Storytelling

While I did find this film pretty interesting it still seems to be lacking something compared to his previous two efforts. It doesn't have the emotional impact of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" or the sharpness and coherency of "Happiness" and both of those films each had a standout performance in them and this one does not, although Selma Blair is pretty good. The two parts "Fiction" and "Non-fiction" just seem to be missing some element. Its not that we don't understand what he's doing and what he's trying to say but it just doesn't have the closure that seems to be needed. The first part "Fiction" is shorter and just seems to end without allowing what it had just conjured up to play out. I do like Todd Solondz and the way he writes his films in general. He possesses a very dark and cynical view of both political correctness and the suburbs. I also think it was important for Selma Blair to be in this film. Her career seemed to be playing the stars friend or appearing in teen comedies. Here she plays a lead role and a somewhat controversial one at that in what might be her first nude scenes. I think its good for her career to be in something serious like this. I know I'll think of her in a different light from now on. Not anywhere near Solondz best films but interesting enough to recommend and anyone who likes Solondz (like myself) should see it.

After reading about Palindromes and finding myself oddly attracted to the subject matter of several of Todd Solondz's features, I bought this film. It would seem that it has a reputation as being his worst work to date(at least as far as theatrically released movies go)... I must say, if the rest of what he's done is this powerful, I will have to keep my eyes open for it. You seldom see movies that are this unpleasant. There are films that are far, far harder to watch... but this is still not one you put on to enjoy yourself. As many other viewers, I didn't care much for the first half(well, part... it's a third of the projects full length, with a running time of about 25 minutes), "Fiction". I felt I had gained little after it was over, though I will say that the concept and themes explored are quite interesting. "Non-Fiction" proved to be far more worth-while, in my opinion. The writing and direction is excellent in both. The pacing works well... I was never bored, and while it wasn't exactly a "good" time, it moved along as it should, never really too slow or too fast. The characters were incredible... the sheer amount of development, through so little time spent on each... that's talent. As its title indicates, Storytelling goes into different methods of telling a story... and displays some of the most impressive storytelling that I've seen to date. There is some humor, but it's quite black, and throughout the film, I was unsure of whether I should laugh out loud... or cry my eyes out. The film is strongly satirical, very direct and seemingly almost aggressively anti-PC. Dealing with several subjects of taboo, Solondz pulls few punches, if any. Certainly not a film for everyone. Both parts seem to end somewhat abruptly, but that may be intentional. I will say that my rating would almost certainly have been higher had the first part been improved upon... or removed entirely. It's difficult to say who I'd recommend this to... cynics or realists with a strong threshold for the some of the ugliest sides of human nature, I suppose. From what I understand, though, it's less provocative than the other films of Todd Solondz. 8/10

I was fascinated by Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS, a spell-binding drama every minute of it - sometimes terribly naked. There are such tendencies also in STORYTELLING, but only in the second of the two independent parts.

The first part, called "Fiction", is significantly shorter than part two, "Non-fiction". This is as it should be, but the best would be to exclude it completely. The story about emotional tension between a college girl with ambition to become a writer, her frustrated CP boyfriend and their impressive/monstrous teacher, the successful writer, is just as conventional as the stories the students write in the film. This may be intentional, to cause multiple layers of meta-effects, but it doesn't save this part of the movie from being pretty predictable and boring.

And the story ends before it should. A sort of coitus interruptus (if the term is allowed), which demands some kind of return or closing-up later on in the movie - but there is none. I got the strong impression that this part was only included to make the movie full-time.

The second story, "Non-fiction", is clearly stronger, and told with much more passion from the writer/director. Here, many facets are explored, the characters are complex, the drama intricate - and the tension builds, right below the drab suburban surface. It is impressive how elements common in just about any family life, here add to the suspense and the sense of doom. The thrill of trivial life, but not at all trivially portrayed.

This might be the reason for the title "Non-fiction", since the lives and fates shown in the story feel so real - contrary to what happens in "Fiction".

Still, this story, too, has been told insufficiently, as if abbreviated, or halted at points where it was about to erupt into infernal drama. Pity. Did Solondz retreat from his own vision? Did he censor himself to get more of a general audience?

I hope that it's not the case. His portrayal of human life, although unpleasant indeed, is fascinating and uniquely his. So he must be true to it.

At first viewing I though this was the weakest of director Todd Solondz films, however like all of his works, it's impossible to forget once seen. Todd Solondze absorbed criticisms about exploitation, showing misery for misery's sake, and just generally being a "meanie", and turned them into the cinematic equivalent of a "dis song"(rap term for song made specifically as an attack or "beef" with another rapper), with Solondz against critics, carefully trying to explain the notions of "Storytelling". Our first story deals with sex, political correctness, race, and fiction writing, as a young liberal college girl has unpleasant and ironic sexual experience with her Black writing professor. Our second well...with the same subjects just this time with non-fiction in place of fiction. Here Solondz shows us yet another dysfunctional upper middle class Jewish family in chaos, but this time as a "documentary", which shows us the pathetic film maker, the cruel or otherwise ignorant family, and the audience who laughs and scoffs, at it all.

This is a rare film, because it's a film maker addressing his critiques, himself, and his audience all at once. And it has plenty of Solondz trade mark cringe scenes, that veer drastically from comic to dramatic in a matter of breaths. The results are absorbing but like all Solondz it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and makes you honestly question your own moral compass. They say satire is dead if the audience cannot be shocked, but it's also dead if the audience cannot be shamed, in the days where South Park and Family Guy, are on non cable TV any afternoon (l love both shows), shock and shame are concepts so familiar they've lost some of their power. Thankfully just when we've seen it all and were sure that nothing matters and nothing can surprise, startle, or offend us, Todd Solondz will be there to show things can always get worse.

Watching anything by Todd Solondz is going to make you awfully depressed. Not because his films are bad, but because they are so good, and there is hardly anything like them out there today. Watching Storytelling in the theater was a blessing, but afterwards, my friends and I could only feel completely depressed! If you've never experienced Solondz's magic, this film can leave you a bit more uplifted, as you have Welcome to the Dollhouse and Happiness still left to explore. But if you've already seen these films, watching Storytelling can only make you feel bad, like a quickie, it's so good then when it's over, poof, you're bored and you want something else just like it, but different. I wish Todd Solondz made more films, but sadly after you watch those three, you're done, and it's back to putting up with dumpsters of celluloid garbage for the next year or two until his next film. I mean let's face it; where else are you going to find a great performance from John freakin' Goodman!

Sadly though, I find it hard to convince certain TYPES of people as to why Solondz's work is so good. I try to tell them the writing is award-winning and beyond most failed attempts at culture critique. I try and tell them how good the performances are. I even try and point out some fantastic themes out of the multitude available in his work. But these certain types, they just can't seem to get it.

But on the bright side, the one thing that does give me a boast about Storytelling is Conan O'Brien. Now, it's not the fact that he's here, but how he fits in, it's like there are people out there that do NOT understand Conan or his humor at all, they just don't get HIM altogether. Then there are those, such as myself, that completely understand Conan and all his self-deprecation. How can you not love a character like Scooby that wants to be Conan's sidekick??? Is this NOT the dream of every self-deprecating teenager and college student?!? Being able to simple make that point in a film, as Solondz does so perfectly during that scene with Scooby and Conan, right after the proverbial gay pseudo blow-job, is something most auteur's can't ever GET AT. This is why it's depressing watching the film, you see how brilliant this man is and how clearly he can speak his mind and say to you: "I hear YOU, I feel this way, and I know you do too, and this is here for US to enjoy, not just something for everyone." Some people say Art is something everyone can universally appreciate. Others say it is completely subjective. I think it can in fact be both ways. You can look at Storytelling or actually Happiness is better for this as formulaic, or formal art, the technical way the film is put together is brilliant, that's its universal art. The thematics, the way the auteur says what's directly on his mind in a way that a certain kind of person is immediately able to grasp a hold of firmly, that's the other kind, the subjective kind. This man understands communication, let alone life, like very very VERY few writers and directors ever have and ever will.