Jeffrey Young
These reviews of the documentary mini-series, MADOFF, range from very good to excellent, with but a few average ones. Many of the people are perceptive and far-thinking in their evaluation of the mini-series, the character, Madoff, the real-life Madoff, and the true-life events around him. I am not going to repeat these great reviews.My addition here is the cautionary tale of dangerous sociopaths among humanity. How do we spot them? What can we do? How can we protect ourselves?The answer is that it's not simple. If sociopaths had not been able to hone their pathological lying skills to a fine edge, they wouldn't exist. The fact that they are successful so often underlies their evolutionary chameleon behavioral skills through the Darwinian process of evolution. Even highly intelligent people who have been rooked by Madoff-types beat themselves over the head for being, 'stupid' yet this self-criticism is largely undeserved. Successful con-man Madoff types evolved their slick-talking, smooth-talking sophistry and verbal deception with perfect bodily and facial cues to match to deceive people of high intelligence. After all, it's usually the very smart people who have the money.Remember Lance Armstrong who so vociferously and compellingly denied his doping accusers that even I at first believed him that he was being set up by jealous peers. Remember infamous Susan Smith of 1993 who drowned her two boys in secret and then standing next to her ex-husband, sobbed and pleaded in front of the new cameras for the kidnapper to return her two, cherished, beloved young boys? One news source later dryly added that Smith should have been recommended for a Hollywood Oscar for her bravura performance.I myself have personally witnessed a man who harbored a conscious, Jekyll and Hyde dual persona. To his employees he waved his finger in front of them, bellowed, accused them and demeaned them. To non-employees or potential clients, he portrayed an extremely convincing, soothing, Oprah or Dr. Phil personality as if he could be the best confidant that they could rely upon. He was extremely convincing. Such people are so convincing and they don't emit otherwise negative vibes that might alert the listener that something is amiss.What can you do? Be cautious and do your homework when the promises seem too good to be true. In the case of Madoff, a Wall Street analyst, nearly two years before Madoff's downfall, did suspect that there was something unconvincing about Madoff's investment business model. He ran the complicated math algorithms several times and every time he came up with the same result: Madoff's investment business model could not logically produce the investment gain results that he was publishing. There would have to be an external infusion of funds from outside the business model to make the results plausible. But he was a lone voice in the wilderness. He was a nobody on Wall Street and he had no powerful Wall Street support that could take his results and confront a powerful man that Madoff was at the time. As one imdb poster added, Madoff's white-collar crime actions had ripple effects and domino effects that affected many other people, often innocent. It was his own two sons that contributed to turning Madoff in and cooperated with the SEC and I believe also the FBI, but am not sure. Both men were cleared of being complicit with their father although one did get into some trouble for unknowing helping his father in the Ponzi schemes, but he didn't go to jail. Yet both sons suffered terribly. From well-respected, well-to-do men who once were afforded high social positions in the highest social and economic strata of the rich and powerful in Manhattan, New York City, they found themselves overnight as unemployed, unemployable, social outcasts and pariahs. The health of the eldest son deteriorated and he passed away. The youngest son, at the young age of only 44, separated from his wife, one afternoon went to visit his young son. As the son napped in his bedroom, the father hung himself in the living room. I have no doubt in my mind the father succumbed to the blackest despair that his life was truly over and irretrievable, leading him, in the old term, to, "...take the honorable way out." I don't know if he was even mourned at his funeral.In summary, it is very, very difficult to spot and deal with sociopaths. Often there are, 'functioning sociopaths' who reach high positions in companies, corporations, organizations, the government, even the military. They know who to flatter and how to do flatter while attaching themselves to rising stars. They might be apparent in this overt fashion but their game is good because the people they flatter are convinced the sociopathic flatterer is one of the best talented extroverted people they've ever met. It's one thing to avoid a dangerous sociopath who might harbor intentions of physical harm on you and it's another thing to cope with a functioning sociopath who desires advancement by flattering you, or, if you are not in a position to help him or her, then you are either a nothing to them or worse, a possible competitor. The sociopath's superior lying skills often work successfully in undermining the good, honest employee because the people he or she flatter are convinced he or she is telling the truth.Lastly, I will comment on Madoff that I agree with one poster, Madoff did have sincere feelings of affection and camaraderie with friends, family, and close associates. Sociopaths can and do feel genuine affection to some. In the mini-series Madoff covertly expresses his desire to protect his secretary by declining several times to invest her $200,000 inheritance. He can't reveal the truth to her so he can only shine her on with unconvincing advice which leads the secretary to press him even more, finally accusing Madoff of lacking loyalty and true friendship to her. If I recall, she's even on the brink of tears, baffled as to why her long-term, affectionate employer that she faithfully served for years should not want to take her measly $200K, invest it and make her a millionaire as he's done for so many people. Realizing his secretary has pushed him up against a wall, Madoff realizes it is safer to give in and take her money rather than continue refusing. I felt a lot of sympathy for the secretary. How could she have even suspected that she was literally pouring what could have been a huge chunk of her retirement down the drain, never to be recovered.
PWNYCNY
This series chronicles a tragedy. A man who is flawed invites disaster to others, and especially to his family. Bernard Madoff did not start out as swindler, but became one. To the movie's credit, it offers a candid and plausible portrayal of the disaster that became Bernard Madoff's life. One comes away from this movie asking: How could he have gotten away with it for so long? Madoff didn't make any special efforts to conceal his activities. He banked the money in a major bank, was audited by government agencies, and his clients were sophisticated investors. Yet, it was only after being turned in by his own sons that the Madoff swindle finally stopped. Richard Dreyfus gives one of the great performances of his career as Bernard Madoff, and Blythe Danner is equally convincing as Ruth. The movie avoids demonizing Madoff, instead portraying him as someone caught up in a process that he could not stop. He knew what he was doing was wrong and kept doing it anyway, as long as he could get away with it. It's what happens when his world begins to crumble that provides the drama and the lessons. As the movie shows, Madoff was not operating in a vacuum. He was operating in the open. As long as his customers and enablers were profiting, no questions were asked. It was only after the scheme collapses and people are losing money that Madoff gets in trouble. And for that, he paid the price.
bahaz-440-352871
Expect a couple of Emmys for "Madoff", about as classy as it gets in the Mini-Series category. We all knew the story as the film unfolded the story in the background and the people in the foreground. This was a 10 had it not been for the loud music over the dialogue and the fact that Dreyfus is just hard to watch, his name being in the dictionary next to "typecasting." The story built nicely with the characters increasing the intensity as it moved along, the second half very noticeably stronger than the first half, which was, obviously, strong enough to invite viewers back. After the first half, in a coincidence one just couldn't invent, I watched Dreyfus being interviewed on Fox News Channel by Megyn Kelly. Yes, Fox News Channel. This goes back to the typecasting comment as, after having seen him live, being asked why he attended a Senator Ted Cruz event and hearing him mumble a few derogatory comments, Dreyfus proved he is not a very pleasant fellow. Not, in fact, nearly as nice as Bernie Madoff.
