Connection between the two stories

There are at least 2 ways to approach the "fiction" and "non-fiction" titles of the stories in the film. I agree with what you've said, about a story becoming fiction as soon as it's written down. That, for sure, is one of the points that seems clearly made in the first section of the film. On a more obvious and self-referential note, if we look at Tobey as being Todd Solondz himself, then the story becomes, quite literally, "non-fiction". This segment, to me, seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by Solondz to confront his critics onscreen.

I think the key statement in the film is when Tobey's producer is grilling him about his project, reprimanding him for feeling so superior to his characters and hating them. "But I love them..." he responds. And so I think Solondz loves his characters, too. While certainly not all of his characters are likable, or normal, or clearly good and evil, he cares about them all and that's why his films are successful (for the most part). So many films are filled with throwaway characters that merely move the main plot forward. In Solondz's films, I'd be hard-pressed to find any such characters.

I find it interesting also that Scooby's dreams, which seem like little more than wishful thinking and adolescent daydreaming at first, become so extraordinary unrealistic and downright idiotic when we see them in "American Scooby". In that way, film clearly divides non-fiction and fiction with merely the addition of an audience. Or maybe that's reaching. Just a thought.

I LOVE certain parts of this film, like Vi telling herself repeatedly, "Don't be racist, don't be racist..." when preparing to have sex with her black literature professor. The scenes with Mikey and Consuela work particularly well also. But I feel like the director's more devoted to his "non-fiction" tale than his "fiction" tale, and that ultimately hurts the movie. I suppose I haven't tackled the question at hand in depth, but I wanted to add some food for thought about a very interesting, if flawed, and wrongly slandered film.

I believe that the only connection is that the first story was the truth that Selma Blair had written about her encounter with her professor. The second story was Scooby telling the truth but the director turning it into fiction and making Scooby's life comical and sort of exploiting him. I did not like this film by the way. Well, I take that back; I did not like the first part of the film. I thought that maybe he could have got the same point across using some sort of tie between the two stories instead of two seperate stories all togther. I also thought that it was weird because the first one was so much shorter than the second story. Had it just been the second story I would have liked it better. I really found Scooby's little brother funny!I thought that this movie would be good because I did like "Happiness." I thought that was a good movie and maybe because I did, I had such high expectations for this movie and thats why I was so let down by it!

I appreciate your questions and acknowledge that my response may be quite unsatisfactory. But rather than paste the whole, long thing in here, I figured I'd just give you the link. peace.
See my comments here:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0250081/board/thread/4373544?d=4530067#4530067

I just wrote up my little review of Storytelling, and I wrote that what was also interesting was that a lot of the plot in the great "Nonfiction" section was completely forced and cliched. Football players in comas? A hypnotized father being controlled by their children? A wrongfully fired housekeeper taking revenge on her former employee? I half expected a sort of tongue-in-cheek typical Hollywood ending, like the family wakes up and realizes they're happy and love each other after all, the son comes out of the coma, as if he were asleep for awhile, etc. But, instead, we get the sad and powerful last line, and it really linked up both parts for me.

I think "Fiction" was fairly weak compared to "Nonfiction," but just as important thematically. Vi asks the professor in the bar, "Am I going to be a successful writer?" Is any more a pipe dream than Scooby wanting to be a talk-show host? Thousand of people try to be writers (or filmmakers or talk-show hosts) and never, ever make it. To succeed, Scooby is focused on "getting connections," and indeed, this is the only reason he agrees to do the documentary (and also how he gets into Princeton.) Maybe Vi only is seeking connections as well; she really can't stand her professor's books, after all, but, in the bar, she has no trouble lying and mentioning to him how much she likes them.

Another link is that both stories are fiction, and this really goes the heart of what filmmaking is all about. It is very basic, in a way; we watch actors move their through a pretend story about pretend people, and we laugh, cry, get annoyed, or walk out of the theater. We are manipulated by the people who appear in and made the movie, and when the lights come up, our own lives continue.