The Luck of Ginger Coffey
1964
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.3 out of 10
You are here:
Find another title
Type to search for movies. Use arrow keys to navigate suggestions, Enter to select, Escape to close.
The King of Marvin Gardens
1972
RDirector
Bob Rafelson
Runtime
103 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
Jason Staebler lives on the Boardwalk and fronts for the local mob in Atlantic City. He is a dreamer who asks his brother David, a radio personality from Philadelphia, to help him build a paradise on a Pacific Island, which might be just another of his pie-in-the-sky schemes. Inevitably, complications begin to pile up.
Where to Watch
Diversity & Representation
Overall Score
4.7/10
Fair
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film lacks LGBTQ+ characters or explorations of non-heteronormative identities. The narrative focuses strictly on interpersonal friction within a heteronormative framework.
Gender Representation
The story subverts mid-century masculine ideals by portraying the husband as a fraudulent, unstable figure. It centers on the emotional resentment and disintegration of the nuclear family.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
The setting reflects a predominantly white, middle-class environment. There is little to no intentional racial or ethnic diversity within this localized socioeconomic landscape.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The film offers a sophisticated critique of Western capitalist structures and the American Dream. It embraces moral relativism, presenting ethical transgressions through a lens of existential desperation.
Disability Representation
There are no prominent depictions of visible or invisible disabilities. Characters with disabilities are not utilized as plot devices within the narrative.
Strengths
- Provides a sophisticated critique of Western capitalist structures and the hollow pursuit of wealth.
- Subverts traditional gender roles by deconstructing the stable, patriarchal nuclear family unit.
- Employs moral relativism to explore complex, character-driven ethics and existential desperation.
Areas for Improvement
- Lacks representation of LGBTQ+ identities or non-heteronormative themes.
- Features a predominantly white, homogeneous cast with minimal racial or ethnic diversity.
- Provides no visible or invisible depictions of characters with disabilities.
AI Analysis
The film functions as a postmodern study of social fragmentation rather than a vehicle for demographic inclusion. It prioritizes the deconstruction of traditional institutions over the representation of diverse identities. While the cast is largely homogeneous, the work achieves depth through its systemic critique of the American socioeconomic fabric. It challenges the stability of the nuclear family and the integrity of capitalist pursuits. Ultimately, the film's progressive value is found in its rejection of moral certainties and its skeptical lens regarding social structures.
Similar Movies
The Revolt of Mamie Stover
1956
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.3 out of 10
The Money
1976
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.2 out of 10
The Carpetbaggers
1964
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.1 out of 10
The Trip
1967
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.3 out of 10
The Big Night
1959
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.5 out of 10
Goin' Down the Road
1970
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.6 out of 10
The Member of the Wedding
1952
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 2.2 out of 10
The Music of Chance
1993
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 2.4 out of 10
Adam at Six A.M.
1970
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.5 out of 10
WUSA
1970
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.8 out of 10
The Subterraneans
1960
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.8 out of 10
Rate this Movie
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.