Storytelling

Rating:
Summary: What was the point
Review: My mate brought this back because of its glowing reputation, and we both sat in stunned silence as we watched this. When it was finished we looked at each other in bafflement, and then passsed a very pleasurable half hour ripping it to shreds.

Perhaps it's becuase I'm a Brit, we both are. But for a film that's supposed to be darkly humourous, there isn't a laugh in it. It labours most of it's points so hard you want to get up and club it to death, and most of them you can see coming a mile off. It's just dull, the characters are unsympathetic characatures, and the plot is risable. If you want a wierd and funny college move buy "Battle Royal" instead, the Japanese do it better.

Rating:
Summary: Very experimental with some good moments, but not great
Review: Storytelling is a bit of a disappointment except for some great moments that really stand out, but sadly overall is not really this director on form. There are some social statements made here but the film does bore at times and never really manages to engage the viewer. It sort of ends up looking like a somewhat rushed piece of work and you get the feeling that a little more attention to the script would have made all the difference.

Many of the big name actors here are obviously involved in this project because of the director's previous powerhouse drama "Happiness". Although we are not expecting the director to do all that again we are expecting a story, but really only get some piece of experimental cinema that seems as if it was just made for the director's amusement alone and very little else. Storytelling almost plays out as if the director is trying to establish a film that he wants to make. So he has filmed all of these scene to try and see what kind of film he would eventually like to make, but instead actually presents this test as the final approved version of the film. Could it be that this director is just testing the critics to see if they would end up loving a "bad" movie because of his last piece of work?

The "film" is two different stories. One is about a student writer who ends up doing a very non-politically correct story about domination by a mandingo black teacher. The other story is about a documentary film maker following a student at school and at home with his family. The scene at the table about Nazis and being conceived in the womb is fantastic but there is little else here except for maybe the burning at the stake scene.

Overall this is just a bad film that doesn't work. Only recommended as something you should see because you like the director - but all else should avoid.

Rating:
Summary: Solondz has done better
Review: I previously have been a fan Todd Solondz's work in the pastm but I really didn't like Storytelling. Solondz has a real talent to make the tragic and brutal seem humorous. Where WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE and HAPPINESS are cynical comedies, STORYTELLING is simply a mean-spirited movie. What this movie really lacks is a coherent story to tie the depressing subject matter into a humorous movie. If you're new to Solondz's work, watch his previous movies first.

Rating:
Summary: Yes, I said 1 star!
Review: I was deeply disappointed by this film. I bought DVD copies of Welcome to the Dollhouse and Happiness. I loved those films and I was a big fan of the director up to this point. I admired how he seemed to "push the limits" in his previous work and I came to feel that he was a good "storyteller" and had a distinct style. So, when this was first released I was very excited. And the fact that he fought very hard against the censors made me admire him more. But this work was real trash. The movie arrogantly refuses to tell a cohesive story or include worth-remembering dialogue. Dollhouse and Happiness were cynical and irreverent, but this film was just vapid and mean-spirited. Hopefully, Todd Solandz will stay away from this "Woody Allen-Oliver Stone bitterness spiral" and just try returning to making better films.

Rating:
Summary: Todd Solondz is fuktop!
Review: I won't review it or give it away...I hate to do that. But you should really be prepared for some weird and shocking stuff to the max...specially the first 30 minutes of the film!!! those 30 minutes are a masterpiece...the rest of the film is not as good but still very interesting. I trully enjoy exploitation flicks!!!
Todd Solondz is the new master of suburbian exploitation. I love all his stuff but this is definitely not for everyone. Even though he uses shock value to reflect untypical darkly funny situations...some mystical intelligence is present. I don't like reviews...movies should speak for themselves the same as portraits and paintings, but if you haven't seen any of Todd Solondz films, then you should try first with "Happiness" and then try "Storytelling" or "Welcome to the Dollhouse". This is a very difficult and quite icoherent film to watch if you haven't seen his first two entries...but still has some very imaginative elements. So if you like weird, hard to watch and untypical films...give this a try.

Rating:
Summary: Another great film from Solondz
Review: This film gets only 4 stars, not because it isn't great, but because it suffers in comparison to the director's previous films. The critics are right to say that this is Solondz's slightest effort so far, but it's still much stronger than just about any contemporary film I can think of. Solondz deserves great esteem just for having the courage and vision to make films that don't flinch in their depiction of naked reality. If that weren't enough, his films also manage to be wonderfully acted and strikingly photographed. The hysterical reactions that his films evoke, are in my opinion, evidence of his considerable powers as an artist. I recommend all three of his films to anyone who knows that films are more than just entertainment. Look out for Steve Railsback(Helter Skelter, Lifeforce) as an apathetic highschool principal and Mike Shank(American Movie) as a stoner cameraman.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting story but harsh - with no human compassion
Review: I am still unsure that I have totally understood this movie; however, I am sure about enjoying its viewing quite a lot (especially the second part), and this in spite of the fact that I cannot say I felt a lot for, or identified with any of the characters.
I think in both parts the personalities are all somewhat grotesque; however, each of the characters has certain behaviors which are very human and very familiar - although not "socially accepted". An example for this would be Mickey, the youngest son in the second part, hypnotizing his father and asking that from now on he, Mickey, will be the favorite son.
The first part is called "fiction" but rather, tries to show the reality of what we choose to term fiction. We meet a few participants in a literary workshop were the student-writers build on their personal experience for their story-writing and then succumb to the criticism of their class mates and the class teacher whose harsh verdict affects all members of the group.

The literary class cannot accept one of the stories and claims it to be "racist" while our frustrated heroine (Vi) tries to convince the class that what she wrote about can happen in reality and did in fact happen (as the viewer well knows). Vi is fragile and sweet and we are totally on her side although not all her actions and behaviors are fully comprehensible.
There is something quite ruthless about this part. A very hard uncomfortable statement about human beings, their cruelty and motives that immediately brings to mind "Happiness" another Todd Solondz movie which leaves you with the same uncomfortable feeling. You get to see people in some of their rather low and ugly moments.
The second part is termed "non fiction" but seemed a lot more fabricated to me... so many things happen to all the characters that I have to admit I remained "emotionally indifferent". I am not trying to say that I did not like the story or found it uninteresting, on the contrary. Its just that what happened on the screen, starting with the telephone call between Toby Oxman, an aspiring producer (who works in a shoe store in order to make a living) and his high school friend and ending in the last terrible scene - was just too grotesque for me to identify with.
I have to stress again that I did like this part; I enjoyed the acting, especially John Goodman who is one of my favorite actors (and off course I laugh whenever I see him on screen even if the scene is rather tragic). I just remained as a non involved viewer who watches the film "neutrally" without taking sides (something that did happen on the first part) because all is too "far fetched" for me . This part tells the story of Scooby, a passive indifferent teenager who is filmed by Toby as someone who is in the dramatic "College application stage". Scooby does not want to go to College and is only trying to please his father (John Goodman). Scooby's personal story and the family events that follow could have been portrayed as a tragedy but the producer keeps looking for the funny side. In a way I felt that what I sensed (or rather not sensed) while watching "Storytelling" is similar to what the producer in the movie inside the movie, was trying to create. The producer keeps asking his friend "...but isn't this funny? are these not funny parts...?" "No" answers his friend - "you have a tragedy here". Toby's film however, is accepted in the trial viewing as a comedy. I feel the conversation described above also explains what I felt - is this sad? Is this grotesque? Is it funny? Is it ok to laugh?. As in the first part this piece does not show people at their best. There is not one compassionate character in this part and all characters seem to get their punishment.

Rating:
Summary: Reality for the hell of it
Review: Storytelling, based on two acts, on first glance may appear to be somewhat unreleated. But there are fine points to the ever downward spiraling hell that is Todd Solondz's vision.

In part one we see the story of a disfigured and disabled student and his lover, she doesn't want to hear his revised story. Things start sinking with their eventual breakup. This leads to an encounter that is humiliating and in a story characterized as rape. More bad things happen and we get to examine what exactly is 'fiction' and 'reality'?

The answer depends upon the viewer. One take is the humiliation is a form of rape, if not physical, then emotional. And there is no question that issue is fair game, but so is the choice the character makes in a series of smaller humiliations which leads to her crushing experience. Or perhaps the another train of thought is don't get involved with self-absorbed (fill in your favorite invective).

The second, longer segment is about a slacker type filmmaker. He has a mid-life issue and focuses on school days 20 years ago, in particular High School. This leads him on a search for a subject which he finds after some rejections. Eventually he finds his subject in Scooby, a seemingly lost person that doesn't seem all that removed from his documentor.

As the documentary unfolds and we see the life beyond the documentary we meet the seemingly normal American nuclear family. We see the disagreements between siblings, the disinterest between family members and their various stages of being out of touch with reality...courtesy of, that's right, suburbia. Now this could easily be a film killer as Solodnz has done three films about (sub)uban decay and has managed to outrage and get laughs at the expense of this sub-culture. Thankfully there is some seeming self-deprecation in this segment of Storytelling.

As the plot progresses betrayals of all kinds and sizes occur with different results concluding in a - depending on your way of thinking - ironic or sick ending. I lean towards ironic and intentionally ambigious to one of the major characters. There seems to be a lot of self awareness in Storytelling, the other thing that could easily kill a film. What keeps this film fresh is it's black humor and it's premise.

In the end the meaning between both parts of the whole is fiction is just another form of reality, that those that want to ignore parts of their existance do so and lead a fictional life. Conversely, those that deal in fiction find themselves within the story whether intentional or not. The way we percieve reality and fiction are a fine line and one Storytelling does a fine job of getting across even if it isn't evident immediately.

Rating:
Summary: Not Entirely Coherent
Review: I accept "Fiction" as an enjoyable and funny parable. I liked it, which is something I can't say about Solondz' first two films.

But "Nonfiction" seems pretty incoherent. What's he trying to say? He's trying to mute criticism that he sees himself above others, by making fun of himself, Woody Allen-style. He's poking fun at suburban life. He's poking fun at slackers. He's poking fun at "American Beauty". He's reminding us of "Dollhouse" with the precocious young boy. He gives us some genuinely humorous moments here, then ends the whole thing in an ugly way at the end, inexplicably and to no purpose I can discern.

It has its moments, and the first half-hour clicks. Maybe next time Solondz can come to some point?

Rating:
Summary: Into Solondz's murky world
Review: Some filmmakers like to deal with the 'supernormal'--super heroes, space travel, etc. Other filmmakers (like Neil LaBute's early work) deal with the 'extra-normal.' These characters exist outside the boundaries of real life, as in most other films. But extra-normal characters exist in some muted universe where there is no hope. Basically, on one end of the film spectrum is the hope and humanity-filled escapism of Indiana Jones and Spider-Man and on the other, distant, end is "Happiness" or "Storytelling"--films by the less optimistic of us like Todd Solondz.

Somehow I've seen all three of Solondz's films, even though I'm not a big fan of his style. In a way, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is still his best. It introduced the world to Solondz's way of shocking his audience with...people. All of his films have a way of shocking you with yourself. On one hand you're surprised at what you will laugh at (I saw "Happiness" in a packed theater and the house was rolling--not snickering, but all out stomach cramping laughter) and on the other you're shocked at what the people on screen are doing. These things aren't shocking in a way that makes an evening newscast. The shock is in the familiarity. Through Solondz's version of reality you discover things about the one you live in. That's why many are so unnerved by this writer/director's material. They're the kind of films that make some really squirm in their seats.

Solondz's skill as a filmmaker is obvious. What he craves more than anything is to get the audience to REACT. I watched the Storytelling DVD (It was only released in NY and LA and I live in neither) by myself but I could almost hear the audience react at certain points. You can pick up the cues and know Solondz has put that reaction shot, or written that particular line, for a specific reason.

"Storytelling" is really two films. The first, shorter film, titled "Fiction" gets your attention quickly. Don't expect to find anyone to like. Some of the best films (or books, stories, plays) feature an ensemble of characters who all have drastically different perceptions of each other. You're going to hate everyone in "Fiction." I did. But you're also going to laugh a few times and find the characters interesting. The audience has the advantage of seeing everything everyone does, so we can see the contradictions the characters can't. The writing class is like a microcosm of a Solondz film audience. The class, like Solondz's films, weeds out the most pretentious of its members.

"Fiction" comes and goes quickly enough, and is a good primer for the next chapter, "Non-fiction." This film explores the life of a documentary filmmaker who decides to do a piece on high school students' outlook on things after the Columbine massacre. He changes it to a piece about getting into college, settling for Scooby, the first student he comes across (in a bathroom) as the subject. Solondz finds new ways to plumb the depths of cruelty and does it through, for one, a 15 year-old kid (Scooby's youngest brother). The things these characters do to each other are fascinating and shocking, but ring true all the same.

It's unclear what Solondz really believes about the world and its "smartest" species. His world isn't some twisted version of reality, nor is it an absolute truth. It's somewhere in between.