My take on the "Fiction" part of Storytelling

My first reaction to this film is one of deep respect for Todd Solondz. He’s combined 2 seemingly separate stories into one film - both with wildly varying running times, and it works! Why is this?

Several themes are strongly shared in both stories. Male power and the females who accept it strike me as one of the strongest.
Fiction depicts Vi’s teacher as a controlling, strong male figure that gets off on male domination and humiliation of females. Yet the girls are attracted to him and `acquiesce’ to his fantasies.
In Non-Fiction the strong male father (Goodman) towers over his wife and maid Consuelo while wielding power over his sons. Both stories also subtly bring into question political correctness and `white guilt’, be it towards race or sexual preference.
Characters in both films can’t see beyond their own prejudice to examine the messages that lie beneath.

What additional elemental theme ties these 2 stories together?
Teacher Mr. Scott sums it up for Fiction: stories based in reality automatically become fiction once pen is put to paper – there has to be a beginning, middle, and an end. Vi’s short story (about her sex with Mr. Scott) works more successfully because of the structure – not just because it’s based from reality.
Likewise in Non-Fiction Toby tries to relate the real-life experiences of Scooby and his family, yet when an audience view it, they react to the film as comedy for lack of developed narrative structure or characters that can be readily identified with.

Yet despite all of this Solondz’ film is original and re-works my idea of what a narrative form can be. I’m very impressed and wish to see some of his other films soon.


CM Rising (aka)

[deleted]

Ebert has a good take on this (posted on the Chicago Sun-Times website).

Anyway, the entire film revolves around storytelling and it's obvious that there are Solondz's personal sentiments expressed in them (e.g. the accusations of exploiting and making fun of the characters in one's story like Solondz faced with his other films). Anyway, it's a take on the fine line between fiction and nonfiction and the role of the writer. When Vi reads her story, her class takes it to be fiction and rips it to shreds, attacking the manner of storytelling (that it's a racist story and uses taboo words for shock value as well as the characters (e.g. asking if Jane is stupid for letting the rape happen).

When Marcus reads his story, obviously autobiographical, he elicits a sort of PC phony sympathy from most of the class. When Vi reads her story, also about her personal experiences but less obvious, the class is quick to assign bogus literary terms and accusations (calling it racist, sexist, misogynistic). In the translation from nonfiction real life experience to a "fictionalized" state (that of a short story for a class) the presentation of information is altered.

As viewers, we see the real act and then hear the short story. Our reaction to witnessing Vi's experience with the rape is pitted against the classmates' reactions. Solondz is telling Vi's story - did we react as Vi's classmates did (writing it off as a PC trespassing with ugly characters) or did we, as Vi and Solondz may have hoped, accepted it as true to what happens in reality (albeit a sad one), not a mean-spirited story?

This sentiment is echoed in the "Non-Fiction" segment, when Scooby sees himself on film. Though the documentary footage is taken direct from reality and the only tinkering Toby may have done would be through editing, the audience finds Scooby to be laughable. Having seen Scooby as a character in Solondz's film and then seen him in Toby's film, do we see him as the screening audience sees him - as a ridiculous joke?

I think what Solondz is getting at is the complex relationship between storyteller, subject, and audience. The storytellers in the film are Vi, Marcus, Toby, Scooby, Scooby's family and the other people interviewed for the documentary, and Solondz himself. In telling a story, the storyteller has full control and responsibility over the characters and none over the audience. The film intones that the story is often propelled by things that what we as an audience often fail to hear or see (Solondz's sympathy for his characters was lost on many of his critics much like Toby's was). The storytellers in the film start off with rich material but are slammed based on surface perceptions (e.g. it has the N-word, must be racist, protagonist gets raped, must be misogynistic). Thus, the question of the storyteller's purpose emerges. Is the storyteller supposed to be a vessel through which reality flows or a filter for reality, responsible for delivering it in a nice package for the audience (e.g. so that the class would feel genuine sympathy for Jane or Marcus' character)? Or is the storyteller something else entirely? Though Solondz doesn't offer a solution to this problem, he does manage to subtly undermine the criticism he's received and also challenge the audience to examine the stories more deeply instead of giving them a once-over and applying an established formula for analysis (i.e. treating "Fiction" like Vi's classmates treated her story).

To some degree I took fiction to be a critique on the various levels of political correctness on College Campuses.
During the first class nobody will harshly critique the kid with CP because, well, he has CP and they don't want to hurt his feelings.
However, when the story relates to the black man being a sexual predator of sorts the kids violently reject the piece as racist, when in fact, it was true.
I think Solendz was trying to explain how fair judgement and facts can be clouded by a liberal sense of political correctness which is burnt into kids on campus.

Very interesting thread, thank you! :)