badly done - Chasing Madoff (2011) Discussion

[–] ariad22 12 years ago

I agree with most of your points. I can understand, however, why he was paranoid. He was basically antagonizing a system of very powerful fraudsters that could simply eradicate him. That's a very dangerous position to be in.

reply

[–] northman742002 12 years ago

true enough..I understand too, and I would have acted much the same and been at least as worried each one of those ten years if not more so. Its not that I don't understand why he was worried, its more that I don't understand why an entire documentary was made with nothing in it but him being worried.

reply

[–] optimus2 12 years ago

I disagree completely that it was poorly done, I thought it was very entertaining and I had no trouble following along why he got away with it for so long. Basically the feeder funds had no reason to complain about Madoff because he let them make the bulk of the fraud money. He took a slight slice, which is huge money but nothing compared to what he was showing the victims that they were making. And while things were good in the economy he could easily pay out these winnings when someone actually needed to get some of their money out. It all came tumbling down when the market collapsed and a lot of people at once came to him wanting to withdraw money. He had no choice but to end it all right then and there. What amazes me is how poorly the government reacted to all that evidence that Markopolos gifted them. They probably considered him a pain in the ass instead of considering Madoff to be a gigantic crook.

reply

[–] EveryDayFriend 8 years ago

I'm watching it now and...oh man! I think this is GREAT!

Perhaps the OP had snooze-fest expectations; e.g., closer scrutiny of the-previously-wealthy Mr. & Mrs. X being wrecked over losing it all. Or perhaps vid of the parasitic Bernie with Ruth on the 88-foot yacht? Or ghoulish depiction of Mark Madoff's suicide?

What we got was better. This is a great Cowboys in White Hats story! I was ignorant of the extent a corp of industry-types had been trying to get the villain exposed for 9 YEARS. Meanwhile, Bernie's Billions are growing exponentially each year as the mainstream media and SEC froze-up. I like the condensed clips of Rep. Gary Ackerman letting the SEC "have it" during Congressional hearings. And portraying how a man with a wife and 3 little kids was living in ABJECT FEAR -- even practicing "drills" of how he and his wife would protect themselves if hit-men burst into their home? I think it did a pretty good job.

But creepiest of all: Madoff had a sophisticated structure of accomplices and these huge financial institutions with the SEC are....culpable. Yet he's the only guy in jail. A bunch of bruised egos, for sure...of varying types and net-worths.

This is a really, really good backstory to what you THOUGHT you knew...

reply

[–] EveryDayFriend 8 years ago

I'm watching it now and...oh man! I think this is GREAT!

Perhaps the OP had snooze-fest expectations; e.g., closer scrutiny of the-previously-wealthy Mr. & Mrs. X being wrecked over losing it all. Or perhaps vid of the parasitic Bernie with Ruth on the 88-foot yacht? Or ghoulish depiction of Mark Madoff's suicide?

What we got was better. This is a great Cowboys in White Hats story! I was ignorant of the extent a corp of industry-types had been trying to get the villain exposed for 9 YEARS. Meanwhile, Bernie's Billions are growing exponentially each year as the mainstream media and SEC froze-up. I like the condensed clips of Rep. Gary Ackerman letting the SEC "have it" during Congressional hearings. And portraying how a man with a wife and 3 little kids was living in ABJECT FEAR -- even practicing "drills" of how he and his wife would protect themselves if hit-men burst into their home? I think it did a pretty good job.

But creepiest of all: Madoff had a sophisticated structure of accomplices and these huge financial institutions with the SEC are....culpable. Yet he's the only guy in jail. A bunch of bruised egos, for sure...of varying types and net-worths.

This is a really, really good backstory to what you THOUGHT you knew...

reply

[–] rpartrid-2 8 years ago

this I agree with - I found it gripping, moving and powerful - you explained perfectly why he got away with it. Another reason he got away with it was he was making a lot of money for a lot of people. According to his book Markopolos says the SEC was full of lawyers not mathematicians who couldn't believe a man of Madoff's stature could be doing this - neither could the Wall Street Journal. And remember Markopolos figured it out (mathematically) in a few hours!!!!!!!

reply

[–] Bneidl 11 years ago

The production style was way overlooked, with all the swiping camera shifts, the dramatic overhead lighting, and "reenactment" shots in which Markopolis plays himself as the tortured, lone knight. There were numerous ridiculous shots of Markopolis loading and/or holding a shotgun to protect himself, implying the imminent arrival of some kind of assassin. The actual story is plenty interesting enough and doesn't need all this noise to sensationalize it.

reply

[–] sir-walt 11 years ago

Thought it was fascinating that Harry could demonstrate through his '21 red flags of fraud' and persuade conscientious people, but not the SEC. And it is stated in the film that an English major with no financial background could have taken three of those 21 points as a question to Madoff, and not by all the slippery language in the world, could Madoff have answered them, setting off another flag.

When 300 companies are supporting a fraud, and questioners are reassigned within their companies, I don't think having only a warning signal without even an inept attempt on Harry's life should make one conclude he was paranoid. Consider the international scope of the fraud too. Andrew Grove's paranoia would go off the charts. The continuing blind eyes and deaf ears of the SEC and Wall Street Journal may have been enough to save Harry from harm.

The film reminds me most of Three Days of the Condor (1975) in which an angry Turner (Redford) has signaled Higgins (Cliff Robertson), who has just rationalized spying with innocent civilian kills, that Turner's story is going to the NY Times. And Higgins taunting as Turner (Redford) drifts away through a crowd "But will they print it?"

reply