Storytelling (2001)

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.

Fmovies: Yet another masterpiece from one of the great indie filmmakers. Solondz again uses a lot of his trademark stark and unsettling characters to tell two separate stories. "Fiction" was short and to the point, the message being the utter subjectiveness of the art of storytelling. It was hilarious how the other kids in the writing class reacted to Vi's story, like it was improbable, racist and offensive. Solondz again displayed in this story that many people ARE racist and offensive, sometimes without even realizing it. It would have been impossible to make a whole movie out of "Fiction," and I think it was impressive that Solondz had the daring to just change over to another story without trying to link them, which would have been tedious. Solondz wanted to make two separate points, and the only way to do so was with two separate stories. The graphic sex scene between Selma Blair and Robert Wisdom is blocked out in the R-rated version; Solondz has a big red rectangle over the characters in a successful attempt to show how the MPAA censors can ruin a movie with their silly rules. I actually thought it added to the message of the first story, and the uncensored version is also on the DVD anyway. The second story is much longer and as a result has characters that are much more well developed. The Paul Giamatti character was a hilarious reflection of Solondz himself. Not just physically, but also in the way he was criticized for making fun of the characters in his documentary just as Solondz has been criticized for doing the same in "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Happiness." Many people who dislike Solondz films just can't stand the often vicious or disturbing denizens that inhabit his works. These people should stick to watching "Titanic" and "A Walk to Remember" as they have no appreciation for the daring and honest way Solondz makes his movies.

Another completely original, dark, deeply skewered and audacious commentary on society from Todd S., whom we've come to depend upon for this sort of thing. Not as focused as Dollhouse or as filled-out as Happiness, Storytelling does seem sparse, and that's one of the things I like best about it (I've seen it 4 times now)- how T.S. didn't feel the need to conform to what the majority of film goers (even his OWN crowd!) expect when they enter a theatre.

It's divided into two parts - Fiction, with its heavy sexual, presumably-racist and ironic elements, a searing affair that many people seem to have found offensive without getting the underlying satire, and then there's Non-Fiction; amazing how much spot-on societal jabs T. S. squeezes into this one, and plus it has another great, multi-layered performance from Paul Giamatti, always a major selling point of any film, for me.

The bottom line: I believe T.S. deserves credit for his audacity alone, his unwillingness to compromise his vision, however unacceptable it might be. Or he might be consciously tailoring his vision toward the unacceptable, sort of like Andy Kaufman did - getting off on just making people react, shaking them out of indifference. Or maybe, like some people have suggested, he's run out of ideas (or he peaked with Dollhouse) and he's just rehashing the same stuff, hoping nobody will notice. Or maybe he WANTS us to notice, maybe it's a cry for help, in which case I would recommend a writing class, but NOT one that has Robert Wisdom as the professor.

Storytelling fmovies. 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.

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

Probably Director Todd Solondz' most mature work to date, Storytelling is split into two parts `Fiction' and `Non-Fiction' - yet similar themes underlie both and pose questions about what we call reality when it comes to prejudice and taboo subjects. Whilst in previous attempts (such as `Happiness') Solondz' work has merely been controversial, in this film he berates political correctness more accurately and more entertainingly. It exposes ridiculous attitudes in the name of political correctness, whether it is the student with an awful essay who almost escapes criticism because he has cerebral palsy, or a black teacher who gets away with being a pervert because his victim doesn't want to entertain thoughts of racism. Nothing is sacred: Jews and the Holocaust also come in for merciless examination. But part of the film involves the story of a `documentary' being made within the main story, by an exploitative screwed up filmmaker who wants to do his own thing in the name of art, so in this sense, Storytelling even turns on itself and questions the validity of using the subject matter that it does. A controversial, worthy, and very entertaining film that stretches your ability to make moral judgements within a convincingly coherent framework.