MovieChat Forums > Storytelling (2001) Discussion > Repulsive movie, wots the meaning?

Repulsive movie, wots the meaning?


i saw this together with my gf at the theater and was bored and repulsed by it

so obviously i dont get it

if anyone gets it and is kind enough to share it on the net, that would be real nice!!!

and now for something completely different

greetings!

bart from belgium

reply

I wouldn't call this movie repulsive, after all, I did sit through the entire thing...but I was just confused. I rented the film because I love Selma Blair, John Goodman, and Paul Giamantti and was happy with all of their performances. However, it seemed to me that the writer had two films he wanted to do, couldn't come up with a suitable ending for either, so he just combined the two films.

Mandee

reply

Poorly done, overdone. The characters were trite. Not an original thought in the entire movie.

reply

It's a movie about stories and how theyre made, I believe. It's about how some times bad things happen, and there's nothing TO get. It's very sarcastic in it's portrayal by calling the film "Storytelling"
I fu( king love it.

reply

If you need to admire a character in order to feel sympathy for them, Solondz is not the director for you. Solondz movies require the ability to feel for an imperfect, even deeply flawed person.

Despite the fact that his movies are dark, I think his characters are all very human and he is never cruel in his treatment of them. But if you're a vindictive soul and you can't feel for someone without admiring them, then these movies will just be lost on you.

reply

"... I think his characters are all very human and he is never cruel in his treatment of them."

I disagree.

Concerning "his characters are all very human," take a look at the black professor played by Robert Wisdom in "Fiction." He is completely one-dimensional and is really a comic-book character speaking in a monotone while exhibiting cruelty and dominance. Stereotyping & caricatures are abundant in this movie.

I have an even bigger disagreement with "he is never cruel in his treatment of them." The 2nd story, "Non-fiction," ends with the murders of the mother, father and youngest child. Earlier, Scooby's other brother goes into a coma from a tackle at football practice. How much crueler does he need to get for you to recognize it?

This film grossed less than $1 million at the box office and would be totally forgotten if it weren't for interest sparked by pictures of Selma Blair's interracial sex scene.

reply

This film grossed less than $1 million at the box office and would be totally forgotten if it weren't for interest sparked by pictures of Selma Blair's interracial sex scene.
Nice attempt to equate box office with quality. Unfortunately for you, many of the best films being made today make very little at the box office.

In addition, your theory about why the film is remembered kind of sucks. I had no idea that Selma Blair had a sex scene in the film and still rented it for the first time a few weeks ago. I've become a fan of Solondz and found this to be his most enjoyable film so far.

As for the "cruel treatment" of his characters - you may think that you may have delivered some sort of trump card with your "almost the whole family is killed at the end", but, well, you didn't. A director (or writer) can have immense sympathy and empathy for his or her characters and still allow cruel things to happen to them. The original quotation was that he is "never cruel in his treatment of the characters" - and that's true. Yes, the family members die, but it's not an act to be celebrated - he still treats the characters with respect. It's about the attitude towards the characters, not the events that happen to them. In fact, it's actually quite remarkable that he still manages to elicit sympathy for each of his characters - from the family to the professor to the maid - even when it depicts them doing terrible things.

There are many filmmakers who sometimes put their characters through the wringer and who allow cruel things to happen but who are, nonetheless, never cruel in their treatment (once again: it's not the events that occur that determine whether they "are cruel in their treatment", but rather their attitudes towards the characters.) Other filmmakers that allow bad things to happen to their characters but who nevertheless quite clearly have great empathy for their characters: Isao Takahata ("Grave of the Fireflies), Elem Klimov ("Come and See"), Mike Leigh ("Naked", "Vera Drake"), the Dardenne brothers ("Rosetta", "L'enfant", "Lorna's Silence"). Using your logic, one could argue that Lukas Moodysson's "Lilja 4-ever" shows the filmmaker's "cruelty" - as many, many terrible things happen to Lilja and Volodya, the two protagonists. However, such an argument would be ignoring the actual tone of the film and its attitudes towards the characters. It would also be ignoring the fact that Moodysson, at the time, was one of the most humane, empathic, and compassionate filmmakers in the world, and one who always treated his characters with great love (as also evidenced by the utterly beautiful "Together" and "Show Me Love".)

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

reply

[deleted]

You weren't the only one. Believe me! Fortunately I didn't spend a dime on this. If I had paid a theater ticket for this kind of sh** I'd be pissed. I just downloaded it and watched it on my PC. Couldn't get through half of it though. It's that boring, stupid and repulsive.

reply

My two cents.
The film was about storytelling, in all the various ways. From stereotyping to making art, and the search as to whether there's a difference between the two.
A beautiful example is in the 'nonfiction' part, where Doobies family is talking about Hitler. The story we tell is he's a bad man and nothing good comes of it. So the story we tell is how we would have died if we hadn't fled. Not that we wouldn't have been born.

There are two keys in the film. One is when the teacher says: "As soon as you start writing it all becomes fiction." and "Are you a pervert? - No, I'm a documentary filmmaker."

The first is said after Vi was criticized, by her fellow students as well as the teacher. They all had their opinion, and they were entitled to, because it was written down. Meaning it becomes an object other then the event itself. Two persons having sex becomes womanhood and black male virile culture etc. The individuals become characters in service of the story. But that line has already been crossed, or maybe doesn't even exist. In his house she tells herself not to be a racist. She has already become a character to herself. Her feelings are not important (repulsion), but what she becomes in her story (racist). Even if it's just a private story. And the other way around. It's not important what his sexual preferences are, but what it says about his role. Also in the greater story we see the same. Solondz shows us the students talking about objectification of women, even rape, black virile culture etc. Never is talked about for instance the student-teacher relationship as such or that she wants rebound-sex, because her boyfriend broke up with her. That's apparently not to be questioned in Suburbia. At least, in the story that Solondz tells us about Suburbia.

The same goes for the second part. It starts out with an awkward phone call, where Toby tells everything he did up to now is a failure. At first it looks like he wants to make a documentary about himself. About a kid who gets crushed by SAT-scores, the rats race. stress levels and whatnot. (Just like himself?) But as soon as he starts showing it, the stupidity of it shows. Not the struggle. So he decides to take the humorist take. It's also his way to deal with it. So that makes storytelling also a way of dealing with life. Showing it as an object there, in stead of an event that involves you. On the other hand, Dooby is not Toby. That's why he is so surprised when he learns that Dooby can go to Princeton. It is precisely that tape that gets stuck...

Also it is a Jewish family. Jews as a people are bound by stories. Also the mother is raising money for Israel. A country that is a story. (Just like all countries.) And again, note that what isn't being told. The story of the Palestinians.

What is also not talked about is the slave they hold in their cellar (Consuelo), who gases the family because they've raped her. Here is shown again the one-sidedness of stories. Remember Mickey saying: "People that are bad should die, don't you agree?" When in reality people are not just bad or just good, only in stories.

What's important for the story? That it's a hit.

reply