.png)
'Big Fish' S.A
Is ‘Big Fish a
narrative driven by the strength and depth of the characters or a strong
narrative within which the characters fit?
Big Fish is an
extragivant narrative of a man called ‘Edward Bloom’, whose son is questioning
just how much he knows about his Father due to his life story being told in unfathomable,
elaborate tales.
You could interpret Big
Fish to be a narrative driven by the strength and depth of the characters
due to the narrative itself being told by the protagonist. This is
demonstrative of the fact that the narrative could not exist without the characters,
and specifically that without Bloom’s character no-one would have thought to or
had the imagination and need to create these stories around which the plot is
based. Also, the rest of the plot is made up of the reconciliation between ‘Bloom’
and his son and Bloom’s eventual death. In essence, the characters and their
journeys make up and control the direction of the narrative.
Alternately, you could perceive Big Fish to be a strong narrative around which the character’s fit.
You could argue that the fact that the narrative illustrates key moments in the
characters’ lives, means that the characters themselves were shaped by the
narrative. That without the narrative being what it is they would not be the
characters they are, they would be characterized completely differently,
illustrating that they have to fit around the narrative as opposed to the
narrative fitting around them. You could also maintain that the overly elaborate
narrative is there to amplify the characters’ strength, therefore suggesting Big Fish is a strong narrative in which
the characters fit.
0 comments: