[Editor's Note: This was published during the 2010 edition of the New York Film Festival. We are republishing the capsule review to coincide with the theatrical release.]
Inside Job is one of those documentaries with a compelling and topical story that anyone can relate to, put together with filmmaking that educates both the experts and the laymen on the topic, and does so in tightly-wound, methodical narrative flow. With only his second documentary, director Charles Ferguson cements himself on the A-list of docu filmmakers, approaching and perhaps, surpassing the likes of Alex Gibney, Davis Guggenheim, Ondi Timoner, et al. Errol Morris and Michael Moore still stand on their perch of respective critical and commercial highgrounds though.
Inside Job might have a similar reception to The Social Network actually, in that the left and right coasts will all be very excited about this, but the rest of the country might not care. They should care though, because they are the ones being affected most. Ferguson prioritizes telling the story in the way it needs to be told rather than appealing to the masses (looking at you Michael Moore). There is one sequence where he interviews Chinese laborers, but the scene is extremely compelling in its three or so minutes of screen time. Michael Moore would have made this a full act of his film.
The interviews feature predominantly the insiders who were either responsible for the recession or those who know how it went down. Ferguson summarizes the effects rather than going out onto the street to show us the sob stories. This works fine, because the sob stories belong on reality television, and in 90 minutes, this is a much more efficient way of combating the problem.
Ferguson’s style is somewhere between that of Errol Morris and Michael Moore. We never see Ferguson on camera, he’s certainly not the protagonist of the film like Moore makes himself. He is not as stylized as Morris though, and does not mind when we hear his voice. Occasionally, he’ll leave his questions in to give context to the answers, and he will also leave his voice in when he argues with some interview subjects, or makes accusations at them. Sometimes it’s effective when we listen to him call them out, like in the David McCormick interview, but we don’t need his probings to emphasize Frederic Mishkin’s squirming—that’s when it starts to get manipulative.
The Mishkin interview is the highlight of the film, but it reminds me very much of “The Daily Show.” Don’t get me wrong—John Stewart is hilarious, insightful, handsome, and absolutely the one we should get all of our news from (sarcasm), but let’s be real here, most of his show is him showing funny clips and then making a funny face to the camera, CUE MOCKING LAUGHTER. Ferguson of course does not go there, however, as discussed in the press conference, the distributor was right to cut this interview down from the original cut. We would not take him seriously anymore, and feel more pity for the caricature created of Mishkin, as he sounds stupider and stupider.
Another highlight is hearing Elliot Spitzer discuss morality. On the topic of Wall Street brokers getting caught with prostitutes and drugs, he talks about wanting to change the policy that they do not bring the morality of these figures up when prosecuting them in cases like insider trading or fraud. Good call, Elliot Spitzer, sleeping with prostitutes should certainly be considered and made public.
After stops in Cannes and TIFF, Inside Job is better suited for the New York Film Festival, as it’s most relevant here. I really hope some of the young finance crowd check it out and amend their ways so that we can fix this.
Comments