Homesex movieThe Big Short (2015) Movie Sex & Nudity

The Big Short (2015) Movie Sex & Nudity

In the beginning of the movie there is a brief scene at a strip club where a few women appear in various states of undress. The woman wears pasties on her nipples, one woman’s breasts are shown in full frontal fashion and another is shown in a thong from behind.
A woman speaks to the viewer while in a bathtub and it is implied she is nude. However her body is almost entirely covered by bubbles and there is no nudity.
A few brief cuts to music videos including some women dancing provocatively and some women in bikinis.
A couple scenes in strip clubs. There is plenty of sexual dancing. A dancer’s breasts and nipples are briefly shown up close.
A man describes to another man a lump he has in his testicles. A diagram of it appears on the screen during the conversation. Lasts for a few seconds


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


The subprime mortgage crisis in 2008 has been put on the screen for many times, from the left-wing documentary “inside the box” in the literary and artistic circles, to HBO’s documentary feature film “big but not falling”, which tells about the government’s rescue of the market, and the interest storm, which alludes to Goldman Sachs’s fire sale on the eve of the crash, which presents the crisis to the audience from different angles, There is not much space left for latecomers. However, big bear has found a new angle, and the shooting is full of zonal feeling and fun.

This new perspective is the insight of accurately predicting the crisis. They made a lot of money in the crisis by shorting. Many people call them shameless people who make the country difficult to make money, but many people think they are real geniuses to promote social progress. Michael, played by Christian bell, a doctor of medicine who isolated himself from fools by heavy metal rock, first found the problem; Gerrard, played by Ryan Gosling, is a glib derivatives seller who sells products everywhere but bets that his owner will collapse; Mark Baum, played by Steve Carrell, is a rude fund manager, but he is jealous of evil and down-to-earth; Brad Pitt plays Ben, a retired expert who hates finance, but supports two sharp young people behind his back.

These excellent actors make the characters wonderful, shining and lovely. The four-way men and horses, with their little brothers, with keen digital insight, went upstream in this stupid Carnival from big government banks to gangster strippers. They have unique insight, but no one recognizes them. With the market carnival, their short selling continues to lose money, the boss curses, customers withdraw capital, colleagues ridicule and self doubt. When the final crisis has emerged and the investment banks betting with them are going to collapse, they make a lot of money and slap those arrogant and stubborn people in the face. These slovenly real financial elites are extremely smart, under great pressure, and have no time or patience to be friendly with you. Therefore, they are full of dirty words, but with a full sense of humor. They are by no means those mediocres who go in and out of high-rise buildings in suits and shoes and think they are elites.

In addition to showing the extraordinary of these people, the second half of the film focuses on the pressure and difficulties of these people in the hard waiting crash. They have unique insight, but no one recognizes them. With the market carnival, their short selling continues to lose money, the boss curses, customers withdraw capital, colleagues ridicule and self doubt. When the final crisis has emerged and the investment banks betting with them are going to collapse, they are busy looking for ways to sell their CDs in case they become waste paper with the collapse of investment banks. They are indeed people who are on the cusp of the storm.

Nor does the film confine its perspective to Wall Street offices. We followed the characters in the film on a field trip to the south, visited the empty and depressed community, contacted the mortgage lenders, and visited the strippers holding five suites; The most exciting thing is that they participated in the meeting of practitioners’ revelers and let the discerning and stupid revelers face to face. After they found that the counterparties were too stupid than themselves, they were reassured. Information asymmetry is the most important factor for making a fortune. All this has enabled us to see the full picture of the developing crisis from all sides.

Of course, at the time of the crisis, the people were kept in the dark about the bloody situation. While the plot is developing, the film deliberately intersperses familiar social news in the same period to reflect people’s ignorance of disaster fermentation. The prosperity and decline of the financial market is one cycle after another. In the subtitle at the end of the film, CDO appears again, which seems to indicate the unfortunate fate that the general public will pay for an impeccable disaster again.

Seven years after the crisis, the scars of most people have gradually healed. Therefore, the film can review history with a spicy and humorous attitude, make the story more exciting and intense with sharp and fast editing, and contrast the ignorance of most people with prominent characters. In order to make it easier for the audience to enter the plot, the film also breaks the window paper of the camera and allows the characters to explain directly to the camera from time to time. In order to help the audience overcome the psychological barriers of financial knowledge barriers, we even let famous models, chefs and singers, who are loved by everyone, explain, shorten the distance from the audience, and let us see that this is a financial documentary film that sincerely wants you to understand what happened, rather than confusing and piling up terms.

If you still don’t understand, let me briefly introduce it here. Buy a house loan, all understand. The amount of a single loan is small and the risk range is large. Some people think of bundling a batch of housing loan creditor’s rights together and selling them to others as bonds, which not only reduces the transaction cost, but also disperses the risk. This is called MBS. Gradually, the loans with good credit were packaged and sold, so we had to make the idea of loans with bad credit. How to sell MBS of non-performing loans? Wisely, bankers invented CDO, which is to package loans with poor credit into CDO and divide them into two tranches. The interest rate of grade a tranches is low and the interest rate of grade B tranches is high. In case of default in the whole loan, grade B will lose first, and then grade B will lose a, and then sell them to investors with different risk preferences. No one wants level B? I take care of myself, and then find a rating agency to rate AAA. It’s a good product on sale again! Later, all the non-performing loans were used up. Let’s sell CDOs! It is to restructure and sell CDOs as loans (bonds in essence). Children and grandchildren are infinite. 50 million housing loans may be attached with 2 billion derivatives. What is the problem of playing like this? In the original loans under several layers, some bad loans will default. When there is more than one default, the bottom creditor’s money can’t be collected, and all the bonds superimposed on it will be finished. When the end comes, which unlucky guy holds a lot of CDOs in his hand or makes a lot of guarantees for CDOs, it will collapse, such as Lehman Brothers. On the other hand, if the loan defaults, the house will be confiscated and auctioned by the bank, which increases the supply of the housing market and depresses the house price. Such a situation is more than one. People who planned to repay the loan well look at it. Shit, the value of my house has fallen to less than my outstanding loan. Then I won’t repay the money at all and don’t want the house. So the house was confiscated and entered the housing market, further driving down house prices. Finally, the real estate collapsed and many people were homeless.

Several smart big bears found these problems, so they went to investment banks to buy something called CDs. This thing is nominally an insurance, that is, when the CDO of the insured object is OK, the bears have to pay the premium to the investment bank, and when the CDO collapses, the investment bank has to compensate the losses of the CDO to the bears. However, this thing is called insurance, but it is actually short. Why? Because these bears don’t hold CDOs at all. As an analogy, if you insure your house and it burns down, you claim for compensation and hedge your gains and losses. But the house is not yours, but you buy insurance for it (the beneficiary is you) and buy 100 copies. Isn’t that a bet that the house will burn? This is essentially short CDO. In the days when the housing market is booming, no one thinks that CDO will collapse, so CDs is a free thing, and investment banks are certainly willing to sell it. Until the deadline came, in addition to Goldman Sachs reviving, selling CDOs on the fire before the crash and buying a lot of CDs (the story told by the film margin call), other big banks ate hard and even collapsed. And several big bears have laughed to the end. You say they are only smart and sharp. What’s wrong with them? Short sellers are like woodpeckers in the financial system. They can find the problem fastest and are an indispensable driving force for economic development.

The story that followed was that the government rescued the market, because several big banks (plus AIG, an insurance company that issued countless CDs) were too big, the U.S. economy collapsed and had no choice but to do so. Finally, it’s the taxpayer’s money. Too big to fail this movie describes this process in detail and can be enjoyed as a sequel to this film (there is a link at the end of the article).

You ask: how can you lend money to people who can’t afford it? Because in the hot era, the creditor’s rights of loans can be sold to banks (they can be packaged and sold to investors), and I can recover the money and interest at that time. What’s my business if I can’t afford to pay back the money in the end? In the final analysis, the problem is that the entrustment chain is too long. There are more than ten layers between the people who make the loan decision (the people who can’t afford to lend to the people who can’t afford it) and the people who take the risk (the investors who finally hold the CDO). The division of responsibility and risk is the root cause of the disaster.

You ask: how can investment banks take over or guarantee CDOs for bad loans? Are they dizzy about handling fees? They’re looking at data. Although the interest rate of so many loans is high, the default rate is not high. Why not do a good business! Why is the default rate not high? Because the lender created a floating interest rate in order to lend money. The interest paid by the borrower for two years is very low. Naturally, it is not easy to default. Then the interest rises again and he leaves. Several layers apart, no one noticed this. Christian Bell’s role first noticed and found that a large-scale rise in floating interest rates would occur in the second quarter of 2007. He was really great. However, large companies (banks) are still big, so it is difficult to make flexible decisions. Goldman Sachs is really good at this.

You ask: why do rating agencies rating AAA without conscience? First, they are essentially profit-making companies. They receive money for rating. When they are rated low, they go to their competitors (other rating agencies). Second, the information is asymmetric. They only have a few pages of financial reports in their hands. They only know that the bank’s benefits are good, and they don’t know what’s in CDO at all.

You ask: where is government regulation? The government can’t think fast. Do not understand. You see, the SEC employees in the film have to throw themselves into the arms of Goldman Sachs. In fact, in this national carnival, only a few smart bears in the film can really see the problem.

You ask: why do many housing loans in the film default, and the CDO price remains high, making several big bears crazy? The explanation of the film is that investment banks already know that something is wrong, but they just want to sell it secretly, buy CDs hedging and even make money, which constitutes fraud. This may not be the case in reality. The price of CDO is determined by the mathematical model of investment banks. When the model is too complex and wrong, the calculated CDO price can not accurately reflect the situation of the underlying loan. So until the crash, the price of CDO may not fluctuate greatly.

You ask: are those big banks really damn? They played off, but they were also miserable (except Goldman Sachs), indirectly indicating that they did not intend to cheat. However, it is an indisputable fact that they have to use taxpayers’ money to save them.

You ask: who should be responsible and who should go to jail? no one. This is the common result of the failure of pricing model, the long entrustment chain and the irrational enthusiasm of market participants. No one has clear evidence of fraud. The most critical issue is too big to fail, which can only be saved before encouraging the spin off of large banks.

Then what shall I do? Strengthen supervision. But too strong will restrict market freedom and hinder development. Slow development, deregulation, collapse and strengthening supervision are the fate of the financial industry.

How do we ordinary people know about the bloody situation here? While the plot was developing, the film deliberately interspersed with well-known social news at the same time to reflect that the general public knew nothing about the fermentation of the disaster, but had to pay the bill in the end.

RELATED ARTICLES

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Sunshine (1999)

Simple Men (1992)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments