Inside Job

8/10 dropps

Genre: Documentary
Running Time: 2 hr.
In Theatres: October 29th (limited)
Box Office: $2,139,393
Directed by: Charles Ferguson

At the heart of the film Inside Job, the decadent and hedonistic exploits of corporate culture are highlighted, circled, underlined, and practically surrounded by neon arrows. These vice-tinged behaviors are referenced as cataclysmic catalysts to our financial woes, flaws, and ultimately our current crisis. Argument after argument made by the Wall Street crooks aims to stick the heel of its boot into the throat of the already-bamboozled consumers who are still feeling kickback from the housing market. It is the fault of the families who couldn’t afford a house, but went ahead and took out loans to purchase a home anyway (and ultimately brought the market crashing down). If you can’t pay for something, then you can’t pay for it. “Suck it up and cope,” says billionaire Charles Munger.

The villainy of Wall Street is painted in outrageous colors, and the vanity inherent in their pinstriped jets and hooker binges seem to be at a degree of fault for our problems (What exactly is the point of a private elevator?). It is no wonder Denis Kucinich once proposed rehab for white collar criminals. This is the world we live in, and this is all explained in Charles Ferguson’s financial breakdown documentary Inside Job, the follow-up to his 2007 critical darling No End in Sight (the documentary about American-occupied Iraq), which much like Inside Job is a didactic smorgasbord dripping with revealing content. These films are informational sloppy joes.

Inside Job covers all bases of the financial meltdown. With a preface in Iceland (a foreshadow manifested), the film takes us through the crisis in five chapters. A blistering opening, accompanied by the Peter Gabriel song “Big Time,” represents immediate commentary on the lavish excesses of Wall Street, as establishing shots of the area are introduced. The film wastes no time diving into the mess, granting us access to certain ugly truths. Indeed, the information is overwhelming, and I was only able to fully understand it through previous research. For an educational follow-up or precedent to the film, I would recommend Matt Taibbi’s book Griftopia, PBS’s “Breaking The Bank” and “Inside the Meltdown” documentaries, and This American Life’s “Giant Pool of Money” and “Return to the Giant Pool of Money”episodes.

Hey, hey, hey review guy. Why don’t you tell us what this movie actually lays out for us?
Honestly, it is difficult to mention everything that the movie covers, and I would really suggest watching it rather than taking my word. Sure, the movie is uber-didactic and sans explosions, but it really is completely relevant. This isn’t a Michael Moore “gotcha” documentary. It isn’t cute, it isn’t fluff: it is meat and potatoes stuff about the nation’s current economic crises.

One major pulse of the film is its coverage of derivatives. Derivatives are financial instruments of artificial value that attempt to determine far more than they should. They are essentially high-risk gambling packages rooted in the imagination of God-complex investment bankers, who scheme to conceive of more ways to make private profit while needlessly endangering the world economy. It’s heady stuff, and far more than I can begin to explain. In Inside Job Derivatives are actually the umbrella topic; in the film you’ll also be learn about credit default swaps, corrupt rating agencies, subprime mortgages, UBS fraud, and much, much more!

Perhaps the most discouraging element of the film is the sheer volume of corruption that seems to fill the American financial system. It is akin to vast holes being punching in an already-leaky boat. You might be able to get a handle on one, but it’s difficult to keep your eye on the rest. To coincide, the movie contains various examples of conflicts of interests, where politicians pass bills to benefit Wall Street and then seemingly find themselves employed with secure jobs on Wall Street post-Congress. One example is the Gram-Zeach-Bliley Act which made it perfectly legal for investment banks, securities companies, and insurance companies to merge (this proved to be a costly roundhouse kick America’s face).

Perhaps the biggest villains in this movie (and with most people’s accounts) are the jerk-off collective of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rudin, and Larry Summers. These are the men who were once featured on the cover of Time magazine, and dubbed “The Committee to Save the World” (Oh, how they wish they could take that one back!). These three men are BIG players in the meltdown, and the film explains their
dastardly roles well.

Perhaps the strongest attribute of this film is its maturity, and its ability to take its material seriously enough. Where another film may try cutesy, “gotcha” stunts, this film is a “just the facts, ma’am” kind of nitty gritty deal. It knows its material, and discharges it gracefully. It is a special kind of refreshing to find a legitimate criticism or indictment of the powerful, and not the lower/middle classes.

Final Word: Just as a comment on this film’s significance, I want to mention attendance. I was in a very small theatre at a Regal Cinema that was at about 75% capacity. I often take note of the audience before the film starts, as I see that as part of the movie-going experience. I counted the heads one at a time, and found a startling reality. With the exception of myself, every single person in attendance was (no lie) not a day younger than 50. I find this startling inasmuch as this film’s relevance relies on how many people have seen it (senior citizens do count as people, but let me make my point). What good is
a movie if no one sees it? If financial corruption is revealed in the woods, does anyone care? No. Young people need to see this movie. Ignore the fact that the middle-aged and older folks are the prime figures who got us into this mess (and still believe they’ve done no wrong), but even our elders who understand the faults and legitimately want change the system are of no use. What will they do? They aren’t in power and hold no majority (and let’s face it, are limited on time). The young blood is what we need to really make a difference, and have the time to make it in the first place.

-Cody Mattox