MovieChat Forums > The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) Discussion > Great film, illogical plot. Can somebody...

Great film, illogical plot. Can somebody help me?


Hi, I love this film but the only reason it succeeds was due to Will Smith's captivating performance.

However, I can't keep myself wondering: Why didn't Chris Gardner get a part-time job? I'm not referring to the real life the film was based of, I'm talking about the film. I'm not from America so I don't know what was the condition of the economy back then but come on, he could've avoided getting thrown out of his house had he gotten himself (even a low-pay) job. 😞

Does anybody agree with me?

reply

I agree.

We're shown a hard-working, charismatic young guy with a solid CV/Resumé, living in the most prosperous country in the world in a time of economic boom. Nevermind a part-time job, he'd have walked into any number of middle-income jobs which would have given him enough money to live on and, more importantly, time to spend with his kid. Isn't that more important than money? He became rich being a stockbroker - but after how long? 5 years? 10 years? That's his kid's childhood gone, while he's working long, long hours in the world of Jordan Belfort and Gordon Gekko!

The film seems to say that to be happy you have to be a success and to be a success you have to be rich.

Am I being naïve? Chris is following the American Dream, right? I'm from the UK so maybe I just have different values.

reply

Thank you for your response & no, you're not naive.

The film dictated a lot of things that I find truly misleading & far-fetched. For instance, I've read somewhere that Chris was in fact paid for his internship: $1000 a month. That's a lot of money for a homeless person & his son.

Either way, it's a great film. I just wished that Hollywood didn't contradict the facts just for the sake of drama - it was utterly unnecessary.

reply

Haven't seen the movie yet but I have been homeless now for over 7 years and $1,000 is not "a lot" of money for a homeless person. If you're not on any kind of government assistance and don't want to stand on free food lines with a bunch of down and outers with negative attitudes a thousand a month is about what it's going to cost you over the course of a month just to survive. Eating out every day, even if it's just fast-food, is going to cost you about 20 bucks a day if you want to eat 3 times a day. If you want to rent a storage unit to put your stuff in so you're not living out of a shopping cart that's going to cost you too. And if you've got a kid with you that thousand a month isn't going to go very far. Bottom line is there is no such thing as living for free. Even if you're homeless it's still going to cost you some kind of money every single day.

reply

Gotta disagree. What you're forgetting: This movie (and what really happened) is from 1981. Back then $1000 was about the same as $2500 nowadays. Check the scene in which he buys his son a candy bar. He pays 25 cent for is. It would be more than a dollar for that now. Average rent for a Studio in a Motel with everything included was $300 (if even that) so he had at least $700 for food and transportation. That's plenty enough. TV dinners were around 50 cents. So let's just say $4-$5 a day for food. And junk-food... How do estimate junk-food $20 a day? Breakfast a sandwich for a buck or two, lunch maybe 3-4, dinner the same. That's NOW! Back then he would have paid $3-$5 altogether.
I was never homeless but I have been living on way less than $1000 a month (mostly around $700) for several years and never had real problems.
Not to forget that he still sold some of his scanners (he cashed out $300 at the store) so he even had more than just the $1000.
But: In this movie he did not get any money for the internship (I guess for dramatic reasons) so this is a moot point anyways.

reply

well said

reply

We're shown a hard-working, charismatic young guy with a solid CV/Resumé, living in the most prosperous country in the world in a time of economic boom.

Um, did we watch the same movie?

Look, I agree with the basic question here - he could have probably gotten any number of other part-time jobs. Back in 1981, you could just get by on minimum wage.

But solid resume? They specifically made a point in the movie that there was all this space on the Dean Witter application and he couldn't fill it.

Economic boom? 1981 was the middle of a severe recession, almost as bad as the one we're climbing out of right now. That's a big part of the reason why the line of homeless people was stretching around the block.

Like I said, sure, I agree that he probably could have gotten some kind of job that would have made it a bit easier to take care of the two them. But get your facts straight.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

He was trying to be a stock broker. If he was just looking to get by with just a job he could have worked but the internship was a full time position. He was a single parent with no one to watch his son at night which would have been the only time he had to work a second job. He had some money that would have gotten him through but it was confiscated by the government for back taxes.

reply

My main question is why couldn't he stay with a friend. He had his friend who drove him to the hotel and owed him money, couldn't he stay there part of the time?

reply

his friend was a jerk

reply

I fully agree and even more: why didnt he get a full time job washing dishes???
I think the plot was rather contrived

reply

correct me if I´m wrong because I saw this movie along time ago, but didn´t the wife abandon him with the son? He had to take care of the son remember. I think he could have gotten a part-time job if he had someone to leave his son with.

reply

I'm not exactly sure either. He had to take care of his son, but he was able to put him in daycare while he was at his internship. And he could barely afford the daycare. If I remember correctly, he and Christopher had to be in line at the homeless shelter at 5 p.m. sharp in order to secure a spot for the night. So he wouldn't have been able to work somewhere after his internship (and pay for even more care for his son, I imagine) and then go to the homeless shelter later at night.

reply

As I was watching the early part of this movie, I couldn't help but notice that Chris wasn't very smart with his business and financial decision-making. Really? You base your whole success and existence on selling bone density scanners like some kind of Fuller Brushman going from hospital to hospital, banking your future and that of your family on selling them? That's your plan? I'm sorry, but I had very little sympathy for Chris at this point, and fortunately the film was good enough in the second half to get it back, and in the end he did triumph. However, he probably could have avoided a lot of the stress and pain he went through if he had possessed half a brain early on. Just sayin'.

reply

I agree with your doubts..

had this movie been a contemporary tv show, they would have probably shown his real ambition with no fear

reply

He was a skilled radar technician. "First in his class (of 20)" If he would have pursued a job in electronics he could have had a stable life and at least a modest home and could have reasonably pursued his dream job of being a stock broker (or what ever) in parallel. His hardships were largely his own doing and unnecessary. And considering he had his wife and son i would further say he was irresponsible.

reply