Bunny Movies: Stranger Than Fiction

Watching the trailer, I had an impression that Marc Foster's Stranger Than Fiction (2006) would be another The Truman Show (1998) as it is about how the protagonist Harold Crick lives under the scripted destiny set by someone else (in this case, Karen Eiffel). But as I watched the whole movie, I started to realize the differences between the two movies. I don't aim to compare Stranger Than Fiction to The Truman Show because I am sure it has been done already. Instead, I am going to give my opinion on how I interpret the movie thematically.

Strangely and supernaturally, Harold Crick is the living character of a well-known author Karen Eiffel's work in real life. As Eiffel types out the script, Harold unknowingly acts it out. Harold's daily schedules are rigid, repetitive and mundane, telling the audience that our protagonist is but an everyday man. His working class life changes drastically when he hears a female voice. The voice does a running commentary on or even predicts his actions. All of a sudden, Harold loses agency of his own actions. He can no longer decide what he wants to do but to obey the voice. The protagonist lacks control of his own life. He is passive. He is a character of someone's fiction except "he's real" (as told by the literature professor Jules Hilbert). More shockingly, Harold hears the voice say "little did he know that this simple, seemingly innocuous act would result in his imminent death", foretelling his death. Without hesitation, Harold goes to Professor Hilbert and seeks help. Professor Hilbert suggests him not to obey the voice by doing nothing. It is Harold's first attempt to practice his "freewill" and go against his "fate". But this attempt almost causes him his life as a wrecking crew mistakes Harold's place as an abandoned building.

His second attempt is also suggested by Professor Hilbert. Harold decides to live a full life before he dies with a mindset of Carpe Diem (or as one would say, YOLO). It is the most successful attempt as Harold becomes a lot more relaxed and content. However, his happiness doesn't last as he finds out the female voice in his head belongs to Karen Eiffel, who is famous in her tragic novels. His third attempt, that is to stop Eiffel from writing the ending, fails as Eiffel already drafts out the ending. Besides, Professor Hilbert persuades him to accept his "fate" as Eiffel work is so well-written that it will go down in history.

 After reading Eiffel's script and draft, Harold admits to Eiffel that the novel is indeed a great work. His last attempt to practice his "freewill" is then made. Harold willingly accepts his "fate" and thus death. Unlike the original script where the fictional Harold, as explained by Eiffel, "doesn't know he is about to die and then dies", the real Harold "does know he is going to die and dies anyway, dies willingly knowing he could stop it". The "freewill" changes his "fate" (which is an unexpected death). His agency of his own life is gained again, and then is lost again.

Harold doesn't die. He survives the car accident. His "fate" is again controlled by the author, who decides to change the ending of the novel, turning her work from a tragedy to a comedy. What we can conclude from the movie, is that even though Harold tries to take control of his own "fate", his "fate" always slips through his fingers and goes back to Eiffel's paper and typewriter. Harold is still an actor of Eiffel's fiction. But the difference, or even the message of the whole movie, lies in the "freewill", even though "freewill" isn't entirely free.

Let us be realistic for a while. Not only Harold, we don't have complete control of our lives. We unknowingly submit ourselves to social paradigm. Our destiny is preset. We go to school, we work, we get married, we have children, we die. Just when you think you can go against your "fate" by protesting and demonstrating in the street or rebel against the authorities, you still have to obey the laws. By that it means your actions are oppressed by external forces. But which one would you rather be, the fictional Harold who completely complies with "fate", or the real Harold who at least practices his limited "freewill"? The answer is obvious.

"Freewill" shall be redefined. Our "freewill" is not boundless. But within the frame, we are "free" to do what we want, at least we think we are. The fictional Harold would stand still in the frame of destiny. But the real Harold would move within it. Today is the Election Day, would you forgo the opportunity to practice your "freewill", or willingly go for it?