Storytelling (2001)

User Rating:

6.7/10   

Director:

Todd Solondz

Writer (WGA):

Todd Solondz (written by)

Release Date:

8 marraskuu 2001 (Russia)

Genre:

Comedy | Drama

Plot:

College and high school serve as the backdrop for two stories about dysfunction and personal turmoil.

Plot Keywords:

High School | College | Sex | Writing Class | High School Student

Cast

Selma Blair	...	Vi ('Fiction')
Leo Fitzpatrick	...	Marcus ('Fiction')
Robert Wisdom	...	Mr. Scott ('Fiction')
Maria Thayer	...	Amy ('Fiction')
Angela Goethals	...	Elli ('Fiction')
Devorah Rose	...	Lucy ('Fiction')
Nancy Anne Ridder	...	Joyce ('Fiction')
Steve Rosen	...	Ethan ('Fiction') (as Steven Rosen)
Aleksa Palladino	...	Catherine ('Fiction')
Mary Lynn Rajskub	...	Melinda ('Fiction')
Tina Holmes	...	Sue ('Fiction')
Paul Giamatti	...	Toby Oxman ('Non-fiction')
Mike Schank	...	Mike the Cameraman ('Non-fiction')
Xander Berkeley	...	Mr. DeMarco ('Non-fiction')
Mark Webber	...	Scooby Livingston ('Non-fiction')

Also Known As:

Story Telling (USA) (trailer title)
Untitled Todd Solondz Project (USA) (working title)

MPAA:

Rated R for strong sexual content, language and some drug use.

Runtime:

87 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English | Spanish

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital

Certification:

Hungary:16 | Iceland:14 (original rating) | Iceland:16 (video rating) | Denmark:11 | New Zealand:R18 | Argentina:18 | Australia:MA | Brazil:18 | Canada:18A | Finland:K-15 | France:U | Netherlands:16 | Peru:18 | Portugal:M/16 | Spain:13 | Sweden:11 | Switzerland:16 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:16 (canton of Vaud) | UK:18 | USA:R (certificate #38271) | USA:Unrated | Malaysia:(Banned)

Filming Locations:

Adelphi University, Garden City, Long Island, New York, USA

Company:

New Line Cinema

Trivia:

There was a third story with James Van Der Beek as a college student realizing his sexuality, which was subsequently cut out of the film.

Goofs:

Continuity: The positions of Scooby's hands when he is holding the gun change between shots.

Quotes:

Scooby Livingston: I'm not an idiot man. I watch TV.

Movie Connections:

References "Late Night with David Letterman" (1982)

Soundtrack:

Scooby Driver

The "Non-fiction" story is the superior fiction.

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.