• Home
• About

Boiler Room

Good flick.

• Casting/Acting

All the guys in the boiler room are tough and aggressive, yet the owner of the place, Michael, looks like a sweetheart. Is there meaning to his looks? That as the owner, he doesn’t have to be tough, that he can afford to pay guys like Jim Young (Ben Affleck) to do the dirty work for him? That he needs to put on a calm front to legitimize the business? I could accept that, but then why does he act tough to Greg near the very end of the movie when he tells him to “Get the f- out of my office?” Also, common work experiences tell us that a company is a reflection of it’s owner. The scum-bag, greedy nature of these salespeople practically dictates that Michael should have been the nastiest of them all.

I like Ben Affleck as the recruiter, but it’s hard not to compare him to Alec Baldwin doing similar in Glengarry Glen Ross. I guess the thing to learn here is that if you can see your character or scene is going to draw parallels to another, try to do something different with it. Perhaps this isn’t fair because the options are limited with this character and his function. But there’s also an inner-comparison to make- the scenes with the recruiter feel stale compared to the rest of the movie that is fresh in exposing this unknown world.

• Narration

Most of it is useless, Seth telling us what was just seen or could’ve been shown. One example is below in the Character section. Another glaring abuse of voice-overs is when he goes to the guy’s house where the boys are watching Wall Street and Seth says (something like), “All this money and they don’t know what to do with it.” I know! I see the house that’s way-too-big for one person, the tacky statue by the entrance and the tanning machine. And I heard Ben Affleck say earlier that he has every toy imaginable.

I had the same feeling about most of the other voice-overs. If you listen to them carefully, you’ll see how they don’t add to the story. And whatever doesn’t enrich the story only hurts it.

• Logic

The FBI arrests Seth after catching his father calling him about the IPO scheme. Seth then offers the FBI his testimony and the boiler room operation “on a silver platter” in exchange for full immunity. Considering the boiler room is not a new idea and that the FBI was doing surveillance of the place for a while, what exactly don’t they know about it? The FBI is working with the SEC so surely they know the scam and all its details. You have to assume they could find out just as easily as Seth does that the medical company is not a real company and that the names on the IPOs are friends of Michael; after all, the salesmen are on the books and the physical paper of the IPO (or prospectus) is a public, legal document. So that, along with the fact they’re about to raid the place and catch everyone red-handed, makes his testimony a minor issue.

• Character, Structure/Plot

I’m in a nitpicky mood… The main character, Seth, first runs a casino out of his house then has a bout of ethics when he learns about the shenanigans at JT Marlin. I don’t get it. What’s the point of him running a casino? That the line of morality in today’s day and age is blurred? If so, why does he have second thoughts about working in the boiler room? That it’s a source of conflict for the father because he’s a judge? And thus a sign of love that Seth is willing to give it up for his father’s approval? Those are good reasons, but they leave the first question unresolved.

Furthermore, the movie talks a lot about greed, how people today are looking for the quick, easy buck. There’s even a quote about the easy way out, something like, “You gotta have a jump shot or know how to sell crack.” Problem with this is that Seth works hard at the casino, it’s even open 24/7! But the movie says this last point is one reason why he wants to do something else with his life, because the casino isn’t all fun and games and it’s not making him filthy rich. But why show your character rising just one level, from relatively easy work and independence to a comfy office and big bucks? Yet this has it’s own, little problem. The recruiter, Ben Affleck, says the guys will have to work very hard to make their millions. So it might be quick bucks, but not that easy, which goes against one of themes of the movie. (This has its own, little problem- guys are shown to be fooling around and playing games at the office. Is it hard work or not?)

As for the first question, the morality of it, Seth himself explains the difference. He says the casino is a professional operation where he provides a service that others want. In the boiler room, it’s a pure scam where he sells people something they’re not asking for. That seems to be saying the college kids who frequent the casino actually persuaded Seth to open the place. But that doesn’t make sense. State lotteries and places like Vegas created the popular appetite for gambling, not the other way around.

More important, to say the casino has no negative effect on the kids or community is ignorant. Whether they’re Queens College students or Ivy Leaguers, how can Seth not see that blowing all that money harms their lives? That makes his role in the casino even worse than the boiler room because he’s in charge of it and he personally knows the students!

So, if you followed this tangled web till now, it leaves the casino as only fulfilling one purpose- the father’s disappointment with his son’s actions and thus Seth’s need to get out of it. It leaves the other questions unresolved which means the movie could’ve dropped the whole casino angle. I’ll spare you what could’ve taken its place…

Subscribe to the RSS feed and follow the conversation.