Tireless in his search for new stylistic expressions, veteran Martin Scorsese enters the world of banking and through the story of Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) leads us to one of the turning points in the history of capitalism. The film is “The Wolf of Wall Street”, a powerful period fresco that portrays the irresistible rise of a man in the world of finance and his inevitable and spectacular fall.

The plot centers on Jordan Belfort, from his shy beginnings on Wall Street, who was dazed and confused, to his full transformation into a big and famous businessman, not far removed from any gangster in Scorsese’s previous films. It is that transformation, that decisive step towards a point of no return, that makes Jordan Belfort a character of enormous appeal , capable of arousing the most mixed feelings. Antihero wherever you look at him, Belfort has an unconditional ally to be so forceful in front of the spectators: Leonardo DiCaprio, who in full maturity as an artist who is offering his most finished work to date. As an actor, he offers all the necessary nuances to make his character believable. But, above all, to make an impact on the audience. Few actors are gifted with similar talent. There are better actors and there are more charismatic stars, but DiCaprio has material from both sides and that makes him unique, as evidenced in this film .Of course, “The Wolf of Wall Street” once again raises an old question: Does Scorsese celebrate or condemn this story?Every time his films have been branded as extremely violent, graphic, ruthless, critics wonder if “Good Guys”, “Casino” or “Gangs of New York” are apologies for violence or not. I don’t think I have the answer to these kinds of questions because I don’t think that’s what the filmmaker wants to convey. Because the reason for his cinema is not to condemn, exalt, defend or sympathize with what we see on the screen. The interest is in the way Scorsese paints the story on the screen. And on this occasion he has chosen the exaltation of the senses through the most explicit images (at least in the sexual field) of his career (“Good guys”, by far, it is much more violent).

Interestingly, I recently saw “The Age of Innocence” (1993), a film that initially was not appreciated as the great work that it is. At the time they pointed out that it was a different piece within the filmography of its director because he opted for the opposite of what we were used to. Nothing more absurd.

“The Age of Innocence” is as graphic as the most violent of Scorsese’s films. Only that it is focused on another time, in another human group, in other circumstances. But there it is, the lens that looks attentively at the behavior of its characters, that exalts their reactions, that underlines each coming and going. In “The Age of Innocence” violence is not painted with blood but is covered by a code of conduct and social rules that torment its protagonists but are also their tools to return the blows they receive.

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is that. It is Martin Scorsese’s look at the great decadence of the 20th century. Of the disgrace and bankruptcy of the system in the hands of the most unscrupulous agents of the decadence that banking has produced. He illustrates that world as if it were a great bacchanal, one of those feasts that marked the decline and fall of the Roman Empire . Or in this case, the fall of another empire.