Trader

Young English investment broker, Nick Leeson, distinguishes himself in his bank's Jakarta office and his reward is an assignment in Singapore, where he unwisely manages both the trading floor and the office operations. His first year is a big success with huge profits, despite some some questionable practices to retain an important client. However, he also establishes an 88888 account, which makes his employer, Baring Bank, into a customer, and he crosses the line again with forged documents to verify a large non-existent transaction. Based on a true story, "Rogue Trader" may confuse those whose vocabulary does not include puts and calls, options and futures, commodities and derivatives. Written and directed by James Deardon from Leeson's autobiography, the film uses extensive voice-over to share Leeson's thoughts and feelings as his illegal activities spiral out of control. Even Leeson seems stupefied and astounded at the magnitude of the damage he has wrought.

Ewan McGregor does well as Leeson, and, for those McGregor fans who want all the Ewan they can get, Deardon offers extended shots of the actor in shorts, bathing suits, completely nude, and bare-assed. Anna Fiel plays Leeson's wife, Lisa; she is passable in an undemanding role and exposes less flesh to the camera than her co-star. Drinking binges, euphoric highs, and emotional lows provide McGregor with a showcase for his talent; if only the film were worthy of him. "Rogue Trader" is not a bad film, but confusing at times, and narration is a lazy device. Filmed in Singapore where the story took place, the movie is a cut above TV fare, but only a small cut. Without McGregor the film would be less worthy of watching; with him, "Rogue Trader" is a passable take on a famous crime.

I'll get a lot of argument on this, I suspect, but I tend to think that all history, biography and autobiography is in fact a kind of fiction. I also think that for all intents and purposes, it's not necessary to worry too much about how 'true' or 'accurate' this film is in regards to telling the 'real' story of the Baring's Bank collapse. Because at the end of the day, we'll never know. For every person involved or affected by that event there's another version of the truth, and finding the 'true' truth is just about impossible. So to hell with it! Let's just look at 'Rogue Trader' as a story, shall we?

I can't honestly say that I enjoyed this film, mainly because I found it so exquisitely awful that I was scrunching my eyes shut and moaning more and more loudly as events unfolded. As depicted here, Nick Leeson wasn't exactly a criminal, he was just criminally stupid ... and naive ... and pathetic ... and -- and -- well, I found myself screaming at the tv set "No, you fool, don't, stop now, stop now, quit while you're ahead --- arrrrggghhh!!!"

It is almost impossible to believe, that one person could collapse an entire bank. And of course, it is impossible. Nick Lesson didn't bring down Baring's on his own, he had a lot of help from people who both wittingly and unwittingly conspired to support his insane behaviour. Regardless of whose truth you're telling, that point is pretty safe to make, I think. And I think this film does a good job of demonstrating that. I also think it does a good job of capturing the insanity of Futures Trading (surely a hideously evil invention) and of showing how Gordon Gekko got it really, really wrong.

At the end of the day, however, the film stands or falls by Ewan McGregor's performace as Nick Leeson ... and again, he doesn't disappoint. Again, we are treated to a portrayal of a deeply human, deeply flawed individual, as only McGregor can reveal. His Leeson is a man who makes mistake after mistake, who is far smaller than he wants to be, who isn't without conscience or moral compass but whose many fears outweigh his few strengths. He's the very embodiment of the 'fatal flaw' theory, brought to ruin by his weaknesses and failings.

I find it frighteningly easy to identify with McGregor's Leeson. What he did, many of us have been tempted to do, or have done, in various small ways. Or maybe not so small. Some people find him profoundly offensive, others find him pathetic. Whatever your reaction to this film, the fact that you even have one shows that it's worked. It's made you feel something about what happened ... or at least, this version of what happened. Perhaps some of us resent being made to feel any kind of empathy for this character. By making him human, his actions are humanised, made comprehensible ... and that's uncomfortable.

It's far more comfortable keeping him demonised, reprehensible, beyond understanding or forgiveness, for in that way we keep ourselves safe. We are not like him. There is nothing that we share. He is ... other.

The problem is, he isn't. That's where Rogue Trader succeeds, I think. In showing us that the Nick Leesons of this world aren't monsters at all ... they're people, like us, who make mistakes, like we do. By challenging us ... you say you would never ever do something like this, but can you be sure? Really? Truly? This isn't a lighthearted film, a fun film. It's a fascinating character study and a timely reminder of that saying that goes something like ..

I found Rogue Trader to be a highly entertaining point of view regarding the Barings bank disaster of the mid 90's, from Nick Leeson himself. I once said, "I'm not crazy to see movies that I know the ending". However, I had to start eating my words after TITANIC. Now, I can add this to the list. Barings was the financial equivalent of the "unsinkable ship" and just like TITANIC, I was on the edge of my seat when the unthinkable was finally realized. A must see, minus heroes.

A cunning scoundrel in exotic Singapore single-handedly brings down Barings Bank, established two centuries ago and one of England's foremost financial institutions. Another wildly improbable sting flick? Not at all - the story is based on actual events and the film sticks pretty close to the facts. Nick Leeson, brilliant and ambitious young trader, superstar of the Singapore stock market, incurs staggering losses. Unwilling to jeopardize his prospects for advancement, he tries to cover his tracks by pulling non-existent rabbits out of imaginary hats. The literally gut-wrenching stress of this Sisyphusian endeavor is illustrated by Leeson's frequent bouts of vomiting (while in prison, he underwent surgery to remove a tumor along with part of his colon and large intestine, and chemotherapy after being released). The film's flaw is that it glosses over the bank's role in the disaster. Barings turned a neophyte loose in an foreign arena with total control of the operation and minimal supervision. Putting the same individual in charge of both the front office and back office bypasses the appropriate checks and balances, and is tantamount to having the fox guard the hen-house. The official report of the Bank of England concluded that Barings' failure to segregate Leeson's duties was "reprehensible," and those with "direct executive responsibility for establishing effective controls must bear much of the blame." Yet little mention is made of this in the film. And the mechanizations of the stock market are downright incomprehensible at times. Nevertheless, this is an interesting story and Ewan McGregor turns in another outstanding performance.

We were impressed at the quality of acting in this relatively low budget film. Rather than special effects and technical events, this movie very successfully brings you into Nick Leeson's world. It is certainly not an apology for Mr. Leeson, Ewan McGregor very effectively and subtly captures the drivenness that envelopes Mr. Leeson and, of course, undoes him and the bank. This movie brought us into a world that we knew little of, and helped us understand it from the inside out.