Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 12/02/2012
'Margin Call' is a film ostensibly about the financial crash of the previous decade. However it is a much more simplified and narrowed version of the same.
The action takes place in and around an unnamed financial company, where, in the first scene of the film, eighty percent of its employees are fired due to downsizing. One of those on the chopping block is Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), Head of the Risk Assessment Division. On his way out of the office, Dale hands his unfinished project to his underling Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto). Peter completes Eric's project and finds, to his horror, that the project tracks a path of financial disaster. The discovery is followed by several attempts to double-check and finally to fix the problem.
The film is what I call a 'moment in time' story - it follows an episode that may or may not lead to Earth-shattering consequences. The story follows an ensemble cast, that grows progressively throughout the film as they deal with this crisis.
As I said, this is a microscopic view of the financial crisis. To fill us in on what actually happened might take a seven season long television series.
In the normal course of things, I would not have chosen to watch this film. Financial stories are beyond me, considering my interest in the like waned after high school. But this film has got a nomination for Best Screenplay at this year's Oscars, so I knew I would have to give it a go.
Unfortunately I feel like I have no foundation to critique or judge this film. Most others who watch this will have a plethora of knowledge that will either draw them into this film, or leave them out of it. This film doesn't suffer fools. If you don't know this world, you won't understand this film; if you do know it, you will.
Having said that, I can still give some opinions on the methods and techniques. I'll start with the acting. The ensemble cast is brilliant, I don't recall anyone faltering at any point. Writer/ director J. C. Chandor creates a good atmosphere for the film as well. I loved the dim lighting.
The issues I have is that this film doesn't actually 'talk' much during its run time. Once Sullivan realises there's a problem he calls people, and they all come together, stare at the computer screen, take turns in swearing at it, and call more people. The audience doesn't get to see the screen. The audience, up until some point later, doesn't know what this company does actually, so the characters panicking makes no sense. As more people are informed of the problem, the audience still gets only glimpses of information - that the problem has already occurred, it'll mean financial ruin, etc. etc. What the director is attempting to build is suspense. What I felt was - "Get on with it, already". Not good.
There are several queries that are asked ad nauseum in the film - where is Eric Dale, have the figures been checked, speak in English. You feel like your head will go round the number of times these things are mentioned.
To top it all, the only character we see outside the actual storyline is Kevin Spacey's Sam Rogers. Sam is introduced to us crying over his dog's illness, when the majority of his workforce has just been fired. That's fine. I like that. But later we see him with his dying dog (this is in the early part of the film) and then there is this bizarre scene at the end. It is bizarre because it didn't fit in with the rest of the film - it felt like a 'cut', whereas all the other scenes felt like continuations. I couldn't quite understand why there was such an emphasis on his character's life outside the office. The same was not accorded to any of the other characters.
Also, there were a few points when there were glaring continuity errors - this was usually during scenes when the action took place over different takes. I was quite surprised by these errors actually, because they're rare in cinema nowadays.
I suppose this film has got its basics right - the script - or else it wouldn't have been nominated. But having said that, perhaps this film makes the complex world of finance more accessible to the average movie-goer and hence the Academy is rewarding it. While I can't comment on the accuracy of the tale, I can say that some techniques should have been bettered to allow the audience in and make the experience more informational and gripping.
The action takes place in and around an unnamed financial company, where, in the first scene of the film, eighty percent of its employees are fired due to downsizing. One of those on the chopping block is Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), Head of the Risk Assessment Division. On his way out of the office, Dale hands his unfinished project to his underling Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto). Peter completes Eric's project and finds, to his horror, that the project tracks a path of financial disaster. The discovery is followed by several attempts to double-check and finally to fix the problem.
The film is what I call a 'moment in time' story - it follows an episode that may or may not lead to Earth-shattering consequences. The story follows an ensemble cast, that grows progressively throughout the film as they deal with this crisis.
As I said, this is a microscopic view of the financial crisis. To fill us in on what actually happened might take a seven season long television series.
In the normal course of things, I would not have chosen to watch this film. Financial stories are beyond me, considering my interest in the like waned after high school. But this film has got a nomination for Best Screenplay at this year's Oscars, so I knew I would have to give it a go.
Unfortunately I feel like I have no foundation to critique or judge this film. Most others who watch this will have a plethora of knowledge that will either draw them into this film, or leave them out of it. This film doesn't suffer fools. If you don't know this world, you won't understand this film; if you do know it, you will.
Having said that, I can still give some opinions on the methods and techniques. I'll start with the acting. The ensemble cast is brilliant, I don't recall anyone faltering at any point. Writer/ director J. C. Chandor creates a good atmosphere for the film as well. I loved the dim lighting.
The issues I have is that this film doesn't actually 'talk' much during its run time. Once Sullivan realises there's a problem he calls people, and they all come together, stare at the computer screen, take turns in swearing at it, and call more people. The audience doesn't get to see the screen. The audience, up until some point later, doesn't know what this company does actually, so the characters panicking makes no sense. As more people are informed of the problem, the audience still gets only glimpses of information - that the problem has already occurred, it'll mean financial ruin, etc. etc. What the director is attempting to build is suspense. What I felt was - "Get on with it, already". Not good.
There are several queries that are asked ad nauseum in the film - where is Eric Dale, have the figures been checked, speak in English. You feel like your head will go round the number of times these things are mentioned.
To top it all, the only character we see outside the actual storyline is Kevin Spacey's Sam Rogers. Sam is introduced to us crying over his dog's illness, when the majority of his workforce has just been fired. That's fine. I like that. But later we see him with his dying dog (this is in the early part of the film) and then there is this bizarre scene at the end. It is bizarre because it didn't fit in with the rest of the film - it felt like a 'cut', whereas all the other scenes felt like continuations. I couldn't quite understand why there was such an emphasis on his character's life outside the office. The same was not accorded to any of the other characters.
Also, there were a few points when there were glaring continuity errors - this was usually during scenes when the action took place over different takes. I was quite surprised by these errors actually, because they're rare in cinema nowadays.
I suppose this film has got its basics right - the script - or else it wouldn't have been nominated. But having said that, perhaps this film makes the complex world of finance more accessible to the average movie-goer and hence the Academy is rewarding it. While I can't comment on the accuracy of the tale, I can say that some techniques should have been bettered to allow the audience in and make the experience more informational and gripping.
Comments