MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

DP/30: Chasing Madoff, subject Harry Markopolos (pt 1& 2)

Harry has a lot to say… and almost all of it will make you think about how perceive the power balance of the world economy. An hour-plus well spent.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “DP/30: Chasing Madoff, subject Harry Markopolos (pt 1& 2)”

  1. Hallick says:

    Markopolos is great. I love how he actually looked at what happened to previous whistleblowers and therefore made sure not to go down the same regretful road that people like Jeffrey Wigand have.

    It’s also great that Markopolos did what he did out of open-book selfishness (“He was stealing my clients!”) as much as a sense of moral responsibility, if not moreso.

    Great interview, David. Ultimately, a depressing-as-fuck interview, but great.

  2. Markopoly says:

    Markopolos is an idiot, and a well-documented idiot at that. He’s desperate to be a celebrity; and has been pushing his bullsh*t story around to anyone and everyone. Too bad you’re thinking you got an exclusive. This guy speaks at middle schools and grocery store parking lots, too. The bottom line is that while there were plenty of people on Wall Street who understood Madoff couldn’t have been making the money he purported to, Markopolos was the whiner who wanted credit for uncovering it. But he really didn’t have the info correct, he was in fact guessing and had numerous theories he was pushing concerning what might be going on with Madoff. More importantly, he’s delusional and believes there are people chasing him with guns! It’s no wonder the staff attorneys at the SEC had trouble following him. He’s a ranting lunatic!

  3. David Poland says:

    Interesting, Markopoly… though the cloak of anonymity doesn’t really strengthen your argument.

    Hard to assume that you know that “he really didn’t have the info correct” unless we know that you know what he had or what was correct.

    I can say that I know I don’t have an exclusive by any means. He has a book and a movie and many appearances already. And frankly, your willingness to make an incorrect and unsupported assumption about what I think makes me doubt your opinion even more.

    I have zero problem with you disagreeing with Markopolis or, for that matter, me. But you seem more like you are swinging angrily than making an argument.

  4. Eliezer Shalev says:

    Markopoly is clearly a two-bit hack still trying to cover up for Wall Street’s misdeeds. Also, make sure to watch the documentary about Eliot Spitzer titled “Client 9”.

  5. David Poland says:

    Here is the DP/30 with Alex Gibney about his film, Client 9.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlI355Z3Ps

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon