'The Big Short': Will the newest adaptation of a Michael Lewis book be a hit?

Lewis's books have previously been the basis for such popular Oscar favorites as 'The Blind Side' and 'Moneyball.' Will 'The Big Short,' which stars Brad Pitt and Steve Carell, do similarly well?

Paramount Pictures/YouTube
'The Big Short' stars Ryan Gosling.

Another of Michael Lewis’s nonfiction books has been adapted for the screen, with the movie “The Big Short,” which is based on Mr. Lewis’s book of the same name, coming to movie theaters this December. 

“Short” stars Brad Pitt, Steve Carell, Christian Bale, and Ryan Gosling as Wall Street insiders who were able to predict the approach of the 2008 financial crisis.

The movie is directed and co-written by Adam McKay of “Anchorman 2” and “The Other Guys.” The film recently was screened at the AFI Fest.

Books by Lewis have been very successful in Hollywood. Film adaptations of his books “The Blind Side” and “Moneyball” were hits with both critics and moviegoers. “Blind” became a box office hit in 2009 and actress Sandra Bullock won a Best Actress Oscar for her role as real-life figure Leigh Anne Tuohy. The film was also nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

2011’s “Moneyball” did similarly well, performing respectively at the box office and earning Oscar nods for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actor for Mr. Pitt and Jonah Hill.

Academy voters are often drawn to real-life stories. Many recent awards went to actors playing real people, such as Eddie Redmayne, who won a Best Actor Oscar for portraying Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything”; Matthew McConaughey, who portrayed real-life figure Ron Woodroof in and won a Best Actor Oscar for “Dallas Buyers Club”; and Lupita Nyong’o, who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role as the slave Patsey in “12 Years a Slave.” 

Will “Short” do as well as the movies “Blind” and “Moneyball”? It will come to theaters on Dec. 11 in limited release.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.