I wasn't there

Despite being late and not posting for a month I still am capable of thought. To prove that I'd point out a few important ideas spawned by the infamous film.

Instead of discussing the details of the plot all over again, I'd rather scrutinize the final moments. Yesterday was one of those rare days on which I happened to be watching TV. I'm not sure of the channel but I looked up the film I had watched. It was called "Stranger than Fiction" and it presented a rather curious problem. To summarise the plot, it is about a writer trying to finish her book about an especially insignificant man, Harold Crick. For no apparent reason, such a person exists and actually lives through everything the writer typed. This brings about a moral dilemma, should the writer finish the book by killing the protagonist and by that create a masterpiece, or write a mediocre happy end as to save the man's life.

The idea, which i found worth pondering, is too of the ending. As we all now, the finale was one of failure, the boys carted off by the police. As I am still human and suffer from all the side-effects of being attached to the protagonist, I found myself wishing for the boys to make it. On the other hand there is common sense explaining that Rass and others are common criminals nothing else. The emotional and involved side of me is crying for him to be released to live a happy life with his new-found woman. Naturally he would go back to school and eventually become a doctor. Then again, who would believe such a conclusion? It too would be mediocre if not poor, art and intelligence lost for a piece of petty hope. On the other hand it is not a bit more moral to create a character of immense appeal to the audience just to make him miserable. What could one do as a writer, the twin evils of human nature make an intelligent yet emotionally involving piece almost impossible to produce.