GROUP ONLINE FORUM CONVERSATION

Stories We Tell

Assignment #4 ALL101


Each member of group must submit 600-800 words selected from online posts on
Cloud

Group Members (full names):

1. Heidi Beavan
2. Jonty Simmons
3. Zoe McClintock

Tutor: Briohny





(Use Control-E or Apple-E to centre individual lines, Control-L or Apple-L to take
make the text align to left.)


HEIDI (03.04.14)

My first impression of Sarah Polleys film Stories We Tell was the idea of honesty. In
the documentary, they are talking about their personal memories of someone close to
them, in front of a camera. The audience is people they dont know and cannot see. I
think that is something really uncomfortable. The documentary

opens with an extended shot of Michael Polley [] reading our a prepared script in a
recording studio, his daughter sitting opposite him. This sequence serves as a
metaphor for the entire film, which focuses on the nature of story telling (Raw 2014,
p. 15)

We want people to hear our stories and believe them, which is why we sometimes
fabricate stories. This documentary is based on memories; however, memories are
only a reconstruction of a past event and each retelling changes to fit the context
which we are in Therefore remembering becomes an act of story telling. Its possible,
not probable (Stories we tell 2012) is an important aspect to remember when
listening to stories.

JONTY (03.04.14)

I thought the documentary was simultaneously completely realistic, and wholly
fabricated. Which in essence, I'm pretty sure is exactly what the filmmaker intended.
As it's stated in the film, unless you view all of the interviews in their entirety, we are
at the mercy of the filmmaker in what we actually see. Since the director gives us the
context for the footage we see, we have a purpose for being shown each part of the
interview. I found it highly interesting that Sophie would ask questions from behind
the camera, 'breaking the fourth wall' as it would be known, as this is usually not a
part of the documentary process. In essence, I thought that it was a brilliant film by
the end, as it invoked a sense of questioning about what we should take as 'truth' when
it is being shown to us. Since every director has an agenda, the film could have had a
completely different context if say, Harry or Michael had developed it.

ZOE (03.04.14)

I agree with you, Jonty, there was definitely a dichotomy between what was real and
what was fabricated in the film. One of the first things to strike me about the film was
whether it was a fictional documentary or not. My prior knowledge of Sarah Polley as
an actress before viewing the film, lead me to originally believe the film was a
fictional story intended to appear as a documentary for artistic purposes. However,
throughout the film I came to the conclusion it was nonfictional, only to question
myself again. I began to doubt the factual essence of the film, when it was revealed
that the home videos shown of Dianne were set up and played by actors to aid the
story telling. I began to question if the documentary aspect was also scripted. Whilst I
enjoyed the first viewing, I felt manipulated by the ambiguity of the truth within the
stories. Ultimately, by the end of the film I felt betrayed, especially when the
legitimacy of the home videos was revealed. Even though I can appreciate the visual
interpretation of the interviews, it made made me question the honesty of the film as
Heidi mentioned earlier.

HEIDI (03.4.14)

I completely agree with that idea of fabrication and the role that plays in peoples
truths. [..] In our case, we don't know any of the people in the film so we are put in
this situation where we can interpret and in turn create our own perception on Dianne
and the cast without ever having known her/them. This idea of spreading stories to
other people so that is grows and then be further watched, listened to and interpreted
by more people, shows the contagious aspect of story-telling.
Another point I found interesting is how the family and friends said Dianne showed
all her faces to everyone. This raises the question, do we hide certain parts of
ourselves when with different people, or are we open books like that is described of
Dianne? Whilst this person may have thought she saw all sides of Dianne, how can
she really know for sure? How can we be sure that we really know someone? []
Imagine if Dianne heard all these opinions and memories of her. Would she disagree
with what some of them are saying? I think sometimes as humans we struggle to
remember that opinions are not truths, even when they are our own.

ZOE (03.04.14)

I think thats a really interesting point, Heidi; do we know Diane just from this
documentary? Did she present her true self to her family and friends who speak so
fondly of her? I note from my own experiences, that our social etiquette usually
steers us away from speaking ill of the dead. Thus, Diane having passed some time
ago when Sarah was just a child, does she inspire to enforce this social politeness
from the grave? It definitely makes me question the reliability of the interviewees
description of Diane[]

Although Sarah interviewed many people individually, there was a facade of
simultaneity and overlap created by the interviews. As the audience, I was under the
impression that everyone was being interviewed together, and were feeding off each
other's version of the story. In reality this was not the case, and there is nothing to
suggest that months didnt go by between each interview. The editing technique
melded the story together, and I question if it would have made a difference, for
example, if Sarah had both Joanna and Susie tell their story in a collaborated
interview. Or would my interpretation be altered further if Sarah had been interviewed
instead? This links in with what I said earlier about honesty in our storytelling, and
how we often manipulate the facts in our retelling, depending upon who we tell our
story to. This film has enhanced my awareness of the creative license we take in
storytelling, and makes me wonder how honest would I come across in a documentary
of my life story?


JONTY (?.04.14)

ZOE (23.04.14)

From my second viewing, I recognised the significance of how Sarah conceptualises
the meaning of family. She places emphasis upon the role of her parents, Diane and
Michael, in her life, but what was most telling was the way she portrayed Harry as her
biological father. [] Sarah is an adult by the time she meets Harry, and has grown
up without him. I think the anger portrayed in Harry's interview is a reflection of his
inability to adjust to the fact that Sarah is an adult and he has missed out on her life.
This is comparable with another father-daughter relationship in a text discussed
during the semester, Coetzee's Disgrace. 'Who would have guessed, when his child
was born, that in time he would come crawling to her asking to be taken in?' (Coetzee
2000 p. 179) portrays the dynamics of David and Lucy's relationship. David mirrors
Harry's inability to accept that his daughter can survive without him and there no
longer exists an important position for him in his daughters adult life.


HEIDI (21.05.14)

I think it interesting to note that Polley is an actress; this entails acting as someone
youre not, or the other. Actors and actresses have to embody someone they arent
in order to tell a story that isnt theirs. This contrasts to her documentary where the
story is real. This questions fiction and non-fiction and the blurred line between
them. This relates to our text Oranges are not the only fruit by Jeanette Winterson,
where the narrator moves between what is fiction and non-fiction in her world. In
both texts, people are trying to deal with revelations in their lives that are difficult and
challenging. Once you can talk about what troubles you, you are some way towards
handling it (Winterson 2001, pg. xv), which is the coping method of both Polley in
making the documentary, Jeanette in Oranges are not the only fruit and possible
ourselves in our own lives.
The film itself and how Sarah has chosen to edit it show something of the sense-
making process it has been for her to retell the story of her family through multiple
authors, and to reach new understandings of her own placing in the family through
this process. (Walker 2014)
This further emphasises the idea that dealing with inner and emotional conflicts can
be worked through and possibly even resolved through an understanding and
expression of the situation. []

HEIDI (25.05.14)

The documentary looks at family and the connections between family members. What
I noticed was the idea that DNA is not the only thing to connect a family. []

One of the more tender and intimate moments in the film was the discussion of Polley
being aborted. Its amazing isnt it, how close [they] were to [Sarah] never existing.
Its almost enough to make you an anti abortionist (Stories we tell, 2012). Its strange
to think how you would react to that idea and how it would make you feel towards
your mother, and your siblings. The more I think about it and try to put myself in her
position the more uncomfortable and sick I feel.

JONTY (26.05.14)

On the idea of family, I found it interesting how she collated experiences from all the
members of her family without sparing details from any other member. Obviously
Sarah has chopped and changed all of this footage, or else we would be watching
hours upon hours of the same questions over and over again. To continue along on
this tangent, would we have the same story if we watched all these recorded stories in
their entirety? Sarah has shortened and deleted footage that the audience wouldnt
find necessary, and in the interest of storytelling and time restraints shes removed it
as well, but its entirely possible that there are details we may find interesting that she
hasnt. You mentioned Sarah almost being aborted, which I found a highly interesting
topic. Theres the possibility that Sarah may have deleted that footage if she didnt
think it suited the movie, and this may have changed our entire outlook on the
narrative as a whole. I feel as if we wouldnt have as much sympathy or connection to
Sarah without that fact, and this all builds to our own understanding of Sarahs story
that she has constructed. But if Sarah removes it, then we have a completely different
understanding of her life. It just goes to show that a simple omission of evidence can
alter our views on people when they construct their own versions of themselves.

HEIDI (25.05.14)

Thats interesting you mention Sarahs importance in the film despite her not being
interviewed Jonty. The film appears to be about Dianne on the surface, but the closer
you look, the more you realize it isnt about Diane at all. All of the people
interviewed told very revealing personal details about their world. They wanted their
version of the story to be heard and to be the ones telling it. However, whose story is
it really? []

What I think is interesting is the film doesnt appear narcissistic and possibly shows
us that if we want to and if we are willing, we are not only good story tellers but we
can be good listeners to. If we let others talk and share their stories without this idea
of being more interesting then everyone else, we can stop competing for the attention,
and actually listen.

ZOE (26.05.14)

I noted the same thing Heidi, regarding who the film is truly about. Whilst at first it
appears that the story is about Diane, it became clear to me that story tells us more
about the director herself. The film focuses on Sarah's life and the family that has
impacted the development of her person. This was particularly apparent to me in the
way that Sarah didn't reveal much of Diane's history before her life married to
Michael. She completely glossed over Diane's previous marriage, and the hardships
her older half siblings faced in the events following the divorce. This was highlighted
in Sarah's editing of the interviews, and reveals her as a storyteller with just as much
control over the story without having to say anything.

JONTY (26.05.14)

Thats a really interesting point about social media Heidi, for a film set in 2012,
theres little to no mention of social media in the film. This is an intriguing method of
telling a story about ourselves, because social media can be said to be the primary
way in which we all make a story of ourselves. I noted that this took place 2 years
after The Social Network, meaning that we have pretty much all determined that
Facebook is an integral part of everyday life nowadays. I spend a ridiculous amount
of time on it everyday, and I assume you do as well. We take photos to put on the
Internet straight away to show people that were active socially, even, as an example,
if we never actually had that much social interaction at a party we went to. It fits in
directly with being able to create a narrative of ourselves, and without an intimate
knowledge of these events its easy to believe that its all true. Linking back to the
film, the home movies that supposedly show Sarahs home life turn out to be fake
around towards the end of the movie. By showing us how she remembers her family
life through these falsified movies, Sarah is creating her own story much like we
construct our online profiles to our exact specifications. The footage of Sarah
directing the actors in the home movies feeds directly into this, as nothing is truly
spontaneous as the fake narrative claims it to be. An example of this is when the
brothers make jokes about how Sarah may be adopted; at the moment in the film this
is revealed, we are lulled into a false sense of security as to the authenticity of the
footage we are being shown. When its revealed that Sarah has faked all these movies,
with genuine actors, we are then forced to question what is actually real in this
movie? Is it entirely possible that the whole movie is not a documentary, and is an
elaborate narrative constructed by Sarah to create a meta narrative of how we believe
all documentaries to be true? Anyone with a camera is able to create a narrative, so in
essence, it is up to us to trust that the story someone has constructed for us has truth in
it. Without that, we are unable to believe anyones version of events.


ZOE (27.05.14)

I like the way you explained social media as a modern outlet to tell our own stories,
Jonty. As I suggested earlier, I think this was Sarah's outlet to telling her own story in
a more elaborate way, and to a degree, dealing with the emotional turmoil involved
with the story told in the film. [] Sarah being the director of the film and having
final say of what the film entailed, was ultimately the centre of the film. However
whilst I acknowledge this, Stories We Tell (2012) is fundamentally more revealing of
it's storytellers than of the story itself. [] After several viewings, it became obvious
that the interviews revealed more about personal character than of the stories told.
This was especially clear in the way Michael and Harry were presented in the film.
Despite all the trials associated with the story being told, Sarah is still very close with
Michael, and it is even pointed out in the film, that the events surrounding this story
brought them closer than ever. Her decision to allow Michael to read from his own
book, not only provides a sense that he is genuine, but is telling of the nature of
Sarah's relationship with Michael. In viewing the scene of Michael reading from his
book separately, it appears honest. However, when juxtaposed with the scenes of
Harrys telling, the significance of Michaels storytelling pales as it seems to lack
emotion. Michael comes off as detached in comparison to Harry, which is indicative
of the importance Sarahs story has to them. Harry's anger depicts a rawness of
emotion which leads me to agree with the significance he believes his own
perspective has. The association we draw between raw emotion and honesty grants
Harry authenticity superior to the other storytellers who lack this quality. I think this
anger and his desire for ownership of the story reveals vulnerable feelings of jealousy
of the family that had the privilege of watching Sarah grow up.





Reference List:

Coetzee, J. M 2000, Digrace, Vintage Books, London, UK.

Raw, l 2014, Stories We Tell Film & History (03603695), vol. 44, no.1, pp.15-17,
retrieved 28 May 2014, Art Source database.

Stories We Tell 2012, documentary, National Film Board of Canada, Canada.

Walker, C 2014, Film review: Authorship and authority reflections on Stories we
tell, European Journal of Womens Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, DOI
10.1177/1350506813519236

Winterson, J 2001, Oranges are not the only fruit, Vintage, Croydon, UK.