Storytelling

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.

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.

Just another movie that strives for well, nothing. It seems like the will to actually tell something was replaced by the will to get another award. For me this is just another Robert Altman wannabe at work. But he just can't get the story straight. Deconstructivism sometimes seems, as well as irony, to be used when you are to insecure to tell the whole story. It takes courage to make a straight story (like Lynch), based on really good storytelling. By making the movie a bit arty and confusing you're not putting your ass on the line. You only put the responsibility in the hands of the audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. This time didn't work, for me at least.

Furthermore I didn't really see how the two parts interacted in a interesting way. But maybe I've forgotten my Derrida...

Todd Solondz has a rare skill. He can find humor in the darkest, most depressing subject matter. In Storytelling, he answers his own critics who tell him that certain subjects should be treated with kid gloves and not made fun of. In this film, he makes fun of disabilities, race, death...all the good stuff.

The first 30 minutes of the film focus on a creative writing student (Selma Blair) who's having a hard time finding inspiration. After breaking up with her disabled boyfriend, she had a fling with her African American professor and uses the experience as a basis for her next story.

The rest of the film is about a failed actor (Paul Giametti) turned documentarian who decides to make a high school slacker and his family the focus of his next project. It becomes obvious that the documentarian is the stand in for Solondz himself and he gets to answer the critics who call his work mean spirited or like a freak show where he's making fun of his subjects.

In classic Solondz tradition, there are tons of moments you'll feel bad for laughing at, but you won't feel too bad, because this is one of his best works and it's not as if he's not telling the truth.

Writer/director Todd Solondz last rocked my world with Happiness, which was the sharpest, most unflinching black comedy I'd ever seen. He does it again with Storytelling, keeping his impeccable edge while exploring some intriguing new turf. No doubt wary after his previous ventures, Solondz attempts to circumvent some of the criticisms that less savvy viewers are bound to make. Sure enough, they go ahead and make them; the reviews are polarized. But the film is a masterpiece.

The film has two parts. The first part, titled Fiction, focuses on a creative writing student Vi (Selma Blair), her Cerebral Palsy-stricken boyfriend Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick) and their professor Mr. Scott (Robert Wisdom).

The classroom setting provides an unusual venue: a story writing workshop within a story. Solondz puts one of the characters through a perversely traumatic experience, which we witness as viewers of the movie. Before we have a chance to pass judgment on Solondz, his character writes about the event in the 3rd person and reads the story in class. All accusations one might level against Solondz (namely: bad taste, plus every "ism" in the book) get made by the fellow students, who detest the story. But in the context of the movie, they're condemning an account of an event that actually happened! Very clever...

In spite of some of the grotesque twists, I found myself laughing out loud fairly often. Solondz has a gift for rendering subtle ironies that become overwhelmingly funny.

The lead characters are fascinating and multi-layered. Vi seems innocent, but if you pay close attention, you'll notice she's not particularly sincere. One would like to root for Marcus, but his condition doesn't excuse him for being a lousy writer and a self-absorbed a**hole. The professor may be a monster, but he is also very frank.

The second part Nonfiction is also highly self-aware. It covers the making of a two-bit documentary. In the process, the dialog once again anticipates many of the charges some will make against Solondz (that he exploits his subjects and creates a sensational freak show for us to snicker at). There's a cameo role with Mike Schank, who was featured in real life in American Movie. The similarities between the documentary American Movie, the fiction Storytelling and the documentary within a fiction (tentatively titled American Scooby) are uncanny.

Scooby (Mark Weber) is the ultimate apathetic suburban slacker teen. While very much spoiled and sheltered, he is also alienated from, and resentful of, his elders. He perks up a bit when there are no grownups around, but most of the time the "stupid" barrier is up and his eyes are half-closed and red from smoking pot. He's such a lost cause, he attracts the attention of an aspiring documentarian (Paul Giamatti).

As you might expect, the rest of Scooby's family is a real piece of work. Scooby's dad (John Goodman) is loud and domineering. His mom (Julie Hagerty) is idiotic. His younger brother Brady (Noah Fleiss) is a jock, perhaps the closest to what we'd like to consider "normal".

The brainy youngest brother, Mikey (Jonathan Osser) is a real standout. He tags around with the overworked El Salvadorian housemaid Consuelo (Lupe Ontiveros) and asks her lots of questions. His curiosity is cute, but his conceited insensitivity truly boggles the mind.

Solondz definitely favors the sordid, but I'm not sure he does so gratuitously. I think he simply refuses to pretend, as so many other do, that the world is a tidy, simple place. (Those who seek to preserve such a notion are guaranteed to abhor his work.) But is it fair to berate Solondz just because he dares to present what others systematically avoid? Whose vision is more skewed: Solondz for pointing out the dog***t on our shoes, or the mainstream for ignoring it?

I wish I could agree that his writings are contrived and distorted, but I don't think they are. Through the media, through the grapevine and sometimes with my own eyes, I've seen events that are every bit as twisted and "wrong" as those Solondz creates. Everywhere I look, I encounter people who could easily be incorporated into a Solondz script.

Every storyteller recreates the world according to his/her own vision. Todd Solondz just happens to be vastly more perceptive and talented than most. Storytelling is one of the most insightful, clever and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Watch it multiple times for maximum yield.