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.
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.