnie coerces Belfort to “smoke crack” with him. Belfort initially refuses, remains against it, but ultimately agrees to “one hit.” What an odd compromise for a man so defined by being independent and making it big! He is so great, that he starts the film by declaring that he made it big as “a former member of the middle class” that currently made “49 million dollars as the head of [his] own brokerage firm” at the spry age of 26. He is the man that refuses to step down from his firm, even in the face of legal charges, because that would be “giving in” and that would make him a “hypocrite.” It is appropriate that these scenes be mentioned together, as they all culminate in Belfort’s description of the best drug of all—the drug that will “make you invincible, able to conquer all your enemies.” Not cocaine, the drug which he snorts during the scene; no, he is referring to the $100 bill he used to inhale it. Money is his drug. It is the “oxygen of capitalism” as Terrence Winter describes it in the original screenplay. In this moment, he solidifies his status as the king of excess and Donnie Azoff as the fiend responsible for getting him involved in drugs.
Azoff was responsible for much more of Belfort’s downfall, too. Donnie is responsible for the police discovering their “rat hole” which sets the real case that Denham is able to make against Jordan. Soon after, he taps Jordan’s phone line. While high on Quaaludes, Donnie talks about their business deals on the phone before Jordan can stop him. He suggests Steve Madden’s shoes as an IPO for them to push, long before Madden starts selling shares in order to sink Stratton Oakmont and relieve himself of involvement. And in the end, after Jordan does his best to make sure Donnie does not incriminate himself, Azoff turns Belfort in for not cooperating with the FBI. Some of these actions were the fault of arrogance and stupidity, but greed and duplicity are the sources of his final decision to turn Jordan in and save himself. There was no real friendship for Donnie. It was all a matter of business. Like he said from the very moment he met Jordan, “You show me a pay stub with $72,000 on it, I’m quitting my job right now and coming to work with you.” It was never about creating a stable business for Donnie. It was always about getting rich and breaking from the chains of his middle-class urban lifestyle.
Unlike Peck and Cady, his imposing will does not exist in spite of his status as a middle-class American. Donnie is able to impose his will over others, such as Brad the “rat hole,” because of his status as an upper-class American with a thriving firm. He has no worries, as the film often shows with the many scenes of debauchery, and will do anything to make himself more and more rich. In the end, turning his friend in was not an act of malice, it was an act of survival. However, the decision was made based on Donnie’s animalistic instinct to keep getting more and more—to be able to have agency over more and more people. His demand for Brad to apologize and bow down to him was the prime example.
[Response: Ultimately, Donnie Azoff epitomizes the homme fatal character. He is duplicitous, self-centered, greedy, and untrustworthy. He stems from a direct criticism of the upper-class in the US like Peck and Cady stemmed from the upper class’ anxiety of the climbing middle and lower classes.] [Implications: If these representations of the character are acknowledged as notable noir types, as I believe they should be, then it would mean that many more films could be considered noir.] [Remaining Ignorance: Now that the homme fatal character has been identified, scholars must come together to assemble a canon of notable examples throughout the genre. Examples such as Gavin Elster from Vertigo, Nick from The Postman Always Rings Twice, and Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver are a great place to start.] [Opportunities for Further Research: Breaking down the walls of understanding between the genders in noir is imperative. Going forward, it is paramount that scholars remain vigilant when discussing a male character in a film. The homme fatal may not always be obvious, but when the character is uncovered, his existence may point to a film being noir—and these discoveries may happen more often than any scholar in the field can possibly imagine.]
Works Cited
Brody, Richard. ""Film Noir": The Elusive Genre." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 23 July 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. 2nd ed. Vol. 17. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1972. Print. Bollingen Ser.
Cohen, Margaret. "The "Homme Fatal", the Phallic Father, and the New Man." Cultural Critique.23 (1992): 111-36. JSTOR. Web. 10 Apr. 2016
Ebert, Roger. "A Guide to Film Noir Genre." Roger Ebert. Roger Ebert, 30 Jan. 1995. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Kaplan, E. Ann., and Janey Place. "Women in Film Noir." Women in Film Noir. London: BFI Pub., 1998. 47-68. Print.
Roeper, Richard. “The Wolf of Wall Street Review.” YouTube. REELZCHANNEL, 24 Dec. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2016
The Wolf of Wall Street. Dir. Martin Scorsese. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill. Paramount Pictures, 2014. DVD.
Winter, Terrence. The Wolf of Wall Street. Film Script. 2013. Paramount Guilds. 14 Apr. 2016. http://www.paramountguilds.com/pdf/the_wolf_of_wall_street_screenplay.pdf
Informal Questions:
1. What aspect of Essay 3 is the strongest in your opinion?
In my opinion, the strongest aspect of my essay is my ability to synthesize the information and bring it in to support my argument.
2. What aspect of Essay 3 is the weakest?
The weakest aspect of the essay is for me to avoid using rhetorical questions. It’s sometimes hard for me to not use them as a crutch, and there were rewrites in the paper to avoid the initial instances in which I used them. I think this is probably a much more coherent paper due to those revisions.
The weakest aspect of the paper that is actually in the paper is my lack of varying sentence structure. Some of this paper probably does read as a little redundant.
3. What aspect of Essay 3 would you work on if you had more time?
I would probably try to include more references to other older noirs to support my argument. I just did not have enough time to go back and watch other noirs that we didn’t watch for the class. When I revise this essay for the final, I will probably do so.