The tagline of "Pursuit of Happyness" was basically "story of a poor guy trying to get a job" when it came out which seemed a little (as the millennials say) basic.
After watching it, it hit me that there aren't that many movies about a guy who desperately needs a job trying to make something happen. Even if this was an actual film genre that had been steadily populated throughout the years, this story would stick out for its specificity.
The protagonist Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a father weighed down to the breaking point with bills to pay and a son to care for. His backstory isn't filled in that well which might be intentional because little of it adds up. How did he get the job where he sells obscure medical equipment and why doesn't he impress his bosses enough to ask for a raise with that? Why didn't he take advantage of the free education that came with his service in the navy? Why did he choose to live in the country's most expensive city? In real life, Chris Gardner's first wife came from a wealthy family and she introduced him to high society life where he was mingling with Danny Glover and Samuel L Jackson. Why didn't he try to use some of that social capital?
Nitpicking aside, we're asked to accept that Gardner is an unexplained sort of poor which sort of works if we consider that we likely won't know the backstories and explanations behind every homeless person who approaches on the street for a spare dime.
In order to invest us in this character (much like a positive-leaning biopic), the film wants us to identify with his greatness primarily through his bravery. In reality, Gardner made a cost-benefit analysis and might have even came to the wrong conclusion for all we know: Sacrifice six months of pay for a 1 in 20 chance of landing a job as a broker when you have a kid to support and a landlord on your back? In reality, Gardner had a small stipend ($1000 a month in 1983 which would probably be more by present-day standards) and the training program at Dean Witter offered jobs to almost anyone who passed the test. And while the movie is enhanced by seeing a guy go against such odds, there's already plenty of natural drama built into the man's situation. He has to go homeless, attempt to sweet talk clients when he has no experience making sales, and play nice with his bosses who don't understand his stresses.
The film is primarily known for Will Smith's Oscar-nominated performance and the moment when his son Jaden was introduced to the world (as Chris's son). But it deserves quite a bit more credit than that.
I watched this film in preparation for a talk I'm leading in a week about capitalism and movies. My thesis was originally that there are some films that have standard pro-capitalist bents and some films that challenge the assumptions of capitalism as the best possible distribution system of wealth.
From the synopsis I assumed that this would simply be spreading the gospel of capitalism. This is a story, after all, about a guy who analyzes his options, and ultimately decides that doing flawless work in subservience to his bosses would be the best way to rise to the top. From a standpoint of the main character's narrative, yes, the film is an allegory for the benefits of working your way up the corporate ladder and buying your time.
However, reading this film through a more modern-day lens where critical race theory and privilege (whether socio-economic or other) is a big factor in how we talk (not that I agree with all of it), the film doesn't shy away of the ways in which Gardner is held back from a system that penalizes him from the cyclical pattern of poverty he was born into. Wherever you stand on the "race explains everything" line, it's undeniable that if he was born into better circumstances, he would have better been prepared to deal with his employers. Everything from his arrest for parking tickets to the discomfort he might have with his array of bosses who were born into wealth highlights it's not a particularly fair meritocracy despite the fact that he succeeds anyway.
With Gardner's happy ending, the film has its cake and eats it too. Or does it?
No comments:
Post a Comment