Bean and I went to see “The Pursuit of Happyness,” a new movie starring Will Smith as real-life stock broker Chris Gardner. Set in the 80s, the movie tells the story of how Gardner — black, poor, a single father with only a high-school education — became a stock broker using only intelligence, hard work, and a seemingly inexhaustible will to succeed.
The movie was entertaining but not fantastic. What struck me most about it is how differently liberals and conservatives will interpret the movie’s message. To conservatives, like Michael at InternetMonk, the message is that hard work wins the day:
Will Smith’s “The Pursuit of Happyness” [is] a stunningly positive, pro-individual, pro-America film that may go to the top of every economic conservative’s “must see” list. “Pursuit” is a stereotype breaker in every scene, and it’s not an accident. This is a film with the unashamed message that America is a place where individuals aren’t rewarded via pity, but through initiative, sacrifice and hard work. Chris Gardner’s success came by taking the gifts God gave him, motivating himself with love for his son, and persevering in a superhuman effort to outdo people with racial, social and educational advantage. […]
And when he achieves his goal- a genuinely emotional breakthrough that will be hard for any man who loves his family to resist- it is not because of affirmative action, but because Chris Gardner was the best man for the job. You can look in the eyes of all those corporate types and know that they have only been dimly aware that this is a man who has been sleeping in restrooms and at homeless shelters, but they are treating him completely in line with the content of his character and not in pity. At a moment when he is nearly starving, his boss- a millionaire many times over- asks him for five dollars for cab fare. Gardner gives it to him because that is who he is and will always be.1
I saw the same movie, but I got a different message. Because the effort Gardner puts forth in the movie really does seem (as Michael says) superhuman. In the movie2, Gardner had no real friends, no support network, no savings, no home, and a child to take care of. He was pretty much in the situation Hilzoy discusses here — no margin for error, no margin for bad luck.
There are thousands of Americans in that situation. What makes Gardner’s story so unusual — and a good subject for a major Hollywood movie — is that Gardner ended up a millionairre. The far more common story of people who don’t make it, isn’t the story of which major movies are made. Artist and blogger Marc Vallen (who created a 1980s protest poster used as set dressing in the movie) writes:
The Pursuit of Happyness has as its actual star the mythic American dream story, where anyone can become financially successful through dedication and hard work. While it’s said “everyone loves a winner” and “a happy ending”, I’d still like to see Hollywood tackle the stories of those real-life people who’ve struggled and worked hard all of their lives but never even came close to achieving their dreams. Odds are that describes a huge number of people, and as yet, their stories haven’t appeared on the silver screen. I also find it ironic that a poster once considered controversial, and used by activists who were willing to be beaten, arrested, and jailed for a cause – has became set dressing for a popular “feel good” movie.
For me, the lesson to take away from “The Pursuit of Happyness” isn’t that anyone can make it in America. Gardner wasn’t “anyone.” He was broke, but he had a natural endowment of intelligence, charm and drive that made him one in ten thousand, or maybe one in a million.
I’s ludicrous to think that “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that anyone can make it; on the contrary, “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that for someone starting with nothing in America, it take a ludicrous amount of talent and drive to pull oneself up.
I think it’s possible to become a better society — one in which no one is every that utterly lacking help and resources, and in which it doesn’t require Chris-Gardner levels of talent and drive for someone on the bottom to make the system work.
The San Francisco Gate has a story with more information about The Real-Life Chris Gardner; there are interesting contrasts between his life and the movie version. (For example, in the movie he was homeless while doing an unpaid apprenticeship; in real life I doubt he was homeless while he was an apprentence, since the apprenticeship program paid $1000 a month.) And CNN has an article about Gardner’s current activities — he’s hoping to become the next Oprah.
Pingback: redjenny - Progressive News, Humour, Art and Politics Blog
Pingback: The Sideshow
Pingback: you caught me lingering
Pingback: Catallarchy
I disagree that there aren’t movies made about people who have nothing and don’t do well – the counterexample that immediately comes to mind is The Big Lebowski, which as my mother said when she saw it, is about a man who starts with nothing, ends up with less, and wins.
If we’re looking for a more realistic movie, something like a contemporary version of Gorsky’s The Lower Depths, I can’t really think of anything. But I’m not sure if I’d want to see a movie as bleak as that anyway.
I had an interesting discussion in a sociology class a few years back about the phenomenon that this movie depicts, as it applies particularly to the black community. You’re quite right that it was a 1 in a million jump for Gardner, because he went from being very-lower middle class (and that mostly through his wife’s income, IIRC) to very wealthy in one jump. That’s a damn hard jump to make.
But (and this is the part we talked about in class), it’s about the only jump that many black people get to see being others of their race make when they’re growing up. Oprah makes it to billionaire status, Michael Jordan goes from wherever he started to superstar, etc. Those transitions are spectacular (and praiseworthy, when like Gardner’s, Jordan’s, Oprah’s they come from skill and brains and effort rather than luck), but they aren’t the transitions that create real social mobility. Mobility in the mass comes from people moving from lower-middle to upper-middle, or poor to lower-middle, or desperately dirt-poor to stable working poor, and so on.
Because of the pathologies of the inner city, pretty much everybody who makes any progress leaves as soon as they possibly can. Their subsequent improvements and transitions are witnessed only by people who have already seen the same story a thousand times already, and who learn nothing thereby. Black kids don’t see their neighbor Larry put himself through school and become an accountant, and then ten years later get his CPA and then ten years after that start his own practice, and ten years after that franchise out and become comfortable. They see Larry move out, the end; his subsequent successes are not viable models to follow, because they don’t see them happen.
If you look at Gardner’s talents and brains, it’s clear that if he had set more modest goals, he would have achieved them with modest work. (Not to discount his awesome progress; just that for every Gardner, there are a thousand guys rolling the dice and ending up with nothing). But he didn’t perceive that modest improvement in status as being possible – he had to go to the top, or nothing. It’s good for him that it worked out, but it’s not so great that he had no role models for a more practical life development course. One that might have, for example, kept his family intact, and spared his son the traumas of life on the street.
Pingback: The Guns of Auguste :: Post-Christmas Link Roundup :: December :: 2006
One other thing that struck me about this movie is how differently Chris was treated because he was a father. Could you imagine a single mother choosing to be homeless, holding out for a dream job instead of just taking whatever she could get, and receiving praise? More likely, someone would call DCFS on her.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but the reaction of conservatives seems typical. They are constantly holding up a single, isolated example of someone who has “made it” and using it to suggest that ANYONE can. it’s as ridiculous as holding up the Mona Lisa and saying, look, if some other guy can create this, anyone can! If you aren’t, then you must be lazy.
And oh how they love the opportunity to dig at affirmative action.
“Those transitions are spectacular (and praiseworthy, when like Gardner’s, Jordan’s, Oprah’s they come from skill and brains and effort rather than luck),”
I can’t speak to Gardner or Oprah, but tell me that Michael Jordan’s enormous success didn’t in part come from being a winner in the athletic genetic lottery. Yes, he is also famous for a tremendous work ethic. That work ethic tellingly is a great contrast with many other athletes who have much less success even though they have as much or more athletic ability as Michael Jordan because at some point they stop putting the work. But luck is also a great portion of what Michael Jordan what he is.
All liberals are happy about success stories such as this. I admire Gardner’s perseverance and spirit in overcoming the hardships he had to face. But here in Chicago, the tone was geared to all the things the money got him: the car he bought from Michael Jordan, the office desk made from an airplane wing, as if these things in and of themselves were important.
But what does it say about this country that someone so skilled and hard-working became homeless in the first place? What does it say about people who pay (and can afford to pay) a lot of money to hear him speak? Is all they want out of life to own a desk made from an airplane wing? And why indeed aren’t THEY multi-millionaires, especially considering that they never had to go through those kinds of hardships themselves?
Finally, what I’d like to know is if Mr. Gardner has supported, or will support, politicians and policies that would make it more difficult for someone to accomplish what he did? If so, then he is not to be admired, and the title should be changed from “The Pursuit Of Happyness” to “I Got Mine, Screw You”.
What about Wicked? True, it’s in a fantasy setting, but the protagonist is bright, motivated, and likeable, yet fails at every major goal she sets for herself, before dying essentially alone and unloved, driven mad by the injustice she’s failed to effectively combat. (I can’t imagine how they brightened that up for the musical.) ‘Course, they haven’t made that into a movie either.
i could already see the conservative take on it from the previews, i thought. so inspiring! nothing wrong with the system, no; anyone can make it, the Dream is safe…
shrug.
Big Lebowski i think is not really in the same league, either tone-wise or anywhere near the number of viewers.
>But what does it say about this country that someone so skilled and hard-working became homeless in the first place? What does it say about people who pay (and can afford to pay) a lot of money to hear him speak? Is all they want out of life to own a desk made from an airplane wing? And why indeed aren’t THEY multi-millionaires, especially considering that they never had to go through those kinds of hardships themselves?>
exactly.
and the subtle message is:
the answer as to why YOU aren’t a multi-millionaire, too, is because you are a LOSER and AREN’T TRYING HARD ENOUGH.
because -everyone- could be a multi-millionaire if they really tried!
Funny how fast the review skips over the fact that Gardner was not on a level playing field, and for reasons that were completely out of his control. No amount of hard work, discipline or Good Attitude erased the fact that he was racing people who got a fifty-yard headstart. But hey, that’s inspirational. If, conversely, he were a white guy at a disadvantage because every brokerage house had affirmative-action quotas, that would have been horrible and outrageous and by God, something ought to be done about it.
But what does it say about this country that someone so skilled and hard-working became homeless in the first place?
What did it say in the movie on this? How did he become homeless?
He made a bad investment, putting his life savings into a new business (selling medical equipment) that did not do well.
Actually, that was the triggering event for her departure per the movie, but the proximate cause of their homelessness was that his wife left the family at that juncture. Her employment stability had been the source of their household’s ability to make it, and when she was gone his earnings weren’t enough to keep him and his son housed.
Amp said:
“He made a bad investment, putting his life savings into a new business (selling medical equipment) that did not do well.”
“And apparently his wife left him (along with her income that the family in part depended on) and he owed a lot of back taxes.”
So then, to answer Joe Veccio’s question, “But what does it say about this country that someone so skilled and hard-working became homeless in the first place?”, the answer is that when you take risks, sometimes you fail, and there are bad consequences from failing. Just because you are skilled and hard-working doesn’t mean that you know how to successfully start and run a business. Apparently he didn’t have the right skills for that.
Mythago said:
“Funny how fast the review skips over the fact that Gardner was not on a level playing field, and for reasons that were completely out of his control.”
Hm. Why do you say that Gardner was not on a level playing field for reasons out of his control? Was he denied employment elsewhere because he was black? Or is it because he was homeless? Because the latter was due to his own choices, but I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if the former was involved.
:I think it’s possible to become a better society — one in which no one is every that utterly lacking help and resources, and in which it doesn’t require Chris-Gardner levels of talent and drive for someone on the bottom to make the system work.
Hm. But what consists of making the system work? To need Chris Gardner’s levels of talent and drive for someone on the bottom to become a millionaire isn’t necessarily bad. Millionaires are at the top of the income levels in the U.S.; that’s a pretty high standard. Do you have to be a millionaire to be considered having made the system work? If he had simply gotten to the point that he was making a middle-class income and was decently housing, feeding, clothing, etc. himself and his son, I would consider that making the system work. How much talent and drive does that take? Does our system require Chris Gardner’s level of drive and talent to make the system work?
The movie ends when Gardner finally climbs to the lower middle class. I’m talking about how incredibly hard it is for someone in Gardner’s position to make it to the middle class.
Pingback: The Pursuit of Happyness at Susan Hated Literature
Pingback: Nobody Knows Anything » Movie round-up
Pingback: Susan Hated Literature » The Pursuit of Happyness
Working hard is “rolling the dice”??? What is wrong with our society? NOBODY wants to put the effort out… just putting effort into your life will better your situation. The character in the movie got rich through hard work and determination, these people make it out to be a lotto ticket and he was somehow able to “get lucky” and make it. There are millions of people out there that would strongly disagree with you. There are less and less every day, because of the shitty attitude we now have.
NOBODY wants to put the effort out…
just putting effort into your life will better your situation.
Citations needed.