Saturday, September 1, 2012

Big Fish and Invisible Men

This might be the strangest comparison ever, but while reading Invisible Man, especially the first chapter, I was strongly reminded of Tim Burton's Big Fish, (which I later found out was actually based on a book). If you haven't seen Big Fish, then you might be confused by my oversimplified summary of it, but you should definitely add it to your list of movies to watch. These two stories are too different to have much in common at all, but what really struck me as similar between the two was the skewed sense of reality that both protagonists held. The first chapter of Invisible Man started of realistically enough, in fact, though the grandfather's parting words were confusing, and even appalling, it never stuck out to me as unbelievable. As I got deeper into the chapter, namely the 'battle royale' bit, I had a hard time absorbing the information that was being thrown at me, and almost couldn't believe that any of it was real. I had to reread it a bunch of times to actually take in what I was looking at, and I was still left with mixed feelings because I couldn't quite believe half the things that took place. As I contemplated the veracity of the narrator, I remembered how I had the same feelings while watching Big Fish. Big Fish starts off with some background information about the strained relationship between a father and his son. They reluctantly reconcile when the elderly father falls ill. We then find out that the main conflict between the two was because the father, Edward Bloom, constantly told fantastically, tall tales about his life that he adamantly argued were true. I won't go into details, but some of his stories involved wild giants living in caves and conjoined singing twins. Throughout the movie I was on the same page as the son, I didn't believe any of the old man's stories, but seeing him continue to enthusiastically tell his tales, while literally laying on his deathbed definitely generated some sympathy. At the end, Edward dies, and while attending his father's funeral, the son comes across some of Edward's estranged friends. Among them, he recognizes a 7'6 tall man as the so called giant, and a pair of normal, twin women as the conjoined twins. The son then realizes that while his father's stories weren't entirely true, they were exaggerated versions of real life events. In the same way, I think, especially since we're reading about the narrator from a point earlier in his life, many of the stories we come across might actually be exaggerated variants of real incidents. Why they are exaggerated, and even if they are exaggerated is still a mystery that I hope we'll be able to solve as the story goes on.

3 comments:

  1. I've never seen the movie, but I totally agree with the need to go back and reread everything in Invisible Man. I feel like it's done on purpose though. One thing especially I noticed was that in Chapter 3 they will refer to someone with one name for a while, and then randomly switch (ie, the vet, to the fat man) which is just something that usually doesn't happen in novels. I know I mentioned this in class too but The House of Leaves also has that weird reality stuff, except it more directly address the role of insanity. Not sure if you've read it, but it's totally worth reading some of it (I actually never finished it...it's 700 pages of weird yet interesting mumbling...) just to get a sense of that same thing Invisible Man, and I guess big fish, have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a clever comparison! It's quirky and original :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. What both Big Fish and IM have in common is the question of narrative reliability--the comparison has never occurred to me before, but I think it makes sense. In both works, narration itself is presented as an act: we see the character Bloom AS a narrator/storyteller, and the Prologue frames "the narrator" as foremost a narrative voice, a guy at a typewriter telling his own story. To question his reliabiltiy and sanity is not to doubt the entire story--as you note, there are all kinds of signs of hyperbole and surreal, dreamlike embellishment, but the effect is that this gets at a deeper, psychological kind of truth that a strictly realistic depiction misses. Or, another way to see it is that the actual social reality of Jim Crow was itself so surreal and bizarrely cruel that the carnivalesque brutality of the Battle Royal is a kind of artistic rendition of his own experiences. He's a teller of "tall tales" like Bloom, and also he seems to be having fun telling them. If we dismiss him because of his embellishments (as the son is inclined to do in Big Fish), we'll miss out on the deeper truth he conveys. These narrators are *artists* and not mere recorders.

    ReplyDelete