Originally Posted by Bourne101
It's not skewed, it's a parallel. Jenkins represents the indecisive political leader that cannot relate to the people he is leading and who is willing to bail someone out even at the almost certain risk of it leading to the same problems happening again. He lies to himself that it will lead to any kind of long term benefit. Gandolfini represents the insecure, whiny American. Pitt represents the voice of reason, the guy who isn't consumed by the idealistic notions being vomitted in the flowery speeches of political leaders. The guy who isn't willing to lie to himself, unlike Jenkins and Gandolfini.
That is a skewed perspective on the state of things. It represents nothing more than the overly cynical perspective of certain filmmakers and writers on this country. Who exactly is this film criticizing politically wise? Bush? Obama? Politicians in general? If you asked different people, they would probably give you several different opinions on the same politicians and their choices. All this film does is generalize on everything, and to an annoying extent. It certainly remembers to criticize the blunders of capitalism and the American government, but at the same time it forgets two of the most important aspects of this country: diversity and individuality. Basically, you can call the perspective being toted by this film the glass-half empty way of looking at things.
Also, Pitt never seemed like the voice of reason in this to me. He seemed like some typically jaded asshole who was completely out for himself, much like a coporate CEO. Right and wrong didn't apply to his character, he only cared about benefits and drawbacks. Sure, he was no bullshit, but the only thing he seemed to represent was the typically selfish American. Just another stereotype that doesn't necessarily point out a larger truth about America.
Not trying to say everything was peachy at the second recession, but as movies sometimes do, this went a bit overboard with its social commentary, (IMO).