Ocean Blue This is a recommended-to-watch movie, However, there were few things missing in the story. I think the story was told too good to be true. I mean everybody seem to be happy and satisfied with what happened. No matter how Dian had been behaving irresponsible and careless towards her children, her spouses and her lover in different occasions, they all speak as if because of Dians circumstances it was all right. It appears to me that since she has died years ago, everybody is OK with the facts and nobody is complaining and doesn't remember any resentment or doesn't want to remember it. Sarah is not taking part in telling thestory. she doesn't contribute to movie like others. she questions and directs but doesn't narrate anything herself. doesn't speak about her feelings. her point of view. all I can guess, is that she liked her mum(or maybe the story itself) enough, to edit the movie in a way that depicts everything being wonderful.

ljt236 I saw this film as part of a month-long series of documentaries at my local public library. Throughout the film, I was struck by the seeming incredible luck that the director had in having access to so much timely and relevant Super 8 movie footage of the family in their younger days. That all became moot when, near the end of the closing film credits, it is revealed that every single member of the family in past and present was portrayed by an actor. In effect, it is not a true documentary at all but the very well written and directed retelling of someone else's family story. The audience at the viewing I attended had much the same reaction--thinking that we had just been taken for a very elaborate ride.

l_rawjalaurence STORIES WE TELL opens with an extended shot of Michael Polley (director Sarah's father) reading out a prepared script in a recording studio, with his daughter facing him. This sequence serves as a metaphor for the entire film, which concentrates in depth on the nature of story- telling. It is fundamentally an autobiographical detective story, as Sarah interviews various members of her extended family to discover something about her late mother's life. We learn that her mother used to be an actress and performer; a vivacious soul who married Michael (a British actor) after having experienced a disastrous first marriage. Her marriage to Michael works fine for the first few years, but then things start to go wrong, and her mother ends up having an affair with film producer Harry Gulkin (one of Polley's interviewees). Michael and the family are based in Toronto; Gulkin in Montreal. As Sarah investigates more about this love-affair, she discovers something shocking about her own life that changes her perspective for ever. As she conducts her interviews, Polley realizes that different interviewees have different versions of 'the truth,' shaped not only according to their perceptions, but also by what they want to reveal on camera. Only by comparing different interviews can Polley reach at least an approximation about what 'really' happened to her mother and Gulkin, and the effect of their love-affair on Michael. One reviewer of this film has already asked "what is it REALLY about?" The answer to this question becomes clear: there is no such thing as a 'real' or 'definitive' interpretation of the past. We can only listen to different accounts, and make up our own minds, while realizing that our interpretation is no more or less definitive than other interpretations. Polley's film is both uncompromising yet sympathetic to the interviewees; sometimes they are prompted into revealing truths about themselves (which perhaps they had not previously admitted), but Polley - who appears on screen as well as directing the entire film - makes no judgment on them. This absorbing piece is essential viewing for anyone interested in the relativity of history, whether personal or otherwise.

Zev This is a documentary that tries to explore larger issues of humanity by exploring the various secrets, stories and viewpoints buzzing around Sarah's dead mother, including her personality, her relationship with her husband, as well as her possible infidelity, the last of which has an obvious consequence on Sarah. Sarah makes everyone share their version of 'the story' of her mother, and splices it all together while investigating and 'interrogating', to see what truth, if any, emerges. At least, that's the theory.The plot summary has this to say: "Stories We Tell explores the elusive nature of truth and memory, but at its core is a deeply personal film about how our narratives shape and define us as individuals and families, all interconnecting to paint a profound, funny and poignant picture of the larger human story." But don't be fooled. The only thing correct about that summary is that it is 'deeply personal'. And it should have stayed deeply personal.The "elusive nature of truth" and the different versions of "the story" is just simple gossip. No amount of film-school hyperbole or fancy talk can alter that fact. When a key person in the story states towards the end that only the key people should be allowed to tell the story because only they know the full truth, he is partially correct. He is incorrect, because it's obvious that even he doesn't know the full truth and is delusional. But he is also correct in that everyone else is just passing on useless gossip that only provides a disservice to the truth and to her mother.But this documentary purportedly demonstrates how people interpret the truth according to their personal viewpoints and needs. I suppose that is true in this one deluded case, but with everyone else, the only thing that we 'learn' is that they enjoy gossip and are exhibitionists.As far as the alleged thoughtful commentary is concerned, I'll never forget this outrageous quote from the movie: "She had the strength and ability to keep all of her loyalties." Somehow, loyalty now means lying to your husband.Painfully personal introspections are exhibited, private bedroom details are shared as if they were an anthropology experiment, and juicy rumors and gossip are thrown around even concerning a dead person. All throughout the movie I kept wondering what is wrong with these people. Despite the attempt at sophistication and the lack of scenes of people yelling at each other, watching this felt the same to me as watching Jerry Springer. Dressing it up with pretentious attempts at sophistication and self-obsessed introspection does not change the fact that they are just making a big fuss over whether she cheated or not, and who with.So, the larger issues of humanity boils down to gossip and infidelity. Therefore I didn't find anything interesting here, since I am not a voyeur. This is just dirty laundry. Please do not flaunt it. Even if it were really "profound, funny and poignant" then it would be questionable, but it isn't.I even found the 'surprises' in the movie very unsurprising, because it all boils down to character. And the character was obvious to me in the first ten minutes.Imagine if only one of the key people refused to participate in this movie based on the fact that it was private. The movie would have been impossible to make because the only thing left would have been gossip. The fact that they didn't refuse to participate says more to me about humanity than the stories they told. Unfortunately.