World of KJ - View topic - New Todd Solondz film *Palindromes*

Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ]

New Todd Solondz film *Palindromes*

Author	Message
dolcevita Extraordinary Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table	New Todd Solondz film Palindromes Is opening in limited release April 13th (next Wednesday). Anyone interested in this movie? Solondz has done several movies, but the ones I know about are Happiness (1998) and Storytelling (2001) and the one I have seen Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995). He's an interesting director who has been around for awhile, but only does a film every two to three years. Here's what he has to say about Palindromes: Quote: DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT When you create a sympathetic character it's only natural that your audience will want to identify with him/her. Nobody actually WANTS to relate to someone who is unsympathetic, because few people see themselves in this light. The curious thing is how sex, age, race, etc. play so limited a part in determining the degree to which a character is sympathetic. Perhaps this is why a sympathetic character is one that all types of people can relate to. When I had made WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, all types of people would say, "That was me! I was just like that!" (And Dawn Wiener was not even an entirely sympathetic character!) (Needless to say, I heard nobody make the same claim about Bill Maplewood, the paedophile psychiatrist in HAPPINESS, a character whom so many seemed to find "sympathetic.") So I wondered what would happen if I cast a number of different types of people as one character, a character who is wholly sympathetic. My fear was that it would come across as too much of an intellectual exercise, a show-offy but pointless trick, and alienate the audience. But my hope was that there would be a cumulative effect that would be more emotionally affecting than had there been just one actor: more magic, and less sleight of hand. My story is a sad one, though not without a certain kick of humour. People may wonder - what does this say about the nature of character? or personality? or acting? or identity? My advice to the audience before watching the movie: even if you're not sure you understand the what or why of it all (and I'm not sure I do), just let yourself go ... DIRECTOR'S NOTES It is possible that people will walk away from my movie talking about it in terms of the "issues", and yet this is not an "issue" movie. I have no interest in such a movie. The two sides of the "issue" are irreconcilable, and I accept this irreconcilability. In any case, the "issue" is really a bit of a MacGuffin, providing but a backdrop of a story for a young girl suspended between one family that kills one way and another one that kills another way. Or between one family that offers no choice, and another one for whom all choices have already been made. Like a palindrome, the world turns in on itself, unchanged and unchanging: it is all looking-glass. My movie, however, is, ultimately, a love story, just as all my movies have been: stories of unrequited love, forbidden love, self-love. For really there is no story worth telling that is not a love story. At the end of THE WIZARD OF OZ, Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion learn that what they always thought they lacked they always in fact had. They learn, in a sense, that they haven't changed at all: that they were always smart or compassionate or brave, that there's no place like home. They just didn't realize it. The smart will always be smart, the compassionate compassionate, the brave brave, and home home. Nothing ever changes. But can we change? Optimists tend to believe in the possibility, with the implication that things will change for the better. The idea that we cannot change suggests that we cannot improve, and no one wants to believe this, though some may take comfort in the corollary: we cannot become worse. The question is in what way is change possible? And in what way not? Are we in some sense "palindromic" by nature, impervious to change, no matter how much, paradoxically, we change? Some may find the idea that we never change a bleak and deterministic way of thinking. And yet the inability to change is in many ways freeing, freeing from, amongst other things, the imperative to change. And to accept one's inability to change can be a form of consolation: no one is immune; everyone must be who he is. There may be a sense of doom, but there is also the possibility of grace. It's all a bit of a conundrum. But art, however it may be defined - if it is, in fact, definable (and perhaps it is definable only insofar as it is defined by what it is not) - has no meaning if it is not transformative. Of course, at the same time, it has yet to make anyone a better person - or a lesser one. If someone argues otherwise, then it isn't art.
Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:43 am

dolcevita Extraordinary Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table	Someone in my class went and saw this film recently. She was talking about it while we were working on processing this morning. She seemed pretty warm about it, but is clearly a Solondz fan, as she spoke even more about Storytelling than she did Palindromes. I haven't seen Storytelling, only Welcome to the Dollhouse, which we spoke about as well. I mentioned the above posted comments by him about how many people saw themselves in his characters. Oddly enough I really didn't. I consider myself to be pretty lucky in youth for having a twin sister. I never felt all that alienated, even when hitting puberty. I found it hard to believe people relate to being threatened to be raped by their quasi-boyfriend as pre-teens. For me I think Solondz consciously creates charicatures not only of his cast, but also of their experiences. The noses are always a bit bigger, the glasses thicker, the teeth more buck, the skin pastier, and the dialogue along that same not of exaggeration. I always liked him because it wasn't just about "being able to relate," he really had a higher ambition in exploring the space of Dollhouse. It would have been a terrible movie if all anyone got out of it was a critical-less sense of themselves (or their childhood) on film. I dunno. I see Palindromes being like that. The story of a thirteen year old that desperately wants to have lots of babies. Her parents intervene and she runs away. Not out of hostility, but out of an intense desire to have kids. This to me is not something most people will relate to as a story, I see it as a vehicle for exploring more basic questions of security and human relationship bonds. I'll try to watch this next week since it's started its run now.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:30 pm

Libs Sbil Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48677 Location: Arlington, VA	I think the fact that Jennifer Jason Leigh is one of many actresses to portray a 13 year-old girl is unsettling.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:41 pm

andaroo1 Lord of filth Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm Posts: 9566	Everything I've heard of it borders on an unacceptible level of exploitation. I'll see it someday, but I'm not supporting Solondz tendency to navel-gaze by going to see it in theaters.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:19 pm

dolcevita Extraordinary Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table	Really? What have you heard about it? I've just heard what my classmate said today, and she had a mixed response, but didn't say anything about exploitation. Again, she thought the "I'm going to rape you" part of Dollhouse was good. I found his charicatures to be exaggerated for sure, since I don't think ten and eleven year olds navel-gaze at quite the level he has them do it. I don't know, I guess it depends on what he did here in Palindromes, since I haven't seen Storytelling and don't know how consistent his approach is.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:51 pm

andaroo1 Lord of filth Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm Posts: 9566	http://chud.com/reviews/2494
Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:06 am

dolcevita Extraordinary Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table	He still gave it an 8.2/10 He brought up some good points though, about laughing and feeling bad laughing. His description of the scene about pregnany and making motions of anal sex is pretty disturbing though. I didn't realize Solondz has done that. At one point one has to wonder when an scene stops having relevancy even as a commentary through exaggeration. That's kind of troubling. I forgot he did Happiness too, that reviewer says it falls osmewhere between Happiness and Dollhouse, but i haven't seen Happiness so am not sure what that is a reference to.
Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:27 pm

makeshift Teenage Dream Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247	Solondz's creeps me out to no end, but I must say that I find this film pretty interesting. I was watching Ebert and Roeper on Saturday night, and they both loved it. They said it gives you a lot to think about and talk about after the movie, trying to solve the rubix cube Solondz has set up. I love films like that, so i'll probably check it out eventually. With that said, Happiness is a pointless excercise in upper class depravity, so hopefully this one will be better.
Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:32 pm
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ]

New Todd Solondz film *Palindromes*

Who is online

New Todd Solondz film Palindromes