Shock value (Storytelling (DVD))

Member Name: MykReeve

Product:	Storytelling (DVD)
Date:	07/10/01 (106 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Strong cast, Some very funny moments

Disadvantages: Self-indulgent response to critics, "Non-fiction" section is overlong, Controversial for the sake of it

You know, I must be unique among fans of arthouse cinema. I hated 'Happiness', director Todd Solondz's most successful film to date. 'Happiness' struck me as one of the most singularly unnecessary, self-indulgent, stultifyingly depressing and boring movies I have ever sat through. But, for me, Solondz's biggest crime was one of trying to be controversial solely for the sake of being controversial in order to garner more publicity. 'Happiness' addressed issues of paedophilia, masturbation and rape, with seemingly little attempt to examine the characters' motives.

'Storytelling' is fundamentally little different from 'Happiness'. Here we look at racism, sexuality, disability, homosexuality and exploitation. In some ways, the issues of 'Storytelling' are potentially more controversial than those of 'Happiness'. As with the former movie, there is little real examination of the subjects, however, Solondz does attempt to address one question - an unsurprisingly self-indulgent one - that of his attitude towards his characters.

Following the release of 'Happiness' positive reviews of the film appeared across the board, however, one criticism could be found in all of them - that Solondz appears to hate his characters. In 'Storytelling', Solondz makes several heavy-handed attempts to answer this question. A viewer unaware of Solondz's desire to answer this criticism might miss it, but anyone aware of it can't help but spot it throughout the movie. In fact, the whole of 'Storytelling' could be thought of as a spectacularly self-indulgent masturbation of Solondz's part, simply to answer the questions of film critics. That's not to say that the film has no redeeming features - there are moments of pure comedy, and some superb performances from the actors - but it's hard to escape the fact that Solondz has made this film simply for himself. Sod the vie
wer.

CONTROVERSY

The release of 'Storytelling' has been dogged by controversy. The film, as it currently stands, consists of two segments - the half-hour-long 'Fiction', and the hour-long 'Non-fiction'. A third segment was filmed, featuring television's James "Dawson" van der Beek as a teenager involved in a homosexual relationship. At some point during production, however, this third segment was ditched, supposedly at the instigation of the production company, though it is quite likely that van der Beek had some influence on the cutting.

If this weren't enough, when the completed film was handed over for classification in the United States, it was given an NC-17 rating due to sexual content. Since releasing a film with this certificate is financial suicide in the US, the producers recommended that the film be edited to achieve an R rating. Solondz refused to edit the film, however, and rather than opting for Kubrickesque digitally-inserted vases (a la 'Eyes Wide Shut'), Solondz inserted massive red rectangles over the sensitive areas in the offending scenes.

In the version of the film that I saw at the press screening, there were no red rectangles in evidence. However, the version I saw had not been certified by the BBFC, so it is possible that they might recommend cuts. The UK certification body tends to be less concerned about sexuality than the US one, and a higher certificate does not mean vastly reduced box office takings here, so it is unlikely that the red rectangles will be reinstated for our theatrical release, and the film is likely to be released here in an uncensored form.

THE PLOT

So, there are two segments to the film, which are unrelated. Each has a completely different cast, and deals with different issues.

- FICTION

Set on an American college campus in the mid-1980s, this segment of the film examines the relationships between tw
o students; Vi (Selma Blair) and Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick), and their creative writing professor Mr. Scott (Robert Wisdom). As the segment begins, Vi and Marcus's relationship is beginning to lose its way. Marcus, who suffers from cerebral palsy, suspects that Vi is only sleeping with him out of sympathy, and attempts to cement their relationship by writing a story about how Vi's love has improved his life. When he reads it out in class the following day it receives praise from many of his classmates ("It's like Faulkner, only East Coast... and disabled"), however Pulitzer prize-winning Scott damns the story as sentimental drivel.

Marcus confronts Vi, because she hadn't told him how bad his story had been when he'd read it to her the previous night, and they split up. Vi is upset, and goes out to a bar to have meaningless sex with a stranger, instead encountering Scott.

- NON-FICTION

In this second segment, we follow Toby Oxman (Paul Giamatti), an amateur documentary maker, seeking to make a short film about teenage life in modern America. He chooses, as his subject, high school senior Scooby Livingston (Mark Webber), and follows the life of Scooby and his family as he approaches the end of high school.

Scooby's parents (John Goodman and Julie Hagerty) want him to take his SATs and go to college, Scooby couldn't give a damn either way, and has few interests beyond his aspirations to host a late-night chat show. We also follow the fortunes of Scooby's younger brothers; jock Brady (Noah Fleiss) and precocious brat Mikey (Jonathan Osser), as well as the family's relationship with their heavily put-upon live-in housemaid Consuelo (Lupe Ontiveros).

THE FILM

The first major problem with the film is really one of pacing. The first segment of the film is relatively well paced, moving at a reasonable rate. However, the second segment, at double the length of the first, seems to
have been drawn out unnecessarily. At several points in 'Non-fiction' conversations run on longer than necessary, for example, when Toby speaks to an old friend from high school on the telephone at the beginning of the segment.

The second segment also seems more of a sprawling mess than the first. Where the 'Fiction' segment sticks to the one story, and explores its characters to a reasonable extent, we never really get close to any of those (except possibly Consuelo) in the second segment. Scenes such as Scooby's dream sequence in 'Non-fiction' achieve remarkably little in establishing his personality, and will have audiences checking their watches impatiently.

It seems that yet again, Solondz is unable to resist pressing those "easy-to-reach" taboo buttons, apparently just to court controversy and create discomfort in the viewer. Many of the issues raised are only very superficially addressed, and more still are completely unnecessary. For example, in 'Non-fiction' Scooby's exploration of his sexuality has so little to do with the plot, or even his character, that it seems odd that this scene was included at all.

Many of the problems with the 'Non-fiction' segment could possibly lie with the deletion of the third segment of the film. In the absence of this third segment, Solondz could have been forced into extending the second segment, resulting in this disordered, disjointed result.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the movie is little more than a protracted masturbation on Solondz's part. Both stories essentially analyse their main characters. In 'Fiction', both Vi and Marcus write stories retelling their experiences, and these stories are then discussed by the other students and Scott (i.e. by Solondz himself). Essentially, Solondz is proving that he has considered the character's motivations from several different perspectives. So what? Don't most
arthouse directors do this? Of course they do... the difference is that most of them don't need to make a film to prove it.

In 'Non-fiction', the parallels with Solondz himself are even more obvious. We follow an amateur documentary maker as he films and edits images of the lives of his subjects, and he discusses the way the film is shaping up with his editor (Franka Potente, from 'Run, Lola, Run'). At one point the editor asks Toby whether he hates his subject matter, and he responds that he loves them and is just striving to represent them honestly. There can be no mistaking the fact that this is Solondz's response to the critics - a response which takes the form of an overlong, sprawling mess of a movie segment, and a response which would have been better constrained to an open letter to 'Sight and Sound' than to the cinema.

Now, as regards the positive aspects of the film, there are some extremely amusing and entertaining moments sandwiched between the movie's bleak troughs. The students' discussion of Vi and Marcus's stories in their creative writing class brilliantly parodies the insipid, pseudointellectual overanalysis that can be found in media studies discussion groups across the world. Toby's earnest attempt at creating the short documentary 'American Scooby' neatly reflects amateur filmmakers' efforts to produce a new 'American Beauty' - even to the extent of showing the "beauty" of a straw wrapper drifting in the wind.

Solondz has also assembled an outstanding cast. The young cast members, in particular, shine. Leo Fitzpatrick, best known for his role as "virgin surgeon" Telly in 'Kids', is excellent as frustrated cerebral palsy sufferer Marcus. The decorous Selma Blair is particularly good as Vi, and Mark Webber is exceptionally good as the misguided Scooby. Jonathan Osser also merits a mention as astute young Mikey Livingston.


John Goodman puts in a typically good performance as the aggressively over-protective father, and Paul Giamatti (one of those many actors with "now what did I see him in before?" appeal) is very believable as neurotic filmmaker Toby Oxman. Look out too for cameo appearances by chat show host Conan O'Brien and amateur filmmaker Mike Schank, himself the subject of arthouse film 'American Movie'.

Like 'em or not, Belle and Sebastian provide the music. Personally, I'm not a great fan, but here, their musical stylings seem extremely appropriate, gelling well with the stories unfolding on the screen.

Don't get me wrong, there is a good deal to entertain in 'Storytelling'. It is just a pity that the good scenes are surrounded by gratuitous controversy and unnecessary self-indulgence.

CONCLUSIONS

If you like Todd Solondz's earlier films, and want to know more about him and his filmmaking, then you'll lap up 'Storytelling' like the dog that know you are. If you don't, then it's unlikely that 'Storytelling' will convert you. At times 'Storytelling' is just plain dull, and at others it seems to be attempting to shock simply for the sake of it.

There are some positive elements, not least of which are the strong cast and Solondz's attacks on overanalytical media students and amateur filmmakers. However, overall, 'Storytelling' is unlikely to be worth the trek to your local arthouse cinema.

Summary: