Palíndromos

I just saw this at SXSW in Austin, Tx on March 14, 2005 and all 1200 people in the Paramount theater had to laugh because if they didn't they would have to cry. Before the movie, Todd Solondz himself wished that we would enjoy this "fable/fairy tale". Though this movie has fable like qualities, I wouldn't suggest showing this movie to a kid unless you were interested in destroying the kid's morale. Every character in the movie is malignantly realistic and I lost count of how many times I put my hand over my mouth and shook my head trying to decide to laugh or scream. "Palindromes" has a totally unique way of looking at abortion, pedophilia, individualism, family and parenthood through the points of view of these well developed characters. Though we may not have wanted to experience these point of view, the character's acceptance of their own realities makes the viewer take another look at their reality.

I think this is a great movie for people with daughters. If this movie doesn't make you want to be a better parent then I guess there is no hope after all. Well, I'm finally closing in on 200 words, I could have definitely stopped after saying "people had to laugh because if they didn't they would have to cry."

"Palindromes" is a fascinating visual thought experiment.

Very parallel to Alexander Payne's "Citizen Ruth" in covering some of the same territory about abortion, writer/director Todd Solontz mostly eschews that film's satire and easy jabs for a protean look at an issue that has a more complicated emotional landscape than advocates on either side usually concede.

He does this by literally taking us inside the mind of a young malleable adolescent who intentionally gets pregnant and is surprised at the reactions of those around her. Sometimes we see her as she sees herself, as if we are reading her diary, with her body-hating hopes for a change in hair, skin, age or family, and sometimes we see her as others see her.

Every one wants to control "Aviva" and their hypocritical selfishness is laid bare, regardless of their various good intentions. Her mother sees her still as a baby (a welcome back to the screen for Ellen Barkin who manages to add maternal warmth to hostile dialog) to the discomfiting sexualization (Britney-ization?) of just barely teens that is just barely a step above pedophilia, to how she is seen by pro-life advocates (whose Sunshine Band for "special children" seems almost as exploitative as JonBenet Ramsey's performances) and on in a picaresque dream scape that crosses a nightmare that is a bit extreme, especially for fans of "Welcome to the Dollhouse."

Solontz pulls this off by having every image of "Aviva" (according to the director's production notes) "portrayed by two women, four girls (13-14 years old), one 12-year-old boy, and one 6-year old girl" of widely variant size, shape, color and just about every other possible outward characteristic, even though one haranguer points out that no one can ever really change.

Solontz in a hand-out at the theater defined his use of the title as meaning "a condition of stasis and/or immutability; that part of one's personality or character that resists change, stays the same," but I'm not sure that successfully comes through in this provocative film, especially with some of the acerbic dialog and disturbing actions.

Nathan Larson's music is appropriately eerie, with spooky vocalizations by Nina Persson.

Releasing the film without a rating will probably keep it from being seen by young teens which is too bad as it is a frank and fresh look at the pressures on girls from friends, family and society.

13-year-old Aviva is awkward and sensitive. And she wants a baby. She meets(and yes, has intercourse with) a couple of potential fathers, runs away from home and is at one point with a family of fanatical Christians where most of the members are children who were abandoned because of a disability they have... and this portion is the creepiest and most disturbing thing I've ever seen(and you feel trapped there). Solondz divides audiences yet again. This has been called provocative, smart, artsy, disgusting and honest, and I think it is all of the above. No, the man is not "well", mentally. The line between genius and madman is thin, if there is one. While this doesn't mean that we should accept everything that is offensive, I do think that this one offers enough insight and poses important questions. Sometimes you have to break the rules, go against taboo, to point something out. If there isn't a message, or it is a purely destructive one, we can discard the work as "wrong". This confronts abortion from several angles, with the usual black, frank approach and existentialism of the writer/director. The story's structure is a palindrome, and several of the names are... because we never really change. We are what we are, and the fundamentals of that remain the same. There are a handful of different people portraying our lead, including a boy(not unlike I'm Not There). This is to show her emotional state at the time, and all we ever see of others are projections, anyway, we never truly see the entire person. Every single role in this is perfectly cast, and the acting is utterly amazing by them all. This arguably makes the point that women want kids, and men want sex. Every character is well-developed, credible and a real human being. We may like them or hate them; we can't help but respond to them. This has few cuts and many long takes. The camera moves if it should, and otherwise not. This is funny at times. The theme song is haunting. There is a lot of pedophilia, a little strong language and brief, bloodless violence in this. The DVD comes with a trailer for this. I recommend this to anyone with a sufficiently open mind to appreciate this. Not for everyone, and not meant to be. 7/10

Seen at the London Film Festival, 27/10/04.

I've seen a lot of strange films in my life, but this has to be right up there. Compared to this, "Happiness" was a crowd-pleasing knockabout comedy. I have to say that I found "Palindromes" hard going, even boring at times, although there was definitely a slow burn quality and by the end I was pretty much drawn in.

The film plays rather like a cross between Luis Bunuel and a live action "South Park". The multiple-actress technique pioneered in "That Obscure Object of Desire", deadpan style and flat picture quality on the one hand, taboo-breaking humour, song 'n' dance and perverse exploration of moral issues on the other.

I wonder what a conservative audience would make of this film. My guess is that it's aimed squarely at a liberal audience, but it absolutely refuses to pander to liberal prejudice, instead laying into the "pro-choice" position in a manner which can only be described as destruction testing. I get the feeling that Solondz is challenging his own opinions on the issue, as much as ours. Pro-lifers might see the storyline as vindicating their beliefs, but I dare say would be so horrified by other aspects of the film that they wouldn't make it to the end.

This is probably Solondz' bleakest movie to date, despite moments of (very dark) humour. Scientific rationalism is weighed against religious fundamentalism and both are found utterly wanting.

Incidentally there is no rape in this film, despite comments elsewhere, although there are certainly very disturbing scenes.

A brave movie, overall. I'm sure Solondz could take the David Lynch/John Waters route towards the (relative) mainstream with considerable success, but "Palindromes" sees him driving determinedly in the opposite direction, in every respect.

Palindromes is a film that is set to shock. The themes – abortion, child abuse, Christian fundamentalism, teenage pregnancy – are red rags generally too much at for TV soap operas, or comedy shows like The Office - yet apart from it's x-rated material, Palindromes has a certain amount in common with both of these genres.

In terms of film-making, it is fairly innovative in technique, although audiences who have tired of director Todd Solondz's previous offerings (which include 'Storytelling' and 'Happiness') may say it is more of the same thing. A central new twist with Palindromes is that the central character – a twelve/thirteen year old girl – is played quite convincingly by a wide array of characters that are physically very different (black/white, obese/skinny, young/old, and in one incarnation even a young boy). They all have an eerie likeness and it is a credit to Solondz that, even without being warned of the device, audiences have barely a second's hesitation in linking up that it is the same person.

Aviva (her name is palindromic - spelt the same forwards or backwards) is 12 or 13 years old but has a very strong desire to have a baby. This is presented as quite a core issue with her, rather than a passing whim. Her mother reels between hysterical intolerance and forceful supportiveness, trying to be a 'good mother', feeling inadequate at the job, and making strident attempts to steer her wayward daughter. When Aviva first expresses her wish it's along the lines of wanting lots of babies so she will always have someone to love (she is a sweet and lovable, slightly chubby, black child and the wish is not taken to mean immediate action at this point). When she makes fumbling attempts to realise her aim with a boy about the same age she knows, we start feeling worried, even though the scene is trivialised and offered as humour. Solondz repeatedly tempts us to laugh at or with the characters during tragically gruesome scenes and then feel guilty about it. Aviva doesn't give up, even when we know her quest has become impossible.

One of the ways we test a proposition is to say, 'what are the exceptions'? Does it apply under all conditions? An Internet psychology test used rapid responses to demonstrate that, even people who think they are not racially prejudiced, still instinctively tend to view black people differently. We have innate prejudices about colour, gender, age, size/obesity that are not easy to overcome. Palindromes, by taking one character and showing her in many physical forms, makes us ask ourselves if we think differently about her situation when we give her a different physical form. If we feel sorry for her in one incarnation but less so (or more so) when her physical appearance is changed, what does that say about us? Similarly, if we make a judgement about a person, or about what is 'best' for a person, would it be the same if we could see into the future or different futures? The film's apparent premise (stated within the movie) is that we are always the same, we can't change, even though we grow older, may have a boob job or sex change, we are fated to be the same person – we always come back to being who we are (a bit like a palindrome, that is spelt the same whether read left to right or right to left). 'How many times can I be born again?' screams a lapsed 'born-again' paedophile later in the movie. Is a person really fated to not be able to change? What might be truer would be to say that it takes a lot for people to change, to overcome natural hubris and unchanging habit – if we are each individually a product of our genes, our environment and our inner will (or 'soul' for religious people), then real change has to be not just more than skin deep but deep enough to overcome external influences and predispositions. (When watching Palindromes, look out for the Wizard of Oz references!) But ultimately Solondz neither philosophises nor moralises – he simply observes. That he observes such controversial, dilemma-ridden and offensive subject matter may provoke constructive thought in some (especially if you think he does it in a caring way) but derision in others. His pessimism is tempered by the fact that he gets away with it – quips Solandz - "It says something good about mankind and people's discretion that when I walk in the street to pick up my groceries nobody has assaulted me."