Reversal of Fortune

This is a difficult watch, but an honest depiction of its premise. The theme is to gift a homeless man with a $100,000 windfall, and then watch as a spectator what the man does with this sudden good fortune. The movie is told in a documentary form, with frequent side-bar interview commentary by the subject of the study, Ted, and the people he interacts with. The film teeters on the brink of exploitation, as it occasionally resembles a reality show, but still manages to give a brutally honest picture.

Ted is presented to you in the early going, and his story is not a pretty picture. He laments over failed opportunities, blames others for his predicament (especially women), and lives in semi-isolation. He stores what few belongings he has in a hole underneath a freeway viaduct, and peddles around on a bicycle collecting recyclables for redemption. He smokes and drinks. And that's about it.

After meeting Ted, it's hard to be anything but pessimistic about what lies ahead for him. It's obvious he despises conventional wisdom and any form of accountability from others. He rejects counsel on how to utilize the money, and throws his bank rolls around in endless partying and large purchases. It must have been difficult for the movie makers to resist the temptation of intervening in Ted's actions.

It's sad, and it's hard to watch. Whether Ted is indicative of the majority of homeless people is a matter for introspection and discussion. Everyone will have a different view on this matter, but the film's point is to get the subject on the table, since society tends to just accept this social problem as unbeatable (and it may even be so; that is a matter to ponder, as well).

This thought provoking film is recommended.

I think this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. You always see homeless people, and what an incredible "gift" to give someone - the chance to turn their life around. How many times does that happen? The film makers didn't have a hand in what Ted spent his money on, and they furnished him with people to "help" or "guide" him - which was Ted's choice not to participate in. You cannot give some one money, then "MAKE" them do what you think is best. These people have rights like any other human being, and free choice is one of them. It was interesting to me to see why Ted was homeless - you could tell that he did not WANT to change his situation. He could not live in a society that dictated what he do - so he did nothing.

I applaud the concept and the documentary - I have told many, many people to watch this.. including my son - who needs to see that one needs to think before spending - one needs to look ahead to get ahead.. Ted's problem is that he never wanted to grow up. He had a great opportunity - I would like a re-cap of where Ted is now, and if he would have done anything differently.

I personally had interaction with Ted in his South Sacramento apartment, he drinks obsessively and uses drugs, I know because I did it with him. Some of his family members used drugs and drank to craziness with him. If they really wanted to do a social experiment, why not screen their subjects better? This was a pointless project and Ted and his friends and family got to party to no ends off of Showtime. Next time they want to do something stupid like this they can call me. I can party with their money just as good as Ted did. There are homeless drunks on every corner in America. I cannot figure out what this documentary was trying to prove, except maybe that the producer of this show is an idiot. Ted's addictions were well into severe progression before he got this money, he told me so. Maybe he cleaned up for three days if they actually tested him for drugs or alcohol. Ted is a player and street wise, I'm sure he knows it is not hard to get around a drug test, hell I did it for parole for years. I think Showtime used and exploited Ted and should be shamed for their irrational actions. Ted had a part in this too, he is simply lost in his addiction and his personal demons, especially being co-dependent with his family and women.

The movie ended too quickly. Even though Ted did not tell the producers how much money he had after 6 months, the producers could have found out and explained: whether he was homeless, still living in his apartment, or living with a relative; whether he had a job, or did he go back to collecting bottles and cans; whether he was still in Sacramento or back in L.A.; what happened to his 18-year-old friend; etc., etc., etc...

I've come in contact with a lot of homeless people in the past few years. Compared to the one's I talked to, Ted seems to be fairly intelligent. I think the producers picked the right person to give the money to. However, I'm not a movie-maker but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that homeless people generally are not motivated, have psychological issues, are drug addicts, or all of the above -- I could have predicted the outcome without going through with the experiment. The money did nothing for this man. It is the same reason why it is bad to blindly hand over money to struggling third-world nations with no guidance.

It is a little sad that the producers put Ted through this purely for our entertainment. I think Ted would have been better off if this movie was never made (he seemed to be happy in the beginning of the movie). If the producers really wanted to help change his life, they could have set up a trust account, where Ted could live off the interest income from the $100k. At 5% it would be about $5k a year for the rest of his life -- which is about the same amount of money he was making collecting cans all day.

This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands.