In The Art of Watching Films, Dennis Petrie and Joseph Boggs claim that “One of the most difficult prejudices to overcome is that which leads us to dismiss certain categories of films,” and we certainly can acknowledge the veracity of at least half of that claim. We make decisions about what we like and dislike oftentimes based on limited experiences, and we then allow ourselves to be guided almost entirely by those snap judgments. One person catches twenty minutes of an old black and white film as an adolescent and then categorically rejects black and white films from his future movie choices. Another is forced to endure an annual television viewing of The Sound of Music with her family and, having heard “Do-Re-Mi” a few hundred too many times, refuses to ever see a musical again. We make similar judgments about actors, directors, and styles of film. But are we really ensuring that we don’t waste time watching movies we know we’ll hate, or are we limiting our opportunities to experience different worldviews, potentially great art, or even just some great entertainment? When we limit ourselves based on the film prejudices we’ve developed throughout our lives, what are we missing out on?
Once upon a time, I hated Will Ferrell. Well, “hate” is a strong word, but I certainly did not appreciate his style of humor. "He's stupid," I thought. (Real mature attitude there, teach.) I refused to watch any movie he played a major role in. Then one day, I decided to give him another chance. I was bored and has time to kill. I couldn’t find anything that grabbed my attention at the video store, so I rent a copy of Elf. 
That was eight years ago, and to this day, Elf remains part of my annual Christmas movie marathon. In fact, I usually watch it at least twice every holiday season. After that, I was open to viewing more Will Ferrell films, and Stranger Than Fiction joined my list of all-time favorite movies as well. What if I had continued to let my prejudice dictate my movie choices? I would have missed out on some of my favorite entertainment, not to mention a profoundly intellectual and philosophical insight into two of my favorite mediums of entertainment—film and literature. Now when I catch myself dismissing a movie because of a particular actor, I refer to my Will Ferrell experiment as a reminder that my original assumptions may not be correct. In fact, I have to tell myself this every time I see that Rene Zellwegger in a film. (She's sooooo annoying!) I haven't given up on her, but she has failed to win me over yet.
Consider you own film prejudices. Before watching Stranger Than Fiction, what did you expect from the film? What did you expect the experience of watching the film to be like? How well did you expect to enjoy the movie? Did your preconceived beliefs about the film change after watching it? Why or why not?
Like literature, music, or any art other form, some movies are created with the primary purpose of entertainment while others are meant to be more artistic and profound. But every film has the potential to be both entertaining and enlightening if we are willing to suspend our personal prejudices and approach it analytically. Some people believe that analysis voids our ability to enjoy a book, a song, or even a movie, but the opposite is actually true. Analysis deepens our appreciation and allows us to sharpen our judgments. With this understanding, contrast your personal opinion with your analysis of Stranger Than Fiction. In what ways is your personal opinion of the movie different from your professional opinion of it? In other words, how well did the film measure up to your individual standards vs. how well it stood up under artistic scrutiny?
Postmodernism has so many meanings that are distinct and dissimilar. One definition described that postmodernism proposes that many blatant realities are only socially formulated and they are subject to change. Post modernism also explains that irony, parody and humor are positions that can’t be criticized in artistic work. The protagonist is completely humorous in every way. I liked when the watch seemed to have a personality and opinion but refused to voice anything to Harold. The characters in the film are unrealistic in real life to me. I believed at the beginning that it was an odd film method for a real person to hear an author speak about the character’s lives in their head. I think it was a good story and that they used an Artistic Semblance of truth. The protagonist lives a dull meaningless, lonely life that is very structured and organized. He doesn’t see this as a problem until he is facing his own imminent death. He realized he had no joy in his life. The film is trying to convey to the audience to live life to the fullest. The moral of the story is life is too short to be unhappy. Harold tries to change many things about his life. He tries changing his patterns to be more spontaneous. He even considers breaking rules at his job that he would never have done before now. Karen, the author of the fictional book, is also seen as living an unhappy unfulfilling life. After she finishes her book and realizes she can have happy ending in her novels as well as real life, she seems to change her hairstyle, clothing and other aspects of her personal appearance. The film is a narrative film with the author describing in the protagonists head every aspect of his life. Having a narrative point of view as well as the subject’s point of view ties this story to both film and literature. It is like having the best of both worlds describing both sides of the story to us. One version is the protagonist’s story and the other is the omniscient author’s version.
ReplyDeleteI have personally struggled with film and actor prejudices in the past. Most of the time, I am drug against my own will when a romantic, sappy movie hits the local big screen. I have a huge prejudice against these kinds of movies because why would you want to see a movie and cry? Needless to say, when I saw that we were viewing “Stranger that Fiction” with Will Ferrell the comedy-lover in me was excited! I expected the film to mimic the hilarious, witty, and sometimes-raunchy humor that normally accompany Will’s movies; I expected to laugh my way through the class period. I did not, however.
ReplyDeleteAs the film progressed, my preconceived notions that the movie would unfold humorously were abolished as Harold, the protagonist, faced a very odd inner struggle. He heard a woman’s voice in his head and she was narrating the various events that occurred in his life. As this occurs, I began to ask why? Why was this happening? What’s the purpose? It seemed as if the movie had become a riddle. Thus, I began to see that throughout the movie, there was evident symbolism. To name a few: Harold’s watch, the bulldozer tearing down his apartment, and the apple. Harold’s watch poses as a symbol to the normality and monotony of his life. Much like a clock turns twenty-four hours a day, seven times a week, 365 times a year ceaselessly, his life follows the same pattern; Harold’s life follows a strict pattern that is never interrupted by an outside source. He lives every monotonous day the same as the day before, just as the watch turned monotonously today as it did yesterday. Also, the startling scene where Harold was sitting in his apartment and the bulldozer tore into his apartment is also a form of symbolism. It signifies that sometimes life has its own plan and will interrupt normality when it sees fit. Harold’s life was virtually turned upside down by all of the recent events in his life, and the bulldozer is a symbol to the madness of his current situation. Finally, the apple was a symbol. Sitting unharmed along with the other apples, it is knocked out into the street where it rolls, picking up pace, down hill. The apple is also a symbol for Harold’s life. Harold was once a lone man, unharmed and in his correct spot in life, but one day certain events caused him to spiral uncontrollably to his own fate. I realize that I am far from an expert film critic and most definitely need a lot of work on analyzing; however, small events such as these, posed as significance in my mind because they were few of the many symbols that the writers intended for the artistic and analytical audience to catch on to in their moral/philosophical riddled film.
The film was not only an enjoyable one, but also very deep. When I started to realize that various events in the movie were occurring for valid reasons, I began to analyze their meaning. I began to enjoy this movie even more when I did so because it was very interesting to see how the writers incorporated seemingly normal events in life and put reason and meaning behind them. In both my analytical view and my normal view, this movie deserves “two thumbs way up!” just as the cover states.
My first blog was a error from instructions i misunderstood from blackboard. This is my revision.
ReplyDeleteI have seen a lot of films over the years. I know some films I have seen so many times I could probably recite half the films dialogue. Other films I can see one time and think it was cute and never see it again. I am generally open to watching just about any film and generally try new films and have been pleasantly surprised to like some unusual ones. I knew Will Ferrell was the star of this film before we started watching and I had a general idea that I would probably enjoy it. I was expecting the film to be silly funny and thought I might laugh out loud at some times. Though the film was entertaining, I didn’t experience spontaneous laughter. I love comedies, so I fully expected to enjoy Stranger Than Fiction. The protagonist is completely humorous in every way. I did actually chuckle at the part where the narrator was explaining how the watch had thoughts, ideas, and opinions. The protagonist lives a dull meaningless, lonely life that is very structured and organized. He doesn’t see this as a problem until he is facing his own imminent death. The film is trying to convey to the audience to live life to the fullest. The moral of the story is life is too short to be unhappy. I knew on a personal level that I would enjoy this film but on a professional level it was a good movie that actually had a moral to the story. I can see this film for the humor it provides and it seemed as though by the end of the movie everyone involved was generally happier. I also see this film as being a romantic comedy because Harold gets the pretty girl in the end. This tends to make for a positive experience for me. I like when things end happy on a positive note.
If you look at the patterns in movies, you may be able to see for yourself that sometimes Hollywood enforces these prejudices onto actors. With the technique of typecasting, you rarely ever see see Michael Cera as anything but an awkward teenager. Thanks to typecasting, Zooey Deschanel is hardly ever in a role other than Manic Pixie Dreamgirl™. Even Arnold Schwarzeneggar usually is either an outrageous action movie hero or some purposefully effeminate role in efforts to satirize his past works. It is hard to not develop a preconceived notion on a movie with key actors if Hollywood is holding the same prejudices when casting these roles.
ReplyDeleteThese prejudgments in film are not limited to actors, as all may well know, but extends to the other aspects of a movie. Almost all movies in the genre of "romantic comedy" or centered around romance I make sure to steer clear of. Another case in which I commonly see movies disappoint me or just amount to a waste of time are reboots of pop culture from around the 80's to 90's. Even by just the director I feel as if I know how poorly a movie will play out, one example being any M. Night Shyamalan after The Sixth Sense. However, if I stuck to these prejudices, I would have never seen Spotless Sunshine of the Eternal mind, never wished to see The Muppet Movie, or, well, at least I got a good laugh out of The Happening.
As for Stranger Than Fiction, I was expecting Ferrel's wacky and zany humor. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing; as someone who loves to laugh as much as I do, I do not have too high of standards on comedy. (That is, unless it becomes unnecessarily vulgar or the punchlines are "monkeycheese.") This expectation made me caught off guard when his character was nothing like his role in Anchorman. Even with Tony Hale's appearance, my first inclination was "Buster Bluth!!!" Except, in this case, I did not honestly expect him to be in the same manchild role as before due to seeing him perform only once before, but the fact that the first thing I noticed was not the character has was playing but a character he played in the past was an example of that prejudice again.
Even with this formula for a roaring comedy and the subsequent surprise of its seriousness, it did not ruin the movie experience for me. Instead, I started looking at it from a different viewpoint and not focusing on Will Ferrell and his antics but reflecting on the actual plot. Even though Ferrell might have been the main protagonist, I was more caught up in the character of the author. As a person who wants to create characters of their own one day, the struggle of letting go of a character was relevant to me.
The depths do not stop at the entire allegory of fleshing out a character in the story, but continued to have another level of seriousness. The movie also advocated that you are in charge of your own life to at least some extent. It promotes that this is true even if it seems all odds are against you. With this message in mind, even under the light overtones, the ambition of the movie seemed more serious than one would expect. I enjoyed viewing it personally, but professionally I appreciate it beyond "enjoyment", as multiple meaningful messages were expressed and all of them done so tastefully.
Well, like you, I too am very caution when approaching a Will Ferral movie. Too me he is a very hit an miss actor so whenever I get ready to watch a film starring him I am always a little doubtful. I have simply seen too many of his immature comedies such as Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers. I even used to enjoy watching Anchorman as it was the first of his streak of movies with this similar style of comedy, but after another came out and then another I began to rethink my evaluation of Will Ferral. I really enjoy him when his comedy doesn’t have the immature, cocky style to it. Movies like Stranger Than Fiction, Elf, and Bewitched are all movies I have really enjoyed and would enjoy watching again, but I am always remind of those other when starting a Will Ferral movies and I start to wonder if this will be a good Will Ferral or a bad one. As for my personal prejudices against movies, somehow I have developed an aversion to high drama movies. My brother is constantly harassing me because I have never taken the time to see any of the Godfather movies or even Scarface, but I’ll watch The Lord of The Rings over and over. I can’t really say why I don’t want to watch that style of movies, but the desire simply isn’t there. To be truthful, I don’t even know that much about them. As far as my preconceived notions about Stranger Than Fiction, all I can remember is that I wanted to see the movies when it came out, but it passed by and I must have a forgotten about it so I never got around to renting it. It was pretty clear to me, however, that this had potential to be one of Will Ferral’s better movies because being in the situation the character was in, structured life turned upside down by the narrator, it didn’t seem to leave much room for Will Ferral to start with that cock, immature style of character. It would seem I guessed right, as I really enjoyed the movie, and am starting to think back on how many others I missed because I simply can’t remember to rent them if I miss them in theaters.
ReplyDeleteAs we first started to watch Stranger Than Fiction, I was thrilled to know that Will Ferrell would be the main character. His sarcasm, facial expressions, and personality always have me laughing off the edge of my seat. In this film however, I was not hysterically laughing as I thought I would be. Harold, the protagonist, is on a daily routine set by his trusty watch. He always has a certain amount of strokes while brushing his teeth, never steps on a crack on the sidewalk, and a certain routine to encounter the bus ride to work. He lives a boring and lonely life. Harold starts to hear a voice, a narrator, speaking about his daily actions. He begins to ask random people if they hear the voice too. Harold thinks he may be going crazy until he meets a professor who listens to him and helps him. Only then, when he finds the author of the book that he seems to be in, does he have to face his own death. I was expecting this film to blow me away with an abundance of laughter, although it did not, it ended up to be entertaining. My beliefs about the film did change after watching it. I think Will Ferrell did a great job as the protagonist, and he did not need his odd comedy to make this a film an unforgettable one. My opinion of Stranger Than Fiction is that the film was comical in an dry real life way. For instance, he met a girl and fell in love, and then the narrator was undoubtedly going to kill him off in her book. Also, Harold gets hit by the bus while trying to save a child and, accidents happen like this every day. My professional opinion of this film was it was greatly portrayed and had a purpose behind the story, which I believe is to not waste time doing nothing and find your purpose for being on this earth.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I heard that the class was going to watch a Will Ferrell movie, I thought that it was going to be a stupid movie. I am not a big fan of Will Ferrell. I rarely enjoy his movies. I did not expect to enjoy this movie at all, but the more that I watched it, the more I liked it. My preconceived beliefs about the film did change about half way through the movie. It was not Will Ferrell himself that changed it, it was the story line. I loved it. I thought that it was going to be a tragedy, but in the end the movie surprised me. I liked how he fell in love with the baker, and how she fell for him. When he found out that he is in a novel, he tries to find the author of the book. When she tells him that he has to be killed, he accepts that it has to happen so the book will be a masterpiece. I enjoyed how the author of the book has a change in heart and does not kill him off. That part of the movie is what really surprised me. I learned that everyone has a purpose on earth. I would recommend this movie to everyone.
ReplyDelete