It would definitely be ironic if a movie about honesty and integrity had been funded by a scam. This is sort of the opposite, the topic of the movie and its source of funding are thematically similar, rather than being in opposition. So rather than describing it as "ironic" I'd use an antonym like "fitting" or "congruous".

The ironic part is that one might expect the producers of a film about a massive financial scam to be more educated and diligent about avoiding the same pitfalls in their own production. The fact that they were so easily gulled while essentially lecturing the world through their film, that's amusingly contrary to expectations, hence ironic.

Gonzo movie making

Ah, ninja'd!

The word "apposite" is much better than the ones I suggested.

If the movie was supposed to vilify financial scams instead of glorifying it yes it would be ironic. But Wolf of Wall Street was very glorified. Even when you think the anti-hero is finally going to get his just deserts he gets off relatively easy for supposedly committing a serious crime.

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."

It is not. Rather, you could say that it is congruous, or, seeking the more emphatic tone, apposite.

No. Irony is when the outcome of a state of affairs is opposite the expected one. The movie being about financial scams implies nothing about the making of the movie.

Now, if the Wolf of Wall Street criticized (or made fun of) financial scam funded movies, that would be ironic.

> Irony is when the outcome of a state of affairs is opposite the expected one.

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"?

:-)

>Like making a movie ... which one would expect it would be ... not "a financial scam"

I think you have better expectations of the film industry than I do :-)

hahaha fair enough! :)

No, that would be hypocritical.

It would be both