← Back to Directory
The Wolf of Wall Street
Movie

The Wolf of Wall Street

2013 • Biography, Comedy, Crime

Woke Score
2
out of 10

Plot

In the early 1990s, Jordan Belfort teamed with his partner Donny Azoff and started brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont. Their company quickly grows from a staff of 20 to a staff of more than 250 and their status in the trading community and Wall Street grows exponentially. So much that companies file their initial public offerings through them. As their status grows, so do the amount of substances they abuse, and so do their lies. They draw attention like no other, throwing lavish parties for their staff when they hit the jackpot on high trades. That ultimately leads to Belfort featured on the cover of Forbes Magazine, being called "The Wolf Of Wall St.". With the FBI onto Belfort's trading schemes, he devises new ways to cover his tracks and watch his fortune grow. Belfort ultimately comes up with a scheme to stash their cash in a European bank. But with the FBI watching him like a hawk, how long will Belfort and Azoff be able to maintain their elaborate wealth and luxurious lifestyles?

Overall Series Review

The film chronicles the spectacular rise and decadent fall of stockbroker Jordan Belfort, focusing relentlessly on his and his associates' extreme hedonism, fraud, and addiction in the 1990s Wall Street environment. It presents an unfiltered, amoral perspective from the protagonist, showcasing a life consumed by the pursuit of obscene wealth, drugs, and sexual promiscuity. The narrative offers a non-judgmental, though often appalling, view of a hyper-masculine, morally vacant world, ultimately serving as a cautionary tale about the insatiable nature of greed and the emptiness of radical self-interest. It is a period piece deeply rooted in a culture antithetical to modern sensibilities, resulting in low scores across the 'woke' categories.

Categorical Breakdown

Identity Politics2/10

The story is an explicit condemnation of the greed and criminal behavior of Jordan Belfort, an able-bodied, cisgender, heterosexual white man. The narrative vilifies the characters for their financial corruption, not their race or immutable characteristics. The film features an overwhelmingly white cast, which is historically authentic to the specific setting and time period of the story's focus, and does not feature forced diversity or political lectures on systemic privilege.

Oikophobia3/10

The film criticizes American society's addiction to capitalist excess and the corruption of the American Dream, but this is an internal critique of national decadence, not an indictment of Western civilization itself. The narrative does not utilize the 'Noble Savage' trope or frame the home culture as fundamentally flawed in favor of an idealized external culture.

Feminism1/10

The film's world is overtly misogynistic, portraying women almost exclusively as sexual objects, wives who are cheated on, or props for the male characters' hedonism. This depiction is the antithesis of the 'Girl Boss' or Mary Sue archetype, and the film does not feature emasculated men, but rather celebrates a reckless, hyper-masculine alpha-male culture. The breakdown of the family unit is shown as a consequence of the men's destructive vice, not a positive choice for female career fulfillment.

LGBTQ+1/10

The core of the film's sexual content revolves around extreme heterosexual promiscuity, infidelity, and prostitution. There is no presence of 'Queer Theory,' centering of alternative sexualities, or discussion of gender ideology. The structure is entirely heteronormative, even if the depicted relationships are depraved.

Anti-Theism2/10

The story focuses on a world entirely devoid of moral boundaries, where the main characters embrace radical moral relativism and hedonism. The film's message is widely interpreted as a cautionary tale illustrating the spiritual vacuum and destruction caused by the total rejection of a higher moral law, rather than a lecture arguing that traditional religion is the root of evil.