Big Fish

so what you're saying is that we should have been keying on a character that has about a half hour of screen time, instead of one who dominates the movie. sure, that's a superficial point, but it can be a poignant one.

i disagree that it's about sons realizing their fathers are imperfect. will realized that long before he stopped speaking to his father (i.e. the period of resentment). also, i disagree that the crux of the movie was the peformance of billy crudup. rarely does a movie hinge on the performance of actors. instead, i think it hinges upon discovery, will "discovering" that his father wasn't such a bad guy. burton is using storytelling to get at his special f/x and great ideas, but at the heart of the movie/story is still a bad father. and not only that, his main trait (that of telling ridiculous stories) is passed down to his son and grandson. wonderful.

Josh yes, the point of the story in my opinion was the relationship between the father and the son. Even given the how much screen time Albert had, you aren't necessarily supposed to LIKE him from everything that happened, but more supposed to be amazed at the crazy yarns this guy was spinning. The emotional crux of the movie was from Crudup's perspective, heck, it started out from Crudup's perspective, and it's all about Crudup's, the sons, perspective.

I don't even think that Burton is making some kindof heavy moral statement about the father or even the son, I think you're looking at it incorrectly. Albert is a bad father. So what? Will has gotta love him anyways. Whether Will likes it or not he's gotten his father's sins also, and he's in denial about them and wont ever be able to deal with them in a healthy fashion until he's able to love his father despite his father's sin. This might all be pop psychology whatever, but it still might be what Burton was thinking, and it's my take that that's what he presented.

I probably agree that the "emotional crux of the movie was from Crudup's perspective", but that is not what you said originally. You said, "if there's a critique to be leveled at the crux of the film it'd have to be at the feet of Crudup and whether or not his performance was compelling." The original statement is what I disagreed with, since I assumed you were talking about an actor's performance (you even used his name, and not Will). But I continue to disagree that you are not supposed to like Albert. From everything that is in the "story", to the realizations of the son, is Burton's way of trying to obtain sympathy for his lead character. That is what an effective story does. Anyway, that's just MY opinion/point of view. And to the extent that he fails to get my (and others', apparently) sympathy, because of Albert being a terrible father, or anything else, I think is a shortcoming of the movie. Period.

You also are probably right about Burton not trying to make a heavy moral statement. But that is kinda what comes across, whether he likes it or not. I don't think that Will necessarily "has" the sins of the father. He seems to be a good family man; it's the storytelling that he gets from his dad. And whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. For me, I love telling a good story. I will read mythology, fiction, etc. to my kids. But they will KNOW what I am reading them, and will understand that they are just stories. I'm not gonna pass them off as fact.

Again, keep in mind, I liked the movie...I thought it was very well done. I just didn't think it was necessarily "great", for all the reasons presented.

I think the father-son thing is really only a sub plot to give a human element. I think the true message is about life, namely, what you're looking for in life. Any movie at the end of a life has that element, look at meet joe black.

It's also about telling stories, which is the only way we chronicle life. Life is never as spectacular as you want it to be, but you can still take the ordinary and make it spectacular. I think that is the message of the movie, and it's an inspirational one.

His father was an imaginative man who lived life to the fullest. His friends who show up at the end show up because they love him and the joy he brought, and they are still telling his stories. (notice what is said in the conclusion, it's about stories, not about how will is reconciled to his dad) Will is someone who lives life in the mundane; he is trapped without imagination, until the end. I think the story is about an idea, and the two responses to that idea.

I agree with Gray above. This movie has a very similar theme as the best selling novel, 'Life of Pi'. The importance of the movie is how we can use storytelling as a way to cushion the blows of the harsh realities of life and death. All religions uses storytelling to get a point across. Whether Jesus really walked on water or turned water into wine isn't even the point of the biblical stories. The point was that he was a special man that loved everyone and forgave everyone.

Remember the hospital scene where the doctor played by Robert Guillame says to Will, "Given the two stories, I would have picked the fish story" exemplifies how you can use stories to turn a bad experience into something palatable.
That's my two cents.

I loved the flick, but isn't this just a wowed up and fanciful version of Mr. Millers pathetic wretch we all felt creeped around in the basement of our simple lives if our worst fears were true? (i.e. we really aren't all that coy and interesting.) The son, the realist, cringes at his fathers boorish exagerations only to find that in the end compassionately blurred vision gives humans the break we need to BE human and allow ourselves the sweet indulgence of non critical acceptance. Whatever the reason his father had to approach life in a state of wimsy and wonder was, he needed to love respect him. In this state of acceptance the ctitical and bitter son finally "got it."