Storytelling Reviews

• Solondz grinds in the bitterness

  
  By A3MLO4GAD2O9DL on 2002-02-06
  While Todd Solondz' previous film, Happiness, was an acidic--and mordantly funny--attack on suburban life, Storytelling goes one "better" (if one can say that) and pushes the director's penchant for vitriol to the max.

  The two unequal components of the film, Fiction and Non-Fiction, are meant to be complementary, but do not function as such. The first, Fiction, is mercifully short, juxtaposing the intense contempt of a black prize-winning writer, relegated to the role of a fiction writing prof in a two-bit college, with his snide, spoiled, white, know-it-all students, almost all girls. He unequivocally blasts their work. In a powerful revelatory scene, the black man vents his tremendous frustration on one of the white girls whose attempt to forge a relationship with a boy in the class, stricken with cerebral palsy, fails because of his own fears of inadequacy. Her sexual frustration absolutely must have an outlet, and so she turns to the only other available male she knows.

  The phrase "mercifully short" is used because the characterizations here are flat and one-dimensional. In retrospect, Solondz may have done this intentionally to illustrate his own tremendous disgust at the rage inherent in societal conventions that destroy what should be (or at least is meant by) civilized behavior: racism and 'sub-human' categorization of those with physical afflictions. The bitterness is so deep in this short piece, it leaves a really strong taste; you can feel this down in your gut. Not only is it not pleasant; it's not that entertaining. He makes his point by smashing, not hitting, the viewer over the head.

  The second piece, Non-Fiction, is much more fully realized, and chronicles the simultaneous activity of a schleppy documentary film-maker (Paul Giamatti in one of his best roles, bar none) with a bizarre dysfunctional family, played convincingly by John Goodman and Julie Hagerty as the parents, Lupe Ontiveros as the beleagured domestic, and some talented newcomers in the roles of the sons. Here Solondz does a masterful job of combining hypnosis, a sports-related disastrous injury, and death by gas with a jaundiced view of what "entertainment" in America really means. A closet gay teenager who aspires to be the next Conan O'Brien is picked by the hapless filmmaker as his subject--clearly a choice driven by desperation--and an outrageous twist of fate ultimately leaves the filmmaker at loose ends and the teenager even more rootless than he is normally.

  This piece is without question one of Solondz' best works and, at the same time, is a denunciation of typical American suburban life even more bitter (if that's possible) than that depicted in Happiness. It would have been truly great to see this expanded to feature length. Rumor has it that Solondz actually shot three segments for the film. The third was not used; perhaps it will turn up in a future work, or in the inevitable DVD release.

  Overall this is a curious two-part film which is saved by its second story. No film maker in the United States working today has as much hatred for American mores as Solondz, but, as shown in Happiness and the Non-Fiction part of Storytelling, his intensely black humor/ferocious irony makes his work compelling.
  
  

• American Liars

  
  By A27PSZX2SE0B51 on 2002-02-28
  Todd Solondz' is a self-indulgent filmmaker. He has absolutely no ego, and is able to depict his (or is it just 'a') misanthropic view of human nature that is more visceral and intoxicating than anything you'll see in the cinema. I always enjoy his films, even though I have to watch them through the cracks between my fingers.

  "Storytelling" is most definitely a Todd Solondz movie. It's loaded with winceworthy moments and wretched characters who don't know that they are wretched. It's a geek fetishist's voyeuristic nirvana for it allows you behind doors and into rooms that any sane person would keep hidden from view. But it's a less successful movie than Solondz' previous efforts ("Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Happiness"; Solondz sure has a knack for benign titles that hide suburban nightmares), because it's unique narrative concept just doesn't work.

  For those in the dark, "Storytelling" is divided into two unequal halves. "Fiction", the 20-minute first half, follows the exploits of Vi, a writing class student with a cerebral palsied boyfriend and a poor self-image. "NonFiction" shows the attempts of an amateurish documentary filmmaker named Toby Oxman, who intends to portray the contemporary American high school experience through the eyes of a greasy slacker named Scooby (!) Livingstone. In the former, fiction becomes nonfiction (Vi writes a story about a brutal sexual encounter, and is vilified for its racism in front of her class), while in the latter nonfiction becomes fiction (Oxman, in a vain attempt at commercialism, manipulates the Livingstone family's pain for the sake of comedy). In one of the movie's great ironic twists, Solondz casts Mike Schank as the documentarian's cameraman. Schank last appeared on screen as the laconic and dim buddy of Mark Borchardt, the subject of the 1999 documentary "American Movie". The subject becomes the objectifier, although in both cases he is horribly ineffectual.

  This all sounds well and good. But the problem is that there is no relationship, other than a vague thematic one, between the movie's two halves. Many of the people leaving the theatre after the screening I saw bemoaned this lack of cohesion. If Solondz had presented a series of vignettes (maybe four or five) along the same lines, the film would have worked. But presenting the two halves as opposites, as he does quite explicitly through the use of title cards and the colour coding of the opening credit sequence, he is forcing the audience to expect connectedness. By not giving it to us, he is just being manipulative (and lazy) for art's sake. Which, in my opinion, diffuses much of the message.

  That being said, Solondz directing style is effective in moments. He certainly knows that if you light and frame a scene in a conventional manner, as a sitcom or an insipid family drama might, then the perverse dialogue will hit with a greater impact. Watch how he handles the relationship between Mikey Livingstone, Scooby's precocious youngest brother, and Consuelo, the family's maid. Mikey is just trying to figure out why his maid, who he sees as having a pretty cushy life, is constantly unhappy. Consuelo, to her credit, takes Mikey's barbs with patience. Until, of course, she is pushed too far. Jonathan Osser, while amateurish, is all sweetness and light as the devilish Mikey. Lupe Ontiveros, who always seems to play the tormented maid character, shows why she's been typecast.

  The rest of the cast are all fairly good. Standouts include Paul Giamatti, a Solondz look alike, as Toby. He manages superiority through his inherent inferiority, and is terribly funny. John Goodman, as the Livingstone patriarch, dominates the screen (as Goodman usually does) as a father unwilling to make waves, lest he lose his comfortable home and family. Mark Webber, who plays Scooby, gets the boy's sluggishness just right, not to mention his ignorance. In the "Fiction" segment, Selma Blair is the only one worth watching. She plays Vi with punkish aplomb, intense vulnerability, and obvious damage.

  One side note: I wish Solondz had beefed up the parts of Franka Potente, as Toby's film editor, and Conan O'Brien, who displays fine acting chops as late night talk show host Conan O'Brien!

  In the end, "Storytelling" is enjoyable, often funny (assuming you find the idea of someone's domineering parents being burned at the stake in a ridiculous dream sequence), visceral, and harsh. It doesn't reach the heights that Solondz' previous work does, but that's not for lack of aiming high. It just misses its target.
  
  

• A movie that never flinches

  
  By A1GYCAJ7ZQHIFH on 2002-06-16
  Todd Solondz's funny and controversial films examine sordid suburbia. They are witty, satirical stories but also unflinching in their use of controversial subjects like rape, pedophilia and other "uncomfortable" subjects that most mainstream films would never have the nerve to address, much less use in a comedic context. So, you either love his films or hate them (as the other reviews here will attest.) I happen to love his films.

  It might be best to watch his previous film, "Happiness", before watching "Storytelling" as "Storytelling" seems (to me) to be the film maker's personal response to the criticisms that his other films have elicited. "Storytelling" is composed of two, separate stories titled "Fiction" and "Non Fiction". "Non Fiction" features a documentary film maker (clearly representing Solondz)who's a downtrodden geek, accused of exploiting his subjects.

  His films make you laugh but also uncomfortable about laughing. I think he's an exciting voice in American cinema, far removed from the formulated drek that's cranked out by the studios. Highly recommended!
  
  

• "Mandingo" and "Reality TV"

  
  By A229073CQKXV5W on 2003-02-27
  Although this third film by Todd Solondz is not as good as "Welcome To The Dollhouse" or "Happiness", it still smacks of satirical cynicism. Inexplicably split into two films ('Fiction', 'Non-fiction'), we are first presented with a twenty minute film about community college level 'writing', in which, a young woman has a confrontational and sexual sparring with the black, 'mandingo' teacher. It's all meant to be a comment on hypocritical racists in education. It culminates in an outrageous sex encounter that is literally 'blocked' by a large red rectangle (taboo emphasis). It's moderately entertaining.

  The second part of the film is more complex. Without exposing too much of the plot, it involves (as "Happiness" did) classism, racism, sexism, oh hell, any 'ism' you could imagine. But it works. It is simply a story of an upper middle class American family with the 2.5 kids and the proper suburban parents with a perfect son, the 'imperfect' son and the 'baby'. Kudos to John Goodman and Julie Haggerdy for participating in this movie. They bring life and legitimacy to their roles. Solondz filmed this well before "reality TV" was popular, and that is the premise. While the imperfect son is being secretly filmed for a documentary, the family struggles through it's own unusually tragic existence (the youngest of the three sons is the 'Brady Bunch brat' we always thought we wanted to see as evil). Needless to say, Solondz produces many shocks and surprises along the way. The trip is wildly entertaining, but the finale may leave the viewer distraught. Not that the story is poorly conceived or arranged, but simply that the ending is horribly, terribly depressing. It still good enough to recommend. I consider that a rare accomplishment for any film-maker.
  
  

• Compelling, Disturbing, and a Fantastic Movie

  
  By A124V0ZBE20TG3 on 2002-08-06
  I can't believe people are giving this film 1 star. Storytelling is one of the best films I've seen in a while. Yes it's disturbing -- yes it's at times shocking -- and yes maybe even a scene or two were a bit unnecessary, but director Todd Solondz is brave enough to take that extra step to keep the viewer engaged by showing them the unexpected. This movie is unlike anything you'll ever see - a "Fiction" and "Nonfiction" story put together in one movie, both being able to capture your attention. Before you pass on this movie based on all the 1-star reviews, give it a chance. You may just enjoy this very different film.
  
  
• Brilliant vision of how to tell a story�
  By A6ADO7B6FUVN on 2004-07-16
  The mode of portraying a tale is in focus in Storytelling through two different stories that are disconnected, yet associated to one another, as one deals with the fictional and the other the non-fictional. In the first part, Fiction, Vi (Selma Blair) is in a relationship with Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick) who suffers from cerebral palsy and both are attending the same university. Vi and Marcus are currently enrolled in the same creative writing class where the students scrutinize each other's writing. Fiction exposes how personal experiences are turned into writing, which is callously slaughtered by judgmental readers as they their own set of values to the cerebral playing field of literature.

  The second part of Storytelling, Non-fiction, illiterates the reality of the world as Scooby Livingston (Mark Webber) perceives it. Scooby lives in a upper-class bubble protected by his ruling father, Marty (John Goodman), where Scooby is constantly asked, "what are you going to do with your life?" This endless questioning of Scooby's future seems to have been stressful for him as he has sunk into a zombie-like state. Scooby escapes reality through smoking pot or chewing down a couple of mushrooms where he flees into dreams of working as a co-host with David Letterman. The day when a shoe salesman, who aspires to make film, visits Scooby's high school in order to make a documentary about the process of entering college Scooby believes that this is his chance to make connections in the world of media. However, when the documentary comes along it begins to depict the dream-like world in which Scooby lives in.

  Storytelling is a clever film that displays the symbiosis between the audience and the storyteller, which is meticulously directed by Solondz. Solondz depicts the power of the audience to choose what to believe and what to disregard if it is not portrayed in an manner that the audience can accept. In addition, Solondz offers a notion of how the power of storytelling can sway an audience's convictions in a chosen direction if carefully planned. In a sense Storytelling is a philosophical film in regards to film and film making, which can be derived from the economics, politics, and the arts. Yet, the philosophical debate of Storytelling is deep beneath the surface as the audience must use a dialectic approach in order to reach it. Nonetheless, Storytelling offers a terrific cinematic experience as it offers the audience to choose whether to sink into thought or merely enjoy the ride.
  
  

• Solondz answers his critics.
  By A27CFNHYZG6WS8 on 2001-12-03
  First bad news for the audience: to fully appreciate 'Storytelling', you have to know about the (largely negative) critical reception of Todd Solondz's previous film, 'Happiness'. 'Storytelling' is an odd mix of apologia and justification - the two narratives, entitled 'Fiction' and 'Non-Fiction' are full of creators and critics, from the students at a creative writing class and their broodingly hostile teacher; to the documentary film-maker and the reaction of his editor and preview audience; to a child who hypnotises his loveless father to do what he wants, and the literal critical roasting by the Hispanic maid Consuela. Critics point out flaws in, and creators struggle to defend, these works in much the same way many in the press savaged Solondz, accusing him of condescension and misanthropy. By extension, the film explores what happens to 'real' human experience when it is ordered by the subjectivities of fiction.

  By foregrounding those elements we don't usually see in day-glo mainstream culture - sexualised disability; inter-racial sexual politics; the shocking disparity between the nobility of our ideals and art, and the ugliness of our desires - Solondz might claim that his films are more 'real' than the manufactured norm; critics could object that replacing one extreme with another is simply dealing in caricature (the fact that critics have found these representations objectionable surely says more about them, though, than the director).

  'Storytelling' is actually the indie equivalent of 'American Pie'. It posits a similar comic world, where all human endeavour is confounded by a conflict between brute instinct and delusion. Where 'Pie' glosses this unpalatable truth with attractive stars, sugar-coated comedy and bright colour, Solondz's films are remorselessly downbeat, his characters unsympathetic; his humour, far from comforting, is hostile and unsparing; his mise-en-scene as flat, ugly and dim as his characters, their lives and their milieux (although he offers occasional grace notes, such as Marcus in front of the mirror, or John Goodman's whole character).

  This is an authentic vision, and we shouldn't complain because we don't agree with it, but commend Solondz for finding an appropriate cinematic style with which to express himself. 'Happiness' is a masterpiece. 'Storytelling' is not. It is more complex than it first seems - the difference in 'Fiction', for instance, between the 'realistic' depiction of Scott and Vi's sexual encounter, and her version of it in story-form, is blurred by the subjective filming of the former, the demonising of Scott as an African-American, lost in the shadows surrounding him, like Othello playing Iago. And the self-satisfied platitudes of 'American Beauty' definitely need the skewering given here, in both the first story's provocatively brutal relationship between an older man and a teenage girl, and in Toby (Solondz' altar ego)'s neurotic documentary, 'American Scooby'. The narrative structure is a maze of proliferating stories (e.g. the Conan dream sequence). But 'Storytelling' simply isn't funny enough (despite a terrifically sad Goodman), its insights too pat. Ingmar Bergman has shown that directors turning in on themselves can be a fruitful artistic manoeuvre. For this to work, however, Solondz needs to account not to critics, ephemeral and ultimately irrelevant irritants, but to himself.
  
  

• real comedy
  By on 2001-09-30
  Todd Solondz has said that he thinks all his movies are comedies, just very sad ones. He doesn't just turn out amazing movies that redefine the word "entertainment"; he's Chekhov's heir apparent. That's made clear in his newest film, which is a brilliant blend of perceptive realism and hysterical absurdity. These are stories without morals, but not without meaning. It's a wonderful movie, and most people are going to hate it.
  
  
• He's an acquired taste but I love his films.
  By on 2002-08-09
  Todd Solodnz is not everyone's cup of tea. To enjoy his films, one must have a jet-black sense of humor and be comfortable with having your buttons pushed. He's definitely an acquired taste, but I love his movies. And, this one is no exception. It reminded me of Woody Allen's "Deconstructing Harry" in that it seems to be Solondz's response to his crticis. Indeed, it's a good film, but it's even better if you've already seen his other films ("Welcome to the Dollhouse," "Fear, Anxiety, & Depression," and "Happiness"). Solodnz dwells on subjects that most people would rather pretend don't exist (oh, but they do, they do). He makes you squirm and think and usually laugh at what you're seeing even though you may feel guilty about it afterwards. But, that's the point of a Todd Solondz film - anyone seeking lighthearted escapist fare will run screaming from the exits. But, for those who can "take it" and appreciate something different and intelligent, there are many rewards to be found. "Storytelling" may be a tad weaker than "Welcome" & "Happiness" (though miles above "Fear"), but it still succeeds wonderfully. I can't get this film out of my mind. It's essentially an examination of where the line between valid art and exploitation lies, of where the search for truth ends and a carnival geek show begins. And, it's a doozy. The MPAA objected to one particular scene in the first segment, "Fiction," causing Solondz to obscure the offending image with a bright, incongruous red rectangle rather than cut it (the scene in question is integral to the story). Now, that one can see the scene uncensored on this DVD, it provides even more proof that the MPAA is out of control (the scene is really no more explicit than anything to be found in, say, "Original Sin"). It's really the ideals and concepts Todd examines which make the MPAA uncomfortable, but all they can do is attack scenes with nudity and clearly simulated sex. Ridiculous, really. Some may find the subject matter and sense of humor repugnant, but this is one of the better films I've seen recently.
  
  
• Not Much Storytelling Going On Here
  By A2W7GQG04QCEVT on 2005-09-17
  I'm one of those that this movie didn't do much for. I wasn't a Todd Solondz fan to begin with, truth be told. I didn't care for Welcome to the Dollhouse when it came out, but that was some time ago and I didn't mind giving him a try again. For me, however, this movie has very little to recommend it. It's amusing at times, quirky and thought provoking at times, but I end up feeling Solondz is more the illusion of substance than he is substance. He makes things weird enough, puts issues in your face enough, and makes sure to appear to be taboo-breaking enough that you'll walk away talking, debating, creating meaning. But in and of itself the film and his character development offers little.
  
  I don't buy for a moment that he actually knows anything about the sex and race issues of black men and white women, the focus of the first section. But he throws it in your face as if his main goal is to get a reaction, any reaction. It feels a bit like reality tv - ie, very UNREALITY entertainment wherein people are made to push each others' buttons for the viewers amusement.
  
  This viewer, however, wasn't amused. I can see that late teen and early-twenties viewers might like this. Maybe that's his audience. But this is not a particularly adult film, and this filmaker has yet to offer much of importance. He might. But he hasn't yet.
  
  
• Everyone always has a story to tell.
  By A3C6CZC2JP67VK on 2008-01-17
  Todd Solondz's `Welcome to the Dollhouse' showed comic/absurd promise; his masturbation scene in `Happiness' overstepped the boundary of film taste but got everyone's attention. While I didn't enjoy "Storytelling" as much as I did the Director's two previous films, "Happiness" and "Welcome to The Dollhouse," Solondz continues to amaze with his depictions of just how awkward true life really is. As always, he masterfully shows the oft times tactless, cynical, transparent motivations of everyday suburban life and combines them with outrageous situations, giving a humorous view into the myriad of interesting quirky characters he creates. As with Happiness, Storytelling has no background characters. Each character gets fully explored in a way that no matter how familiar or foreign a specific character's behavior might be to you, you can't help but understand their motivations. Solondz can develop over 10 characters in 88 minutes while most conventional Hollywood films fail to portray just one in any given 3 hour "epic".
  
  Selma Blair and Leo Fitzpatrick give incredible performances in the first segment of this film titled "Fiction". John Goodman is at his best here in the film's second segment "Non-fiction", not to mention it was a good to see Julie Haggerty in it.
  
  One of the film's most honest moments (and there are MANY) comes in the beginning of the Non-Fiction segment, during a phone call Paul Giamatti gives to a female classmate he hadn't spoken to since high school. While hilarious, I couldn't help but feel bad for his character, which gets fleshed out in the almost confessional tone of the conversation (which of course, he blunders).
  
  I don't want to dig far into the plot because the elements of shock and surprise that are Solondz bread and butter should only be revealed by others, suffice it to say I recommend this movie very highly. I look forward to anything this director does.
  
  
  
• "'American Beauty' With Real Teeth"
  By A2IG2FG7L85RMU on 2002-02-11
  By common consent, the old WASP intelligentsia is said to have lost its tone-setting influence on national life in the era of Vietnam and Watergate. But what happened to that other encourager of high standards in national and private life, the New York Jewish intellectuals? Todd Solondz provides something of an answer in the brilliant second part of "Storytelling." It was the move to the suburbs of New Jersey and the attendant values of life there that did them in. People perhaps formerly interested in ideas became centered instead on comfort, real estate, temple fund raising, etc. Their children, allowed to grow naturally like plants, turned into jocks, dopers, or, worst of all, non-compassionate conservatives, focused on mere class rank and college acceptance rather than real learning. Solondz' suburbs seem embarrassingly on target as the object of contemporary satire. His vision of life there is a needed corrective to the sentimentalities of that overpraised mediocrity, "American Beauty."
  
  
• When good directors go bad.
  By A3DDPAD4ISTGHC on 2002-03-02
  Greetings from Tromaville!

  Todd Soltdz is a talented director. His previous films "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Happiness" are both masterpieces. Both deliver an excelent mix of dark comedy and thought-provoking drama that can remind any indie film buff exactly why they like movies!

  However, Todd messes up. This film (presented as a DARK comedy) is divided into two parts: "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction." The "Fiction" section is about a caucasion girl in a creative writing class who is in love with a cerebral palsy victim and gets raped by her african-american teacher. The "Non-Fiction" section deals with a dysfunctional suburban Jewish family who is filmed by a wannabe documentary film maker.

  Todd has been known as a director who was not afraid to take risks. He's been compared to John Waters in his brutal style of bad taste dark comedy, but there is a difference. John Waters has always used "Bad Taste" humor in a non-exploitive manner. Even though he did show a man in drag eating dog fecal manner, it was all done in a spark of creativity, inteligence, and a desire to entertain. However, Todd simply uses shock, not as an art, but as a coverup for a lack of good ideas.

  Todd's previous works ("...Dollhouse" and "Happiness") used taboo subjects to get to a core point and make us laugh along the way. He used the bizarre to bring emotion. However, with "Storytelling," he's shocking for the sake of shock.

  In the "Fiction" section, there is a promising start that pulls the viewer in with it's brilliant use of bad taste humor. However, it quickly loses speed and shows it's true colors of "look at me because I'm vulgar" attitudes and "let's see how far I can push you."

  The "Non-fiction" section starts out promising as well. The tale of a failing documentary film maker working with a surburban Jersey Jewish family delivers many great laughs of the bad taste manner, and the jokes you don't feel guilty of laughing about. However, after a very entertaining dream sequence involving Conan O' Brien, the film takes a downhill turn. Todd once again returns to the "it's shocking so it's cool" method of directing which grabs the once promising tale and drags it downword into a world of dissappointment and wasted time. The ending itself, while attempting to be funny and shocking, acheives neither. In fact, it only succeeds in wasting your average cinema buff's time and money.

  While the acting is excellent, and there are a handful of hard laughs, the last 10 minutes of both sections quite simply ruin the movie. One can assume that Todd had two great ideas, didn't know how to end them, but still wanted to make a film where only the souls of those who had fun picking on you in junior high can laugh.

  While starting out enjoyable, this film follows the same pathetic route that accompanied the unwatchable "Very Bad Things." It assumes that shocking you and shocking you will eventually make you laugh when it, in fact, aggrivates you and completly shoots down any chance you had in enjoying the movie.

  If you want a dark comedy that is a masterpiece, see "Ghost World." If you want to see a good work by Todd, see "Happiness." The only good use I can see for this film is a visual guide on "how not to make a dark comedy."
  
  

• A Telling Story?
  By A361LE16VBQDP8 on 2002-05-17
  The title of this film suggests the true target of Solondz's satire: America's depiction of itself.
  *
  'American Scooby' is the documentary being made in the second half of the film, and many of the ideas of 'American Beauty' are held up for ridicule - the rather empty premiss of a bag blown by the wind being a moment of transcendent beauty becomes overtly pathetic when seen here as a scrap of paper doing the same; dinner table scenes lose their earnestness and slip into an even less 'acceptable' criticism of middle class aspirations; nostalgia for high school, be it through the bizarre (to non-American eyes) obsession with the yearbook and 'prom', or with sport and cheerleaders, is lampooned from several angles; homosexuality and drug use are robbed of their importance as transgressions (compare Scooby's nonchalant bedroom scene with the angst these issues generate in 'American Beauty') . Aiming more generally at American storytelling, the young child loses its status as canonical symbol of all that is good and innocent and worth preserving and becomes the mouthpiece of so-called 'conservative' values; the role of the child symbol itself is satirised by the child hypnotising the adult.
  *
  If all the above sounds a trifle abstract and theoretical, well, it is - and, unfortunately, so is the film. By being so self-conscious and meta-critical, the film distances the audience from the characters and their actions. There's humour, no question, but rather than unrestrained belly laughs it's more a case of polite chortles to acknowledge cleverness or daring.
  *
  The first section of the film possibly has another film in mind for satire - could be 'Finding Forrester' in part, but I'm afraid I haven't subjected myself to enough mediocre Hollywood films to be sure. In any case, the basic scenarios break taboos, but again the characters are only drawn in a rudimentary fashion, precluding any empathy - so the satire works only at a distance.
  *
  After seeing the film, I asked - Why did Solondz make this film? The best answer I could come up with is that he is disgusted by the dishonesty inherent in standard Hollywood representations of middle class America, even allegedly critical representations such as 'American Beauty'. Okay. Fair enough. But Solondz's own portrayal, or uncovering, of average life is not convincing, in fact, it's not even interesting (I don't think he wants to attempt such a portrayal in this film, although he did in 'Happiness') - most of the interest comes from recognising his satire of current conventions in American film itself. And then the question becomes - Are 'Amercian Beauty' and its ilk worth and hour and a half of feature film satirising? I'm not so sure.
  
  
• storyteller solondz
  By A3LPD7NTGFH7V4 on 2002-07-31
  Storytelling is a typical Todd Solondz fare. Solondz is incredibly deft at placing an unflinching eye on the dark, disturbing undercurrents of everyday life that we all experience yet only discuss in therapy sessions. Humor in disturbing situations; misfits, outcasts and misunderstood individuals and a keen, satirical sense of suburban life abound throughout as in every Solondz film. However, if you're expecting 'Welcome to the Dollhouse' or 'Happiness' then Storytelling will disappoint. It falls short at reaching the highs of past films, yet still maintains that familiar edge.

  Storytelling's only problem is its sense of balance. Divided into two parts, Fiction and NonFiction, the Fiction half lasts about 20 minutes. A strange story of a girl who has a humiliating sexual encounter with her Black creative writing teacher that she later writes about. The NonFiction half lasts well over an hour, a tense account of the "perfect" suburban family slowly and tragically disintegrating in front a documentary camera crew.

  The balance should have been attained through either a sense of continuity between the stories or, as another reviewer mentioned, at least one or two more vignettes. When the credits rolled I felt disappointed that there wasn't at least one more tale to tell. In in any case, Storytelling is Solondz in top form. Proof postive that Solondz is an excellent storyteller.
  
  

• This Aint Reality, Idiots.
  By A1OXOXF2FW29JB on 2005-02-23
  This film wasnt made to show all of you how a "real" university fiction writing class is, or how "real" a Jewish suburban family is. This film is less real than Sponge Bob Squarepants. It travels the same lines as Apocalypse Now, in that it encapsulates the graphic possiblities, and tragic surrealities of life and turns the amps up to ten. The situations in this film are extreme to further illustrate his undelying themes of non-hero's and how tragic hope can be. The characters fluctuate between being stupid, honest, demonic, blatent, obvious, and dangerous. He also creates points of focus in the film that are meant to lead our thoughts through his maze. We identify with the Cerebral Palsy kid, then Selma Blair, but then we see how their bad choices land them in scenarios that are grotesque. We suddenly stop identifying with them. Most of the characters are complex, except for obvious villians, like John Goodman, and the cold, callous, indiferent masochist 'teacher'. The boy in 'non fiction' is a good example of the multifaceted nature of Solondz's characters. We hate him, but why? He was raised in an indifferent family that doesnt prize humanity or kindness. He has his 'maid' fired because she wouldnt clean his juice up. He has no sense of humanity or compassion. Why wouldnt he? His family, whom he loves, has not shown compassion, or taught him about work or poverty. He is clueless. Watch this film closely. It is not a pop culture romp. And if you are looking for Napoleon Dynamite, dont look here.
  
  
• 1 Star for DVD; 3 for the Movie
  By A3AVT9XSUZSOHI on 2002-07-29
  I won't bother reviewing much of the actual film other than that i think the 2 halves of the movie never really gel together like they're supposed to (or are they?). Transfer of film to DVD is pretty grainy in some scenes(the nighttime ones). The back of the box claims "animated menus" but all i saw were standard NON-animated menus. I also found this DVD to be very skimpy in extras. For example, there's no director's commentary. Probably the worst thing is that the deleted scenes are excluded from the disc. The original version of the film was roughly an hour longer and featured another vignette featuring James Van Der Beek. Todd Solondz was apparently upset over the producer's cuts and blamed them for the film's lukewarm response. So where are the scenes that would complete Solondz vision? Apparently, not on this disc.
  
  
• One of the best things I have ever witnessed
  By A3BLH49G1PI370 on 2002-08-04
  So sad, today, the state of cinema. In a world where we live, where A Beautiful Mind can win best picture and Denzel Washington can win best actor for playing a bad guy-in a world where we think "blax-poitation" films are a thing of the past (what would you call the funny black guy with the serious white guy? That just won't die... see the box office cash register for RUSH HOUR 1 and 2) and when we're told Steven Speilberg is "A great Storyteller"- the guy doesn't even write his scripts... what stories does he tell? When screenwriters and directors are hired after the stars have signed up for the films... accept all of this... then watch this beatiful piece of work... it is one of the best, and most important things I've seen in a long time... and ya know what? A select few will EVER see it.. such a shame.
  
  
• Another Gem
  By A1UT01TU53Q5NV on 2002-09-02
  All I can say is WOW! With each consecutive film that Todd Solondz creates, the subject gets more interesting, the atmosphere gets more uncomfortable and tense...I thought this movie was great!

  Divided into two unrelated stories, one is "fiction," the other is non-fiction.

  I think it's interesting how the first story is called fiction. It's about a writing student, Vi, who ultimately writes her best story based on a real experience. Yet her teacher, Mr. Scott, says, "It may have actually happened, but once you write it down...it's fiction." I never thought of it that way. There are two versions, a rated and unrated. Personally I prefer to see the unrated version of any movie because that is ultimately what the director envisioned, that's what he or she wants us to see. The most disturbing scene is of course the sex scene between Vi and Mr. Scott, where she is forced to scream racist obscenities in the act. However, I think that it's a pretty raw representation of how a person who thinks she is open-minded, worldly and unprejudiced, clearly is often kidding herself.

  The second story, "non-fiction" is a little funnier, about a down-and-out documentarian who wants to film the typical family/student growing up in 21st century suburbia. I can't say that I know what it's like to look at the world through the eyes of one who grew up as a total outcast, but it seems to me that Solondz' take on life in suburbia is way too exaggerated. For example, that little kid, Mikey, is freakishly evil. His mother, beautifully portrayed by Julie Hagerty, is like a cookie cut version of a Barbie sans personality and all. However, it's possible that the exaggeration was necessary in order to illustrate a point that people living in or growing up in that environment can be quite sheltered, ignorant of the rest of the world less privileged, hypocritical.

  This film goes quickly, it feels like it ended so suddenly. Now that I think about it though, it probably ended right where it was most necessary. I also think whoever was in charge of casting this film was right on...excellent cast all the way through.

  The humor, in classic-Solondz form, is DARK, biting and hits hard. Again, as with Happiness, this film is not at all for the lighthearted. Please be mindful of the fact that if there is ANYTHING that may offend you, Solondz will find it in one of his films. I know of no other filmmaker who is able to take the concept of "no sacred cows" as far as he can...and I think that's good. None of these more "offensive" issues are done strictly to be gratuitous. He films them in a way that almost seems, dare I say, tasteful?!

  "Storytelling" has a lot of depth in terms of what motivations people have to do the things they do. It makes me think about our belief systems, our morals, our "issues," and why we have them. It makes me think about how authentic people really are with each other, how much of themselves, emotionally, intellectually and otherwise, people are willing to admit to the rest of the world.
  
  

• ANOTHER GLORIFICATION OF UNGRATEFUL LOSERS
  By A1K18MGRR70MEZ on 2006-07-16
  Why does Hollywood concentrate on people who use their freedom and advantages (more than any country has enjoyed in history)to feel sorry for themselves and destructive behavior
  The second tale Non Fiction..is about a family who is physically healthy, have financial freedom and every advantage 90% of the people in the world would cherish..and have no desire to make contributions to a society that has given them so much..Thankfully most Americans are not like these losers, otherwise our republic would not have survived wars, depressions, and constant changes for 230 years.
  This is supposed to be an accurate picture of Suburbia..I taught in suburbian America for 35 years..I met parents who cared and did all they could to understand and encourage their children and I had countless students who loved their parents, appreciated their schools and wanted to make the world better..
  THESE are the families whose stories deserve to be told..but they run counter to Hollywood's cynical, atheistic view of humanity...
  If you don't mind spending your time with self pitying, unappreciating, unambitous, dull people, this film is your cup of tea....(with every bitter herbs..)
  
  
• 3 Stars for Part 2: "Non-Fiction"
  By A1TJPMB7N776WS on 2002-02-01
  When I was a kid "story-telling" was a nice way of saying someone was lying. And even though I will not make the obvious jump and say the Todd Solondz is lying in "Storytelling," I will say that he is at least disingenuous and at worst a fraud.
  "Storytelling" is broken up into two parts: "Fiction," starring Selma Blair as a college writing student in love with a fellow student, who has Cerebral Palsy and "Non-Fiction," starring John Goodman, patriarch of a family of mis-fits and neurotics; one of whom is his slacker son Scooby, who wants to become the next Conan O'Brian (!) but refuses to study and apply to college.
  The "Fiction" section of the film is noteworthy only in that the writing professor states( and I am paraphrasing here): When you begin to write about something, whether it be "true" or not...it becomes fiction. A pretty interesting comment resonating with meaning and subtext which is totally unlike the movie that surrounds it. The acting is flat, non reactional and amateurish with Selma Blair coming off worst. This role and her performance in it is merely an extension of her histrionics and whining in "Cruel Intentions." Painful.
  The "Non-Fiction" section of this film is another story: there's some meat here to grab on to with Paul Giamatti playing a down-on-his-luck documentary film maker who convinves John Goodman that his slacker son, Scooby would be the perfect star of a docu-drama centering on the "alienated youth of the suburbs" Solondz is at his best here and the dead-pan dialogue and situations ring true and yet are subversive and thought-provoking.
  "Storytelling" would have been a much better film had Solondz decided to hack off the "Fiction" section and extend the second. "Storytelling" may tarnish the Solondz mantel a bit, but for those of us who can appreciate the incendiary nature of his wit, we still have "Happiness" and "Welcome to the Dollhouse" to keep us warm until the next Solondz film is released.
  
  
• A Terrible, Terrible Film
  By A327RI0HKTIPK5 on 2002-07-24
  Please - I implore you - DO NOT waste your money on this god-awful film! Todd Solondz has gone WAY off course with this one. Spend your money on "Welcome to the Dollhouse" or "Happiness" and pretend this abomination never happened.
  
  
• Solipsistic Ourobourian Odessey
  By A3TIJC6L8USJ6Q on 2002-10-27
  My needle keeps alternating between "Genius" and "Tripe." So I averaged. Solondz cynically or sarcastically commits the same social sins of which he accuses his characters. I've got it on DVD, I watched the director's cut--no censoring rectangle to please the MPAA. I don't mind him going outside the limits of "nice" society; nothing in this film is shocking after Baise Moi or just about anything by John Waters.

  The utter banality of the film and characters screams "Tripe!" A wannabe write with pink highlights in her hair. Scooby, the dude who's smoked away all his ambitions and might want to be a TV talk show host. His cookie cutter family. The Pulitzer Prize winning teacher who enjoys humiliating his students. It's almost as if Solondz randomly selected click-art from the DSM-IV to populate this spectacle.

  Yet, the self-referential nature of the product, the way Solondz dares to show film-making as a confounding of vision and object, makes one wonder ... could it be "Genius?" I do love it when a film commits the same sins it ostracizes in its characters. This one swallows its tail over and over again, committing the stereotyping, the racism, the loss of focus for which it blames its players.

  Frankly, I don't know. Perhaps we need an unsophisticated child to turn off the TV and tell us that the Emperor is really naked. But that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?

  The DVD lets you choose between widescreen and pan-and-scan, between the theatrical release and the director's cut.

  (If you'd like to discuss this review or DVD in more depth, click on the "about me" link above and drop me an email. Thanks!)
  
  

• A pointless film.
  By A12R17192HHYJM on 2002-11-11
  The acting is good, but it does not help this film from being a complete waste of time. Both stories are about weak, afflicted people inflicting great emotional (and physical) pain on other people. It seems like the exploration into these awful situations are merely for shock value and don't really delve into why these people are so shallow, the only thing that would make you even feel pity for these people.

  I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
  
  

• What was the point
  By A2LHOFKNVND18Z on 2004-01-27
  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.
  
  

• The deeply uncomfortable and FUGLY truth...
  By AT6CZDCP4TRGA on 2005-01-09
  ...is what Solondz seems to excel in capturing in his movies, and if you have the stomach to sit through it, it's hard not to admire the man's sheer artistic ballsiness as well as his virtuosity.
  
  Many of us come to a movie expecting to find clear distinctions between "good" and "bad" characters whom we are able to peg within the first five minutes, to be manipulated and cliched into identifying with the "good" characters so that we really care about the outcome of the predictable clash between them and the "bad" characters, as if the Happy Uplifting Life-Lessons-Learned ending was ever in doubt for even a nanosecond. That is, after all, what Hollywood spoonfeeds us 90% of the time---not only the cheesey action blockbusters but also the alleged "dramas" and "comedies" too...it's all been focus-grouped to death before the final cut. Make that focused-grouped to death before the contract to produce the film is even signed.
  
  So it is no wonder that many people have a problem with a movie like this. It's basically one short, about a creative writing class, its freaky and mediocre students, its freaky and sadistic teacher who may or may not be another mediocre writer. As a veteran of many collegiate creative writing classes, I can attest that there are quite a few grains of truth here.
  
  The longer second film is about a typically dysfunctional upper-middle class suburbian family headed by the venerable John Goodman, complete with exploited Latin American maid. Again, just like the vision of suburbia in his earlier film "Happiness," this one definitely rang more than its fair share of bells.
  
  There really are no "good" characters---everyone is dysfunctional in their own ways, some more grotesquely than others. That's one of the most beautifully refreshing things about Solondz's work: he never cops out and inserts some easy-to-root-for lollipop characters but instead challenges us to work hard to infer some redeeming qualities in all of them, and makes us acutely aware of the difficulty of that work.
  
  Yes Solondz's is a brutally dark and merciless vision of life and people in general, but I'd argue that it is a largely accurate one...if we are willing to strip away our comforting habitual delusions/cliches and see the spades for the spades that they all are. The only really obvious flight of fancy here is the Latin maid's revenge at the end, which I gather is more of a fantasy sequence than anything else, or perhaps prophetic and allegorical.
  
  And Solondz never fails to infuse his films with plenty of jet-black humor, spontaneity and originality. You never feel as if he's beating you over the head with The Message (calling Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee!), or taking the easy way out, or copping out and dumbing things down for easier consumption by a wider audience.
  
  In light of the films that are usually made, "Storytelling" (along with his other film, "Happiness") is nothing short of miraculous. Hats off to Solondz for refusing to take prisoners.
  
  
• Its not on the same level as Happiness or dollhouse
  By A1V42HOFLI4K25 on 2005-06-15
  I was excited to recieve my copy of Storytelling because i am a recent fan of Todd Solondz and wanted to get my hands on some of his more recent work. Having just recently watched Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse i really expected more from this movie. Reading other reviews i see people complaining about fiction but i thought it was the better of the two stories. I mainly feel this way because nonfiction couldnt have moved any slower or been more boring. Not even John Goodman and Paul Giamatti could save this story. I dont mind slow stories if there is more going on than whats just on the screen but there wasnt with this tale and aside from the little corks thrown in that seemed out of place the story of a loser kid with no ambition being presured to go to college by his rich parents has been told many times better already so why bother telling it again if you dont have anything to add? I cant imagine that nonfiction was actually based on any real events and if it was then he should have told it better because it creeped along at such a snails pace that i barely made it through it. Fiction was the better story imo mainly because it moved at a better pace and the acting was much better. Selma Blair and Leo Fitzpatrick were great were as the kids in nonfiction stumbled over almost all of thier lines. I also found fiction to be more realistic than nonfiction which may have been the point of the two stories with contradicting titles. At any rate, if your new to Todd Solondz's work check out dollhouse or happiness as they are much better films. I have not seen Palindromes yet but hopefully its more on par with his earlier work.
  
  
• Awesome!
  By AEPGXT2NHSYC4 on 2006-01-01
  This is the first film I've seen that for me personally really captures the spirit of suburbia. This is my own experience yes, however, this film doesn't waste any time glorifying or lashing out, it's evenly paced and pointedly wise. The driving force behind the actual 'storytelling' theme is wildly intelligent as well-commenting on the need for suburban creatives to come to terms with, profit from and move away from their pasts without really coming to terms with themselves. The film definitely has some controversial elements to it that will disturb the average moviegoer, but ultimately displays an accurate peripheral vision of the spirit of upper-middle class suburbia.
  
  
• Creative Portrait Of Story Writers
  By AYZLXLVMJGTJV on 2002-03-07
  Storytelling was directed by Todd S. who also did Welcome to the Dollhouse and Happiness. His movies tend to be black comedies where he mocks those that are dysfunctional or seen as different from the norm. This movie was a look at him and the way he writes stories. He has been put down in the past for making fun of vulnerable people and this was sort of a movie mocking himself. The first story is fiction, where it shows how writers and wanna be writers use sex as a way to get noticed or vice versa writing as a way to get sex. Their is a definate focus on difference in the story, blacks, punk rock subculture, cerebral palsey and sex addition, are they really so diffrent than the majority?? The second story is non-fiction, which I think, shows us some of what the director wants you to see about himself. The story starts out with a starving artist who wants to write a documentary on how high school students get into college. At first, the subject matter is the concern but things start to change as he begins to feel a certain sense of sucess. His need to get an audience outweighs the seriousness that was once the tone of his story. He wants it to be a comedy whereby he will mock his main character. This will all be done without telling his documentary subjects what he is doing. In essence, where is the compassion? We see this all through the stories, all the people are living out some role and either perpatrate or become a victim. Connections, becoming famous, sucess and wealth are they really so great? Have we lost touch with what really matters, even those who are being victimized, have they lost touch as well? A hard movie to take in some ways, a hard core scene in the first story. Those of you who might get shocked over heavy sex scenes and swearing may not want to see this movie. Todd S. puts things right out there in your face and doesn't hide from it or avoid it.
  
  
• pain, but no gain
  By A3UOYB8F9ALZ0O on 2002-06-06
  I found this movie rather distasteful, even though it is funny at times and does make a few valid observations. This doesn't justify its ugliness, though, and doesn't make it worth sitting through.
  
  

• Happiness
• Palindromes
• Welcome to the Dollhouse
• Gummo
• The Dreamers (Original Uncut NC-17 Version)