MovieChat Forums > Wall Street (1987) Discussion > Lou Mannheim

Lou Mannheim

posted a year ago by [deleted]
25 replies | jump to latest

Oliver Stone was dismayed to find out that a lot of people looked up to Gordon Gekko as a role model. He had set out to make Gekko the villain…a cautionary tale not to emulate.

But I think one of the reasons why Stone failed to convince people is that he made Gekko’s lifestyle a little too much front and center…and it was seductive. Another reason is that he gave a great character like Lou Mannheim little screen time.

The old sage dispensed some good advice and he was the Wall Street half of Bud’s blue collar dad Carl Fox. Had there been more screen time for Lou…people might have been convinced that his philosophy was superior to Gordon’s. Instead he got drowned out.

I would have found a scene or two with Lou Mannheim and Carl Fox together talking about how much and how fast things had changed quite interesting.

[–] kwestmo (4114) a year ago

That and if someone actually listens and critically analyzes the "Greed is good" speech they will realize he was right

[–] daveyh (581) a year ago

"you can't get a little bit pregnant" and "(money) makes you do things you don't want to do" are 2 of the best lines in a film full of great one-liners, which is especially something since, like you say, he had such little screen time.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yeah he had some good lines and was the voice of reason in the movie. Too bad the other characters were too greedy to listen.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I don't think it is just about Gekko's lifestyle. A lot of things he said was insightful, was and still is true and make sense. He is the villain, but not evil. "It is all about bucks, the rest is conversation", that sums up what he is.

What Lou Mannheim said however sounds more like preaching, it is about morality and there is no truth in it. Those young guys are there to make money, to pay off loans, not to make the world better.

The lesson in there is that you do what Mannheim says you are a loser. If you want to be a winner you listen to Gekko.

And throughout the movie that was the message, and it could not have been any clearer.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

About a month ago I watched (for the first time) Other Peoples Money (91) with Danny DeVito in the lead role. If you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend watching it.

The movie is surprisingly good adult fare, well written/acted/directed, based on a hit play. DeVitos character gives a less evil and more nuanced view of capitalism at work.

His speech near the end is just as good if not better than Gordon Gekkos.

Buggy whips 😃!

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I enjoyed that very much too, especially the speeches, mostly because I am a finance geek, I retired around 40 because of that (I am telling people that whenever I have a chance).

I always thought that was more of a Disney version of wall street. The happy ending kind of gives it away. In reality the factory would have been gone, the town could go next, many tragedies were waiting to happen. But that would have killed the happy vibe.

Would the DeVitos character have cared if that happened? Of course not, he won in a fair fight, for the owners, so as he said:"Who cares!"

The vibe is better, the underlying message is really not that much different.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

I really didn't blame DeVitos character for the end, he was just representative of a important part of the creative destruction process in the U.S.A.

The blame in my mind went with the company and being complacent, resting on past success when new disruptive technologies are coming to light (fiber optics in this movie). Gregory Peck's character was good man but lived in the past and was resistant to adaptation/change, the ship he ran, ran aground because he failed to see the future.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I don't blame him either, that is just how things go. Not just shareholders, he also has responsibilities for his staff, even though a lot of them were lawyers.

It is just the happy tone and underlying ruthlessness are kind of glaring contrast.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

I'm guessing it's Carl Ichan's favorite movie.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

Which one?

"Icahn developed a reputation as a "corporate raider" after profiting from the hostile takeover and asset stripping of Trans World Airlines."

Sound more like wall street movie vs reality.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

I'm sure the writers of both movies had Ichan in mind for the characters of Gordon Gekko and Larry "The Liquidator" Garfield.

I don't think any other country in the world has a person quite like Carl Ichan. A man who calls out complacent or (in his mind)incompetent CEO's to try maximize shareholder value.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

He did not do it for that, even that is how he probably rationalized it.

Not all companies taken over are complacent, some just in temporary difficulties due to various reasons, could went on to be very successful, but killed by corporate raiders.

I don't want to blame corporate raiders for all society's ills, but let's not glorify them.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

I view them as a ugly but necessary part of creative destruction in U.S.A., which keeps companies on edge and fast. In jungle without predators, animals become fat and lazy. The corporate landscape is no different.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I think competition is enough for the most part of keeping a healthy corporate ecosystem.

As for whether corporate raiders added something, I am not certain. In some cases they did good, in some cases not so much. But they certainly brought more corporate destruction, that is for sure.

In a lot of cases they loaded target corporations with so much debt, caused them to fail.

That is essentially what leveraged buyout is, in most cases you increase the return of capital by increasing debt. Bigger the leverage, higher the risk (of corporate failure & bankruptcy, of the target corporations, not corporate raiders. Capitalism at its finest :)

Once safe businesses could fail due to even the slightest economic wind because high level of debt. That is certainly not a good thing for everyone involved.

And the best preys of the corporate raiders a lot of times are actually the healthy businesses with very little debt, because it is much easier to borrow against them.

They don't in most cases go after the weak and the sick. So that is not helping either. Even they do that is just accelerating what is already happening.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) a year ago

If I am an investor anywhere in the world, I'm going to look for a country that allows corporate raiders to operate. Because in the end they are the investors friend. They look for underperforming aspects of business, shakes them up(sells them), sometimes rips them apart (liquidate them) and investors get paid.
Many countries have trouble attracting investors because their government prizes keeping jobs and over creative destruction, making for listless companies than don't innovate, and investors holding stagnant or slowly declining stocks.

The U.S.A. has a cowboy capitalism, that other countries are afraid to emulate, which is why most of world shaking innovation comes from America.

It's been good chatting with someone knowledgeable about the subject, I'll leave you with the last word if you want.

I'll sign off with a Monty Python clip...Crimson Permanent Assurance 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

https://youtu.be/lNlYBNTCBG8

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

It is definitely good to private equity investors, also great for investment banks, because they advise and finance most of the deals.

There are arguably some benefits to shareholders and stock market investors, because they usually pay a 30% premium. But if it is great business I have no interest to part ways with it, even with 30% premium.

As to society as a whole, not so much. I see more negatives than positives.

[–] Mustang (5194) a year ago

* Greed is Good makes a lot of sense. Humans have always strived to be more, to want more.
* Charlie Sheen's character is not very interesting or likable. He is actually naive and it is funny watching him get taken for a ride.
* Gekko is ultimately betrayed by his protégé. A young kid that he took under his wing. This also makes him more sympathetic and Sheen's character less so.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

Greed is Good makes a lot of sense.

That is the most quoted of the movie, but it is really not that meaningful. I think it is a glorified variation of Adam Smith's "the invisible hand".

He is actually naive and it is funny watching him get taken for a ride.

He was never taken for a ride. In Gekko's plan he is very well looked after. With the money he will make his father would never need to work another day in his life. To Gekko that was enough.

Gekko is ultimately betrayed by his protégé.

Yes, that was sad. Gekko might have been ruthless, he might have played Bud, but he did not screw him. It was Bud trying to use Gekko first, got played.

[–] Mustang (5194) a year ago

To me "Greed is Good" in the way Gekko talks about is simply wanting to improve yourself. If humans weren't greedy we would still be living in caves.

I never considered that although Gekko was going to disband the business Bud's father worked for Bud would still be able to take care of his father financially. Of course all the other employees might be out of jobs.

I think the morality tale of this film is vague and not all that well played out. Bud is basically Gekko Jr until he decides that Gekko will affect the lives of the people he is close to then he does a 180 and rats on him. As we see in the sequel it's not like Bud goes back to a working class life afterwards.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I think Gordon thought Bud was just like him. That is why Gordon asked Bud:"Are you still with me?" after the confrontation, because in his mind his conscience was clear, he did not betray Bud, and Bud should understand that if he was anything like Gordon.

Even Bud knew Gordon did not betray him, he was only played "like a grand piano". He was thinking of leaving Gordon more likely because of anger (of being played, "grand" piano seems to demonstrate some of that ego), trust issues (of course), and his career trajectory (he did not want to be just a broker all his life).

It is his father going into a hospital triggered later actions. The fact he realized his father could not face any of his friends anymore after Bud's supposed betrayal. Stopping Gordon was the only way to prove he did not do any of that.

He was also hoping to continue his plan, that being the CEO of blue star, and no longer a broker. So it is not about morality, at least not just that, I think greed was at play there as well.

I mean he could have just asked the unions to show they are not cooperating, then Gordon would have backed off. But no, he had to betray Gordon to Sir Larry, to get that CEO job.

He ratted Gordon out later to SEC, that has even less morality in it. It is understandable, but I would not consider that moral since someone else pointed out Gordon clearly did not rat him out.

I think the moral of the story is that excessive greed gets us in trouble, that includes Bud's actions too.

[–] Mustang (5194) a year ago

The other moral is Bud has a rather accelerated path to success without learning all the lessons along the way first. He is all perks without any responsibility.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

He probably learned enough as a broker, some experience with private equity, but almost nothing as CEO.

After both Gordon and his father laughed at the idea, he still kept going, blinded by his ambition, and greed.

[–] alexjohans0n (2094) a year ago

Lou Mannheim might have been a Wall Street icon in the 70s but he was about to be obsolete in the mid 80s and onwards. He was the old, Gekko was the new.

[–] fc31 (4543) a year ago

I think that is true.

[–] CalvinJarrett (235) 7 months ago

Lou Mannheim (Hal Holbrook) was on screen for the perfect amount of time. His dialogue, while brief, said all that needed to be said. The point was that no matter how concise or verbose he was, the younger guys (like Bud) were too greedy and lazy to heed his advice/warnings. They didn't just want to make a quick buck; they wanted to make a quick million bucks. Mannheim's philosophy ran counter to that because he was urging proper research into the fundamentals of a company and investing in that stock for the long haul. Not dumping it in hours or minutes when the ticker increased by a few points (i.e., day trading).

As for people looking up to Gordon Gekko and missing the cautionary thrust of the whole movie, I agree that that indeed happened. I think there was some research into the idea that a whole generation of brokers entered the business because they were so mesmerized by the movie Wall Street and Gordon Gekko and Bud Foxx's lifestyles. I have always thought that this was inevitable. Had there been a scene at the end where we see a convicted Gekko entering his jail cell in prison uniform and a pained look on his face (which Michael Douglas would certainly have been able to pull off) and a similar shot of Bud Foxx entering his cell (though for a shorter sentence), that might have eliminated the allure of the business and these characters.

As it happened, the only clue we get is when Foxx's mom and dad are driving him to the courthouse where he will testify against Gekko is when Foxx says to his father, "Aww come on, Dad, I'm going to jail." Predicting it is a lot less effective than showing it. And though it is implied that Gekko will go to jail (and confirmed decades later in the sequel 'Money Never Sleeps'), we never see the result of that trial and (as stated earlier) Gekko go to jail.