MovieChat Forums > Wall Street (1987) Discussion > Why guys loved Gordon Gekko

Why guys loved Gordon Gekko

posted 9 years ago by eddysl12
18 replies | jump to latest

I know Oliver Stone was dismayed when people, and guys in general expressed admiration and even downright love for the character of Gordon Gekko.

He wanted the viewer to see Gordon as the villain and not as some kind of hero. Carl Fox was suppose to be the hero, not Gordon Gekko.

Here are some ideas I have had for some time as to why Gordon was so popular and Carl was not.

The 80's were an unfortunate time of downsizing and outsourcing. The virtues as exemplified by Carl Fox of being an honest, hard-working, blue collar type of guy were becoming out-dated. Carl Fox seemed to represent exactly the kind of guy who would be subject to being laid off or outsourced. The virtues of a Carl Fox were no longer respected by society.

Gordon's father was basically a blue-collar type of guy also who died of tax bills and a heart attack.

In this awful new world, having the virtues of a blue-collar guy just didn't cut it anymore.

There was no longer safety in virtue, of being an honest, hard worker. There was only safety in money and having a huge amount of it.

Gordon himself wasn't a rich kid, he attended City College of New York, not Harvard or Yale.

At a time when rich kids were dropping out of college and doing drugs and engaging in wild sex, Gordon would have been working his way up from the bottom in the financial world.

The death of his father would have had a huge impact upon him, he probably decided that he would become so rich that what happened to his father would never happen to him, and his becoming extremely rich would in some way become payback for what was done to his father.

A guy viewing this movie in his twenties is basically put into the position of Bud Fox, he is presented with two fathers here and he has to choose which one he is going to emulate, Gordon Gekko or Carl Fox.

The movie lets us know that Carl Fox is not quite cognizant of the changes around him, he still calls spaghetti, spaghetti instead of it's new fashionable name, " pasta ". Carl acknowledges that he is old-fashioned and out-of-date.

Gordon Gekko on the other hand comes across as very smart and fashionable, he eats at the finest places and knows value in art when he sees it.

There is nothing a young man dreads more than to be expected to follow the advice of someone who is out of date with the times, between Gordon and Carl, Gordon wins hands down.

In Carl's era, proving that you were a man meant that you worked hard and sweated with the best of them, in Gordon's era it meant that you had a really big bank account.

Oliver, I think made the mistake of not portraying Gordon as some spoiled rich kid who partied while at Yale, who then learned that cheating was the way to make even more money than he had already inherited from his wealthy family.

Instead, he inadvertently portrayed a character who represented the American Dream, of coming from an impoverished background who through hard work and a willingness to break rules, became a dominant force in finance.

As the economic gulf between the rich and the poor has widened and the middle-class has become more and more decimated, the appeal of Gordon over Carl has only become stronger.

[–] henrimaine 9 years ago

Good analysis. I don't know what intentions Oliver Stone had in creating this movie and the character of Gekko. But it is quite easy to understand that many viewers would see Gekko as a hero to emulate. The creation of such a character is a great achievement for Oliver Stone and Michael Douglas, even if it goes against their original intention.

[–] dl4060 9 years ago

I remember hearing about an interview where Stone said he was dismayed about the way Gekko ended up being idolized. Stone wanted to portray him as fundamentally evil, someone who would commit serious crimes and destroy lives in order to get wealthy, he wanted Gekko to be a villain instead of a hero. I think Stone portrayed that well, I just don't think he analyzed the climate of the country as well as he could have. I think the OP is correct, but I also think there is another factor. Michael Douglas was amazing in the movie, extremely charismatic. Douglas has such magnetism that people end up looking up to this charismatic figure, which is sad. People who cheat and swindle to gain their fortune should not be idolized.

I don't think Stone screwed up, I think it is more that Douglas was so outstanding.

Gekko is at least partially based on Ivan Boesky. Boesky even delivered a greed is good type speech at one point.

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Same thing happened with The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald writes a book as a criticism of the excess of those types of people and what happens? Readers want to have "Gatsby parties" and idolise that lifestyle.

The bottom line is that when we see a tough guy with lots of wealth, most people want to be that guy or have him for a friend. It's sad, really - a real sad commentary on humanity.

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

And who wouldn't like to be Don Corleone, and have people waiting in line asking you for favors?

---
Choocheechoo choocheechoo choocheechoo ya ya pow!

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Sure, it makes sense that people would want to be a big shot with money, power, and respect, but it's important to remember that that stuff isn't necessarily the best thing in life (somebody cue Conan).

Those things, things like money and, let's face it: sycophants, aren't what gives a life meaning or greatness - especially if they come at the high price guys like Corleone and Gekko paid to get there. If you have to kill and rob to get where you're going, maybe it's not such a good destination.

"If more people valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a merry world."

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

Watching most movies is escapism. That's the point of entertainment. For a couple of hours you can fantasize that you're in an ideal world with everything you want. Or maybe it's an exciting but dangerous adventure. Then you go back to your normal, mundane life where you have to deal with reality.

---
Choocheechoo choocheechoo choocheechoo ya ya pow!

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Movies aren't just escapism - not all of them. They're entertaining (or should be), sure, but at their best they are great art, too, and that's not just about an idealised fantasy world. Some of them have serious points to make or parts of humanity to hold up for inspection in all of its glory and flaws.

I'd point to films like Requiem for a Dream, Whiplash, Chinatown, The Third Man, Barton Fink, and Heat for carrying entertainment, maybe some escapism, and deeper insights and messages, all with characters (including protagonists) we wouldn't want to emulate.

You probably shouldn't come through Heat thinking, "Boy I hope my personal life winds up a terrible mess because of the sacrifices I make in my job - just like Al Pacino!" But it's good to watch a story about somebody we empathise with, care about, and don't want to be or wind up like.

Same is true of Tony Montana or Gordon Gekko. We want to like them as characters, maybe be entertained by their outrageous lifestyles, but we shouldn't want to be them in all their ugliness.

[–] johndeansmith 9 years ago

remember that Oliver Stone also wrote Scarface. Tony Montana was a Cuban refugee with a rags to riches story just like Gekko was a rags to riches story. the audience roots for them. despite being a gangster and a drug kingpin - Oliver Stone made Tony Montana likable. i believe he did the same with Gordon Gekko. people love Tony Montana and they love Gordon Gekko. thank Oliver Stone, Al Pacino, and Michael Douglas. Americans and the entire world love an underdog.

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Sure, but aren't viewers missing the point?

It's great to have a relatable protagonist, but Stone isn't trying to make people want to emulate Scarface. Scarface has long been, in my opinion, one of the most misinterpreted movies of all time given that the film's message is: "BEWARE! If you only value money, you will lose everything of real value!" A lot of viewers have misunderstood the film and seem to take away: "HEY! Money is the best, you guys!"

Empathising with Montana or Gekko is one thing. Wanting to be them is missing the boat in a bafflingly obtuse way.

[–] JackSparrow92 9 years ago

I don't doubt that Stone's goal was for Gekko to be seen as the villain, rather than to be embraced. However, he picked the wrong time to release the movie. For that desired message to resonate, he should have waited a few years.

In 1987 when the movie came out, the recession of the early 80s was over. Reagan's "Morning In America" re-election thing had happened. Big hair, power suits, colourful clothes, hair metal, etc. had replaced the relative austerity, drabness and nuclear doom-laden outlook of the early 80s. The message from the top was that a corner had been turned and everything was now going to be awesome. People were encouraged to borrow and spend and pursue the good life. Then this movie has Gordon Gekko telling the audience that "greed is good" and that it "cuts through, clarifies, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit"... wow, it couldn't have been better timed for America to embrace, rather than be repulsed by, that message.

At the same time, the Cold War was thawing, and the manner in which it thawed and eventually ended (i.e. with a new Soviet leader who made overtures to the West and started withdrawing from Afghanistan) was seen as a huge vindication for America and for capitalism. Suddenly, not only only was capitalism the key to the good life (whatever that meant), but it could win the Cold War against its most fearsome foe without firing a shot!

Fast forward to the events of 2008, as all the "cheap money sloshing around the world" (which Hal Holbrook's older, wiser, still somewhat idealistic character in Wall Street sagely warned about) all but brought the whole system to its knees. The expansion that started in the 80s had continued for roughly two decades by that point, with a relatively minor hiccup as the late 90s dotcom BS faceplanted, and then a more serious hiccup when Bush II took office but from which the DJIA had rebounded and then some. And now, a further eight years on, the world economy is even shakier.

The whole system is such an enormous shell game....

Revenge is a dish best served cold.
-- Klingon proverb

[–] Pervy_Grin 9 years ago

Then this movie has Gordon Gekko telling the audience that "greed is good" and that it "cuts through, clarifies, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit"... wow, it couldn't have been better timed for America to embrace, rather than be repulsed by, that message.

Watching this on Sundance now. Just before the "greed is good" line in his speech to the Teldar Paper shareholders, Gekko criticizes the multitudes of VPs making big salaries while holding very little Teldar stock, and spending the companies money on steak lunches and such. That kind of message was popular then and is very popular today with the progressive left. It might be BS but Gekko sounds like a champion of the working class when he talks like that.

[–] charli3 9 years ago

Love the old man's reply in his crinkly voice: "This is an outrage! You're out of line Gekko!"

[–] smoko 8 years ago

@Pervy_Grin ...Gekko criticizes the multitudes of VPs making big salaries while holding very little Teldar stock, and spending the companies money on steak lunches and such.
I think that message would be popular with anyone in the working class, regardless of whether they were left or right.

[–] eddysl12 9 years ago

Yes, a lot of fads such as long hair, drug trips, bad fashion, crude or untraditional wedding ceremonies and embracing and emulating the poor were now history.

There was a monumental sea change that occurred in the mid-eighties and being square and wealthy was now the cool thing to be. If one couldn't be wealthy then one could at least cut one's hair and dress in a business like fashion.

TV shows like " Sanford and Son " about low-income poor people were out, shows like " Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous " were now in.

I think now though people have seen the results of unbridled, uncontrolled capitalism and how it is neither patriotic nor moral. As a result a lot of people are embracing Bernie Sanders ( a democratic socialist ) or Donald Trump ( who represents a return to controlled capitalism ).

[–] firstwinsgop-1 8 years ago

Guys liked Gekko because at the end of the day, Gekko was right. He was a principled outsider battling the corporate corruption and fat cat insiders. America ended becoming one giant Teldar Paper in the years following the release of the film, and the result of that was the financial crisis. Now more than ever, the America is yearning for a real life Gordon Gekko to deliver us from our corrupt fascist system.

[–] charli3 8 years ago

Gordon Gekko - still trusted more than anyone in DC!

[–] smoko 8 years ago

@firstwinsgop-1 He was a principled outsider battling the corporate corruption and fat cat insiders.
Gekko did insider trading. Hell, he hired Bud to spy on Wildman. And you call that being principled.

Battling the fat cat insiders? Gekko was a fat cat insider.

[–] update724 8 years ago

Bizarre. Didn't I clock you in the library, bored of life after yr "daughters" son made me a conduit and Hollywood threw their hands up in dismay? If only Justice League and all those coming before you in there were enough. As if a 100000+ hex and a broken leg leaving the US Open were enough, huh?

Burger Bro?