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 had 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 nine 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 is in a film. (She's sooooo annoying!) I haven't given up on her, but she has failed to win me over yet.
Consider your 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 would 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 other art 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?
I thought that Stranger than Fiction would be funny, but not in such a intellectual manner. I figured there would be stupid humor, but all of the humor was different then what I expected from Will Ferrell.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I figured there wouldn't be a love story to the movie. I figured there would be a small part about the love of Harold Crick and Anna, but they displayed the two of them very much in love. This showed how much Harold was missing in his life.
I could recall that the movie was going to be about someone narrating the protagonist's life. However, I did not expect to be so in touch with the author and her depression. There were many instances through out the film were the author, Karen Eiffel, would think about her death. The different way she thought about her death would be portrayed into her books. This how Karen developed Harold's death in the novel she was writing.
The film, Stranger than Fiction, from my individual view delivered well by using great awkward humor and a love story. The actors did a great job showing that they loved each other. For example, before and after the almost death scene, of Harold Crick, both Ana and Harold hugged and kissed each other so believably that I thought of my loved ones, and how it would be if I lost one of them or just the fact of me having to leave them.
The film from an artistic view did a great job showing how Harold always worried about everything. He would count all of his brush strokes when he brushed his teeth. Harold would count the steps he took per minute while walking to the bus. Harold never stopped to enjoy life, he never took any chances. He always stuck to his general routine, sure he found a good job and a decent home, but he did not find happiness. Only until he gave up on "life" did he realize what he was missing out on. He would listen to the author, Karen, and realize these were his thoughts. He would then start taking chances, like bring flowers to Ana when she was off work, not counting brush strokes, and not counting his steps.
I believe that the moral of the story is to not become too attached to the every day routine. And not worry about the small stuff, to take life in to the fullest, and take chances before it's over.
At the end of the film, as Karen Eiffel is narrating, she conveys the film's theme rather explicitly, which is close to what you have articulated here: "The little things that we imagine only accessorize are lives are here for a much greater purpose; they are here to save our lives." I am paraphrasing, but she cites several examples as well, including Ana's Bavarian sugar cookies, a comforting embrace, a loving gesture, and, of course, Harold's watch.
DeleteSince I had seen trailers of this film when it was released, I knew that it was not a typical Will Farrell movie with physical comedy and toilet humor. The trailers also showed that Harold Crick (the protagonist) hears his life narrated in his head, so I was expecting this as well. I expected some humor and was pleasantly surprised that it was a deeper, more intellectual and clever style of humor. The thing that made me laugh was clever dialogue instead of predictable pratfalls.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t sure if I would like the film, as Will Ferrell tends to be an actor who comes on pretty strong, and a little goes a long way for me. I was impressed with the ease with which he delivered this part. It was better than I expected.
This film received two thumbs up from Roger Ebert. I would give it a generous 3 stars out of 5. It was pretty good but not really good. It certainly did not change my life. It was a good choice for film analysis, but definitely needed to be viewed more than once in order to make an informed analysis.
Artistically, however, I think it did a great job. It was a little outlandish, but the title of the film kind of announced that. An author narrating on a man’s head is definitely stranger than fiction. I liked that during the exposition we learn that the protagonist, Harold Crick, 2 dimensional at the beginning of the film. He was always dressed in a suit and tie and always clean shaven. He kept the same schedule every day. Brushed his teeth the same number of strokes, walked the same route to the bus, took exactly the same amount of time for lunch and coffee breaks, worked diligently—no visiting or small talk.
I liked that Anna was such a great contrast to Harold. Anna was 3 dimensional. She was complex. She broke the rules by paying only 78% of her taxes as a statement of how she disagrees tax spending. Her meet-cute with Harold was hostile and confrontational. She verbally harassed him, made his auditing duties as difficult as she could, yet baked him cookies as an apologetic offering. She is initially presented as an obnoxious person, but is quite friendly and empathetic. She visits with her customers, and feeds the homeless man cupcakes. Visually, she is also much different than Harold. She has a half sleeve of tattoos, dresses “hippy chic”, has a carefree, spontaneous outlook on life. She’s a non-conformist. This paring was very engaging to me. She had a profound effect on Harold. He began to loosen up, enjoy life, and step outside the box.
I liked that Harold began as a flat character, but with the influence of Anna, the professor, and the thought of his eminent death he changed. He cared less about following his daily rituals, he dressed more casually, he had fun, learned to play guitar, and allowed himself to break the rules of fraternization with an auditee by falling in love with Anna. His character went from flat to dynamic. For me, this was the best part of the film, although, Harold wasn’t the only character to change. Karen Eiffel, whose claim to fame as an author was to kill off the main character in each of her books, changed as well. While writing, she is a neurotic, unkempt, disheveled, suicidal, chain smoking hot mess. After changing her pattern of denouement and allowing her character, Harold, to survive the accident at the climax of her book, she learns that she, too, can step outside the box by changing her writing style. When her manuscript is complete, she appears calm, rational, showered and blow dried, confident and satisfied. She doesn’t doubt her writing ability anymore. Her ten-year dry spell is over.
To me, the film was much better as I analyzed it than it was from my personal opinion. I’m not sure why just yet. I think some class discussion and further analysis will help me to understand this.
I too was surprised and rather impressed with the restraint Will Ferrell exemplified in this role. It was refreshing to see him act in a more serious comedy than his usual films and to pull it off so well.
DeleteI have to admit that, like most film viewers, I carry some preconceived ideas about how a film is going to turn out based on who directed it or which actors are starring in it. Most of the time, however, I only do this in a positive light. For example: if James Cameron is producing a film then I am going to expect it to be phenomenal. There aren't many factors that can persuade me not to watch a film, but if a movie has a bad title then tend to overlook it. When we started watching Stranger than Fiction, I immediately looked at the title and tried to figure out what the film would be about. I thought it was going to be a fantasy or sci-fi flick, and then when I saw that Will Ferrell was in it I thought it was going to be a comedy. I was definitely not prepared for this movie to be so profound and I was pleasantly surprised by it. The film really balanced out the heavy storyline of Harold's impending death by throwing in the right amount of humor and romance. It wasn't “in your face” but it lightened the mood when necessary.
ReplyDeleteAnalytically speaking, this movie was outstanding. The story line was interesting, thought provoking, and unpredictable. There are so many factors that come into play when analyzing this film and it is hard to define what the true message is. On the one hand, it could be about seizing the day and living life to the fullest but on the other hand it could be about sacrificing something precious for the greater good. Harold Crick doesn't really start live until he breaks away from his boring routine and begins to do things for himself. Right when he has begun to enjoy life, though, he has to make a tough decision about whether or not he would be willing to die in order to save a little boys life and ultimately be a part of Kay Eiffel's greatest masterpiece. Artistically, it challenged conventional films by incorporating interesting visual techniques to give the audience a better understanding of what goes on in Harold Crick's brain. As he goes about his life and obsessive routines, a jumble of numbers and equations fly around him to show us what his life has become. My observations only scratch the surface, but after briefly analyzing and re-watching Stranger Than Fiction I would have to agree with Kris Martin in saying that this film seems much better now than it did when I first saw it.
I agree with you that after my second time watching the film it made so much more sense. It was as if all the pieces fell together. Also, I do think that there are many messages portrayed in this film. You could even call them life lessons. Do you think that if the film were completely serious with no humor or romance that you would have liked it as well?
DeleteNo, if there was no humor or romance I think the film would have been too dark and hard to follow. I wouldn't have been able to pay as much attention and probably would have got bored with it very easily.
DeleteWhich life lessons did you take away from the film?
The life lesson that I took from the film is that even though doing something might not be what you want, it could change someone else's life drastically for the good. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices so that others can have a good life.
DeleteBefore watching Stranger than Fiction I expected the film to be not only funny but also good since Will Ferrell stars in it. Good due to my personal opinion of enjoying practically every film he stars in, and funny since mostly all his films have comedy in them like Step Brothers, Elf, and Night at the Roxbury. I expected the film to be enjoyable with at least a bit of humor in each scene, but being a fan of Will Ferrell’s humor of course I was expecting to enjoy the film. My preconceived beliefs on the film possibly had an unconscious favoritism for the film due to Will Ferrell starring in the film, but stacked up against some of his other films like Step Brothers and Night at the Roxbury; Stranger than Fiction did not quite meet my expectations. My expectations were not quite met to the full extent because of the woman’s voice that was running through his head. It seemed to be kind of annoying to me since the voice was monotone. The woman’s voice could have possibly been a deal breaker on my likeness of the movie if Will Ferrell did not star in the film. My personal opinion and “professional” opinion differ slightly with my personal opinion of enjoying the film with one of my favorite actors in it and a nice guy finishes first ending to the movie with an annoying narrative voice being the only thing keeping the film from being a good movie instead of just mediocre. The nice guy finishing first type of ending, with Harold Crick falling in love with Ana Pascal, is important to me in a film because I believe it gives hope to some people in real life when things are not going the way they would like them to at the time. My “professional” opinion on the film as a whole likes the narrative voice because it kept me wondering why the voice is going off in his head and why he is the only one that can hear it. The voice also comes to make sense to the title of the film once Harold finds out his life is in fact a fictional story written by a dried up writer; which is not so fictional when he finds himself facing his death due to the ending of the writer’s “fictional” novel therefore makes it stranger than fiction.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! I am a huge, I mean HUGE Will Farrell fan. I thought for sure we would all be laughing throughout the entire movie. I love every film that I have seen him star in. My expectations weren't met either from my personal view, however they met and exceeded my analytical expectations.
DeleteI did not personally believe that the movie would be any good. The reason why I did not believe that it would be any good was because Will Ferrell starred in the movie. I have not liked a majority of the films he has starred in. Therefore, I did not believe that this one would be good either.
ReplyDeleteThe movie started out boring and slow. At the beginning, all it did was tell you about the way Harold Crick lived his life. It also told you exactly how many individual brushes he made with his tooth brush. It informed you how he would walk to the bus, how he would tie his tie, and much more. It was very informative, as far as his detailed life.
It began to become more interesting once everything began to happen. For example, once he began to actually hear the narrator speaking. None the less, I would be scared and confused if somebody started talking about my life and I was the only person that could hear it. He started to almost go crazy, completely understandable. He started freaking out in public, by the bus stop, because the narrator began to tell about his life and what he was doing. He did try to advise people of what he was going through, but nobody understood because they could not hear the narrator.
The movie actually changed my personal opinion for Will Ferrell. He made that movie very well. He was not immature nor childish, much like his other movies. I also agree that the title of the movie makes perfect sense. In the fact that it literally was stranger than fiction. The reason why it was in fact stranger than fiction, was because not many people hear voices in their head. However, Harold Krick did believe he heard voices in his head. Also, it had an amazing ending! The fact that he found the narrator and convinced her to change the ending of the story. Not every hero has to die!
Based on the trailers for Stranger Than Fiction, I expected the movie to be an enjoyable comedy about Will Ferrell yelling at a voice that only he could hear. After learning that it would be the first film to analyze for this class, I started to expect a bit more. I expected that maybe the plot of the movie would be more dramatic than comedic. I still expected to enjoy the viewing experience. My preconceived beliefs about the film changed quite a bit. I certainly did not expect there to be a lot of character development in this “comedy”. The three major characters, Harold Crick, Ana Pascal, and Karen Eiffel, evolved drastically making them dynamic characters.
ReplyDeleteHarold Crick, an average IRS agent, believed heavily in routine, taking the exact same amount of time each day for lunch and coffee breaks. He brushes his teeth the exact same way, counting the brushstrokes, and he ties his tie in the same way every week day. After hearing a voice narrate his life and after accepting his imminent doom, Harold decides to live the life he has always wanted to live. He learns to play the guitar and stops depending on his routine. He takes some time off work. He even works up the courage to tell Ana, the woman he is auditing, that he wants her, breaking auditor-auditee protocol.
Ana, a free spirited baker, made a point to only pay the taxes that she believed were good causes. Ana greets Harold with resentment because he is the taxman. After a few aggressive confrontations with Harold, she feels bad and bakes him cookies. She begins to really like Harold after he finally confesses that he wants her.
Karen Eiffel is a writer of many successful tragedies in which the protagonists die at the end. She has had writer’s block for ten years and cannot figure out how to kill the protagonist of the story she is writing. She doesn’t know how to kill Harold Crick. Karen is somewhat of a mess. She is a stressed out chain-smoker who envisions herself dying in various ways, looking for inspiration for her novel. She is looking for the right way to kill Harold Crick. Karen is distraught when she finds out that Harold Crick is real. She remembers all the other protagonists in her stories that she killed. She recalls that they were good people, and she decides not to kill Harold. She changes the climax of the story to save Harold’s life. Another award winning title in which the protagonist dies was not worth a human life, especially not a good guy like Harold. She was alright with finishing an “okay” book.
In my personal opinion, I would rate this film as a 2.5 or 3 out of 5 stars. However, my professional opinion differs. I would say on a more professional scale, Stranger Than Fiction deserves a 4 out of 5 stars. Personally I did not enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped, but it did prove to have great literary value. The character development was very touching. Harold found love. Ana discovered that people are not always who they seem to be. Karen overcomes her writer’s block with a different type of ending, and saves a life.
Before I watched "Stranger Than Fiction" my film prejudices kicked in quite a bit. Because I have never heard of the film, I expected it to be a boring amateur film. I assumed that the film, like most amateur films, would have little or no underlying meaning. I thought that the next two hours of my life were going to be the most dull in my life. Unfortunately, I expected the film to be nothing spectacular at all. Luckily, after watching this film my beliefs were proven wrong and I actually enjoyed the movie very much. I even recommended it to some of my friends. I believe that my views about the film changed after I watched it because the film actually has a purpose.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion after watching "Stranger Than Fiction" was that it the film was very well thought out. Even though I looked at the film analytically, it was still enjoyable for entertainment purposes. Personally, the film now has a five star rating in my book. I am a sucker for love stories, especially whenever the man is heroic. My professional opinion does not differ much from my personal opinion. The film exceeded my individual standards because of how well the plot was thought out. I also feel that the film sits high on an artistic scale also. Looking at the "big picture" behind the story line gave me a new appreciation for the films that I see as "amateur". For instance, the fact that the writer, Karen Eiffel, was the voice in Herald's head was baffling. It surprised me to see that the story she was writing was almost controlling Herald. The film was artist ally amazing because at the end of the movie the title finally makes sense. All of the events in Herald's life are "Stranger Than Fiction" because his story is being written by an author who writes fiction. It is extremely strange that the fictional story is actual non fiction. This is artistically outstanding because the film is much stranger than actual fiction.
I am a sucker for love stories too.
DeleteI want to start off by saying; Will Farrell is by far one of my all- time favorite actors of our time. I had never seen the movie Stranger than Fiction, before viewing it in our class, however, every movie that I have seen him star in has had me crying with laughter from start to finish! With that being said, I was expecting to be laughing all through class. I was excited to experience a new Will Farrell movie in class, and shocked that I had never even seen it before, c considering how hard core of a fan I am of him! Before watching the movie, I was expecting him to play a silly dumb character, like he does in almost every movie he is in. I knew before watching this film that without a doubt I would thoroughly enjoy this film.
ReplyDeleteMy beliefs about the film however did change a bit at the end of class after finishing watching it. It was still very entertaining and had several comical moments through the movie, but it wasn’t exactly what I thought it would be. You had to pay close attention to the movie and small details throughout the whole film, which if you’ve seen any Will Farrell movies you would know that that’s not always what you have to do. There were several key elements about the movie, but you had to analyze the moments to really understand what the movie was trying to tell you. I wasn’t laughing through the whole movie like I thought I was going to be, instead, I was hanging by the end of my seat trying to figure out all of the pieces. I knew his watch was an important symbol in the movie and I was trying to figure out how it was all going to come together.
I had very high standards for this movie comically. Stranger than Fiction didn’t meet my comical standards, but it made up for it in the dramatical sense. From an analyzing stand point, the movie did a great job showing how Harold wasn’t really “living his life,” the way he should have been. He was always worried about the small things in life, and had a set schedule and never swayed away from his schedule. As the story unfolds it showed Harold start to care about more important things, he started to see the “bigger picture,” he even fell in love! Also, while analyzing the movie I loved the ironic ending. I absolutely loved how his watch, which was the key to his timely schedule which lead him to never really “live his life, “ was what ultimately saved his life!
In my opinion, Stranger than Fiction was a much better movie to analyze than it was for a comic relief. It was still a magnificent movie, and just helped secure Will Farrell as one of my all-time favorite actors!
I'm glad you enjoyed the film even if it wasn't in the way you had expected and that you were afforded the opportunity to discover a new film by one of your favorite actors.
DeleteI have actually watched Stranger Than Fiction before, but I had not known the name of it. The movie was on one day and I sat through it, so obviously it kept my attention well enough. At first I wasn't sure that I would enjoy the movie thinking of my own prejudice of Will Ferrell. A few of him movies I found way too lowbrow for my taste. I also really don't enjoy movies after seeing it once already. However, I did enjoy Stranger Than Fiction regardless of having seeing it before. I actually chuckled a bit at jokes I already knew would happen. In no way did I expect to enjoy the movie a second time with an actor like Will Ferrell as a main character, but I did. The humor was intelligent, the plot twist was semi obvious, but it was better hidden than others have been, and the story was easy enough to follow without being mediocre.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion would be that the movie was good, easy to follow, and semi-humorous. As long as a movie can keep my attention and I don't want to jump out of my seat and run for the hills it is considered good. More professionally though, it was strong in the demand on the audience for interpretation. The larger vocabulary could confuse some though. I'm sure that some have not been able to follow the movie due to the vocabulary of the author's narrative. The movie was well made, it didn't require great graphics or CGI, it took place in a real world setting.
The switches between reality and the author's imagining of death scenes, left people wondering what really was the reality of the movie at times. I'm sure I heard a collective gasp from the class during her imagining of the car crash leaving her to fall into the river below. The movement of the story was great. It took something totally unimaginable to break the main character of his organized lifestyle. He ended up realizing his hate for his job, making him more normal and easier to affiliate with, he fell in love, and he had his first cookie.
In my honest opinion, Stranger Than Fiction was a great movie. It kept my attention, it was well written and interpreted, and it took the audience on a journey through a world within our own.
When we first started discussing what to expect in the film and what Stranger Than Fiction was about; I thought maybe I had already seen it, even once the film started I thought maybe I had but still did not have quite the idea of what to expect. I initially thought the film would be along the humor lines in Step Brothers and Elf but that is not the experience I had at all with this film. I found myself getting rather lost throughout the movie. I did not understand the movie fully until about the last ten or twenty minutes. I thought the author was some time of angle of death until later finding out she was an author. My expectations for the humor in this movie were not accurate to the humor actually in the film. I know of several people who find this as both a funny and humorous film but that wasn’t the case for me. In a professional outlook, I thought this movie was a well-made and well-written film. As a more personal view, I found it as a not so well made or well-written film. Stranger Than Fiction was more or less, not my “cup of tea.” Over all I did not think this film was all that bad by the end when I finally figured out everything that was going on but throughout the film I continually found myself lost and questioning so many things that had occurred. I felt as if there were however a lot of hidden lessons that could have been learned through the film. Some of these lessons could include that everyone has a narrator in their life but it is just their conscience instead. Also, another example is that Harold was taught to love life with every single little step of the way and to never take a moment for granted. This movie could be used as a good lesson once you get to the end.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI personally do not like to judge a movie by the actor or actresses that are in that movie. So I thought that stranger than fiction was going to be very humorous. The reason being is because Will Ferrell is known for comedy. The movies that I have seen Will Ferrell starring in have had everyone in the room laugh at least every 5 to 10 minutes. This movie did not do that at all, I might of laughed a couple of times during the movie. But it wasn’t hilarious like most of his movies are.
I expected the experience to be very good because of who was starring in it. But the movie ended up starting off very slow showing that Harold Crick lived his life exactly the same every day, from brushing his teeth so many times, to tying his tie with one knot instead of two because it saved time, to counting the steps to the bus stop, so on and so forth. Until the day he could hear the narrator talk in his head.
I expected to enjoy the movie because Will Ferrell was in it. However, there is something with me and school movies (as I call it). Where if I have seen a movie before and I like it and watch it in school it is fine but if I see a movie for the first time ever at school there is a very small chance that I will ever watch that movie for fun, even if I did enjoy the movie or not. No my preconceived beliefs did not change because I enjoyed this film very much but it was nothing of what I expected it to be with Will Ferrell in it. If I want to go and see a funny movie I usually try to find a Will Ferrell movie but this movie had very very little comedy in it. I really did not expect this movie to turn into more so of a love story like it did.
My personal and professional analysis for “Stranger than Fiction” is very artistic. Unlike most movies I believe it had a lot of detail from the numbers in the air, showing how many times he brushed his teeth, walked to the bus, how many dishes he put away every night, and at work when his co-workers would ask him a math problem that most people would need a calculator for. Harold never actually lived “life” to the fullest. He just lived life the same every single day until the narrator started getting in his head. Then he ended up meeting Anna and fell in love. Harold also learned to play the guitar which is one thing he wanted to do and he actually did it.
My favorite thing about this movie is Harold actually living life to the fullest at the end because he doesn’t know when or where he may die. But he saved a little boy’s life not even thinking about his own.
I agree with you on the movie not being as funny as what a Will Ferrell type of film usually is, and being a big fan of Will he disappointed me in this movie with not being very humorous.
Delete