‘Wolf of Wall Street’: Can you make a movie about glorifying misogyny without endorsing it?

Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” has turned a whole lot of heads with its over-the-top and, at times, downright offensive depiction of white-collar criminals gone wild.

Though it's made more than $300 million at the box office, the film has turned many people off in the months since its release, most notably voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Scorsese reportedly received an earful from several Academy members after a screening of “Wolf of Wall Street” in mid-December. Shouts of “Shame on you!” and “You ought be ashamed of yourself” were said to be leveled at the director after the screening. It’s not clear what exactly the peeved voters were offended by, but there's no shortage of offensive possibilities when discussing "The Wolf of Wall Street."

Oscar voters weren't the only offended parties, either. New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott offered a glowing review of "The Wolf of Wall Street" but was particularly troubled by how the film depicted women.

"Is this movie satire or propaganda? Its treatment of women is the strongest evidence for the second option," Scott wrote. "The movie’s misogyny is not the sole property of its characters, nor is the humiliation and objectification of women — an insistent, almost compulsive motif — something it merely depicts. Mr. Scorsese, never an especially objective sociologist, is at least a participant-observer."

But both Scorsese and star Leonardo DiCaprio have vehemently defended "The Wolf of Wall Street" against critics who say the film goes too far.

“This film may be misunderstood by some; I hope people understand we’re not condoning this behavior, that we’re indicting it," DiCaprio told Variety. "The book was a cautionary tale and if you sit through the end of the film, you’ll realize what we’re saying about these people and this world, because it’s an intoxicating one."

For his part, Scorsese says the allure of all that excess is what makes the film work.

"A confidence man takes your trust, takes your confidence and betrays you. And this is on all levels, whether it’s low-level street crime, a white-collar crime and even a crime in religious organizations. This is something that’s not going to go away if you don’t talk about it," Scorsese told The Hollywood Reporter. "The devil comes with a smile, you know? That’s the idea, you know? The confidence man’s got the charm!"

While Scorsese and DiCaprio insist that the film is meant to be a condemnation of the sort of debaucherous behaviour it depicts, critics like Scott continue to argue that “Wolf of Wall Street” does the complete opposite, glamorizing the politically incorrect and illegal antics of a group of seriously terrible people. Scorsese and company have taken major flack across the board for these elements of “Wolf,” especially how women are portrayed and treated in the movie.

So, can a filmmaker make a movie about glorifying misogyny without actually endorsing it?

For those living in a hole, DiCaprio stars as real-life Wall Street con man Jordan Belfort, a drug-addled, sex-addicted, profanity-spewing shyster who lived Gordon Gekko’s famous mantra “Greed is good” to its fullest. The performance has earned DiCaprio an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and the film the sort of notoriety usually reserved for X-rated movies.

The film’s repugnant reputation is well-deserved. In addition to countless instances of drug use (pretty much every recreational drug imaginable is used), “The Wolf of Wall Street” deploys an offensively impressive 544 F-bombs during its three-hour running time. Then there’s all the sex. From the orgies (anywhere, everywhere, and with anyone) to the full frontal nudity, “Wolf” lets it all hang out, at least with its female characters. Not counting Jonah Hill’s fake erection during the Hampton’s party scene or Leo's butt, most of the nudity in the film involves women, be they prostitutes or the wives and girlfriends of Stratton Oakmont.

That’s part of the reason why there’s a debate over whether the film is anti-women, or if it simply depicts sexist people without actually endorsing their behaviour. When the women in “The Wolf of Wall Street” aren’t being treated as naked playthings by the Stratton Oakmont gang, they’re usually being treated as naked doormats for the anger and impotent rage of Belfort and his ilk.

To the male characters in “The Wolf of Wall Street,” sex is like any other drug. Like the cocaine and the Quaaludess, they all have a seemingly infinite supply of it until the house of cards comes crashing down. Getting to bed and wed the gorgeous and frequently naked Naomi Lapaglia (Margot Robie) represents the ultimate score for Belfort in this arena. It's a terrible worldview and an awful way to treat another human being, but all that excessive nudity and sex has a point because it’s exactly that: excessive.

Like every other vice in the movie it plays a major role in Belfort’s eventual downfall. Robbie's character eventually has absolute power over her husband because of his sex addiction, a reality that becomes painfully clear to the audience when Belfort's fortunes begin to change.

Depicting horrible people doing horrible things on film is not an endorsement of such behaviour. If that were the case, Scorsese would have a heck of a lot to answer for in light of his career making movies about criminals and gangsters. Is depicting the Death Star destroying planets in "Star Wars" an endorsement of planetary genocide? Does showing a shark eating people in "Jaws" suggest that sharks eating people is a good thing? Is "Schindler's List" an endorsement of the holocaust? No, no, and definitely no.

A movie like "The Wolf of Wall Street" might not be pleasant to sit through, but that’s the point -- like any good art a film should move the viewer or elicit some kind of response. Is “The Wolf of Wall Street” intentionally provocative? Absolutely it is. Are women treated horribly by the male characters in "The Wolf of Wall Street"? Yes, and that behaviour exemplifies just how awful Jordan Belfort and company really are. Is Scorsese suggesting we should all go out and do what Belfort does? Heck no. That much should be obvious from the film's ending, which sees DiCaprio's character behind bars and completely alienated from his family and so-called friends. Who wants that?

There's a world of difference between depicting misogyny and endorsing it. Those who can't see that difference likely won't be convinced easily one way or another, but Scorsese and DiCaprio don't endorse such behaviour even if "The Wolf of Wall Street" is built around characters with such unfortunate views. Scorsese may have hurt the film's Oscar chances with all that profanity, drug use, and sexism, but he's hardly painting the movie or its characters as pillars of virtue.

We'll see if the Academy voters award "The Wolf of Wall Street" at the Oscars on March 2.