Pursuit of Happyness review

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?

My Response to 6 AV Club Q & A Prompts

The pop-culture website AV Club has a fun Friday feature where they ask their writers a broad question and have them riff on pop culture with differing answers and writing styles. I noticed that I have some pretty detailed answers from the comments section, so I thought I'd elaborate a little and paste some of them over here. 

What Pop Culture Screams 1997 to You?

The summer of 1997 reflects a time when the Summer blockbuster was trying to transition into the tent pole (so called because they hold up the profit line from all the riskier projects) industry we know today. Natural disaster films like “Volcano” and “Anaconda” and the annual film starring Harrison Ford as a gruff hero of sorts (i.e. "Clear and Present Danger", "The Fugitive", "Patriot Games"), “Air Force One” took up their spaces on the calendar. Efforts to sequalize big hits were burning into the ground with epic failures like “Lost World” and “Batman and Robin.”

It was at this time when the formula was more of a prototype than a sure thing that Barry Sonnenfeld released "Men in Black" from a comic book that was not a well-known existing property. Carrying the biggest budget of the year on a movie this (for lack of a better word) weird might not make sense in retrospect, but it was on the heels of a time when visually idiosyncratic film makers Terry Gilliam and Tim Burton had their biggest commercial successes ("12 Monkeys" for the former;  Batman series and "Edward Scissorhands" for the latter). It was as good a time an effort in the vacuum of a working formula to try a blockbuster that was visually weird and stylistically unique. It also had Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones who always seem to epitomize the 90s for me. 

Which Pop Culture Party Would you Like to Attend?

I like to think of myself as a reluctant extrovert, although I am likely not the only person with a duality between getting energy from personal interactions and being exhausted by all the complications therein. As a human-interest journalist, I love the opportunity to dive into unique subcultures what's the luxury of not having to declare myself a part of any of them. That's why being a caterer on the "Party Down" crew seems like a perfect fit. Every gig I take will, at the very least, be eventful for starters. I will be at liberty to partake in the event (the show's in-universe rules will find a way to stretch my fifteen-minute break into full-on party mode) should I desire, but if I'm feeling reticent, my uniform will allow me to stay in wallflower/observer mode without fully committing to being part of the scene. I would also get a lot of enjoyment out of watching my slightly depressed coworkers alternate between flirting with each other and destroying one another's egos.

What Romantic Comedy Couple Shouldn’t Have Ended up Together?

Credit: Rogerebert.com

Romantic comedies are a viable genre when handled with care, but there is no narrative trope that is more sorely in need of reexamination than the penchant to romantically pair off any two characters who make googly eyes at each other as the standard happy ending. Aside from how it bears little  resemblance to real life and encourages unhealthy expectations, it really dilutes the magic of a romantic ever after if it’s already a foregone conclusion. Nowhere does this seem more of an egregious mistake than the 2012 indie film “Safety Not Guaranteed.” Aubrey Plaza plays emotionally detached young adult Darius (in other words, Aubrey Plaza in full snark mode), on a quest with two other journalists to uncover the truth behind a strange man (Mark Duplass as Kenneth) who thinks he can time travel. Darius’s casual cynicism gets put through the blender, as she makes her way into Kenneth's circle of trust only through empathizing with him. In and of itself, this should be enough to make a great story. Furthermore, because it’s an indie film, it would have been a great opportunity to buck the oldest trend in the book and not pair the characters up. After all, they have no chemistry, the age difference between the two characters borders on gross, and it’s quite possible that Kenneth is mentally ill. Instead, the predictable end result takes down the movie a couple pegs to forgettable.

Which Film do You Wish You’d Seen When it First Came Out?

The easiest way to answer this question is to scroll down my all-time list of favorite films, cross-reference with the proper time period, and voila! But watching a brilliant movie I know will be brilliant and that I also know (with a few exceptions) my fellow movie watchers will also appreciate, will be a foregone conclusion.

Therefore, my criteria has to be brilliant yet baffling: Trying to predict audiences’ conflicting reactions to something as full of raw anger and as adeptly staged as “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolff” would be a hoot. Films like “Five Easy Pieces” or “The Graduate” are great films I have trouble fully grasping the thematic context of because of my distance from the counter-culture movement and experiencing these films during their times could be enlightening.

The one that keeps sticking in my head is “Brazil." Terry Gilliam’s dedication to visual purity often overshadows his extremely inventive storylines and this is one where the balance between the two really shine. Opinions will vary, but this is his first film which could be considered a classic and I would enjoy seeing people discover the idiosyncratic storyteller ascending to a new level of coherence, appeal and complexity in his work. It’s also a film that takes a while to get so the post-film discussion would consist of a lot of “huh”s but it would be a lot of fun piecing the puzzles and symbolism of the film together.

What TV Series do You Love but will Never Revisit?

I get confronted with this question every time I desire some comfort TV and tune in to find “Seinfeld” and “The Simpsons” (who the Gods of syndication have been eternally kind to) are pretty much always on. While this wouldn’t be an unpleasant use of a half-hour,  I have some strange resistance to revisiting either of the series that came to culturally define the decade in which I came of age. Maybe, it’s an act of rebellion against the perceived quality of these shows: While I tend to rail against hipsterish attitudes of consciously defining your tastes against the mainstream, I can’t help admitting that the high placement of both these shows on best-of-all-time lists drives me to want to define my tastes from this decade differently.

Beyond that, there’s plenty of pedestrian reasons to resent these shows. How can I not resent The Simpsons like a privileged child for being cancellation-free when every other show (including superior sister show “Futurama”) has to contend with the axe? How can I not blame the show’s success for Jerry Seinfeld’s leverage to get away with passive-aggressive behavior or Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s frustrating lockhold on lead actress awards in the present day? There’s a myriad web of reasons not to like these shows and while I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly what keeps me from turning to channel five, I know that I’ve been able to resist the urge for a decade.

What Pop Culture Becomes More Meaningful as You Get Older?

 Credit: Readthespirit.com

I've gradually gone from liking "Dead Poets Society” but not understanding the ending, to thinking it is a perfectly realized film. As a child, Robin Williams’ character of John Keating was so right and the stuffy administration so wrong that I found the film’s “Oh Captain, My Captain” scene to not make up for all the tragedy that had been happening in the third act. As I’ve grown into adulthood and learned firsthand the myriad of ways in which an employer can screw you over (including some not particularly well-received stints in the education sector), I’ve come to appreciate the “Oh Captain My Captain” scene as a pretty solid outcome for an anti-establishment type in an employment landscape that discourages such free thinking and isn’t necessarily fair. Besides, what is the job of a teacher other than to impart a lesson onto his students? He might not have stayed until the end of the school year, but he can rightfully say "Mission Accomplished".

Top 30 Actors: 2015 Year-End Hollywood Actor Power Ranking

This is a list of best actors working today based on how likely it is today that if you cast them in your movie, that film will succeed commercially and/or in terms of critical/awards recognition with weight given to the last three or four years or so.

Also, worth noting, I'll reference Oscar nominationss and BP appearances but I pay attention to other stuff like BAFTA, GGs, how often it appears on critics' top ten lists, comments on IMDB message boards, but Oscars are slightly easier to cite and to remember.

This power ranking was written at the end of 2015, so view it as a snapshot of December 31, 2015. The last edition (published December 2012) was here:

Chime in and tell me who you think should move in or out, up and down

1. Matt Damon-I'm thinking back to 2006 when Scorsese cast both DiCaprio and Damon as leads in the Departed and Ed Zwick and Robert De Niro reportedly agreed to basically work around Departed's schedule for their prestige films (Blood Diamond which succeeded and Good Shepard which er.. had noble intentions). Since then, they've been pretty much the go-to guys for any prestige project wracking up Oscar buzz wherever they go, picking among the most innovative projects, killing it on the acting side, and generating good will as Hollywood ambassadors. I give the edge to Damon because he has better commercial appeal (The Bourne series, The Martian). I don't think Damon would invest himself in a prestige film without commercial legs like DiCaprio

did with J. Edgar and I don't think DiCaprio would be willing to play action or humor.

2. Leonardo DiCaprio-At this point, the current generation of young adults has grown up with Leonardo DiCaprio as the very capable star of all of their favorite films. His status is summed up pretty well by Sasha Stone at Awards Daily makes a convincing case that pretty much the only thing teenagers know about the Oscars is that DiCaprio doesn't have one.

"I suspect one of the biggest draws, in addition to Creed and The Martian, to encourage the younger generations to give a damn about the Oscars will be the question of whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio can pull off a victory, since his lack of an Oscar win has become practically a cultural cause célèbre."

3. Christian Bale-One of those actors for whom the talk of his talent is mythical enough that you've (or at least I have) heard the "best of his generation" appraisals of his in the years leading up to his breakout roles. The centerpiece of the most successful tent pole trilogy with Dark Knight, he can carry an action franchise and although he failed to do the Terminator series justice in 2009's Terminator Salvation, it says a lot that he was cast as the guy to resurrect another franchise. Critically, he's a staple of David O Russell's high-flying Oscar streak in the 2010s and he's back in the Oscar conversation this year with a third nomination and a 3rd BP film in Big Short. Also working with Terrence Malick.

4. Benedict Cumberbatch-Extremely talented and versatile guy who just won an Emmy in TV and has been in Oscar BP films in the past couple years (he's been in 4 BP noms total if you count War Horse and Atonement) along with an action role in Star Trek II. Of all the up-and-comers, I think he is posed for longevity

5.Bradley Cooper-His Inside the Actor's Studio pedigree and his friendly intensity off-screen does wonders in making him a likeable box office draw (IMO). He was in 3 BP nominees in the past few years and had tentpole/comic potential in the Hangover series. It helps a lot that he didn't do his last BP nominee with Eastwood which shows he can succeed outside of the David O Russell factory. Pretty untarnished by Aloha and Burnt was a fun lightweight change of pace for him.

6. Michael Fassbender-X-Men and Prometheus are fine enough tent pole credentials and he's pretty much all over the map in high-end directors-David Cronenberg, Steve McQueen, Ridley Scott, Danny Boyle,etc. and with the exception of Prometheus, Shame, A Dangerous Method, 12 Years a Slave and Steve Jobs have all been critical darlings. As evidence of his pedigree, consider how Jobs was not treated as a must-watch film with Ashton Kutcher in the lead

7. Brad Pitt-Clooney and Pitt are arguably more poster boys of the ideal Hollywood actor in the 2000's than the best and most productive actors and I think there’s a division. If not, Elvis Prestley and Frank Sinatra would have been the best actors of the 50’s. The thing is unlike Clooney, Pitt still has the potential to do his best acting in future films. He really broke out as a top tier actor in 2011 by turning in two of the best performances of anyone that year in Oscar BP nominees (Tree of Life & Proof of Life). With appearances in two other BP nominees in the last three years, he’s still relevant.

8. Joaquin Phoenix-He doesn’t get that “best actor of his generation” buzz that DiCaprio or Bale get, but can I make the argument that he should? Pretty much every film he touches puts it in the Oscar race every year-Her got nominated and Master and Inherent Vice were pretty darn close. This year, he did a Woody Allen which rarely generates buzz outside of the Woody Allen fanbase and generally lives or dies on the strength of its writing (I don’t think Charlize Theron killed Curse of Jaded Scorpion’s chances).

9. Denzel Washington-The #Oscarssowhite movement could benefit him in the future as people will have to put their money where their mouth is and treat his next films like gold. Since the early 90’s, he’s been one of Hollywood’s most dependable brands and in that sense he’s pretty much timeless. Filming a Magnificent Seven remake now that I have no doubt his name on the marquis will help.

10. Will Smith-From about 1996 to say 2009, Smith was pretty much the most dependable box office draw Hollywood had (Men in Black III was riding on past glory), and while he’s out of it, there’s little

evidence he couldn’t return and Concussion gave him a decent shot at a third Oscar nom which isn’t shabby.

11.Johnny Depp-I would have ranked him in the top 5 about five or six years ago. He is still loved as the epitome of a talented actor making daring choices. Even though Alice in Wonderland and Lone Ranger are highly commercial, he miraculously holds onto a reputation as an artist’s artist. Fewer of them have panned out in the past year but his brand is strong with Jack Sparrow and Alice in Wonderland (both of which sequels have already been planned out).

12. George Clooney-He hasn’t had a noteworthy performance since 2011 and I imagine that’s starting to count for something. The Monuments Men and Tomorrowland were both highly forgettable and his role in Gravity wasn’t as essential as advertised. The fact that Hail Cesar is coming out in February indicates that this is more Ladykillers than No Country for Old Men. Then again, he’s on the front pages of tabloids and is constantly name checked as Mr. Hollywood, so that capital still goes a long way, but to some degree it’s worth mentioning that he’s more the posterboy for Hollywood than the most successful actor working today.

13. Matthew McConaughey-Hollywood isn’t as now-obsessed as one would imagine. The McConassaince was more of a 2012-2013 thing, effectively ended by Insterstellar, but the world is still this guy’s oyster. He’s already had the likeable quality that still can drive a romcom but he’s added the bearings of a prestige actor to his resume and at times he’s been the top choice for a prestige part like Interstellar. Plus True Detective.

14. Ryan Gosling-Mr. Handsome has not been particularly steady but he’s liable to pop up in any given year and kill it whether 2007 (Lars and the Real Girl), 2011 (Drive, Crazy Stupid Love) or 2015 (The Big Short).

15. Hugh Jackman-Like Bradley Cooper and McConaughey, Jackman has cultivated a persona offscreen as likeable and there’s a school of thought that it helps his brand immensely. He’s extremely versatile

in genres – musicals, historical epics, comedies, superhero flicks- and his Oscar nomination three years ago gives him that prestige.

16. Ralph Fiennes-Primarily known as the classy British guy of refined heritage you plug into period pieces -- The White Countess, Quiz Show, End of the Affair, Avenger -- he's shown a lot of range as a villain with Red Dragon and the Harry Potter films and last year, broke out as a comic star. He can definitely bend quite a bit if Hollywood. He's actually been in 6 best picture nominees-Quiz Show, Schindler's List, English Patient, Reader, Hurt Locker, and GBH, so he knows how to pick them too.

17. Tom Hardy- There's a bunch of young guys who have broken out recently -- Joseph GL, Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Henry Cavill -- but Hardy's had somewhat of a cult following since Bronson and Layer Cake and many of his film choices are credible indie darlings (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was he first English language film of Tomas Alfredson, Warrior was also a pretty low budget thing) and he can step over to a big tentpole film like Mad Max and Inception. Was in 2 BP nominees this year.

18. Michael Keaton-Like McConaughey a couple years ago, Keaton is at a place where he's pretty hot and can pretty much do anything. He followed up Birdman with a film that has a good chance at winning the Best Picture Oscar again. Personally, I've never seen him as a great actor, but it's not about me but an objective ranking.

19. Sean Penn-Like Bale, he gets the "best of his generation" tag a bit, and he is that good. He was definitely top 5 material in the 2000's, but he hasn't been particularly active lately. I also feel a possibility that he might be heading the path of Mel Gibson and becoming so unlikeable as a public persona that it might affect his box office (the El Chapo interview didn't look good for him)

20. Robert Downey Jr.-He has the tentpole credentials of Iron Man (the centerpiece of the megasuccessful Avengers) and Sherlock Holmes and brings his own brand of cool to the former and a refusal to see the part as lowly genre fare to the latter (for which he got a Golden Globe). He is an exceptional actor and can make a smart character emotionally affecting BUT he did some damage to his reputation with The Judge. It's not just that the film bombed but it showed Downey Jr going back to the same character tics of his more acclaimed roles and suggested he might not have that many tricks left in the bag.

21. Ben Affleck-He has a highly complicated relationship with the public and has undergone two of the most bizarre cases of celebrity worship gone wrong (with Gigli and his casting as Batman) but he is a Hollywood pro who is extremely intelligent about his career and his future, and deep Hollywood knows it (case in point: the public outpouring of love for his Argo win was a de facto "we're sorry we were so *beep* to you ten years ago" apology). Although he has a BAFTA nom (for Argo), he's not Sean Penn-level good but he's a capable leading man, and has enough clout as a producer/director/man about town to find films that cater to his strengths as an actor (Hollywoodland and Gone Girl were perfect matches of it).

22. Will Ferrell-The most reliable comic actor in Hollywood. He wasn't in Adam McKay's last film but he's a frequent collaborator so if McKay's getting a boost so should he. Neither Get Hard not Daddy's Home was a stroke of genius but he's creative enough in defining characters that there's little reason to count his ability to bring an iconic Ron Burgundy-like character in his next outing.

23. Tom Hanks-Like Denzel Washington, he's simply timeless. He will definitely get anyone the attention of someone who's maybe 35 or older with every project he does. He's not Mr. Now, but strangely enough he's been in 4 best picture nominee in the last six years: Toy Story 3, EL & IC, Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies.

Loses points because Da Vinci Code never really caught on and Hanks really could have had the power to make that film an event picture if he played the part like Indiana Jones.

24. Mark Ruffalo-He's on his third Oscar nomination since 2010 and has been in such critically acclaimed works as Kids are Allright, Foxcatcher, Spotlight, while doing indie fare such as Infinitely Polar Bear and Begin Again, AND playing a big role in the Marvel Universe. He even improved on past performances of The Hulk.

25. Channing Tatum- Built like an action herobut plays that tortured youth persona that I equate with James Dean or Montgomery Clift. He has talent and if he doesn’t have the requisite talent,

it’s clear he chooses his parts with great ambition.

26. Steve Carell-He's a guy who can play comedy and lead a film and is getting some dramatic acclaim. Ironic as it is, but I think Date Night was the best example I've seen of him carrying a movie as the straight guy like Paul Rudd or Jason Bateman does and that is a big skill.

27. Chris Pratt-The man of the moment for headlining the two biggest hits of the past two summers. I love this guy but there I have to question how much range he has outside of bringing a different

sort of energy to an action film.

28. Seth Rogen-One of the most bankable funnymen and his ability to co-direct lets him control his own image more. His serious role in Steve Jobs wasn’t full fledged Jerry Lewis playing a sad clown in terms of comic going full dramatic, but it showed that like Louis CK and Zach Galifiranakis, he can be dropped into a prestige drama without inducing a humongous laughing fit from the audience

29. Liam Neeson-Whether Neeson is one of the most successful actors today depends on whether you think there's merit in taking on three to four movies a year indiscriminately. Personally, I think being a workaholic is benefitting him as it's getting his name out there more and odds are sooner or later, he's going to walk into a great film or a great role. Besides, no one is alleging he's making these movies worse through his presence. He has always been an extremely gifted actor. As he's stated in interviews, the reasons that he's taking on more roles are because it helps him stay busy in the wake of his wife's death so who is going to fault him for that.

30. Daniel Craig-If outacting every James Bond that came before him wasn't enough, he's already had roles that showed off great acting chops (Infamous, Munich, even Road to Perdition) and is positioned to take on more high-caliber roles with Bond behind him.

Really great TV: Fresh Prince of Bel Air

Just as people my age in relation to people ten years older than us, might be completely unaware that Pierce Brosnam was the TV star of a show called Remmington Steele and Tom Hanks was once best known for a TV show called Bossom Buddies, I wonder if today's younger generation primarily knows Will Smith through his status as one of the world's most bankable movie stars, as opposed to the star of "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air."

One would think that Will Smith has matured exponentially since he made Fresh Prince of Bel Air, but in truth, if you go back and watch Fresh Prince of Bel Air, you'll see that it's a pretty good show in fact. There are a couple moments where Will Smith tests himself as an actor, most notably the episode where his dad abandons him and he breaks down emotionally launching into a clearly forced tirade about how he doesn't need his father, before crying "how come he doesn't want me" and embracing his uncle. It's a tear-inducing moment. There's another episode where Will's carelessness in experimenting with speed leads to his cousin Carlton almost getting killed by the drugs. Will's speech where he confesses to his family what he's done is filled with the genuine tear-inducing emotion that TGIF shows like Full House and Step by Step tried and usually failed to induce in the last 2 minutes of every episode.

I also admire how Fresh Prince of Bel Air refuses to dumb down any of its characters to conform to sitcom stereotypes. Well, to be fair, it dumbs down Hillary and Geoffery rather significantly, but the show does a good job at debunking the stereotypes it pigeonholes Carlton in at first. There's the one episode, played for absurdity, where Carlton bets Will that he can't survive a day in the hood. Within a mere matter of hours, Carlton has transformed into someone straight out of a Spike Lee film. Within a more intermediate framework, Carlton is gradually made more likeable as the series progresses and a genuine respect and friendship develops between Will and Carlton that is somewhat at the core of the series.

Most importantly, the portly Uncle Phil, could easily have been portrayed as the stuffy and aloof parent-figure for a couple of laughs but he is virtually never portrayed in an undignified manner. Despite the fact that he's the butt of Will's jokes, there is nothing he does that makes one feel ashamed to have known him or to be his child or nephew. I can't overemphasize how big of a deal that is. Most dads are portrayed as the less competent and less dedicated parent in sitcoms. They are either:
-Obsessed with trying to have sex with mommy (Step by Step),
-They border on being legally retarded (Family Guy, The Simpsons)
-They are bigoted (All in the Family, Sanford and Son),
-They are hopelessly dorky (Full House, Dick Van Dyke Show)
-They are irresponsible monetarily and with everything else and need mommy around to keep her from destroying the house if she leaves for a weekend (Malcolm in the Middle, Home Improvement)
-They can barely remember their kids exist (Everybody Loves Raymond, Just Shoot Me)