Ode to Stranger than Fiction...
(read no further if you have not seen this film. Go see it)
I write this in hopes that I will be able to capture all my flashing thoughts and impressions about this truly novel work. This movie was surprisingly well done and of real value. Watching it was almost refreshing due to the fact that I literally forgot anything that can compare to it this year. When the credits started rolling, I immediately started to compare it to Academy Award winners of past, especially the previous winner Crash. Discussing it with Gary just a few moments prior, we concluded with two things; they are not in the same genre per se, and we would both award StF the award over Crash. Before I continue, this is not a comparison of Crash and StF. I will instead focus more on the merits of StF and why it is a legitimate contender for the big prize.
Stranger than Fiction cannot be pinned down to one "genre." Estabilishing that, it has not created its own genre as well. What is most novel about it is that it works with the nuances of many genres. Many movies in past history have indeed combined genres, but it is the execution which is most impressive about this film. Due to our lineage, most movies can be categorized in two camps; comedy and tragedy. A movie certainly can use devices of both, but can be considered one or the other when the story resolves. I am not stating that I am an expert on the classical notions of comedy and tragedy, but in my common sense knowledge of the two genres, I will contend that this movie has succeeded in combining both.
As rudimentary as it sounds, laughter is crucial to comedy. How a comedy achieves laughter is pretty important, since its sets the tone of a "sub-genre." Dark and light, "high-brow" and "low-brow" have all been terms used to describe such "sub-genres." There are many instances where the various devices of the "sub-genres" have been used to generate laughter, with the possible omission of "low-brow" humor- which is actually pretty surprising considering that Will Ferrell headlines this film. Irony is heavily employed, as well as a bit of pathos in creating laughter. After all, this film is about a hapless man who meets an untimely demise. What appeals most to me about this humor is its subtlety. One such example:
"What is your favorite word?"
"Integer"
This is a question posed by Prof Hilbert(Dustin Hoffman) to Harold Crick(Will Ferrell). Crick is portrayed as a man surrounded by numbers, filtering in his daily thoughts and dreams. The absurdity of his response is heightened by the fact that it is so second nature to Crick himself. This subtlety of humor is throughout the whole movie and I believe it executes it well.
In terms of tragedy, it does well to address the classic notions of fatal flaw and tragic hero. Harold Crick is naturally the tragic hero of the story, in which his fatal flaw is that he is too rigid, too reliant on his routine, symbolized by the omnipresent wristwatch. In equally classic fashion, he is to address that fatal flaw, but due to it, he will meet his ultimate and untimely demise. However, it deviates in terms of dramatic irony, which is central to the novelty of the whole film. Not only is the audience aware of this dramatic irony, the tragic hero in question is also made aware. This in itself pretty much states that this movie cannot be considered a tragedy in the classical sense, even if the tragic hero eventually meets the same untimely demise.
So, can it be considered more of a comedy? I will still say no, due to the tragedy elements. A comedy cannot be considered as such when the tragic hero will meet that untimely demise. In all respects, the hero did meet that demise. It just broke the classic rules. In its very nature it cannot be classified within more of one or the other cause it violates the rules of each. Yet it shares the very elements of both. Some might contend that it does not belong in either due to this violation. I say that since it employs the devices of each to such a degree, it can be considered both even though they cannot be considered one or the other.
With that said, I will have to go into the real reasons why I think this is an Oscar worthy film. In order to do that effectively, I must address the crticisms of the movie. One major reservation I've seen is that the film is a cheaper version of Adaptation. Personally, I have yet to see the movie. It has peaked my interest in Adaptation, but I cannot address that criticism as of now.
What I can address is the degree of "suspension of belief" that is required to regard this movie as Oscar worthy. The most critical is that of the "internal logic" within the movie, in that there is no real explanation of how an author and her main character can exist in the same plane. In regards to that, I contend that such an explicit explanation is unnecessary. The critic's contention is that in order for that to be plausable, there has to be a clear line between what is "real" and what is "created." This is where suspension of belief is necessary. The whole point of the movie is to explore that very possibility, however impossible it may be. When the critic states this view may be viewed as the "ramblings of a spoilsport," I would have to sincerly agree. What the movie builds on is not how or why this situation occurs, rather it is a given state of affairs. What the audience needs to explore then is what would unfold given such a situation. Personally, I believe its just something to add fuel to the critical fire.
Now, in most of the "rotten" reviews I've seen, one thing is similar amongst all of them other than the comparisons to Adaptation, the Truman Show and others. Their reservations lie in the believablity of character interaction, most notably the relationships between Harold and Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Harold and Prof Hilbert. The romantic tensions of Harold and Ana are criticized to be somewhat of a hackneyed and forced pairing. They state it is a pure fiction in itself that Ana, who is being audited by Harold, would suddenly fall for a socially awkward man who is the embodiment of everything she has ever despised. In any other movie with any other actors, I would have to agree.
However, this is not the case cause the acting is up to par and the flow of the plot allows for plausable development. What I mean is that those two elements do make for an organic, natural course of events. The time in which it develops is admittedly short, but this is not the issue. The critics can call me idealistic, gullible even, but I will contend that they have watched too many movies with the same cliches to the point that they are callous to something that develops this well. The sole reason why I believe this way is because this development operates in the same manner as the humor; both of them operate with great subtlety. I genuinely believe she is softened by the awkward "apology" that Harold gives on the bus, and that she truly emphatizes with Harold for that tiny bit when he leaves the bakery after a long day of looking at records. How I divulge these extrapolations of her character is through her story about her days in Harvard Law. Her delivery of the story made her experience seem really genuine. Discussing this notion with Jeff, he believes that this sort of pairing can only occur because of Ana's nature. This is how good I thought the acting was, and in turn that made these characters worthy of our empathy.
Little victories for Harold, which eventually become little notches for him in the "comedy" category within his notepad, do add up. Chance leads to opportunity, and circumstances lead to different assessments of what is really valuable. If one is not open to that, I am truly sorry for that person. With that said, I believe these same circumstances applies to all the relationships that Harold has.
Addressing those major criticisms, I will address my ultimate reason why this movie is Oscar worthy. I believe every great movie builds up to a culmination of significance, especially when the main character realizes the essence of what man is. Harold Crick, upon hearing that he will die with no alternatives, reads the manuscript detailing his recent days and how he meets his end. As with any man, he values mere survival and initially tries to find ways to keep breathing. In my honest opinion, what Prof Hilbert said about his demise was very poinant. He states that every man will die; it is one of the few absolutes in this world. Essentially, if you can choose to meet your end albeit a noble one, that is what every man should strive for. Harold's transition from the initial outright fear to an uneasy acceptance is something I view as admirable, and more importantly, something I can identify with. When he puts on his tie to go to work, I pictured a soldier wearing his suit of armor. What difference is there between the two? I say none, since both are preparing to meet the same end.
Despite the criticisms and the rotten tomatoes score, I still believe that this movie is Oscar material. Guess I will just have to wait till next year to see if anyone agrees with me.
More to come later.
