Regarding WOLF OF WALL STREET's Record-Setting Use of the F-Word

Regarding the new movie The Wolf of Wall Street in an article I found on Yahoo!: "According to Wikipedia, the word “f--k” is used 506 times over The Wolf of Wall Street's 180-minute running time."

What I want to know is: Why?  I know the "real world" doesn't resemble a 19th century tea room in Buckingham Palace, but does Hollywood really think that this sort of excessive vulgarity is ALWAYS realistic - or even amusing?  Because, well... I don't... and I've heard plenty of people that used the F-word frequently in their speech.  If nothing else, it comes down to this: Even movies with realistic themes and believable emotions are not necessarily at their most effective while simultaneously being the most "realistic."  As a writer, it occurs to me that such language and other devices have become crutches in the decade since the death of the Hays Code in the late 1960's - excuses for lazy writing, a lack of general creativity or even for just not knowing how to otherwise or as effectively convey an emotional idea.  I've also seen plenty a "hard-R" rated movie praised as Oscar worthy when the only significant elements absent from other, supposedly less worthy, less realistic or even less "artistic" movies are their frequent instances of vulgarity, whether it be language or even sexual explicitness.  Even if you removed morality from the equation, you're still left with whether or not it is always or even usually necessary or effective and, I think, most would, if honest, say, "No."

A few years ago, I noticed that Alfred Hitchcock's original Psycho is actually rated R.  Now, that ratings system didn't actually exist in 1960 and different copies for sale may indicate differently, but at least one copy of the film that I've seen has it bearing an R rating.  This was arguably the first American slasher movie - albeit so much more... beneath the skin, so to speak - and it still generates controversy going beyond the sheer intensity of the inventively disconcerting shower slaying into the sometimes incestuous territory of Norman's sexuality, not to mention the more minor issues of would-be infidelity and whether or not the ends justify the means when Marion ("Mary" in the book) steals the money. While I'm on the subject, I've read Robert Bloch's original and very short novel and can recall hardly any cursing in it whatsoever. Though the movie takes its share of liberties, it pretty much follows the same story line give or take some details, mostly related to Norman's characterization.

Even if I did not have my distaste for the current trend of blaming Wall Street for everyone's financial woes, I now think I'll avoid this movie.  Don't get me wrong: I like Scorsese and I even like Oliver Stone's original movie, Wall Street, but I will not succumb to the idea that I'm missing out on some incredibly enlightening, intellectual or even entertaining cinematic experience by not seeing this movie.  Frankly, at this point, it doesn't even appear to be all that original in terms of its approach to the themes and subject matter.  After all, when was the last time we saw a movie about a GOOD person that worked on Wall Street?  By that, I mean genuinely good, not just some endearingly flawed character that has to ultimately reject his lucrative job to find some proletariat's idea of redemption.

Whatever the perceived realities and opinions related to this issue, for me, excessive vulgarity anywhere - in art or in life - is unnecessary and represents a fundamental lapse in intelligent thought and expression.