OzK Reviews

Rogue Trader (1999)

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion

[14 July 1999]

I'll get a lot of argument on this, I suspect, but I tend to think that all history, biography and autobiography is in fact a kind of fiction. I also think that for all intents and purposes, it's not necessary to worry too much about how 'true' or 'accurate' this film is in regards to telling the 'real' story of the Baring's Bank collapse. Because at the end of the day, we'll never know. For every person involved or affected by that event there's another version of the truth, and finding the 'true' truth is just about impossible. So to hell with it! Let's just look at 'Rogue Trader' as a story, shall we?

I can't honestly say that I enjoyed this film, mainly because I found it so exquisitely awful that I was scrunching my eyes shut and moaning more and more loudly as events unfolded. As depicted here, Nick Leeson wasn't exactly a criminal, he was just criminally stupid ... and naive ... and pathetic ... and -- and -- well, I found myself screaming at the tv set "No, you fool, don't, stop now, stop now, quit while you're ahead --- arrrrggghhh!!!"

It is almost impossible to believe, that one person could collapse an entire bank. And of course, it is impossible. Nick Lesson didn't bring down Baring's on his own, he had a lot of help from people who both wittingly and unwittingly conspired to support his insane behaviour. Regardless of whose truth you're telling, that point is pretty safe to make, I think. And I think this film does a good job of demonstrating that. I also think it does a good job of capturing the insanity of Futures Trading (surely a hideously evil invention) and of showing how Gordon Gekko got it really, really wrong.

At the end of the day, however, the film stands or falls by Ewan McGregor's performace as Nick Leeson ... and again, he doesn't disappoint. Again, we are treated to a portrayal of a deeply human, deeply flawed individual, as only McGregor can reveal. His Leeson is a man who makes mistake after mistake, who is far smaller than he wants to be, who isn't without conscience or moral compass but whose many fears outweigh his few strengths. He's the very embodiment of the 'fatal flaw' theory, brought to ruin by his weaknesses and failings.

I find it frighteningly easy to identify with McGregor's Leeson. What he did, many of us have been tempted to do, or have done, in various small ways. Or maybe not so small. Some people find him profoundly offensive, others find him pathetic. Whatever your reaction to this film, the fact that you even have one shows that it's worked. It's made you feel something about what happened ... or at least, this version of what happened. Perhaps some of us resent being made to feel any kind of empathy for this character. By making him human, his actions are humanised, made comprehensible ... and that's uncomfortable.

It's far more comfortable keeping him demonised, reprehensible, beyond understanding or forgiveness, for in that way we keep ourselves safe. We are not like him. There is nothing that we share. He is ... other.

The problem is, he isn't. That's where Rogue Trader succeeds, I think. In showing us that the Nick Leesons of this world aren't monsters at all ... they're people, like us, who make mistakes, like we do. By challenging us ... you say you would never ever do something like this, but can you be sure? Really? Truly? This isn't a lighthearted film, a fun film. It's a fascinating character study and a timely reminder of that saying that goes something like ..

Velvet Goldmine (1998)

An extraordinary film that should be viewed on its own merits

[14 July 1999]

While I'm old enough to remember the Glam Rock era as it played out in Australia, I was never a part of it, barely remember the music, vaguely recall the names of the groups and solo artists of the time. I came to this film via Phantom Menace, because I'd hardly seen anything of Ewan McGregor's work and was curious.

As a result, I came into this film with no background info, no preconceptions or preconceived ideas as to who these people were (or apparently were supposed to be) or what was going on. I think that was a good thing, because it seems to me that a great many people came to this film with an enormous amount of baggage ... and it's baggage that I think got in the way of appreciating Velvet Goldmine for itself.

At the end of the day, I think this is a love story. Love of self, love of someone else, of fame and money and lifestyle and drugs and music. It's also about lack of love, and the damage that can inflict.

This isn't a conventional 'Hollywood' kind of film. Its construction is non-linear, it forces the viewer to work at understanding what's going on, doesn't give all the answers, leaves spaces for interpretation. It makes you think ... and perhaps, even more confronting, it makes you feel.

It occurs to me that perhaps a reason for the strong reactions to this film is that it challenges on a deeply personal level. There is enormous pain in Velvet Goldmine, and it's exposed in a particularly raw way. Perhaps some of the negativity towards it is less about the film, and more about the way it stirs up emotions in the viewer.

With the possible exception of Eddie Izzard's Manager, there are no out and out villains in this film. Not even Brian ... especially not Brian, since he's the biggest victim of all, in the end. Instead it's full of people who are struggling to find love, self acceptance, a place in the world where they can be themselves. Most poignant of all is Arthur, whose sexual confusion and struggle to find a meaningful identity is almost too excruciating to bear in some scenes. But equally successful is the portrayal of his parents, who are so clearly bewildered and confused by their son and the world in which they find themselves raising him.

For me there are 2 standout moments in Velvet Goldmine. The first is Brian's first manager's line to Arthur: 'Brian was elegance walking arm in arm with a lie'. That line gives me shivers, it's so perfect. The second is Curt's performance at the Death of Glam concert, where he is shrieking his pain and anger in an orgy of private suffering, oblivious to the audience, just pouring out waves and waves of pain ... and then when he comes off stage and collides with Mandy and they're both crying because they are the only 2 people who know how much it hurts to love Brian Slade.

The emotional power of this film is amazing. Comment has been made regarding Myers' performance as Brian Slade, that he's cold and distant and uninvolving ... well, I kind of think that was the point. At the end of the day, Brian Slade loves only himself. Everywhere he goes, people fall in love with him, are wrecked by their love for him ... he just leaves them in his wake, uncaring. He may very well feel something for Mandy, for Curt ... but what he feels for himself will always take precedence. And yet somewhere deep inside there's a part of him that doesn't want to be like that ... that wants to escape, love ... it just doesn't work out.

All the performances in this film are excellent (yay Toni Collette!) but again McGregor is the standout. He has the most amazing willingness to be naked (not like that! Well, okay, not only like that ...;), to expose the private pain and vulnerabilities of a character without thought or care for how 'unmasculine' that might make him. God bless him for that. He is a true actor, unlike so many psuedoperformers out there who have the emotional depth and honesty of a tree.

Do yourself a favour and have a look at this film. And if you are a graduate of the Glam Rock era, check all that baggage at the door