Simple Question


Where is Todd Solondz coming from in this movie? After watching this movie, it was obvisous he was trying to make a point but i didnt know what it is. I dont want this to turn into some sort of criticism of my 'understanding' of Solondz's subltey, because frankly the movie itself lacked a focus or centrel point. Was it about the self pretentiousness of people? An indictment of suburia? What? This is killing me.
To me Solondz is way too cynical. I mean, yeah that's his style and that's his humour, I get it. But what the hell is he trying to say?






"i felt like destroying something beautiful."

reply

It's art...it doesn't have to necessarily 'make a point'. That's the thing about narrative modes of expression that are 'cut-off' from their author (film, novels, etc): we are given the liberty to make of them what we will. That is to say, Todd Solondz, in being a filmmaker, has surrendered his right to have everyone 'get his point' because he cannot be there at the end of every screening of the film to explain himself and do some Q&A time. I'm not necessarily saying that he's NOT making a point (he very likely is), but my advice--which I am also trying to heed--is to stop watching movies and trying to figure out the 'point' or the 'statement' that is being made. Again, it's ART, regardless of the quality, the importance, the meaning, etc.

Film is an artistic medium through which storytellers tell stories (hmmm, seems appropriate to this particular film). And stories don't have to MEAN anything. They can lend meaning to our lives and help us understand the human experience, but often they fail to even do that (which makes them either irrelevant, extra-contextual stories or just plain bad stories). So that may be the case for this film. It may just be a story that doesn't resonate with you and with your unique experience of life in the world. Or it may just be a trite, or silly, or unoriginal, or bad story. Or it might just not be told very well. It's up to you to decide. (How very post-modern of me...)

That said, to me the film spoke to and of the 'fiction' that is contemporary life (both sections, 'fiction' and 'non-fiction' address this subject). In our post-modern condition, lines between reality and non-reality increasingly blur, and we escape/cope/respond with fictions, stories. This is not to say that 'fiction' is the opposite of truth. 'Fiction' is the opposite of 'fact', and both 'fiction' and 'non-fiction' portray, reflect, contain, and encompass truth. See also Michael Moore's Oscar-acceptance speech for 'Bowling for Columbine', 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' (preferrably the novel, but the film too), 'Adaptation'. Believe in the fiction and enjoy the ride.

reply

[deleted]

So this single film is the cause of you never having kids? Wow, Todd Solondz should be impressed.

reply

[deleted]

Fiction
An indictment of literary culture. These are the people for who the phrase, "but it really happened" is no justification. Whether or not a tale is true has no effect on its quality as a story. Solondz makes it apparent that he is not a fan of this perspective. Is there anything more distastful than Robert Wisdom's character? He is vile in every way possible. He is also the sole true representative of this perspective, all of the other characters simply tow the line.

Non-fiction
An indictment of documentary culture. I think that's quite clear. Scooby's family are ignorant, make huge mistakes but according to Solondz, this does not at all justify Oxman's exploitation of them. Even when he informs Scooby of the final tragedy of the film, he does so with a camera following him. Oxman himself is portrayed as a feeble, aimless man, with no story of his own.

Anyway, those are only surface details. I've run out of time for more detailed stuff.

reply

He's not saying anything. He's merely asking,"Who is exploiting who?"

That is the central theme, that ties both fiction and non-fiction together.

reply

That and the essentially transformative nature of art.

The whole point about the "fiction/non-fiction" dichotomy is that there is no such thing as either.

This thread is called "Simple Question", but it's not a question with a simple answer. Solondz is up to a number of things, but mostly he's trying to make us think.



Religion is the ultimate conspiracy theory

reply

TODD SOLONDZ: Movies have different functions and different goals. Some of them are just designed to be amusement park rides and that’s fine and dandy, but that’s not what drives me to go through the fuss of making a movie. I do feel an obligation to provide a certain kind of entertainment, but if you’re looking solely for entertainment I think it’s the wrong place to go because there are no heroes and villains in my movies–it is all fraught with ambiguity–I don’t put signposts out there telling people how to think and feel and it’s hard to get a sense or their moral bearings so to speak. This puts certain demands on the audience. But this is what I find compelling and my audience is very small, but I’m appreciative that I even have one.

rest of this at http://centerstage.net/stumped/Interviews/todd-solondz.html



Religion is the ultimate conspiracy theory

reply

I just got done watching 'Storytelling' for the second time, and I think I finally got it...

Solondz is a filmmaker who puts HEAVY, HEAVY emphasis on dialogue, especially the last words of a scene or act. The only other film of his I've seen is 'Welcome to the Dollhouse', and it looks like he's still using the same techniques he was 6 years ago. For reference, try to recall the last scene between Dawn and her brother in the kitchen ("Highschool's not much different...").

The last words of "Fiction", slightly paraphrased, were "I don't know what really happened, but the moment it's down on paper, it all becomes fiction." What I assume, the instructor meant by this was that once you take on the responsibility of telling a story, those characters become your responsibility, too, and it is your duty to tweak them to be whomever you need them to be in order to make your story more compelling, even if you are using reality as a basis for your work.
The last words of "Nonfiction" were spoken by Scooby, shortly after returning from a screening of his life, distorted and twisted to form a more entertaining tale. "Don't be sorry," he says to Toby, "the movie's a hit". Although within the context of the movie, Scooby misunderstood what Toby was apologizing for, Solondz's message is clear. Toby was just doing his job as a storyteller. Being a documentary filmmaker, he just happened to exploit an innocent boy's life for the expense of his work.
If you need any more evidence, listen to the song that rolls during the credits, as well. Put on the subtitles if you need to. The entire thing, although cleverly disguised with a nursery rhyme tune, is a summary of the point the movie was trying to make.


In short, I think Solondz may be trying to make one of two points:
1) In order to make a story interesting, its teller must be able to manipulate/exploit/torture/emotionally pry the characters to make the story as dramatic as possible. You can't simply expect a project to fly because it was 'based on a true story'. In "Fiction", Vi lacked this ability, and trusted her paper to be of quality just because it was a true story. Yet, as her classmates so crassly pointed out, it did not contain the elements necessary for a good story, elements that they perceived to be tact, political correctness, groundbreaking plotlines, and a changed person by the last line of the paper. Obviously, her classmates were pitifully mistaken on 'the elements' a story must include, yet they did bring up a valid point, which her instructor elaborated on... "the moment it's down on paper, it all becomes fiction." It is the storyteller's responsibility to tell the best story they can, even if it must stray from he reality of the matter.
In "Nonfiction", Toby did exactly this. He cut out the footage he saw unnecessary and edited together the footage he liked in order to create a compelling tale of a boy's struggle to get into to college, although there were obviously many more things in Scooby's life that Toby as a filmmaker chose to leave out. As a result, he produced an entertaining and meaningful work of art, although it did not portray Scooby 100% as he was.
But as Scooby himself says, Toby shouldn't be sorry; the movie was a hit with its screening audience. His goal as both a filmmaker and a storyteller was accomplished.
2) When you DO use reality as a basis for your work, people are always going to get hurt or exploited. Unfortunately, as Solondz points out, this is the inevitable case in such genres as documentary filmmaking and creative writing where you need to be on such a personal level with your subject, you have to use a real life situation, either from your own personal experiences or someone else's with whom you are intimately familiar. This is the aspect of such mediums of work that make them so tragic and beautiful at the same time. Toby is obviously a caricature of Solondz himself, as towards the beginning of his career, he too made a small number of documentary films. Perhaps this is why he chose to follow a narrative format for his later features.

IN AN EVEN TIGHTER NUTSHELL: In order to make a good story, you have to twist and mold your characters to make them as interesting as possible, even if these newly formed 'characters' are not always true to their reallife counterparts. Unfortunately, someone is always bound to get hurt by this exploitation.

Sorry it took so long to say this.... I guess I was just trying to figure this out for myself at the same time, as well.

reply

Thank you for this great post.

reply