Skip to main content

Why is it that we talk and talk, or at least I certainly do, without somehow conveying what we’re really like?

Stories We Tell
(2012)

(SPOILERS) Sarah Polley has traversed from child star to leading lady to director. For now at least, she seems settled in the latter mode. Given her lifelong immersion in the performing arts, it should come as no surprise that her family background is theatrical. This background informs her third feature, ostensibly a documentary on her mother’s eventful but short life but with the broader remit of addressing the nature of storytelling, memory and perspective. If each person recalls someone or something differently, can any single truth be divined? Or is the past in a state of perpetual, subjective flux?


Stories We Tell revolves around family secrets, mysteries, perceptions and assumptions relating to Polley’s parents. Polley’s mother died in 1990, when Sarah as 11, and her portrait is sketched through recollections, archive footage and reconstructions (the last of these, I will come on to). The first 45 minutes or so of Stories is keenly judged, unhurriedly reeling out the narrative hook of a relationship between two very different people. One (Michael Polley) is private and contained while the other (Diane Polley) is vivacious and sociable. While the details of recall may vary, it is noticeable how the picture of Diane is largely consistent (so undermining, at least partially, one of the tenets of the piece). Central to the story in question is the discovery that the longstanding family joke, in which Sarah is not in fact Michael’s daughter, is true. Polley presents this as an entertaining piece of detective work, in which many of the parties concerned give their tuppence worth before she stages the big reveal. Interweaved are additional insights that could easily branch off into full narratives of their own (Diane’s first marriage, which produced two half siblings of Sarah’s, ended in a divorce that made the front pages of Canadian newspapers).


Polley has the disposition of the pseudo-intellectual who can't quite perceive the way her own creative egocentricity overwhelms her subject matter. One can sense the outspoken and politically agitated Polley of yesteryear in this approach. She carries the assumption of importance and significance that can, at times, border on the precious. When she muses aloud over why she is making this documentary, exposing her family’s life and secrets to a broader audience, the act is one of false modesty. I suspect there are two reasons why she has broadcast this family history. One is of the broadest order, and it’s why her wider family and friends, most of them from and in the artistic world, take part; as a performer, she desires attention and recognition.


But there’s another, stronger motivation that, perversely, manifests itself most clearly after the documentary has lost its initial momentum.  During the first half, inconsistencies spring up, but they tend to be mistaken conclusions or emotional blind spots (how aware each was about how ill their mother was, for example), rather than anything to dent the generally united picture we develop of Diane. Later, when Polley probes her subjects about whether the truth of things can ever be reached, it seems like a question hiding the elephant in the room. There doesn’t really seem much left to “solve” in respect of her mother. Her sister suggests that, with multiple perspectives, one can never get to the point of having figured things out, yet the areas left for discussion are emotional minutiae. So it is in biological father Harry’s slightly pathetic attempt to possess the memory of Diane for his own ends that the true core of the film is announced. He pronounces that he is uncomfortable with Polley’s approach of giving everyone equal weight; only two people know the truth, and one of them is no longer around.


Couch this in terms of the involvement of the father who raised her, and the picture becomes clearer. From the beginning, Michael is seen in a recording studio reciting his memoir of Diane, a script that will conclude with Polley telling her father the truth about her mother and Harold. Michael felt impelled to set this all down in writing almost as soon as Sarah told him (the tidiest part of this tale is how the revelations provoke Michael into writing again, an activity Diane had unsuccessfully encouraged him to pursue). Then we learn Polley reacted angrily on being informed Harold intended to publish his own memoir concerning his relationship with Diane. So how better to divest them of this claim than to make a film encompassing both, tearing attention from either as the heart or pulse of the story? Encouraging Michael to dictate his story has the appearance of generosity, but actually allows Polley to control the material. Michael seems relatively aware and magnanimous about such matters, noting how the “truth” ends up in Polley’s hands as she decides what to keep through the process of editing (although he is as capable of scoring points through apparent humility; his comment that he pities Harry, who didn’t get Diane and didn’t see Sarah grow up, is close to sounding like “the poor, sad sap”).


Each of the main protagonists has a proprietorial aspect to the material. And Polley, as the most prominent and “powerful”, wins the battle in an almost passive-aggressive manner. She becomes the child disguising her cries for attention under the robes of intellectual discourse. To an extent then Harold, who comes out worst, is right to be wary of the effect of Polley’s doc, although obviously not for the reasons he states. This is her version of the different versions of her mother. One gets the impression that, if she hadn’t finally called time out there would have been an infinite regression, dissecting the dissection of the meaning of subjective recollection. Ultimately the question is focussed on to the point of over-ripeness, but it is clear that she has divested her fathers of possession of her mother, even appropriating her father’s memoir and gutting it of its strongest elements. It is his reminiscence through her prism; her cajoling and call for retakes.


The question arises, then, of whether Polley has the honesty about or the clarity to meet her philosophical pretext. There’s a continued sense that she isn’t the right person to self-edit, that she over-extends her subject when she should be honing it, and that when she comes to address her themes directly she should actually have tackled them indirectly, so they become plain through the talking heads. Instead, we experience a series of endings so bewildering as to make The Return of the King look inadequate; it becomes plain that she could easily have shaved 20 minutes off the picture. And yet this ultimate lack of distance also makes the film more interesting in retrospect. It becomes as much to do with what it tells us about its director as it does its subject(s) and theme(s).


With regard to the use of actors in the home movie footage (or, at least, about half of it) I have to raise my hand and say I didn’t realise. I questioned the volume and convenience of available footage, as it seemed unlikely that even a family of luvvies would be so prodigious in recording their lives, but I guess I was more involved with the themes than visuals; indeed, the “found” footage is so repetitive that one tunes out after a while. Ironically, the only the material I really questioned was the flimsy restaging of Polley’s reality-adjusting meeting with Harold. Perhaps the amateurishness was intentional, so as to add verisimilitude to the not-really home movie recordings. Retracing my steps, I realised that when the overt reveals occur (Polley on set with her period parents), 90 minutes in, Polley has already over-extended and indulged her subject matter. While there remain elements of interest there visuals no longer hold sway, and the overt dissection takes over. Or maybe I’m just announcing my terrible observation skills. I don’t feel duped by this realisation though (which came with the credits); as a thematic choice it’s a coherent one. At least, it’s coherent with the announced theme.


Stories We Tell is interesting for the way the elements Polley doesn’t address make the picture more layered and interesting, in spite of her attempt to analyse her subject to death,. The real problem here is the absence of a strong-minded producer or hard-hitting editor willing to say, “That’s enough, Sarah”. Prune it a bit, and develop that extra bit of distance so you consciously address your position as the daughter vying for dominance. The final words, given to the man everyone thought might be Sarah’s father (but wasn’t) would be perfect for the film Polley set out to make (“We did sleep together once”, an ironic invitation to reconsider the firm opinions that may have been formed), but by that point it has become something else.


***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.