The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Movie Takes
Print Email
Text Size

Movie Takes

Arbitrage

Richard Gere, as you’ve never seen him before — not!

The word “arbitrage,” as I understand it, means taking advantage of the time lag with which information is transmitted between markets in order to buy in one market and sell at a favorable price in another to those who don’t yet know what you know. It has nothing to do with the new movie of that name by Nicholas Jarecki. His hero Robert Miller (Richard Gere) is not engaged in arbitrage but in out-and-out fraud, falsely representing by means of accounting chicanery the company he is trying to sell as solvent when it is not. The fact that — spoiler alert! — he gets away with this and that the person he sells the company to, James Mayfield (Graydon Carter), chooses to do nothing to bring him to justice suggests that Mr. Jarecki, who wrote the screenplay as well as directing, (a) has some very peculiar ideas about the way business works and (b) himself can see no important difference between legal and illegal transactions.

To him, it appears, they’re equally unpalatable. That rich people routinely swindle each other as well as the general public is simply a given, which I suppose makes it easy for him to believe that everything they do is more or less crooked. Yet he also rather admires Mr. Gere’s character for the success with which he pulls off a bigger swindle than his competitors are able to do. And this isn’t even the main plot of the movie! It is, rather, the framework within which a technical sub-plot is able to dominate our attention. For Robert Miller is not only a crook and a fraudster, he is also a love-rat and a hypocrite. In time-honored fashion, he is presented to us as an ideal family man, surrounded by wife (Susan Sarandon) and adoring child (Brit Marling) for about five minutes before we see him driving off with his French mistress (Laetitia Casta) in a Mercedes which he promptly crashes, killing her.

As he is in the midst of trying to pull off the previously mentioned fraud at Mr. Mayfield’s expense, he calculates that he can’t afford the bad publicity (among other things) that would attend his reporting the accident, so he naturally decides to cover it up. This he is able to accomplish, to the extent he does accomplish it, with the help of the only sympathetic character in the movie, Jimmy Grant (Nate Parker), who is a black youth of some twenty summers whose late father was such a loyal employee that Miller agreed, before he died, to “look after” young Jimmy. Now he has to call in some presumed favors in order to get Jimmy’s assistance in fooling the cops. Unfortunately, one cop in particular, Detective Michael Bryer (Tim Roth), is hot on his trail and threatening to throw the book at Jimmy (who is on probation) if he doesn’t give up his friend.

Gosh! What do you think will happen? Do I need to tell you that the detective proves to be just as corrupt, albeit with different motives, as everybody else in Arbitrage — apart, of course, from Jimmy, who is the only convicted criminal? But just as Robert in Sydney Carton mode is about to give himself up in order to save his protégé from being sent back to prison — see? he’s not such a bad guy after all — he realizes that the cop’s dishonesty may give him a way to elude the grasp of the law for a second time. How can we not wish for his success in doing so when even the guy he swindles insists on giving him a pass? True, he’s still got to pay the price for his marital infidelity, but we may have good hopes that he will have to pay no other.

The best line in the picture comes as Robert Miller is questioned by his lawyer (Stuart Margolin) about Jimmy and why he would “put your family’s future in this kid’s hands.”

“He’s not like us,” Miller explains.

“Is that a good thing?” asks the lawyer.

Indeed it is! The only thing in this movie that remotely resembles a moral principle is Jimmy’s steadfast adherence to the thieves’ code of honor: that you don’t snitch to the cops on your pals and benefactors. Jimmy learned that on the streets where the likes of Robert Miller consigned him, which gave him at least that much of a moral advantage over his social betters — men (and women too) who, we may safely assume, have no principles at all except where they may be convenient. In fact, Miller’s moral awakening to self-sacrifice in determining to give it all up for Jimmy, even though he is not forced to go through with actually doing so, is seen as the saving grace which allows us to root for his success in defeating justice. In a world where everyone is a crook, the crook with any glimmer of conscience shines with the luster of a good deed in a naughty world. But is that a world which exists anywhere outside of the movies? I’m guessing not.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) |

Gr0w1er601| 10.2.12 @ 8:47AM

Oh boy, yet another progressive Hollyweird film on fear and self-loathing. I can't wait...

Seek| 10.2.12 @ 6:56PM

Obviously, you didn't see this movie. Well, I did, two weeks ago. And it's deservedly getting good reviews. The film has nothing to with "self-loathing" or "progressive" politics.

God, as a conservative I'm stunned at how willfully ignorant we've become. And can we please give this "Hollyweird" play on words a rest already? It's not exactly Bloomsbury-level wit.

Rich D| 10.2.12 @ 8:58AM

Saw it last night. Too many loose ends and unbelievable things. Why would the judge let off the cop and attorney who presented faked evidence? Why did the daughter have an apparent change of heart? How did the car not have any other prints on the wheel? The ending was abrupt. Oh, never mind...

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.2.12 @ 9:17AM

Despite every good reason noted here why this film, like so many others, is a likely waste of time, I probably still will check it out when it gets to cable, if only to see another performance by Stuart Margolin. Some recall him as Little Joe from Kelly's Heroes, or the guy who gave Charles Bronson his revolver in Death Wish, or even the dude in the transitional vignettes always pushing a bed in Love, American Style, but to me, he will first and foremost be Angel Martin, the snitch role model of all time and former cell mate of Jim Rockford.

William L. Gensert| 10.2.12 @ 12:50PM

I agree. I've always liked his work, and would watch the movie just to see him.

Stick| 10.2.12 @ 3:22PM

Kelly's Heros was and is a classic.

TinaB| 10.2.12 @ 5:15PM

A character I will never grow tired of, like Jimmie, his bro.

deets| 10.2.12 @ 11:07AM

From what I can glean this is standard business procedure in Hollywood. Naturally, they extrapolate their own tawdriness to the rest of society. If everyone else is cheating then it mitigates their behavior. However, with all of the corruption and theft between government and Wall Street banks it does give one pause.

JD| 10.2.12 @ 11:49AM

As usual, the purpose of a movie is first and foremost to make the public believe that this is how rich people and big business truly act. Throw in a little "the most noble person is the poor black kid", and we've got a liberal election-eve bonanza. Propaganda, through and through.

OP4| 10.2.12 @ 11:57AM

I absolutely loved Brit Marling in "Another Earth". See it. She has a bright future.

I was hoping "Arbitrage" would showcase her, not Gere.

Bill8472| 10.2.12 @ 12:07PM

Hollywood's consistent portrayal of people who engage in high-level business as corrupt individuals with no redeeming moral values is the reason why I await the second installment of Atlas Shrugged with such impatience, even though I know it won't be a great movie. At least it will treat business people with some sympathy.

PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 3:29PM

The plot of this movie reminds me of former VP candidate John Edwards who knocked up his girlfriend and then tried to claim it was a staffer who did the deed. The staffer tried to cover for him until it was so rediculous that even his friends in the mainstream media couldn't keep a straight face. Think about the logic: That the baby isn't his but she's obviously his mistress so instead of him cheating on his wife, they have a love QUADRANGLE where the candidate and his staffer are banging the photographer? That's so weird and hilarious it would make for a great Hollywood comedy. Perhaps a French film...?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.2.12 @ 9:44PM

S'ils vous plait, is there room for Jesse Jackson's own mistress/baby mama story as a subplot in your film?

Michael| 10.3.12 @ 5:34PM

I've always gotten a kick out of some reviewer using the subtitle you used. In 1974, our local newspaper used it for a TV movie review, saying, "Jane Doe, like you never seen her before....and I hope you never see her like that again!!"

More Articles by James Bowman

More Articles From Movie Takes

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/02/arbitrage

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT