Inside Job (Review)

Inside Job is the work of a documentarian possessed, for better or for worse (mostly the latter). It makes its case clearly and with vigor, but with not enough of an original approach. It’s a by-the-numbers documentary through-and-through, telling its story through the use of talking heads, bar graphs, C-SPAN footage and photos. The format would not be a problem, but the lack of any new or revelatory facts is. At best it’s a document which recounts the 2008 financial collapse moment-by-moment, person-by-person, and on that level it's effective enough. However, I wanted more from Inside Job.

That said, I cannot penalize Inside Job too much, for it is certainly well-made. Charles Ferguson, the director, gives the film an anger that it nearly burns through the screen. It depicts the Wall Street of the last 20 years as a boys’ club which, behind closed doors, determined a path for the economy which led to our current state. In the process they infiltrated the government and now they practically run the whole country. The film takes no prisoners, pointing the finger at Republicans and Democrats alike, including every President since Ronald Reagan. Yes, including Barack Obama.

Ferguson seeks out interviews with just about anyone you can name, including those who caused the crisis. As the film goes on, statements appear on the screen naming all the major players who refused to appear on film. Those who do, for the most part, end up regretting it. Ferguson is not afraid of being confrontational, claiming that multiple interviewees “cannot be serious” and so on. Most interviews, however, are with people who share Ferguson’s beliefs.

Among the film’s key assertions is that many intellectuals predicted the meltdown, but they were all ignored. Most of the prophesiers of doom show up in some capacity here, throwing some “I told you so” remarks at the audience. The film alternates between talking heads of those who are anti-Wall Street, and those who work on Wall Street. Each interview goes about as expected.

Inside Job, frankly, is not my type of documentary. I feel films of its ilk are needed, and the muckraking styles of Ferguson and Davis Guggenheim can provide for some enthralling work. However, Inside Job traffics too much in the obvious and offers nothing new to the equation. Because of this its tone is relentlessly pessimistic, and only at the end does Ferguson begin to call for action. Guggennheim’s Waiting for Superman flirted with this universe for a while, but eventually was able to create something rather beautiful. It existed in the real world. Inside Job insists on never going further than finger-pointing.

Ferguson presents “solutions”, but they are insurmountable. Guggenheim’s film not only sets of an alarm but also inspires, while Ferguson sticks you deep inside a complex maze and tells you to find your own way out. Inside Job never fully immerses itself in the problem, but instead spends most of its time shaking its head disapprovingly.

The most fascinating stuff in Inside Job focuses on the lives our Wall Street friends led. One of the people interviewed is Kristen Davis, who ran a prostitution “service”, if you will, which catered to these men. These guys would go out at night, do mass amounts of cocaine, get “services” from a prostitute, and go home to their families only to work the next day. Another fascinating, but all too brief interview is with a therapist who was seen by many Wall Street men. He describes them as men who were obsessed with being the best. They only cared about who was the richest, who had the most homes, most planes, most yachts, etc. They are obsessed with taking larger and larger risks hoping they get equal reward. It’s fascinating stuff.

The rest of the film, while seemingly important, was just not as fascinating. The film offers little new information, and mostly exists so that it may try and get you angry. There is no larger good here, but instead just the stuff you’ve seen on the news for the past few years. I’m just as angry about America’s economic situation as anyone, and the film outraged me as anticipated, but ultimately I felt unfulfilled. As a detailed retelling of our recent past, it succeeds. As a vital and compelling piece of filmmaking, it does not.

Rating:  (out of 4)