The Pursuit of Happyness

[helen]

Saw The Pursuit of Happyness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454921/) at Ward today. It takes place in San Francisco in 1981 and it tells the story of man named Chris Gardner who is trying to change jobs from selling medical devices to stock broker.

[pzarquon]

Say, Helen. Thanks for the synopsis and all, but did you like the movie?

Gotta say, from the previews, this one looks like an unmitigated stinker. Though I have seen lower scores on the Tomatometer (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pursuit_of_happyness/). As far as I'm concerned, the primary long-term impact of this film is that people will continue to reliably misspell "happiness."

[helen]

I am sort of netural on this movie. I didn't hate it but there were times when I was wishing that this movie would end.

I think this movie might appeal to those people who like movies "based on true events" which this is.

[DannyWilliams]

As far as I'm concerned, the primary long-term impact of this film is that people will continue to reliably misspell "happiness."



There is a reason WHY its spelled with a "Y" and not "I".......
Besides the title does make ya stand up to attention to and the movie itself will not get lost in the shuffle of other films if it was spelled correctly.

[scrivener]

I saw it this evening. Friends and I showed up at the theater at an agreed-upon time and decided right there what we'd see.

The plot is quite predictable, and if you've seen the trailer, there's no need even for predictions. The story reminded me of something Roger Ebert once wrote about romantic comedies (a particular favorite genre of mine): You know it has to end with the kiss; the success of the film depends upon how it gets you there.

So how does The Pursuit of Happyness get you there? Mostly on foot, via lots of running. There's so much running in the movie that even I got weary, and all I was doing was slouching in my seat with a large Diet Coke. That running, though, and that dogged determination, are pulled off admirably by what I think is a winning performance by Will Smith. Smith has never wanted for charisma, but he wins the audience over in this film in a different way—not with his good looks or sense of humor, but with his ability to make you believe in the character and to make you want to root for him.

I am wary of pictures that employ the use of some cute kid to get you to feel for the main characters. I think it's cheap. However, the Smith character's little boy (played by Jaden Smith, the actor's son) gives you just enough to help you understand the main character without taking over too much of the picture; this is NOT a movie about the little boy, and the actors and directors seem to give him just enough space.

I don't know enough about film-making to really comment on this, but the story takes place in 1981 and whatever they shot the picture on has this grainy, sometimes washed-out look that I really liked. Images in the offices at Dean Witter are sharp and clean, but in the streets of San Francisco, they are moody and atmospheric, giving an interesting sense of time and place and mood.

The soundtrack avoids a dated feel by sticking to 70s classics that have either already proven themselves timeless or are not ubiquitous enough to be associated with other films. Except for one unnecessary music-video sequence I think the picture could have done without, the songs are well incorporated into the other elements without distracting, asserting themselves appropriately at times when they won't take over the experience.

There is one line near the end that almost had me sobbing. It is a line of gentle irony at a moment of enormous stress, and I don't think I'm spoiling anything by typing it here. I think it would have made a great heading for the movie poster: "Was it as easy as you made it look?"

It would be easy, because of the nature of the story, to think the movie could be pulled off with not much effort, but I think Smith does a terrific job. It is not his most interesting role or his most engaging or his most entertaining, but it may be the role that requires the most of his acting chops, and I think he delivers.

I doubt most HT movie-goers will consider it a waste of time or money. Worth seeing. Pz's Tomatometer link gives it a 67; my favorite barometer, Metacritic, mostly agrees, and gives it 64 (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/pursuitofhappyness), which is considered "generally favorable." You could definitely do worse.

[pzarquon]

There is a reason WHY its spelled with a "Y" and not "I".......Um, yeah. I gathered there might have been some marketing muscle behind that decision. I know typos accidentally make their way into the name of multi-million dollar films with big stars all the time, but it would make sense that the quality control team on "Happyness" knew what they were doing. :p
The plot is quite predictable, and if you've seen the trailer, there's no need even for predictions.
Thanks, scrivener, for the review. I love that you can enjoy the film, even appreciating its familiar formula, predictability and melodrama.

I kind of figured "The Pursuit of Happyness" was another incarnation of the spirit of "Pay It Forward," which worked miracles for some people, but made others roll their eyes. I have heard that it's a decent performance by Will Smith, whom I've worried about recently, so that's good news. As is its overall reception among critics.

Hey, it's the holidays. If there's any time to indulge in a movie like this, it's now.

[DannyWilliams]

Um, yeah. I gathered there might have been some marketing muscle behind that decision. I know typos accidentally make their way into the name of multi-million dollar films with big stars all the time, but it would make sense that the quality control team on "Happyness" knew what they were doing. :p





To my understanding
The real life Chris Gardener took his son to a day care facility in SF Chinatown and the name of the place had "Happyness" on the enterance. He did cringe on seeing that.

[helen]

So how does The Pursuit of Happyness get you there? Mostly on foot, via lots of running. There's so much running in the movie that even I got weary, and all I was doing was slouching in my seat with a large Diet Coke.

My friend who was with me (and was the one who suggested we see this movie) watching this movie did remark that he (Will Smith) was running a lot.

The ending I wish could have been done better by:

While it stated what happen to Chris Gardner professionally, it would have been nice to know if he gotten back together with Linda (his wife) or not or what happen to the son who would be around thirty by now. Did he follow in his dad's footsteps. Did he become a doctor or a basketball player?

[tutusue]

[...]It would be easy, because of the nature of the story, to think the movie could be pulled off with not much effort, but I think Smith does a terrific job. It is not his most interesting role or his most engaging or his most entertaining, but it may be the role that requires the most of his acting chops, and I think he delivers.[...]
According to a couple of interviews I've seen with Will and Jaden Smith, it was 8 year old Jaden who 'busted' Will on his acting, telling him he did each take the same each time. So, Will put the art of acting aside and lived the role. IOW, he acted from his heart instead of his head. That's infinitely more difficult but also has the biggest pay-off.

[scrivener]

IOW, he acted from his heart instead of his head. That's infinitely more difficult but also has the biggest pay-off.
While I can't argue with the results, I have to disagree with the "more difficult" part. If you convince yourself you ARE the character and the things happening are happening to YOU, it's not really acting, it's just being (and I realize that that BEING is where the challenge is). The product cannot be disputed -- great method actors like DeNiro and Penn prove that over and over -- but Olivier was no method actor, and I submit that accomplishing what he did, using his brain, was much more difficult.

I always taught my young actors to be thinking all, all, all the time. What is the audience seeing when you turn this way? Are the other actors bringing the right amount of energy, volume, and performance you think they should? If not, what are you going to do right now, while you're performing, to get them to pick it up? What are you going to do if so-and-so says his line out of order, as he did in that last rehearsal? Of course, stage acting and film acting are two different things, and teenagers don't usually have the right life experience for effective method acting (especially when they're playing grownups!), so perhaps this comparison is silly.

I do think, though, that great thinking actors are far more versatile than great method actors.