*Sorry for posting this late--you all can have an extra day to finish this one*
Harold Crick, as his author Karen Eiffel tells us near the end of this film, is not the kind of hero we want to see die. She struggles with the idea of killing him as she writes his story. At first, she despairs that she cannot figure out how to kill him, so much so that she quite literally has writer's block. Later, once she has actually discovered how to kill him, she second-guesses the idea of killing him at all.
This dilemma is ultimately what gives a sense of poignant seriousness to the film. And I wonder how much we are meant to struggle with this question as well. For instance, when Harold goes to see Dr. Hilbert about the ending of the novel, Dr. Hilbert says, "I'm sorry, Harold. But you have to die." In terms of poetic interest, Dr. Hilbert is right. Harold's death, as envisioned by Karen Eiffel is epic and meaningful.
What this meeting brings to our attention is that poetic meaning is not always what we want. Remember how Karen Eiffel says that she is fine with "okay" when she sees that Dr. Hilbert is disappointed with her revised ending? This moment shows the controversy that lies at the heart of much discussion about storytelling and the value of stories, even those told in film.
Now here is your prompt: First, take some time to think about how this film has allowed you to look beneath the surface of a story to address a more fundamental question—what are stories for? In other words, offer your own poetic theory about the ending of this film. Second, in the words of Professor Hilbert, does this story "live on forever" even though Harold Crick does not "have to die," or do you side with the professor and say that Harold's survival keeps his story from being a masterpiece?
The ending of this film was a big change of plans for both Karen and Harold. Karen is use to creating masterpieces, and within those masterpieces they always end with a death of a hero. Harold is her hero in this particular new story, and for her to give up killing him means a lot. She had writers block for a long time, all because she couldn’t figure out how to kill Harold. Now that she finally has thought up the ending, she can’t and won’t do it, even after Harold gives her permission. This shows a lot about her character because she gave up a masterpiece, which is shocking since she seemed rather cold and heartless, for Harold to live. Harold, on the other hand, expects his death and learns to accept it. He was always very unhappy with his job and his routine life, and him being given another chance to live again I think has changed his whole world around. He now has a woman he loves and seems to be a lot happier. This story, in the end, offered both Karen and Harold chances to become better people.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the story could still live on forever. I did not think that the ending was that much of a masterpiece, it wasn’t too extravagant. Through listening to the story, you become connected with Harold and his life. I did not want Harold to die, because I thought after traveling through this film with him that he was a great person who was finally finding his path and happiness through his life. I think that the story ended in an awesome way, because it not only allowed Harold to be a hero but it also placed significance on his watch and that his watch saved his life, which I thought was pretty interesting. Harold now gets to live through the rest of his life with Ana, which I think is a better ending than his death.
I have always looked at stories as a way to escape one’s own emotions or troubles by generating new ones for something that is set in stone. Unlike real life, most stories have a certain ending which, even if we don’t like the ending, provides us with some comfort and certainty. It is made apparent in the film that Karen Eiffel has had writer’s block for a number of years and it seems as though most of it stems from how to kill Harold Crick. It is as though Karen Eiffel sees every ending as death as opposed to seeing every ending as a new beginning. However, once Karen Eiffel meets Harold Crick and realizes he is an actual person, her view on endings begins to change. She realizes how many people she has killed in the past but also realizes that the protagonist of her story does not have to die to be a hero. By keeping Harold Crick alive, I feel as though they both became the hero and protagonist of each other’s lives.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with the professor’s statement. Many masterpieces are remembered because the hero of the story dies – look at some of the most famous Shakespeare works. Everything the character has experienced up to a certain point is punctuated by their death; there is nothing more they can do to enhance or tarnish their heroic image. However, that’s not to say something can’t be a masterpiece just because the main character doesn’t die. Each of the characters woke something up in one another that would have been shattered by Harold’s death. Ana Pascal seemed to be falling in love with Harold and Karen Eiffel seemed to be showing a slight increase in sanity. While the world may see the book as “meh” or “okay”, the ending of the book is a masterpiece in both Harold and Karen’s lives.
This film offered a unique perspective on story telling. While Harold was performing what seemed to be a normal life. Because of the narration of Harold’s life by Karen and his understanding of the outside forces that were governing his life, the story seemed much more outstanding and irrational. I think the unique story telling the Stanger Than Fiction presented made me think of all the outside forces that govern my life and lives around me. I think this film forced me to think of destiny vs. choice and how people’s lives can be a combination of the two. To me, this realization is more that any person’s life can be unique because the choices we make combined with outside forces make every person’s life a story. Harold Crick is a perfect example of this idea. For a very long time he lived a mundane tiresome life before outside forces and choices forced him to make his life a story.
ReplyDeleteI do not really agree with the professor’s thoughts about how the absence of Harold’s death take away from Karen’s story. I agree more with Karen’s interpretation of why to keep Harold alive. Not only is Harold a spectacular character that deserves to live, but he can do more things with his life by living than he could by dying. Although he would have lived on through Karen’s novel, he may be able to accomplish more throughout his life than he could symbolically by dying. I believe Harold deserved to live and his story will be more meaningful in life than it could ever have been in death.
I felt like the ending of this film said a lot about humanity. Harold was willing to die for the integrity of the story. He felt that Mrs. Eiffel’s masterpiece was beautiful and that it warranted his death. Mrs. Eiffel was willing to sacrifice the integrity of her story in order to save an innocent life. The selflessness of both Harold and Mrs. Eiffel are what keeps the ending from being completely cheesy. It’s interesting to me that Harold’s willfulness to die for the story is exactly what kept him alive. Mrs. Eiffel couldn’t bring herself to kill someone who was willing to die for literature. Mrs. Eiffel, Professor Hilbert, and even Harold by the end of the film had developed a love for literature. This love is what kept each of them happy and well in the end. Mrs. Eiffel changed her story from a masterpiece to okay to save Harold. To me her saving Harold and changing her story to reflect a man willing to die for art will make for an even better story than the original.
ReplyDeleteHarold’s survival keeps the story of his death from being a masterpiece, but I don’t believe it will keep the final product from being a masterpiece. Mrs. Eiffel tells professor Hilbert there is nothing tragic about a man who knows he is willing to die and does it anyways. I feel Harold’s knowledge of his imminent death and his decision to go through with it would have prevented the story from being a masterpiece as well. Mrs. Eiffel’s latest idea to change the story to match Harold’s survival would warrant an even greater masterpiece in the end. The story changed from a man who died when he wasn’t suspecting it to a man who was willing to die for a greater good and through that selflessness was able to survive. Mrs. Eiffel resigns herself to change her story to reflect such a man. She tells Professor Hilbert that men willing to die in a such a way are the ones that deserve to be kept alive.
I don’t mean to blanket everyone under this comment, but in most cases we as human beings don’t see our flaws unless they are pointed out to us, whether it’s a bad attitude, bad posture, eating like slob, etc. In Harold’s case it’s obvious that he never thought that there could be anything more to his life and if he did he didn’t believe in himself enough to do anything about it. Harold’s flaw was that he was so obsessed with his tight schedule that it became a part of him. So like his schedule Harold was boring and predictable. It wasn’t until he heard the narrator that he realized how unsatisfied he was with his life. He had a wakeup call followed by a serious self-evaluation. What I got out of this movie was more than what I get out of most. I found myself doing thing same thing Harold did, questioning certain aspects of my life and what I am doing with them.
ReplyDeleteThere’s a natural part of me that loves to see the good guy get hurt even if it pains me to see it. In that respect I agree with the professor Hilbert. However, the change that Harold made and even the change that Karen made were worthy enough transitions to live on forever. Harold as a character in Karen’s book set an example and with the way the book ended he served as the inspirational character. As for Karen as an author made a change, a change in her way of doing things just as Harold did. Not only that but the changes she made in her new book I think also brightened her demeanor. Karen was no longer looking at death as a subject; she was appreciating life.
In my opinion, I believe stories are created for many reasons. In the simplest terms, stories are for entertainment. They are to distract us from our hardships and get us through the day, thus the reason why books, movies, and television are so popular. But on a deeper level, stories help us understand ourselves as people by questioning our morals and values in life. I know when I get into a story; I always question the motives of the characters. Is this person doing the right thing? Why are they doing this? What causes this character to behave in such a manner? But when I question the characters’ motives, I look at what I would do in their situation. This helps me defines who I am by comparing myself to the characters in a particular story. I believe this is what the film is trying to do, make the viewer compare himself/herself to the characters and find out who they are.
ReplyDeleteI am going to be cheesy for am minute but it’s to make a point. At the end of the the film The Dark Night, (and no one cry spoilers, its been 5 years come on) Batman tells Commissioner Gordon “You either die the hero, or you see yourself become the villain.” Now I know that there wasn’t a villain roaming the streets killing innocent people but this quote can ring true in Stranger than Fiction. I believe that in order for Kay’s book to become a masterpiece, Harold had to die. Harold was at the peak of his life. He had a job he was good at, he got the girl, was no longer living day to day. It was the best Harold had and everything was downhill from that point in his life. Yes, him accepting death and being rewarded with life is a good ending, but just like Dr. Hilbert’s opinion on the book, it was okay.
I also just want to add that I really liked the ending of the movie and I think that the ending for the film was great, but for the book in the film it was okay (because the film was about a man whose life was being fated through an author and the book was just about a man’s life).
I would have found it incredibly sad to see Harold Crick die at the end of the film, but there’s no denying that it would have perhaps been the better ending. Harold is the hero of the story, maybe not the hero of the class of the likes of the Greek hero Achilles, but a hero none the same. Achilles is told that he sails for his death when he leaves Greece, but does it anyways, because he will be remembered throughout time. The hero dies, but the story survives. Harold knows that he will die, even knows how it will happen, but continues on anyway. His efforts to avoid fate are not unlike another Greek hero, Oedipus. Everything he did to avoid his fate ended up sealing it in the end. Harold does not become a tragic hero along those lines. He is still the hero of the story, and the hero who saved that little boy, but unlike the stories that stand the test of time, Harold defies his fate.
ReplyDeleteHarold’s survival at the end of the movie, in my opinion, doesn’t take away from the story, but instead makes it more meaningful. I feel the same way that Karen Eiffel felt; that a man who is willing to die for someone else or her masterpiece, is a man worth saving. The way you live should be much more important than the way you die. Harold, albeit after learning of his impending doom, creates a good life, one worth living. Where there is no denying that a tragedy outlasts time, not every story needs to be a tragedy. Harold is still a hero. A man who jumped in front of a bus for a boy. A man who faced his own fate, and accepted it. Harold is the kind of man that deserves to survive.
A story in a film or movie are there to tell the reader or viewer a message. Life is too short to let it go by (Ferris Bueller), Life is like a box of chocolate, never know what you’re going to get (Forest Gump), and Ohana means family, no one ever gets left behind (Lilo and Stitch). In Stranger than Fiction I believe the poetic theory (story of the film) is that everything happens for a reason. Karen Eiffel had writers block for a long time because she couldn’t find a way to kill Harold Crick, which she winds up finding out that he is real and that she has killed other people in life just by killing them off in her books. Harold Crick has been living this routine life for a while until he finds out the voice he hears is actually Karen who is writing her story about Harold. He then finds out he is going to die which then he makes choices to try and fix that. Karen meets Harold which she accepts the fact that she can't kill Harold and that Harold accepts that he has to die, but he doesn't. Throughout the film Karen brings together people that would just seem like ordinary people in life, but they all come together when Harold gets hit by the bus to save a little boy. I believe my poetic theory, everything happens for a reason, is seen through this film because Harold finds out he has to die, if that were to never happen then he would not have met Ana Pascal which they fall in love in the film. And if Karen had never met Harold then she would kill of Harold and not become the hero that she is at the end of the film because she realized that he had to live and that she is fine with the fact her book isn't great.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Harold's death does not take away from the story. 1) He saved a little boy’s life so that is something people will talk about forever, making him a hero, 2)He accepted the fact that he was going to die and has created a life worth living for. 3) Karen tells Mr. Hilbert that a man who is willing to die for someone else is a man worth saving. My theory about everything happens for a reason can go back into this because even though Karen's book wasn't the best she accepted the fact that she would rather save Harold then making her book a masterpiece. I believe that there was no reason for Harold to die because Harold had just created this amazing life and just for Karen to go through that would be something she would live with for the rest of her life like how she killed off the other people in her other books.
The ending of this film really caught me off guard. Harold was a guy who really had a good life going for him in a sense. He had a routine and never really faltered from it. His life was planned out and he lived it to the best of his capability. You could say his life was one of monotone though. Then you have Karen who is a successful writer who has written basically masterpieces and has hit a writers block when it comes to harolds life. When Harold finally figured out that Karen was writing his story and figured out how his life would end, Harold accepted the tragedy and gave Karen permission to finish the book. This was a life changing moment for both of them because Harold realized that his life would have meaning and Karen realized that taking a mans life that has such character would only be a tragedy to the world for losing such a man. Harold and Karen were both given an opportunity that most don’t get, a second chance to live their lives and change them for the better.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the end of the movie took away from being a masterpiece because the masterpiece would have been the death of Harold. I think this story will live forever because it shows the compassion and character of people in the midst of the end. Karen showed Harold compassion and humbled herself by taking what she considered a masterpiece and making it ok. In my opinion it’s the opposite, the tragedy would have been ok, but the masterpiece was allowing Harold and herself to have a second chance in life and live their lives and write how they want to. To have a chance at a life that is better and more fulfilling. The morals of the story and the compassion and bravery displayed is what will make this story live forever.
In most common stories, a hero can die trying to save another life and be known for being a bold person. This is how an author is to move their audience. This is also the true meaning and the purpose of stories. However, Harold Crick was more than a bold man. He was smart, funny, and loved. He had a good heart and Karen Eiffel knew that. This is why she struggled to end the story as she originally intended. Even though the ending was “okay” I think it ended on an ironic note knowing that Harold’s watch is what saved his life. Therefore, even if the ending of the story changed, Karen was still successful at captivating her audience with the irony of the wrist watch.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel as if Harold Crick dying would create a masterpiece. Karen stated that she had killed over 10 people with all her books that she wrote. What makes Harold’s death a masterpiece and not the previous novels where other people died? This whole argument is very controversial. I do not agree that Harold Crick has to “live on forever” but I do agree that he does not “have to die”. If Harold were to live forever then the ending of the story would be duller. I am not saying Harold should die but, if he did then it would have made for a better ending. However, Karen may have done the right thing after all. It is almost as if she is playing the role of “God” on who gets to live and who does not.
The ending of the film was disappointing but at the same time I was glad Harold did not die. When Harold was hit by the bus it was culmination of everything that had gone on in the film. The film could have ended right there. When it did not end there, after the professor has stressed that Harold had to die, I was kind of let down. It was a powerful moment and had a huge impact because of how I was drawn into the movie. For that same reason, I was happy that Harold did not die. I was rooting for him to find a way to defy death, the author, and the professor. Harold needed to have a happy ending after waking up to the joys of life. He had finally started to participate in life and not just observe.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Professor Hilbert that if Harold does not die the story is not a masterpiece. Because the viewer is drawn into the movie and has become a part of Harold’s world, ending the movie with him getting hit by the bus was gut wrenching. When the scene of Harold in the hospital bed, all bandaged up, opens and the doctor is listing his numerous injuries, the feel of the story changed. Instead of being a tragedy it became just another feel good story. Harold dying is such a fashion was unexpected so it makes a lasting impression. When a story is a feel good story, it is more of a “been there, done that” sort of thing. There is nothing impressive with the new ending.
stories are told to make a point, to help shed light where it is not normally given, to bring out the underdog in this game of life. i think that this one shows that people can change, no matter how ingrained they are into meticulous, petty details. sometimes (unrealistically it was a person, but more likely an event) we encounter once instance that changes our lives completely and becomes a catalyst for a "new us". in this story is ana. she helps distinguish harold's turning point. Ultimately there was a ray of hope all throughout the movie that disproves what modern society says: you cannot change. Because obviously, if Harold can then we can. If we see a way that can potentially make our lives better, we are allowed and have the power vested in us to make that change happen.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though Harold lived his story is still great. In literature it mayn’t be what everyone wanted to see and read, but as his LIFE it was amazing. He risked his life and everything about it to save a little boy. A boy to whom he had no prior connection, to whom he owed nothing. Any other person could have reacted first and Harold could have sat back in his health and let them. No. he was the one to save the little boy. And for eiffel’s book - the fact that she settled for it being “okay” is huge. This is her career, her “life” if you will, and she potentially ended it to keep Harold’s actual life going and thriving. I think that was equally selfless of her to put herself on the line instead of one of her characters.
Stories at the most basic level are meant to tell you the tale of one or more characters. Their purpose is to give us a glimpse into the mind of the author. I don’t think that as an author you should ever set out to include a message or censor yourself to fit a certain preconceived goal. It should feel as organic and natural as your own body. It’s hard to be familiar with something you haven’t seen before (or written) but by the end of a story it should become apparent that you’ve just experienced something changing. And not something that feels forced or compromised. As an observer of the story that just is not satisfying. Stories do not change at all who you are, or your views necessarily. The change in oneself can be minor or major. Ultimately any change should be made because of conclusions that the observer comes to on his/her own. Which explains why there are multiple interpretations of situations. Lastly a story should be solely up to the author. Stranger Than Fiction fulfills that for me. At its surface it does not seem like a profound film on all of its levels. For me it was only after my viewing that I could fully turn around and look at it to examine its themes.
ReplyDeleteHarold Crick is us and we are Harold Crick. That is a statement that I am 100% certain of. There is one minor difference depending on what you hold your beliefs to be though. Harold is not the author of his story where as we are or it is similar because Harold isn’t the author of his story and neither are we. Simply on principle it cannot be both. It should be noted though that Harold does contain a certain degree of free will I am not disputing that. (Or does he?) What he cannot control is the world around him and the course that his life takes on a grander scheme. What I am getting at though is that we are all the authors of our own stories. Every day that we leave our comforting beds and venture into the world is more ink on paper. Every moment that we do not leave that bed is ink on paper as well. There are comedies and tragedies being written around you every single day. Each person leaves behind a legacy some stronger than others of course. Harold’s legacy is that he did not die. But literary wise if you yourself chose to pick that book up (of course you have no way of knowing the circumstances behind it of why he actually does not die.) and read it cover to cover you would agree with Professor Hilbert. But I ask you a question. What is the only thing that no man has ever evaded? We know Harold’s fate in the “true” ending. Whether the writer truly intended for his script to finish this way I do not know. Maybe someone meddled and said he had to include a happy ending. I myself enjoy it more because he lives. As for Prof. Hilbert he is biased because he knows the story behind the book and the real life Harold. He has no right to call it a masterpiece with either ending.