TOO BIG TO FAIL

US, 2011, 105 minutes, Colour
William Hurt, Billy Crudup, James Woods, John Heard, Erin Dilley, Topher Grace, Cynthia Nixon, Kathy Baker, Edward Asner, Paul Giamatti, Michael O’ Keefe, Victor Slezak, Bill Pullman, Evan Handler, Tony Shaloub, Matthew Modine, Laila Robbins, Dan Hedaya.
Directed by Curtis Hanson.

The Global Financial Crisis.

The Oscar winner for Best Documentary for 2010 was Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job. It was a powerful, even frightening, look at the state of American financial dealings in the first decade of the 21st century. Full of facts and figures, it was also full of potent interviews with many of the movers and shakers from Wall St to Washington DC (though many others declined to be interviewed). It is difficult to comprehend how these men (mainly men) were able to misread the times, undervalue the advice they were given, presume on their egos to come to the closure of banking institutions in the US, and to depend on government bail-outs. (And, then, many would say, go back to their old practices and bonuses).

Another nominee for 2010 Documentary Oskar was Alex Gibney’s Client #9, the Rise and Fall of Elliot Spitzer, the story of the successful but flawed governor of New York State who went after the money rogues.

Too Big to Fail is an interesting companion piece to the documentaries. But, this time, the crises is dramatised in a feature film, based on a book by Andrew Sorkin.

Just as the documentaries were criticised for bias (mainly from critics and commentators right of centre), so the feature film, the dramatising of actual characters and events, has also been accused of being inaccurate. As could be said of Michael Moore (who made Capitalism: A Love Affair in 2009), if only half what he has in his films is true, then that is frightening enough.

This film takes Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, as the focus. It was he who had to handle the crisis, even more demanding as it seemed to be hurtling out of control. Paulson had been CEO of Lehmann Brothers before being nominated by President Bush to the Treasury post (and had made considerable profit from his sale of assets). His handling of the situation and the dramatis personae demanded concentration, skills, using his knowledge of the main players – not without mistakes, including underestimating the British response to merger deals and credit regulation, or even some of the government statutory requirements for bankruptcy as in the case of Lehmann’s. This is one of William Hurt’s best performances.

The film opens dramatically with James Woods as the head of Lehmann’s, arrogant and impatient, failing to estimate properly the nature of the crisis, calling his advisers, trying to do a deal with Koreans which he sabotages with American ill-mannered brusqueness. We get the picture at once. Later, we will see the CEOs of the other major American banks trying to save their companies and themselves, reluctant to make decisions for the good of the country.

We also see the Democrat and Republican Congress stand-offs with the legislation for the government bail-out.

Most of the other characters are Paulson’s advisers as well as Paul Giamatti as Chair of the Reserve Bank and Billy Crudup as Timothy Geitner, President of the New York Fed. Edward Asner has some moments as billionaire, Warren Buffet.

The film moves at a great pace, dramatising the desperation of those trying to find a solution – and finding ways to be diplomatic with banking powers that be as well as with politicians.

The film makes us realise that the capitalist system was at the brink – apocalypse in the next few days. Whether the bail-out solution (Democrats objecting) or the government takeover (Republicans crying ‘Socialism’) was the best answer at the time will be debated. The value of this feature drama, along with the documentaries, is that within a short time of the events, they can be brought to the public’s attention through film and television.
Director, Curtis Hanson, is best known for LA Confidential.

1. The documentary features of the film? The feature film – with the touch of fiction? Aimed at the wider audience? Facts and interpretation?

2. Audience awareness of 2008, the global financial crisis? The film presenting it in close-up, the banks, the CEOs, insurance companies? Characters, financiers, government, public relations? The international dimension? The United Kingdom? France?

3. The strong cast and their recreation of these characters?

4. Hank Paulsen as the focus? A hero or non-hero? His background, Lehmann Brothers, his money, seconded by President Bush for treasury secretary? His assets, selling them? His fortune? His ability to assess the situation? His contacts from the past? His sense of duty in government? The contact with Warren Buffet, the CEOs, the British financial regulators, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geitner? The phone call to Christine Legard?

5. How well did the film communicate the crisis within two hours, the situation, complexity, urgency, the time frame, the effect on the United States, the United States government, on world finance?

6. Audience knowledge of detail, sufficient detail given in the film, information, clarity of issues, or general impressions?

7. The start of the film with Lehmann Brothers, the situation and audiences understanding it through this focus? Richard Fauld and his sense of urgency? His not being aware of the realities? His own ego? His bumptious manner? Joe Gregory and his advice? The plans for the Koreans and keeping him out, his coming in bumptiously and interrupting the meeting, bad manners? The imminent collapse of Lehmann Brothers? His board meeting and taking the vote? His having to vote for the bankruptcy himself?

8. The film providing background explanations, property boom, the belief that this would not collapse, mortgages, the double-dealings of the banks? The explanation of the buying up of debt? The effect on ordinary people – and the comment about ordinary people being to blame for the financial collapse for their presumptions and exploiting money situations?

9. Hank Paulsen in himself, his age and experience, the scenes with his wife, her listening and understanding, support? His shrewdness? Yet sometimes being slow? Not aware of details of government regulations – especially in relationship to declarations of bankruptcy? Not giving the United Kingdom regulators information in time? The sell-offs, the advice of his associates? His not being able to sleep, the pills? The meals with Ben Bernanke and the comments about the situation? With Timothy Geitner, his energy in trying to find schemes to solve the issues? The public relations issue with Michelle Davis? Explanations? Going to the government, the meeting of the Democrats, the Republicans? The potential ruin of the United States’ economy and capitalism?

10. The portrait of Ben Bernanke, calm, assessing the situation, advice to Paulsen?

11. Timothy Geitner, active, his language, communicating? Ideas? The importance of the phone, the calls? The timing?

12. Michelle Davis, the issue of PR, her understanding, the explanations to the public?

13. The arguments about Congress? The Republicans thinking that the bailout was socialism? The Democrats critical of the handouts? The issue of handouts to the banks?

14. The summoning of the bank leaders, Paulsen laying down the law – their reactions, concern about their banks, their companies, their own finances? The phone calls to Warren Buffet? His hesitation? His eventually giving money? John Mack and his being the first to vote? The contacts with Lloyd Blankfein and his heading up his company, being cooperative? John Thain and his hard line? Jamie Dimon and his presence at the meetings, assessing situations? Vikram Pandit and his advice to Paulsen? The character actors bringing these people alive – even for a brief screen time?

15. The solution, the money from the government, the issue of paying back, hoping the banks would lend – and their failure to lend? They were too big to fail?

16. The final information about the characters, their careers, the banks – and the confining of the money to ten banks, definitely too big to fail?

17. The enterprise in this kind of film about contemporary issues – and filmed so quickly after the events? Giving a basis for further interpretation and discussion?