Trader

When I saw the ratings and the comments listed for this movie, I wasn't sure that this was the movie I saw last night! If you're looking for a history lesson on the fall of Synex, read a book. If you're looking for an edge of your seat thriller, with no violence at all, and hilarious breaks in the tension, this is your flic. First, Ewan McGregor is becoming one of my top actors. His portrayal of a cool-as-a-cucumber trader, even under incredible stress is delightful. You can't help but be nervous as Nick Leeson dodges bosses, controllers, and his wife. The level of the stress is clearly portrayed, and his fantasy scenes are great. The other actors are shallow, but hilarious. Enjoy this flic. I did.

Any film dealing with a largely technical business such as the derivatives industry is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place before it even gets going; on the one hand, if the film-makers spend too much time explaining the complexities of the market, they will bore those in the know and probably send everyone else to sleep too, whereas if they don't indicate what's going on then they risk limiting their audience to only those with direct experience of trading. There can be no drama if the majority of viewers don't actually realise what's happening.

"Rogue Trader" then, for it's many flaws, is at least partially successful, because it makes clear the central principles of what Leeson was doing - making a double bet on the market going only in one direction. Having worked on London's futures exchange, I can't really be objective. I laughed out loud many times at the actors' and extras' bad hand-signals, the unrealistic dialogue in relation to price and size etc. "Real" market-speak often takes for granted that both parties understand alot more than needs to be said, thus leaves alot out. But of course that makes for bad cinema, so one can't grumble too much.

The cast is generally pretty good, McGregor acting his socks off as always. The main problem is that the script and direction are, from the get-go, just totally OBVIOUS. By this I mean that no visual or audio cliché is left unused. For example, every Barings office in London seems to have a plum view of St. Paul's Cathedral, just in case we forget where they are. And if these scenes can be accompanied by some chamber music, to remind us of the history and upperclass pedigree, then they will be. The reckless young traders, by contrast, are followed around by a largely anachronistic soundtrack of dance music and Britpop. When Leeson arrives in Asia for the first time, we hear Kula Shaker! Please! Perhaps a different, less conventional style of direction might have improved matters...

It's interesting that many people have commented along the lines of "Leeson only does what I'd do in that situation, trying to make things better". Since it's based on his book, the film unsurprisingly tries to make Leeson look... well, if not good, exactly, then at least not like a total idiot. I can't sympathize entirely, because "NEVER double up" and "a small loser is better than a blow out" are amongst the first things you learn down there. But even if only one tenth of all this is true, it's still truly stunning that Barings London didn't know what was going on, and accepted his story unchecked for so long... If they were that incompetent, they deserved to go bust.

Ultimately, "Rogue Trader" is neither a great movie nor a terrible one. As far as finance-films go, it rises majestically above the plain awfulness of "Dealers" or "Limit Up", but is still less informative than what is still the best market movie, "Trading Places". But who knows, maybe "I have just lost 50 million quid!" will enter traders' vocabulary in a few years, just as "Turn those machines back on!" already has. As a film, it's an entertaining diversion, and an interesting footnote to the headlines.

(6/10)

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.

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.