Bobby raises an interesting point about the ending of Stranger Than Fiction. If you haven’t seen the movie and you don’t want to know how it ends, stop reading now and don’t read the comments on the original Stranger Than Fiction post.
In many ways, Stranger Than is thoroughly postmodern, breaking down barriers between author and subject, inverting expectations, and toying (for lack of a better term) with features of modernity (boy meets girl story, the prevalence of Mies van der Rohe architecture, characters named for mathematicians, the playful GIU interface/overlay imposing structure on an unstructured world).
But I wonder; at what point does posmodernity lead to such an inversion of expectations regarding “Hollywood endings” that stories go full circle back to the Hollywood ending? The viewer recognizes that a story is postmodern (or perhaps quirky) and begins to anticipate that the story will not have the kind of ending where everything is wrapped up in a nice package. That is to say, this kind of quirky story usually (or in its best form, so the viewer thinks) has an ending that is, well, not fully resolved. Stranger, though, inverts the postmodern form itself, providing a happy ending—which is in reality the unexpected ending.
All that to say, as I watched the movie I was pretty certain that Harold would die. So when the author finds a way for him to live, that actually inverted my expectations regarding how a quirky, postmodern movie would play out.
Like I said in the beginning, Stranger Than Fiction would make a great discussion starter (there are many other things in the movie worth discussion if you don't enjoy discussions of postmodern story telling). Or maybe I just can’t enjoy a movie without over thinking it. But that’s why you love me.
Wow, this is like a real blog post. It must be the cold medicine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Re: "Hollywood endings." Unlike you, I never truly believed he would die, though there was a space of about two minutes where my hope was rising. The reason is because I never perceived this movie to be in the same vain as the quirky movies I think you're referring to. While it is quirky and postmodern, it's also a big budget movie that needed several successful weekends to cover its costs. My gut told me they'd never let word get out of a sad ending, which usually spells low box office. If this movie had been made for less money (even with the same stars), and distributed by an independent company, and left to flounder marketing wise like so many other small, clever movies, then I would have expected more of a tragic ending. In fact, if the movie HAD been a small, independent movie, and it had the exact same story/ending, THAT audience would have been disappointed by the HAPPY ending, and it would never reach the level of classic BECAUSE it failed to kill the main character to make a point. It's all about the box office and/or cult status.
Also, if I may blather, for my money, STF is the poor man's Adaptation. (I'm not the first to say that by a longshot.) For me, the most interesting thing about STF is what it shares with Adaptation (or rips off, depending on your level of cynicism), and that is the postmodern motif of a character in the film actively unfolding the movie on his or her whim. In STF it's Emma Thompson, who is "writing" Will Ferrell's life. In Adaptation, it's first Charlie, then around the third act, it's Donald, both of whom are "writing" the movie we are watching. When Adaptation shifts into car chases and explosions, it is clear (for me, not at first) that Donald has taken over the script. It's that subtle revelation that makes the movie superior as an exploration of artist/art/audience, while the same sort of revelation comes so early in STF -- and in fact is part of the marketing -- that it's reduced to being just the first blip on Will's path to love. (It'd be fun to throw The Truman Show in the mix here too, for its ideas on escape from a "creator," but it's been awhile since I've seen that one.) Bottom line is that I was so reminded of Adaptation while watching STF, that I was constantly aware of its lack of intellectual force, which Adaptation has in bulk, and practically forced to NOT take it seriously. For reasons unnecessary to explain here, I saw the movie twice. Once on a Friday, then again the very next day. I'll say this, the cool visual design/graphics of the movie were, upon repeat viewing, revealed to be a bold but extraneous crutch for the story, which did not hold up so well.
Sidenote: I liked Stranger Than Fiction.
And finally: I wonder if Will Ferrell felt a little deja vu in this movie, having already made Melinda & Melinda, a movie that explores the possibility of the same story told twice, once as a comedy, once as a tragedy.
MrG and Bobby,
I thought he would die, and then was disappointed that he didn't. I do suspect that a sad ending would've made for a stronger box office by the way. Certainly it was a disappointment.
I have not seen Adaptation.
Oddly enough, I had dinenr with my graduate school mentor and he asked me if I had seen it. I told him of my disappointment with the ending and told him that the film shied away from death. He responded (in theological terms) "You mean that the film is afraid of the cross?" I've been thinking about his response for awhile.
Ralph Woods (of "The Gospel According to Tolkien" fame) has said that one reason why "Christian" movies are so uniformally dreadful is because of their inability to convincingly portray evil. When you count swear words and measure hemlines, it is difficult to portray the real world convincingly.
I wonder if there is not some of that at work here. As a society, we are anesthetized to the idea of pain and a popular movie cannot sustain its success without protecting the audience from avoiding that pain. Few realistic portrayals of sacrifice and hardship are successful.
Unfortunately, I think that the church is worse than the world on this avoidance of pain.
Gents,
Good and helpful points. Very insightful. I need to re-watch Adaptation and Melinda & Melinda.
Many thanks.
Yesterday, quite randomly, my work friend Dom asked me if I'd seen STF and what I thought of it. I told him in a nutshell what I blathered here the other day, and he agreed. Now, Dom is a mass-moviegoer kind of guy. Loves big, popcorn movies, and generally doesn't go for the indie angle. So I was surprised when he said he agreed with me about the end. He also felt like WF should've died. This tells me more about the scope of the filmmakers' gaffe than anything we've said here.
I actually thought Emma was going to end up scripting her own death, which would enable WF to live on. This parallels more theological and would have been that zinger to supply the intrigue needed to sell at the box office.
Have emma write great novels, & she partners w/ Queen who puts the final death sequence into them. Emma- after getting to know WF- to save him, has him do something that causes Emma and Queen to die.
But as an engineer what do I know...other than there are 23*45=1035 tiles in our bathroom.
FI
Actually, FI (Fluid Ice? Is that really you?!) The sacrificial Emma angle is a great idea. Never occured to me -- and you're right, it would satisfy the bloodlust of folks like us, AND allow WF to live. Perfect. If only.
Post a Comment