This part completely lost me. I was enjoying the movie up until then.
Harold was upset, but was still like "Okay, if I have to."
Since when is the quality of a book more important than a man's life?
Why was Dustin Hoffman so matter-of-fact about it?
Probably because Harold wasn't really living any kind of life to begin with, which both he and Dustin's character both knew. So their attitudes to this situation isn't really too far fetched, and remember they both knew (having read the book) that he saves a kids life. We (the audience) only know this at the end so as we watch it may seem like oh thats a bit ridiculous, but when we learn he saves a kids life it makes a lot more sense.
A shell of a life or immortalised in a classic book, whilst also saving a kids life?
Why not just keep an eye out for the kid and tell him to stop when he come close.
Anyway good movie, rated 8
Its comparing the Bible.
shareUh?
shareIt's allegorical in two parallel lines:
Firstly, the long debated issue of the importance of art. Whether art is more important than a human life if the work of art touches more people across history than the individual person would has been long debated. It's almost a cliche; a famous what if is 'a house is on fire, trapped inside is a person [little girl, old woman, blind man etc]. Also trapped inside are several previously unknown works of Shakespeare. You only have time to save one or the other, which do you choose?'.
But underneath that is a fairly specific analogy for the production of the bible and poses some broad questions about it. For example:
The writer is doing things a god would do - create just out of thinking it. Or in this case thinking it but actioned only when writing it chronologically. The protagonist is like Jesus; going about normal, unremarkable business until after several decades of unremarkable life he is made aware that there is something exceptional about him. The voice of a creator speaks to him and makes him aware that his life obviously isn't normal. He finds an advisor [the lecturer] who helps him find the right information to figure out whats going on. Eventually the source of the exceptional shift in his life [the writer/God] along with advice from his advisor [who is allegorical of both the apostles and potentially the angels that informed Jesus of the importance of his life and his sacrifice] explain the context of his death. His advisor believes that the literature being written is so important artistically/culturally that it shouldn't be ruined by any changes just because the immortality of the piece of literature requires a man to die.
This is clearly an analogy for Jesus being told that his death will be important for eons to come, and that his sacrifice is essential for the good of mankind. And added to that, we know that his sacrifice was immortalised in a book, the Bible.
So, the film is a rumination on a couple of things. For example, generally it's widely held belief that 'God' was/is/always will be aware and intentional in everything he makes happen. Omnipotent I guess. The film posits, what if God is just another entity unaware of it's status as the creator? Like the writer thinking she is writing fiction then engulfed with horror and regret when she discovers she is creating characters. She ponders how many other normal, average characters she wrote and killed, wondering whether all of them were real people and therefore all of them she gave a death sentence to believing she was writing harmless fiction. And as the ending reveals, the film suggests maybe the story of Jesus would have been written differently if the creator knew they were playing with a real life and not just creating a character for a very famous book that would be written about that character. The apostle represents the belief that the sacrifice of Jesus is unquestionably a great plan and shouldn't be criticised in any way. So much so he is unhappy with the creator when they choose life instead of the making a great book.
That jumps out at me anyway. And a lot of other people - there's apparently loads of church groups and sunday schools that have analysed the film from a religious perspective, though apparently many see a more positive portrayal of christianity and catholism than me, somehow seeing the story as a celebration of the sacrifice of Jesus. I wouldn't know about that though...
Either way it's clearly a commentary on the importance of life over art, no matter what the circumstances.
I think Hels-Dunleavy hit it spot on.
On another level:
The writer character was an obvious alliteration of God. And what she thought/wrote was her will (the Will of God). It was unavoidable. It was fate. Destiny. Whatever you want to call it.
Harold was a representation of the 'every Man'. And destined to die (when the bus would ultimately hit him). It was fate. And the only way to change fate would be in the form a miracle. This 'miracle' came in the words of God (the writer), who spoke to him not through signs or deeds, but he directly heard the word of God dictate his life (a bit tongue in cheek, I suppose).
Thus, it is only after he builds a relationship with God - coming to know her, and exposing himself to her, that he is able to change his fate and live on. He is on a semi-religious - which leads him to confront his maker, and his destiny. He accepts it at first - not specifically for the literature, but because it is God's will and because he would save a child. I think the child was destined to die, if not for his intervention. And only through a miracle is he able to live, and save the child.
That's a good point: God/the writer here was writing the life of all the players who affect each other and ultimately lead to the peril for the child. She wrote the bus driver getting the job, who now has to live with hurting an adult man instead of killing a young child. Many people are saved from fates' worse than' by Harold's choice. Harold chooses to save the child and everyone else involved from a very sad future as much as comply with destiny. So this particular book is about sacrifice, unlike many of the other books she had written where the deaths of the protagonists were personal and autonomous; no doubt few of her books were about saving other lives if we take her own descriptions of previous deaths as indicative. Here Harold agrees to the sacrifice because he is inherently worthy of the heroic identity. So is that why many religious groups think it's a positive depiction - because Harold choosing to save the innocent child is a pure sacrifice?
shareWell done man, that is a great analysis. Should be pinned at the top of these boards.
"Well-done man"?
You poor saps that don't use Oxford Comma don't seem to understand the meanings you create instead of what you probably meant to create.
In any case, the LENGTHS some people go to justify the existence of a bad, nonsensical hollyweird claptrap movie and satanic attitude towards human life.
If any character in any story says something is more valuable than human life (besides the Creator of the Universe), you know you are reading/watching/listening something demonic or satanic.
Hoffman's character is a demon, and the writers of this movie are masonic idiots.
Life of Brian was better
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.
Since when is the quality of a book more important than a man's life? >>> I will just copy what I said in another similar thread, as I think you too are not looking at the deeper meaning here and just taking it at face value. The professor was a matter of fact type of person. He believes that there is no true way to avoid this, hence his speech about how death will catch up to you no matter what, in some form, at any given time. There is no avoiding it. He was trying to help Harold accept his destiny, and accept it he did. The professor had no way of knowing that the author would change the outcome, or it the fates would even allow for such a thing. He was just helping Harold to cope, and in the end this made Harold a stronger, better, person who was more appreciative of life.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Yes, I see it as the sacrifice was seen as necessary to save the child. I prefer for it to make sense and also have meaning rather than only being symbolic.
shareStill it was mostly symbolic. Harold isn't REALLY real, you know. At the end of the day he was a movie character if not a book character.
The writer of this story (not Emma Thompson, who just acts the part) is making a statement on being an artist, perhaps on being a parent. Perhaps more. It is about the power and responsibility and emotions involved in becoming a creator. There is a godly aspect to it, whether you are creating art or a child or the whole world (which, in a sense a writer or movie-maker is doing, in limited fashion).
[deleted]
The professor said that because he was a literature academic. To him, nothing was more important than good literature! Maybe a joke about academics, I don't know.
Harold disagreed until he read it. Presumably it was very moving. They did discuss how he'd have to die eventually. While he'd finally started enjoying his life, I think he realised dying saving a child would be a worthwhile end I suppose.
Yeah, kind of annoyed me too, but it makes Hoffman's character all the more interesting.
Maybe Hoffman's character thought he was "pushing" Harold to take charge of his life (which he didn't really do - he followed out the script that was written).
It's also possible that the lit professor stopped viewing Harold as a real person and more of a fictitious one and therefore, disposable ?
"This part completely lost me. "
I had already lost interest in the movie by this point, as the movie had proven to be just nonsensical mess that doesn't know what it wants to be, with the worst injected romance I have ever seen.
However, it did make me raise an eyebrow and chuckle a bit. What the ... what kind of a man wants someone to basically commit a suicide so a 'good book' can be written?
Human life should be the most important and valuable thing, especially over some written words, some damn FICTION of all things! No one could seriously say 'you have to die so this book can be born', for crying out loud.
Then again, Harold is not REAL anyway, so he shouldn't be able to DIE, as he was never born, either.