Storytelling (2001)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Thanks for the memories!

Instant Favorite.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

I bought this film completely by accident thinking it was an educational piece on how to tell stories. Turns out it was a film called "storytelling." As it turns out, it was an educational piece on how to tell stories.The movie is divided into two completely different and (more or less) unrelated stories. This is the only thing that kept me from giving it 10 stars, and in most cases, this faux pas (in my humble opinion) kills a film. But Todd Solondz pulls it off! This film uses characterful exaggerations to make its point throughout. The characters' emotional development in both stories is meaningful and their relationships are complex. This is particularly true of the second story, which takes its time and is at once candid and ridiculous. If you are on the fence about this movie, I think the one thing I can say that might change your mind about checking it out would have to be that it faces the truth and faces American issues as they are.Oh, and John Goodman is the man.

What makes Storytelling stand apart from other Solondz works is that it is a more explicit commentary on film-making, documenting, any kind of storytelling. With this film, we get a meta-presentation of the craft (Mulholland Drive comes to mind here).In the "fiction" portion, we have a student writing about a personal experience in a college writing class. The experience is explicitly shocking in its racial and sexual questioning, but even the 'shockingness' of it is questioned by Solondz. Unsurprisingly, Solondz beats us to the punch, already mapping our responses. The writing class responds to the story much like many of the reviewers here, using language like "self-indulgent" and "shock with no substance". Solondz then brings up the question, "how can this be if it really happened?" What Solondz is depicting the grimy underbelly of suburbia, true in character, only appearing absurd and contrived when high in density. But once again, Solondz jabs us with the theory that "once you begin writing it all becomes fiction." Within this first short section of this movie, Solondz has set everything up for us: an impenetrable, self-referential mobius strip of a movie.In the second portion of the film, we are told the story of the documentary. Despite the family being documented in a "non-fictional" way, we get caricatures of their beings. The director generally does 'care' about his subjects but like the typical Solondzian ending "don't be sorry, your movie's a hit", we see the struggle of a filmmaker seeking to please his audience as well as 'staying true' to the art.What is ironic here is that Solondz' characters aren't really "mean-spirited" and "banal" people. It is more likely that these adjectives can be applied to the audience who doesn't see 'the truth', who overlooks the diluting processes of documentation; the writing class, the test-audience, you and me. Self-referential paradigms are often over-deterministic and thus seemingly unnecessary, but Solondz has a more lighthearted manner to his display. He isn't really misanthropic; he understands the value, the necessity of discussion, enough to create characters and movies of an accessible complexity. He may be a bit bitter, shrugging his shoulders and saying "don't listen to me, what I know?", but what he really means is "C'est la vie, so what are you going to do about it?"

The best thing about Solondz's films is that they're utterly unpredictable. You never know what to expect, hence along with the steady stream of very funny gags and situations, there is a certain tension, almost like watching a "comedy thriller". (A new genre perhaps?) Solondz veers away from the clichés of both mainstream Hollywood rubbish and lethargic/pretentious/mindless indie crap, hence keeps the viewer on his toes for the duration. In a sense, he is the "anti-Ephron". A deaf-and-blind person could foretell you how a Nora comedy proceeds - in every successive scene - in her terrible noraphronic cinematic turds.I'm not quite sure what Solond'z political leanings are. Chances are that he is yet another movie-making liberal (hint hint: he's a vegetarian, and his films are about middle-class suburbia), but he isn't a black-and-white, narrow-minded, dogmatic liberal who never analyzes anything, never digs below the surface, simply sponging in everything Michael Moore tells him - i.e. the stereotypical intellectually catatonic Leftist: lazy, smug, gullible, unable to learn. His cynicism regarding humanity isn't misanthropic, he simply tells is like it is (more-or-less).Besides, what's so bad about misanthropy? Marxism might seem (I underline "might") people-friendly on the surface, but deep down it hates every man, woman, and child. And because a skeptical view of man's alleged "inherent goodness" is NOT the foundation of all Marxist/Leftist beliefs, eventually Solondz might actually connect the dots and realize finally that left-wing ideology has no scientific basis, no roots in logic whatsoever, and contradicts his own views. He'll come around... if he isn't afraid to face the consequences of "switching sides". Of course, a problem is that most Americans only see two (extreme) sides they can join: either that of the Socialist, clueless, overly idealistic liberal whiner, or the side of the Christian fundamentalist wacko who considers abortion the burning issue of this millennium. There IS a middle road, you know... (well, a middle road that tilts toward the Right - naturally.) "Storytelling" has two parts, and while both are very good, it is somewhat of a pity that the first story was so brief. I got a great kick out of those English Lit class discussions, with all those hypocritical, cowardly, unimaginative, brainwashed college girls listening to the second essay, but pretending awkwardly not to know what or whom it's really about. It was extremely funny; these characters alone have the potential for a mini-series, let alone a 90 minute full-length film. However, these exploits end after a mere 10-15 minutes, to be followed by an entertaining saga of a Jewish family, their mentally unstable Putzfrau, and a nerdy, confused filmmaker wannabe. Great dialogue.One of the highlights is certainly the youngest Goodman son telling Consuela that the execution of her murdering/raping grandson was "possibly for the best".

The one word that pops into mind when thinking about Todd Solondz's "Storytelling" is "disappointing." Two words, "thoroughly disappointing." I am a fan of Solondz's earlier films "Happiness" and "Welcome to the Dollhouse," but "Storytelling" lacked that intangible something. However, what it did have was pretension. I guess one could have seen it coming with ol' Todd, and it showed in spades during this film. There was no point that I felt connected to ANY of the characters. Actually, I didn't like or passionately despised all of them. Was that the point? Was I supposed to waste an hour and a half of my life watching the lives of characters I didn't like? Not only did I feel nothing for the characters, but the "horrible" things that happen to them (typical in Solondz fare) brought forth nothing but apathy. The story was stale and went absolutely nowhere, which was a tremendous waste of a great cast. It's categorized as a comedy, but there were very few laughs. I did, however, find it funny when Marty (John Goodman) derides Tobe (Paul Giamatti) for lacking focus. Though, I doubt that was an intended chuckle. I don't know, some people might like this movie, Roger Ebert did. Then again, he did give "Godfather III" three and a half stars...Bottom line, the film showed nothing, achieved nothing, and was essentially about absolutely nothing. However, if you're into artsy films, even though they are crap, go ahead and waste your time.