Is Harry supposed to be real???


I read some places that he is a figment of the main character's imagination. He has personal conflict so he comes up with this character. When he resolves the conflict he buries the character of Harry.

reply

[deleted]

Great idea and certainly plausible. Another part of the film that supports it is the way the film starts and the way it ends - two completely contrasting scenes, a wonderful metaphor marking the beginning and end of a self-exploratory journey.


"Memory is the diary that we all carry about with us." - Oscar Wilde

reply

hmmmm i thought this was an interesting but flawed theory,but now i think of the death of Plum, wasnt michelle in her bedroom before we see Harry rooting around in the kitchen,so i was thinking during that scene "Michelle must have killed her" so maybe michelle is Harry

reply

I think you're reading too much into this. Michel didn't have money to fix the bathroom, how the hell he could afford a new car (or is the car imagined too?)

reply

If the character of Harry is not real then how do all the other characters interact with him during the movie? Michele's wife, the kids, his parents etc. Usually when films have a character who isn't real, they'll go back and show that there were actually no interactions or communications between the characters in the end. Maybe all the characters are a part of Michele's mind but that sounds a bit too much like Identity to me.

reply

I don't think it even matters whether Harry actually is real or unreal, as the whole story is kindof a metaphor. It's just that on a symbolic level, Harry does represent a part of our hero: the urge to write that has been itching him since his teen age, but that he gave up on, and that came back to bite him in the ass... SPOILERS : He had to face that "demon", to wonder whether he was wasting his life by being a family man rather than a writer, "kills" his parents (again, an obvious symbol), but finally kills the demon and becomes a good, protective father, a loving husband, and a talented writer: an adjusted man.

- A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

reply

If the character of Harry is not real then how do all the other characters interact with him during the movie?


I agree. Not only did the other characters converse with him, they did so in scenes with Michel not present.

In the movie Fight Club, the narrator and the Tyler Durden character were in scenes together, but they were never in a shot together in which a third person was also present. (Those who have seen the movie know why that was.)

It's an interesting theory, but I think that it requires too big a leap from the movie itself.

reply

We see Harry interacting with everyone because every scene of this movie is a scene from the book, The Eggs, written by Michel. Harry is Michel's alter ego. The only murderer is Michel (as Harry when killing his parents and brother.) As those parricides did not restore his writing ability - he was forced to kill Plum - he bought back his writing ability by this sacrifice to the writing gods. This is not to say however, that Plum was actually real - in many examples she seems to be a woman-child always in great need of sleep - which leaves her remarkably under-involved in the plot - that's why I cannot resolve whether she was real or not though I am leaning towards a mere figment of Michel's imagination and a character in his book.

reply

A little sad that so many people try to escape reality. Why can't we take the movie as it is instead of connecting what was hardly even intended? You can create a thousand of far reaching theories, but there will remain what was actually given to you when the movie was projected into your brain -- something more pure before you webbed your way through your own reflection and encrypted, deformed too much that was straightforward before. Do you long for plot twists? Are they a necessity?

I guarantee you there is a lot in this movie without your imagination. Think of it. Isn't it psychologically of interest already; considering that the death of our parents puts us as next likely in line and therefore induces some people a more true, earthy fear of death. And thanks to that they might feel in a way freed, because now they are given a stronger consciousness of how short lives really are and that not much of it is left for themselves. Harry seemingly realized such for himself and unfortunately, it made him willing to kill as not to waste any more time for the realization of a potential. By the way, that includes his own (potential). He has a lot of money, he wanted to help Michel... It's very possible he made it his goal in life to help out others with slumbering capabilities and that, for most of us immorally, at any cost.

Now evoke the movie with this in mind. What do you say?

reply

If Harry is Michel, then the scenes where Harry is talking to Michel's parents and brother make no sense. Unless you are saying those scenes only occurred in the book Michel wrote. But if that is the case, why assume that Michel killed his parents? Maybe his parents were never killed at all, only in the book Michel wrote. And maybe his brother was never killed at all. Maybe all the violence only happened in the book Michel wrote. Or maybe all the characters were not real but were part of the imagination of a French screen writer who wanted to make a movie.



reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Oh, this is a tired fad. People have hopped onto the "it was just a figment of the protagonist's imagination" train without giving any thought to why.

This is NOT a part of the movie whatsoever; it is clearly NOT in the writing - this is only a projection of the viewer, if they choose to project it.

reply

[deleted]

I watched this movie last night specifically for a Psychology course...Looking at it critically, I right away found that Harry and Michel could easily (figuratively) be the same man. Or, with that other person (i forget your screen name, sorry) I can also see how Michel could essentially be schizophrenic.

reply