David O. Russell: Political Corruption in “American Hustle” Is Nothing Compared to Citizens United

Sonia Moskowitz/Globe Photos/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Tuesday, the famously mercurial writer/director David O. Russell was in Washington, DC, for a special screening and Q&A session for his critically acclaimed, award-winning new film American Hustle. MSNBC host Chris Matthews moderated the Q&A, and Chris Dodd (the former Democratic senator and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, the de facto censorship board for cinema in the United States) introduced Russell.

American Hustle—starring Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, and Jennifer Lawrence—is loosely based on events surrounding Abscam, a sting operation the FBI launched in the late ’70s to target trafficking in stolen property. The bureau recruited con artist Melvin Weinberg to help craft and execute the operation, which involved setting up Abdul Enterprises, a fake company funded by fictitious Arab sheiks who offered to bribe people to pave the way for a new casino in Atlantic City. The operation morphed into an investigation of political corruption when politicians started approaching Abdul Enterprises for money. By the early ’80s, Abscam had led to the conviction of one senator and six congressmen, among other political figures and officials. (The late Democratic congressman and Vietnam War vet John Murtha was also embroiled in the scandal, but escaped indictment and prosecution.)

In Russell’s fictionalization (built off of a script originally titled American Bullshit), the FBI bribes the mayor of Camden, played by Jeremy Renner, with a briefcase filled with $75,000 in cash. (In real life, the bribe was $50,000.) But at Tuesday night’s Q&A, Russell contended that the corruption dramatized in his film pales in comparison to what has legally occurred on the American political scene ever since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.

“Seventy-five thousand dollars in a briefcase is very innocent by today’s standards, where the Supreme Court has made legal hundreds of billions of billions of dollars [in unlimited election spending]—I don’t even know where they come from, or where they go, or what people are getting for that,” Russell said. “It’s beyond all of us…So these guys are like small potatoes compared to that.” [Ed. note: It’s not literally “hundreds of billions.”]

Still, the 55-year-old filmmaker remains optimistic. “I grew up loving this country, and I don’t believe in cynicism,” Russell said. “It’s no fun. I prefer the passion.”

On top of this latest movie based on the Abscam operation, Russell has also directed a Gulf War heist movie (Three Kings) and a film based on the true story of professional-boxing brothers Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund (The Fighter). I asked him if he has seen anything in the news that he thinks would make a good project or be ripe for fictionalization. (David O. Russell presents Citizen Snowden? David O. Russell’s Benghazi Freak-Out? Or I Heart Mike Huckabees, maybe?) For now, nothing in the news seems to be tickling his fancy.

“If you have any good ideas, please tell me,” he replied. “Because they’re not easy to come by. I love great characters, I love stories of some kind of heart and redemption…[and] they’re hard to come by.”

Russell may have already found his next hard-to-come-by story—one from the 1960s. Earlier this year, Showbiz411 reported that Russell was working with Leonardo DiCaprio to adapt Legacy of Secrecy, a 2009 book written by Lamar Waldron and liberal commentator Thom Hartmann. The book presents Waldron and Hartmann’s case for the conspiracy theory that mob bosses were behind the JFK assassination. When Matthews asked during the Q&A about whether he’s making a JFK picture, Russell would not confirm or deny his involvement with the project, but did say that he is “kind of fascinated” by President Kennedy and his assassination.

UPDATE, December 19, 2013, 3:45 p.m. EST: On Thursday, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sent me an email taking exception to my characterization of the MPAA as a “de facto censorship board” for film. “The ratings are a voluntary system, created to inform parents of a film’s content so they can decide whether or not their kids should see it,” he wrote. “Filmmakers are free to include or exclude content at their discretion, and of course, can chose not to submit their film for a rating at all.”

The MPAA disputes the characterization that it is, in effect, a censorship board. For a look at the MPAA and its critics, you can watch Kirby Dick’s 2006 documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

And now, here’s a trailer for American Hustle, set to Led Zeppelin’s song “Good Times Bad Times”:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate