MOVIE REVIEWSMOVIESREVIEWS

‘Chasing Madoff’ investigates 10 years of investigative work

Harry Markopolos of 'Chasing Madoff' — Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group
Harry Markopolos of ‘Chasing Madoff’ — Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group

Harry Markopolos is the main draw in Chasing Madoff, an exciting, yet too short documentary about business villain Bernie Madoff and the Ponzi scheme heard round the world. Markopolos spent 10 years with a team of investigators trying to figure out the funny numbers coming from Madoff. There were many dead ends and frustrations along the way, but Madoff, the man with the all-too-perfect last name, was eventually caught and sent to prison. Such an unbelievable tale deserves an expose a little more compelling than Chasing Madoff is able to offer, but still there are many lessons to be learned in this boy-who-cried-wolf parable.

The movie from Cohen Media Group runs barely 90 minutes, so the audience member is left with a feeling of simultaneous anger, invigoration and dissatisfaction. It’s almost as if the Madoff scandal and Markopolos’ quest are watered down to its digestible crumbs for a crowd who has little patience. There’s probably more detail in Markopolos’ book, No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller. In the movie, large concepts are given quick summations, and the drama is presented much like vignettes on a true-crime television show.

There’s not much known about Madoff after spending 90 minutes chasing him down. The documentary does a far better job of understanding Markopolos and his desires of stopping the villain. We learn about the investigator’s tribulations, his family, his fears and the many other people who crept into this financial web. Much of the story is delivered by Markopolos himself, and director Jeff Prosserman keeps a fine focus on his interesting subject.

In some ways, the chase is more interesting the person being chased. Everyone knows going into the film the inevitable conclusion, so filling in these blanks can make for exciting cinematic storytelling.

We are educated on the investigators’ tireless efforts at connecting the dots, but without Madoff as a more central character, it’s difficult to get closer to the villainy and the network in which it operated. Many Americans were disgusted by Madoff’s actions, but now they are trying to understand what exactly led to the Ponzi scheme in the first place. Prosserman’s film and Markopolos’ stories offer many clues about the environment Madoff worked in, but more details are needed. This feels like a prelude to a much more complex, darker story about recent American history.

When watching the 2011 documentary in 2014, many of the far better films about the economic turmoil of the last decade come to mind. From films on hedge fund managers to economic deregulation to Enron, in the niche market of financial documentaries, there are some prized gems. Chasing Madoff should be classified as a so-so effort that needed to expand its scope to understand and present the entire story. However, the lingering image from the film is of one man’s tireless efforts to save many people many millions of dollars.

By John Soltes / Publisher / John@HollywoodSoapbox.com

  • Chasing Madoff

  • 2011

  • Directed by Jeff Prosserman

  • Featuring Harry Markopolos

  • Running time: 90 minutes

  • Rated G

  • Rating: ★★½☆

John Soltes

John Soltes is an award-winning journalist. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Earth Island Journal, The Hollywood Reporter, New Jersey Monthly and at Time.com, among other publications. E-mail him at john@hollywoodsoapbox.com

One thought on “‘Chasing Madoff’ investigates 10 years of investigative work

  • Nicholas Rosamilia

    The whole story is about THEFT and DENIAL. Madoff is responsible for the theft, and people involved in the process of providing compensation to Madoff’s victims are denying “indirect investors” the right to share the money recovered in bankruptcy. Those investors are also denied the benefits of insurance provided by SIPC. The people in charge are focused on the definition of “customer” when determining who receives compensation. However, that does not help the majority of the victims. The focus should be on who the actual victims are. The real focus should be on the definition of a “victim”. Anyone who can prove that their money was stolen by Madoff is a victim and should have a legal right to compensation. Indirect investors are not considered customers, but they certainly are victims. Without the said change of focus, this process which should be designed to compensate all victims will end in failure; leaving indirect investors/victims with zero compensation from SIPC and the bankruptcy court.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *