MovieChat Forums > Inside Job (2010) Discussion > Why is Matt Damon the narrator?

Why is Matt Damon the narrator?

posted 14 years ago by HackneyManz2000
66 replies | jump to latest

Matt Damon is an actor, I would have preferred someone credibile in financial matters to narrate this film, not an actor reading through a set of lines. Furthermore it strikes me as ironic that someone of Damon's riches could pull off a 'serious film' about the global economic crisis. Movie-stars, footballers, pop-stars as well as city bankers/traders etc are just as much a part of the capitalist, celebrity-obsessed society we live in (in the west). I think that it is very hard to make a film about this subject matter 'objective' - (if objectivity is even possible) but seen as this film is made by Sony, and has Damon reading the lines, I'm sorry but I can't take this film seriously. Seems like another commercial ploy to me.

For the record, I think Matt Damon is a terrific actor, I love all the Bourne series, and thought he was brilliant in The Talented Mr Ripley and more recently True Grit. I do not have a personal vendetta against him, I simply think that an actor should not involve himself in a documentary of this subject matter.

Please voice your opinons...

[–] gloops_new_account 14 years ago

Because it's still a film, no matter what the subject matter. He did a great job.

[–] spielbergos 14 years ago

The filmakers wanted to increase exposure, and Damon was probably first choice.
Damon feels personal about this large problem that is actually being dismissed.
Money would not be part of the equation in this, his time would have been his conflict.
His opinions and yearn for reform,fairness to all - prompted him to essentially 'donate' his time. He knows he contributed to a worthwhile message, and stands behind it, with no other motivation. He was very outspoken about Sarah Palin, and let us all know about it to.

The middle class, or poor that have any problems...rewatch the movie...The rich wall streeters knowingly STOLE your retirement funds, your savings!!!
Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of economics should have known it was a terribly obvious bubble.

The best time in life is somewhere between the second and third Martini,

[–] thekuruptx 11 years ago

For me the whole documentary was summarized in Robert Gnaizda's one liner, when he was asked that why wasn't anyone doing anything about this whole mess, that "Its a Wall Street Government" Brilliant!

[–] babuandbabu 8 years ago

👍

----

The BOSS of this place 👊

[–] Overmarz87 14 years ago

It didn't distract me. I thought he did a good job playing a voice presenting information.

These are some movies of mine. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/lanser87

[–] AllyWheels 14 years ago

I agree with you.

The documentary deals with very real and very important issues. Having Matt Damon narrate gave it a "Hollywood" vibe and in my opinion lessened its credibility.

Also, Matt Damon has been outspoken on a number of issues before (nothing wrong with this) so for this subject matter, someone with a more neutral image and more financial expertise would have lent the documentary more gravitas.

"Well, I tried, didn't I? Goddamnit, at least I did that."

[–] LordElrondd 13 years ago

okay so he should donate all his money,sell out his house and sleep on the street so you guys wont be annoyed just because he wants to narrate a film about global economic crisis? Please...

Get a life people!

__________________
What gets us in trouble is not what we don't know; It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

[–] silent_echo 14 years ago

I forgot Matt Damon was narrator 10 minutes in. I think the director wanted to promote the film to an audience that would not normally see a documentary at the cinema. Thats the only reason I can think of anyway.

[–] cableaddict 14 years ago

Mat Damon probably knows a lot more about global economics than the stuffed shirts that report on various news networks.

News flash: rich actors have the luxury of TIME, so if they are concerned about a subject, they can learn all about it, as if they were in grad school.

News commentators? They just read words that scroll across the teleprompter, and often it's propaganda written by the various think-tanks. Their opinions are worthless, yet they pretend to be some kind of experts.

[–] AllyWheels 14 years ago

Of course Matt could be an expert on financial matters. Thats not the point.
People don't know him for that, they know him as a hollywood actor. His contribution was only to narrate, and he did a fine job, but he brings all sorts of extra baggage to the job aswell. I agree that his name raised the profile of the documentary so perhaps that was the idea all along.

Newsflash: Its not only rich actors with spare time that can learn all about a subject. It's very presumptious to say that they spend any of their time doing this at all. I think Matt Damon is very well read and is very smart however.

"Well, I tried, didn't I? Goddamnit, at least I did that."

[–] stascom-62-342612 11 years ago

If the viewer can't see past his Hollywood persona while watching this film. They probably don't have the capacity to understand the content anyhow.

[–] AllyWheels 11 years ago

Non sequitur.

"My kids never had the advantage I had. I was born poor."
- Issur Danielovitch Demsky

[–] urbanspaceman 14 years ago

News flash: rich actors have the luxury of TIME, so if they are concerned about a subject, they can learn all about it, as if they were in grad school.

You mean like how Jenny McCarthy learned all about autism?

Thank you for not discussing the outside world

[–] Mercenary_NL 14 years ago

you must be retarded. He said "IF" they were concerned about a subject, they "CAN" learn all about it

stupid fkin troll

[–] redsmurph 14 years ago

At least he seems to have some interest in politics:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-02-28/gossip/27057525_1_jason-bourne-paul-greengrass-green-zone

Whether he's knowledgeable is a different story.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

It seemed obvious to me that Matt Damon was used as narrator to attract an audience which would ordinarily avoid a documentary film. And for this reason, it didn't disturb me at all. I am curious as to what he was paid for this. I would like to think that he accepted less than he would expect for his usual film work since documentary film makers hardly have the budget to work with that mainstream film makers do.

[–] epistemologia-latimes 14 years ago

I don't see why being an actor makes him less qualified to narrate. His voice was clear and proper, and that is what matters for a narrator, isn't it?

It might be different if he took credit as a writer or something. But even then, he is not active in the finances business, so I don't see how it would disqualify him anyway.

If anything, being a rich actor might help him in understanding what is inside the heads of those people who are even richer.

[–] mdpomroy 14 years ago

Having a big-name to narrate will have raised the profile of the film and helped it.

Just think of all the people who go to Matt Damon's IMDb page and then see there a link for his new project Inside Job. It helps to raise awareness.

Also, he's a pretty sharp guy. It's not like they got Ashton Kutcher is it?

http://oldfilmposters.tumblr.com/

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

i'm guessing b/c bachman-turner overdrive is on the soundtrack. damon probably is a huge fan of the band & their song takin' care of business or as it as known in common parlance tcb.

Golf clap? Golf clap.

[–] ElectricKoolaidAcid 14 years ago

Didn't he graduate from an Ivy-League?

Well besides the point, I do think his name on the front of a DVD makes it more appealing to the general audience. I personally don't like him that much; I did rent the movie because of the subject matter however.

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

"doctors bury their mistakes, architects cover them with ivy.'

Golf clap? Golf clap.

[–] Final_Hitokiri 14 years ago

Irony, otherwise they would have picked someone like Ted "Golden Voice" Williams. Matt Damon clearly isn't struggling over any losses on Wall Street