A film about financial scams was funded in part by a financial scam.
Is this not ironic?
Is this not ironic?
Defining irony has been a continuous argument online, but this definition seems to capture the essence of irony - "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result."
Now, if the Wolf of Wall Street criticized (or made fun of) financial scam funded movies, that would be ironic.
Like making a movie about financial scams, which one would expect it would be just "a movie about financial scams" and not "a financial scam", but it turns out it was also "a financial scam"?
:-)
I think you have better expectations of the film industry than I do :-)