Yes, some bold choices. Including the cameo scenes for exposition. That's one of the most innovative ways I've seen handling exposition. Margo Robbie, Selena Gomez - who would expect that? Could that be an influence of Saturday Night Live? (McKay worked there as a writer). Those scenes have a similar feeling. Again, as with Spotlight, we don't get too much into the personal lives of the characters, and again, the purpose is not to distract from the theme. Being used to a traditional narrative, I was expecting that the main characters would meet and/or have a scene together in the end, but that doesn't happen. Another bold choice. But in the end, with al these bold choices, it still has a traditional three act structure.

If no character is a hero as defined by Campbell, I would argue there are heroes, nonetheless,whom the audience can -- and does -- root for. Why? Because they are very good at what they do and very passionate about what they do. And they have the foresight -- and courage -- to defy conventional wisdom, to push all their chips into pot betting they were right. And two of them, Charlie and Jamie, did go to the Wall Street Journal (p. 101-102), but the reporter didn't want to believe them, didn't have guts to run the story. They suffered the fate of the mythological character Cassandra who was blessed with the gift of foreseeing the future and cursed with the fate of nobody believing her. Which would have been the fate of all of them. They were specialists, small fish, menhaden, swimming in a pod of whales. Nobody would have paid attention to them. Nobody wanted to believe them. And yes, they made a lot of money by betting right. But it's chicken feed compared to the trillions of dollars in equity losses, the millions of people who were thrown out of work and out their houses.

The exposition by breaking the 4th wall with cameos was more than bold, it was brilliant. And necessary. Having the read the book, when I heard it was being made in the movie, my first reaction was, "No way! How can they succinctly explain complex market strategies so that a general audience can understand what is happening? How can they tell the story without dumbing down and oversimplifying the story?" Now I know.

I would say Burry's actions were something more than nothing "remotely heroic". He accomplished his duty to make his clients money. And that he did, as almost all other investors were losing their heads. He sacrificed any good will with his client base, even preventing them from making withdrawals from the fund, for his clients' benefit. It takes a kind of courage and fortitude not often seen. As the market kept going against Burry, he'd note the losses on the whiteboard outside his office. But never did we get the sense he questioned his original analysis and decision. I don't see any of the guys in the movie having responsibility beyond their clients. Nobody was listening anyway. At that scale, I don't see a traditional heroic role being possible. Fast forward to today, and the high-frequency trading (HFT) smells similar to CDOs-- a very questionable practice, but one that is not quite (yet) illegal. In an arena that is completely shades of gray, what could a white knight do? Even in Michael Lewis' Flash Boys, where Brad Katsuyama is more in the hero role of pushing for reform, he wasn't able to affect the HFT practice. The best he could do is set up an alternative market that handles 1% of exchange trades--a tiny oasis. The problem is too big and widespread for a single hero to solve. What I really loved about the screenplay for Big Short is the liberal use of comedy. Without it, the story just becomes a downward slide into an inevitable outcome.

I'm gonna go for Baum as the hero. No one said Heroes have to be likable, but his disdain for the entire process is a heroic quality. The twist is, "Oh, you're so wrong and I should take you down, BUT I'M NOT." Plus, we know of Burry's marriage and a bit of his kid, but we know more about Baum's emotional battle — wanting to go back and have a second chance at saving his brother — and his desire to save others. He actually wants to help the people he's taking advantage of, but the banker in him doesn't let him. It's interesting in the postscript that he gives his money to charity to help others who have been bullied. I would make Baum's story the A story. Act 1, his failure with his brother, failed marriage, etc. The Call to Adventure comes - Jared's literal call, the wrong number. He doesn't believe Jared, but he takes the call and sets out to prove Jared wrong, even though he learns that Jared is right, all the while the banker in him - the Evil - places bets that Jared will be right even though the Good in him doesn't want him to be. I'd guess Act 3 starts right after his dinner in Vegas. And his last stand would be his speech at the conference, but unlike other Hero's last stands, Baum's comes too late, and he can only watch the damage unfold, his Good lose his inner battle, and his Dark Side win.