MovieChat Forums > Stories We Tell (2013) Discussion > 10 Reasons why I Hated this Film

10 Reasons why I Hated this Film

posted 11 years ago by Basket_case20
17 replies | jump to latest

Maybe my problem is that I thought that this was a documentary, with real footage and real participants,

But as I watched what looked like old videos of Diane (the mom) talking on the phone, at long ago parties, running across parking lots, I wondered of course, who was really filming these mundane events....

It turns out many of the first party story tellers are actually actors.

There are so many unanswered questions. For example, at least 3 of the children were products of a marriage prior to Michael. Several of the oldest children mentioned how they felt their mom had abandoned them, and how they were abused by various caretakers and stepmothers, but little additional information is given about the previous family history.

It is clear that at least three of the children were products of a marriage prior to Michael. Was Michael the father of any children with Diane?

What happened between the time a mom who has only visitation of once a month with her children to some kind of happy cohesive living together family?

Shoot me when the oldest brother talks about how he hates to take out the garbage.

Well,didn't make to to 10, I could keep on going, but let me just say how much I HATE this film partially for it's essential dishonesty. But mostly for its essential mundanity.

[–] jshoaf 11 years ago

I just watched the film at home and the history was clear, and made somewhat clearer by a glance at the cast list.

Diane first married a man named Buchan. By him she had two children, Johnny and the older sister. Then she met Michael Polley and fell in love with him, married him, and had the two younger children. So she had two husbands, a boy and a girl by each husband. Finally, when she was 42, she had Sarah.

What was not made clear was how it came about that the two older children became a part of the Polleys' life. Apparently the four older kids got to know each other and, after Diane's death, would all come for dinner occasionally at Michael's house.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Br007 10 years ago

there are a total of 4 Polley children, including Sarah. credit sloppy exposition for your confusion

There are FIVE children and THREE are Polley children. The Polleys are one sister and one brother and Sarah. There are two other half-siblings from Diane's first marriage (an older brother and sister).

If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

The movie title, The Stories We Tell, and the trailer makes it seem SO self-indulgent.

"These are the stories that move our life forward, that changes us in subtle ways that we don't notice until we're old - after numerous affairs and lovers, that all intertwine our past, present and future."

Stop it, Sarah. Stop.

2013: Ain't Them Bodies Saints, The Spectacular Now, Her, Short Term 12

[–] MvanB 11 years ago

Did you see the movie? Or only the trailer?

After watching the movie I can only say:

Go on, Sarah, go on!

If you can't see 'em, you know you've got proper invisible runes.

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

When I wrote that, the trailer. A couple of weeks later I've seen the movie and I stand by that post.

>>Go on, Sarah, go on!

No, please stop, Sarah.

2013: Ain't Them Bodies Saints, Her, Short Term 12

[–] sfrsez 11 years ago

beautiful post
one can get away with a lot of garbage in canada

[–] jessie-lane3 9 years ago

THe US makes SO MANY crapy films that hit the mainstream theatres every day. At least this one shows other people that they are not alone if they too were raised in secret by another man. And can end up happy.

[–] Thomasina 11 years ago

Maybe my problem is that I thought that this was a documentary, with real footage and real participants,

The problem with this basis for criticism, though, is that you don't seem to be aware that the presence of actor-portrayed footage doesn't necessarily rule a movie out from being a documentary. Lots of documentaries contain actor-recreated footage. This has been a totally acceptable and normal part of documentary film-making for decades now; the MPAA (which is the group that awards the Oscars) acknowledges this in their official rules about what constitutes a documentary, so you know it's been a mainstream thing for a while (they are very slow to change their minds about anything):

I. DEFINITION
An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction. http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/84/rule12.html

Furthermore, as you allude to in your post, it would have been highly unlikely for the real Diane Polley and all of her friends and family members to have filmed all of their most dramatically relevant, intimate, secret, and sometimes painful moments almost four decades before smartphones, facebook, twitter, and the rest of our current era of constant documentation. Some people did have home movie cameras then, but the chance that they would have allowed them to be used in a way that provided evidence of their own extramarital affairs would tip any viewer off pretty soon into the movie that the "flashbacks" are actor-portrayed.

[–] Pilatunes 10 years ago

Here's another one. It's an extremely self indulgent film made by an actress/director who clearly feels that both she and her family are incredibly interesting.

Frankly the only really intriguing person in the story was Gulkin who expressed some interesting ideas very articulately. A shorter documentary about him would have been far more compelling.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (36957384) 10 years ago

Why would she want to expose all of that about her mother? It wasn't a very flattering portrait. I don't know, to me it's airing dirty laundry. It just seems wrong and quite possibly something the siblings may one day regret.

[–] wrath_of_jen 10 years ago

The only context where actors were used was to recreate the vintage footage...even then it was spliced together with the real thing. None of the people interviewed were actors.

[–] Thomasina 10 years ago

None of the people interviewed were actors.

Well, no--that's not true. Many of them were actors. They just were "playing" themselves (assumedly).

[–] amyjoannalopez 10 years ago

I don't understand your first problem with the film, are you disappointed that it's not a real documentary or that it's not real to you because it includes actors?
The storytellers are the real people, not actors. The people in the "old" footage are the actors.
I felt like this film was well done, and especially so because of the directors ability and willingness to be truthful of the fabricated footage. I also think it says something towards the message of the film, our memorys are often fabricated inside our own heads, and dont necessarily coincide with other's or even the truth.

[–] fliphop 10 years ago

So technically, you listed 11 things. Clearly your subject says "10 things".

Now who is being dishonest?

Dont worry, I wont hate you for it.