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

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

I only know what I’ve been programmed to believe. But, of course, the same goes for you.

Raised by Wolves Season One (SPOILERS) Ridley Scott’s latest transhumanist tract is so stuffed with required lore, markers and programming, it’s a miracle it manages to tell a half-engaging story along the way. Aaron Guzikowski ( Prisoners ) is the credited creator, but it has the Ridders stamp of dour dystopia all over it, complete with Darius Wolski ( Prometheus ) cinematography setting the tone. Which means bleak grey skies, augmented by South Africa this time, rather than Iceland. Raised by Wolves is a reliable mix of wacko twist plotting and clumsy, slack-jawed messaging; like the Alien prequels, it will surely never be seen through to a conclusion, but as an agenda platform it’s never less than engaging (and also frequently, for the same reasons, exasperating).

You’re like a human mummy!

The Lost City (2022) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most distressing part of The Lost City , a Romancing the Stone riff that appears to have been packaged by the Hollywood equivalent of a processed cheese plant lacking its primary ingredient (that would be additives), is the possibility that Daniel Radcliffe is the only viable actor left standing in Tinseltown. That’s if the suggestions at least two of the performers here – Sandra Bullock and Brad Pitt – are deep faked in some way, shape or form, and the other name – Channing Tatum – is serving hard atonement time. If the latter’s choices generally weren’t so abysmal and his talent in arears, I’d assume that was the only explanation for him showing up in this dreck.

Okay, just jump right into my nightmare, the water is warm.

Jerry Maguire  (1996) (SPOILERS) I didn’t much like Jerry Maguire at the time, which I suspect is intrinsically linked to the fact that I didn’t much like Tom Cruise at the time. I’m still not really a massive fan of either, but the latter at least made an effort to rein in his most irksome traits subsequently. Jerry Maguire , however, finds him drawing on the same “bag of tricks” that mystifyingly transfixed his fan base a decade before in Top Gun . Bonnie Hunt suggested the toughest part of the role was “ playing a character that doesn’t like Tom Cruise ”. I wouldn’t have had that problem. I do not like Tom and Jerry.