'Stories We Tell' delves into riddles of family
Sarah Polley's documentary “Stories We Tell” examines families, legacies and the slippery nature of truth in ways so unexpected, we aren't even aware of them until the film is over.
What a great movie.
It starts out as the story of Polley's offbeat, life-of-the-party mother, Diane. She did some local acting but devoted a lot of time to her growing family. This did not preclude taking the occasional acting gig in other cities. Polley's father, her siblings and old friends of Diane's recall her with an excitement that obviously has not diminished, even though Diane died in 1990, when Sarah was 11.
We also see Super 8 footage of Diane, drinking and smoking (always smoking), dancing at parties, performing in stage productions, swimming in the pool with the kids. Everything seems to revolve around her. “Eccentric” is probably too strong a word for the woman we see described, but “different” is certainly fair.
There is, of course, more to the story. Much, much more, most of which should be discovered by watching the film. Like any family, the Polleys have their secrets, although theirs are a little juicier. It's not quite “Rashomon,” but we do hear the central family story told from several vantage points. The interviews are charming, as one child remembers one crazy story about Diane, then another child comes up with another. Sarah, too, comes in for some good-natured ribbing. Why on Earth would anyone care about their family, they wonder?
Even though the story concerns her deeply and ultimately, in many ways, is about her, Sarah does not participate in relating the memories. For the most part, she remains merely an observer, as if this deepening mystery concerned someone else, not her.
Which is fascinating in its own right. In one part of the movie, her father, Michael, himself an actor, reads in a recording studio his version of the events that make up the family's story. He's a pro; you don't expect him to break down or hesitate. But on the other side of the recording booth sits Sarah, watching impassively as Michael relates stunning details about his wife, about Sarah, about their lives together.
What must Sarah be feeling? We can't know, because she betrays nothing. The only reaction she has is to occasionally ask Michael to repeat a line for clarity.
Above all of this floats the spirit, and, occasionally, the image, of Diane. As the film digs deeper into her life, not all of the anecdotes are so cheery or funny. Every person interviewed in this movie has an obvious abiding love for her, but the exasperating nature of being in any kind of relationship with her also is evident.
Polley, an actress, also directed “Away From Her” and “Take This Waltz,” both outstanding. But with “Stories We Tell” she elevates her already-high standards.
Many secrets await your discovery, which should be clear by now. Not just in the details I'm not revealing here, but the way in which Polley tells her story. Not everything is quite what it seems. If this is a maddening way of talking about the movie, good. It's meant to be. Because watching Sarah Polley solve the riddles in “Stories We Tell” is one of the most satisfying movie experiences I've had in a long time.
Bill Goodykoontz is a staff writer for the Arizona Republic.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Review: ‘Maps to the Stars’ gets lost in Hollywood’s cosmic depravity
- Review: ‘Chappie’ chafes, and not in a good way
- Review: ‘Leviathan’ carries huge weight of deep dread
- Review: ‘Unfinished Business’ should have closed deal for better laughs
- Review: Second ‘Hotel’ visit isn’t nearly as ‘Exotic’
- DVD reviews: ‘Foxcatcher,’ ‘The Humbling’ and ‘The Captive’
- Dan Stevens cast as Beast opposite Watson’s Beauty