Adam Gai Todd Solondz's Storytelling could be looked at as a film about film (the second part),and a film about fiction in general both parts). The first part named precisely Fiction tells the misadventures of a young couple studying creative writing at the University. Marcus, a brain damaged, and Vi, his girl friend, seem to be dragged by their sexual drives when composing their texts.He will read in the writing class a story about an invalid proud of his handicap (a sweetend narrative about his own situation). The text being reported will be deadly criticized by their implacable teacher, a black who was winner of a Prize Pulitzer. Vi's eventual sadomasochist affair with the same teacher gives her material for her next writing exercise, which would also suffer appalling remarks.She is convinced it is a good story, merely because based on true facts. The judgments by the writing pals hardly hide their own superficiality and clichés. The teacher, on his side, exploits his evaluating skills to refer indirectly to his own depraved relation with her. Creating fiction serves to settle one's account with somebody. What characters say and do, lacks, more often than not, correspondence with what they think, and in many cases they are unable to grasp the absurdities of their statements. In the second part, named Non-Fiction, Fern Livingston, the mother in the Jewish middle-class family, argues and believes that she and her off-springs are virtual victims of the Holocaust, notwithstanding her parents had emigrated from Europe before it. Scooby the supposed rebel in the family, who repels going to study at the University, dreams about becoming a television talk- show celebrity and is steady convinced of his talents: "I'm not an idiot man, I watch TV" (Could it be that most of the spectators wouldn't easily endorse this assertion). Cynical dialog reaches high tops in the scene, wherein Mickey, the infatuated youngest son in the family, asks the housemaid what it's the meaning of rape. She answers: "It is when you love someone and they don't love you and you do something about it". Solondz draws a ferocious caricature of American people, blacks, whites, rich, poor, adults and children, who are puppets of their ignorance, prejudices and wickedness, and live their fantasies as indisputable facts. Also the amateur director in the story, who decides to shoot a documentary movie about Scooby experiences at the High School, and considers himself to be an objective witness of reality, seems not to be aware of his unscrupulousness. When the boy uncovers his hypocrisy: "You are a pervert", Toby, the director, denies it, without pondering the dangerous implications of his reply: "No. Actually, I am a documentary filmmaker". The spectators could willingly fall prey of this Solondz's juicy, sardonic, grotesque tragedy in two episodes, like flies trapped in an attractive but sticky mass. The hypnotic musical theme accompanying the initial credits paves the way to. Adam Gai

fedor8 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".

CitizenCaine Todd Solondz' follow-up film to Happiness and Welcome To The Dollhouse is not as successful as those two films. Solondz divides the film into two sections: fiction and non-fiction. Selma Blair stars in the fiction section which turns storytelling on its ear when a creative writing student borrows from real life experience to tell a story, only to have her peers criticize her for its pretentiousness and unbelievability. The story opens with Blair being manipulated by her college lover who has has cerebral palsy. When his story is ripped by the class as well as the professor, He breaks up with Blair. Blair, whose own story was trashed off camera, is determined to succeed in the class, so she goes home with her instructor and subjects herself to a degrading sexual escapade in order to write something honest fiction. While doing so, she discovers the class intellectual has been involved in kinky sex with the instructor as well. The non-fiction portion of the film stars Paul Giamatti as a loser, would-be documentary filmmaker who attempts to portray a suburban family with a troubled high school senior, played by Mark Webber. The portrait turns into an exercise in self-indulgence for everyone involved, including the Giamatti character. Giamatti of course is acting as Solondz' alter ego. He vacillates between making a "meaningful" documentary and accepting changes along the way as it suits the would-be success of the film. Initially, the film attempts to get at what makes the teenager click, but we discover there isn't much to explain it. He's just another typical teen slacker. We also discover the ignorance and bankrupt values of average America. Some of the dinner table conversations are sure to remind some viewers the banality and stupidity of their own experiences with family and friends.As in the fiction section, Solondz seems to be saying that storytelling, whether fiction or non-fiction, is entirely subjective and the success of any story told often relies upon luck and/or factors out of one's control. In fiction, the author's attempt to fictionalize a true story went awry, possibly due to the limited, politically correct mind-set of her peers. In non-fiction, the documentary's focus was modified as other events occurred throughout filming: the teenager being an inappropriate focus, his family's lack of character, his brother's accident, etc. Mike Schank from American Movie fame has a cameo even, underlying the notion that luck plays a part in any storyteller's success, just as it did with the film American Movie. The audience must be willing to accept the storyteller's premise. In American Movie, the audience accepted the premise of a loser filmmaker with no talent thinking he could produce a film. In this film, audiences failed to accept the premises in the fiction and in the non-fiction sections.Both sections of the film indicate the role of the audience as one of the chief determinants of the storyteller's success. The creative writing class reacted negatively to Selma Blair's "true" story. The class intellectual was revealed to be a sell out herself for yielding to the instructor sexually. What price are storytellers willing to pay to succeed? The test audience trashes Giamatti's documentary and finds it unexpectedly funny, contributing to a series of cataclysmic events. The film is funny at times but less entertaining at other times. It is not as successful at illustrating the storyteller's dilemma in creating as it is at illustrating the mind-numbing ignorance of today's youth and the lack of character and direction in their lives. **1/2 of 4 stars.

NightOfTheLivingDon 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.