3 ms·

Yes, the person who was just briefed on what was happening, and in very simple terms because he doesn't understand the technical language of complex financial i

by jstx1 4y ago

Yes, the person who was just briefed on what was happening, and in very simple terms because he doesn't understand the technical language of complex financial instruments - that's the person who's guessing what "the music" is going to do? That whole movie is so shallow when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

dilyevsky 4y ago
I think you’re assuming a little too much about what Irons character does/doesn’t know about the overall state of financial system. He may had other analysts/industry insiders briefing him on various things for months by that point.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > He may had other analysts/industry insiders briefing him on various things for months by that point. That's you assuming stuff, not me. And I don't think there's any evidence for it in the movie - it's portrayed as a surprise to everyone involved.
  - dilyevsky 4y ago
    I wasn’t the one making the original claim bc sorkin didn’t include 10 mins of exposition explaining the ceo’s logic there which btw is completely irrelevant to the theme of this movie. Edit: actually wasn’t Sorkin but whatever
paxys 4y ago
You have to watch it a bit closer. He didn't ask for the problem to be explained in simple terms because he didn't understand what was going on. Instead he wanted to make sure his subordinates understood the problem and didn't try to hide their ignorance behind needless complexity. This is a strategy used by all of the most effective managers in the real world ("pretend that I'm stupid", "explain it to me like I'm five"). It was clear from the get go that he was the smartest person in the room in every scene he was in. The movie also makes clear multiple times that the only people who were surprised by what was going on were the little guys – risk analysts and middle management. People at the top got the news and were simply like "ok guess it's finally happening". If you ask around people who do this stuff for a living, all of them will tell you that out of the dozens of movies about the financial crisis, Margin Call was conceptually the closest one to how things actually work in the industry (obviously disregarding the Hollywood-esque dialog and characters).
- jstx1 4y ago
  The portrayal of that character didn't work for me. I just didn't find him plausible as a high-level finance executive. It's like a portrayal of a CEO for people who have never interacted with such a person in their life. If that character works for you, then it makes sense that you can interpret things in a more generous way.
  - paxys 4y ago
    That's funny because he is literally based on two real people – Richard Fuld and John Thain (who were CEOs of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch respectively at the time of the crisis).
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      I thought the name "Tuld" might have had a meaning I was missing...
  - dilyevsky 4y ago
    You haven’t interacted with a lot of ceos outside of tech then. I’d say irons and especially bettany’s low level desk director portrayals are exactly spot on. In some way toned down even

by jstx1 4y ago

dilyevsky 4y ago

I think you’re assuming a little too much about what Irons character does/doesn’t know about the overall state of financial system. He may had other analysts/industry insiders briefing him on various things for months by that point.

jstx1 4y ago
> He may had other analysts/industry insiders briefing him on various things for months by that point. That's you assuming stuff, not me. And I don't think there's any evidence for it in the movie - it's portrayed as a surprise to everyone involved.
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  I wasn’t the one making the original claim bc sorkin didn’t include 10 mins of exposition explaining the ceo’s logic there which btw is completely irrelevant to the theme of this movie. Edit: actually wasn’t Sorkin but whatever

paxys 4y ago

You have to watch it a bit closer. He didn't ask for the problem to be explained in simple terms because he didn't understand what was going on. Instead he wanted to make sure his subordinates understood the problem and didn't try to hide their ignorance behind needless complexity. This is a strategy used by all of the most effective managers in the real world ("pretend that I'm stupid", "explain it to me like I'm five"). It was clear from the get go that he was the smartest person in the room in every scene he was in. The movie also makes clear multiple times that the only people who were surprised by what was going on were the little guys – risk analysts and middle management. People at the top got the news and were simply like "ok guess it's finally happening". If you ask around people who do this stuff for a living, all of them will tell you that out of the dozens of movies about the financial crisis, Margin Call was conceptually the closest one to how things actually work in the industry (obviously disregarding the Hollywood-esque dialog and characters).

jstx1 4y ago
The portrayal of that character didn't work for me. I just didn't find him plausible as a high-level finance executive. It's like a portrayal of a CEO for people who have never interacted with such a person in their life. If that character works for you, then it makes sense that you can interpret things in a more generous way.
- paxys 4y ago
  That's funny because he is literally based on two real people – Richard Fuld and John Thain (who were CEOs of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch respectively at the time of the crisis).
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    I thought the name "Tuld" might have had a meaning I was missing...
- dilyevsky 4y ago
  You haven’t interacted with a lot of ceos outside of tech then. I’d say irons and especially bettany’s low level desk director portrayals are exactly spot on. In some way toned down even