Paul Thomas Anderson's MAGNOLIA (1 Viewer)

[Nathan V]

I have already seen this film, but I am still unsure as to whether I should own this film. Cinematically speaking, it was perfect (the dialogue is great), but the subject matter bothers me. Sure, I have a lot of depressing films (Brazil, Man who wasn't there, Requiem for a Dream), but there's something about Magnolia (perhaps the sheer amount of death, suicide, marital violence, immoral values, drug use, rape, uncomfortable situations, etc) that leaves me feeling 'down.' What, exactly, is the moral message of the film? I don't think it's the coincidence theme that bookends the film. Perhaps he's talking about destiny. But I'm not sure. I'm usually very good at tapping into this kind of subtext (it's how I was raised). Perhaps what I should be asking is: Why are we shown 10 people's horrible lives for three long, fast paced hours?
Help!

Nathan

 

[Al B. C]

I think he is talking about regret - not destiny.

 

[Gabe Oppenheim]

Well, I think he's talking about hope (and about twenty other things as well)!

 

[Michael Reuben]

There were some truly extraordinary discussions about Magnolia about two years ago, when it was still recent. Unfortunately, they've scrolled off. Maybe some of the participants will chime in, if they're still around. (Paging Rich Malloy!)

M.

 

[Joseph Young]

Any thread surrounding PTA's Magnolia is destined for some level of controversy, because there are people who adamantly swear by this film, and there are those who are angered and upset that Magnolia was ever green-lit. All movies have fans and detractors in these two categories, but Magnolia fans and detractors tend to be on one end or entirely on the other, thus the 'controversy.'

I admit that many of the conceits in this film that astounded and impressed me on first viewing now seem a bit pallid by comparison. While I was enthralled by the characters and the story the first two times I saw Magnolia, repeated viewings left me a little cold. Perhaps it's because it's a character driven film, and the plot services the characters at their own leisure, not the other way around. Either way, you have some phenomenal acting in Magnolia.

I would recommend a purchase, if only for the refreshingly unique packaging and extensive, candid and revealing documentary on the making of the film. I haven't seen such a good DVD making of film since 12 Monkeys "The Hamster Factor" or SWEp1's "The Beginning." My favorite part is when PTA and a certain famous girlfriend of his toss their cigarettes out the limo before stepping out on the red carpet.

The 5.1 soundtrack is good but not very aggressive, except for perhaps the infamous raining frog
sequence. Most of the film is contained in the center and left/right speakers, virtually nothing in the surrounds.

For the record, despite my misgivings about certain aspects of the film, I would recommend a purchase, if only for Aimee Mann's sublime soundtrack.

Joseph

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a moral/theme to this movie. I think its more about how interconnected all these people's lives are and how depressed they all made themselves. If you look at it, everything goes back to that damn TV show. Maybe the moral is that TV is bad for you?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

This is one of the best films released that year. And its fine to disagree.

The film explicitly refers to Exodus 8:2, so, at some level, I think the plague of frogs should be read in that context. In the Biblical story, God tells Moses to go to Pharoah and demand the release of the enslaved Jews. Should Pharoah refuse, God threatens a series of plagues including, of course, a plague of frogs.
All the characters in Magnolia are enslaved, not by Pharoah, but by their pasts, by circumstances, by loneliness, by resentment, by hatred, by shame, by guilt... When we first meet them, they're trapped, unredeemed, and desperately longing for some release.
"Like it says in the Book, we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
Over the course of the film, some of the characters are redeemed...others are not. Included among the doubles and doppelgangers that populate this film (two wives, two children, two child geniuses, two saviors, and at least one angel), we're presented with two patriarchs, Earl Partridge and Jimmy Gator, who's past and present mirror one another's. Both have committed nearly unforgivable sins against their children and families. Both are dying of cancer. Both are forced to confront the meaning of their lives and the pain they've caused...and both recognize that they've committed horrible acts against those they love, acts which for so long have prevented them from experiencing and sharing love. As death approaches, both men seek redemption.
From his deathbed and through eyes hollowed by the ravages of cancer, Earl Partridge faces his past and acknowledges the pain he caused his family and, in particular, his son. He reaches out to him, admits his transgressions and seeks his forgiveness. His damaged son overcomes his own deeply-felt resentment to connect with his father, if only to watch him die just as he watched his mother die so many years before - but not before he overcomes the hatred that for so long has informed his entire existence as he breaks down at his father's bedside.
Conversely, Jimmy Gator cannot bring himself to admit what he's done to his daughter and his family - not even to himself. He tries, vainly, to connect with his daughter, to impress upon her that he is a dying man, to seek some solace in her comfort...but he cannot face the extraordinary damage he's inflicted upon her, he cannot own up to it, he cannot seek forgiveness for it. When we last see him, he is left unredeemed, enslaved by his past, his wife and daughter now completely lost to him, doomed to meet death as a lonely and unloved man.
As Dixon raps, "...They're runnin' from the devil, but the debt is always gaining...And when the sunshine don't work, the Good Lord bring the rain in."
I think it would be a mistake to overanalyze this film. It exists well within the realm of the emotional and quite apart from the analytical. It's not something to be solved cerebrally, but rather something to be experienced at a gut level. The metaphors inform our feelings about the characters and coincidences cause their fates to criss-cross, but these are like leitmotifs in music, emotional cues and analogies that tie one person to another and amplify our emotional reactions by playing on similar themes, desires and sorrows, as Anderson mounts his operatic melodrama to its fantastical conclusion. Watch this film as you would listen to great music, and open your heart and allow your soul to be harrowed.

~Edwin

 

[Michael Reuben]

Edwin, thanks for a great piece of HTF "preservation". I'm pretty sure that contribution was written by Rich Malloy (under his former nom de posting, Al Brown).

M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Yes, it was silly of me to preserve the comments but not who said it. Duh. But I'm pretty sure it was Al Brown, nka Rich Malloy.
This is such a beautiful and multi-layered film. I never tire watching it over and over again.
~Edwin

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I remember reading that Anderson didn't originally intend for the film to have a biblical connection. He said he wanted to have frogs rain down in a movie, and after they started production someone mentioned the biblical thing.

 

[Tim Hoover]

I love the way that the film deals with the sins of fathers being passed down to children. The children seemed locked in to this destiny also, but they strive to break free of that chain and reclaim their lives.

It's very moving to me because it hits so close to home. How much of our lives is predetermined? How far can free will go to make a change in that?

 

[Adam_S]

funny, I just watched this for the second time last night and thought about starting a thread about how astounded I was. I'd preveiously watched it on vhs rental not long after it was released two years ago. I can't believe how little I connected to or comprehended of the film two years ago, I was thoroughly amazed by the complexity and raw emotion in the film. The use of mulitple intersecting story arcs to tell the story and get across the themes is brilliantly executed and perfectly enhanced by the incredibly effective uses of parallels. As mentioned above the two patriarchs, two wives, two sons, two quiz kids is amazing, each of the stories are distinctly separate yet so thoroughly similar that it's dizzying, this is certainly not a film that can easily be pigeonholed.

And of course thats just the physical construction of the film. teh performances themselves are amazing, Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore and Jeremy Blackman all give stunning preformances that nearly had me in tears at various points of the film. Then there is the music, Amiee Mann's songs are perfectly matched to this film, in fact, the "Give Up" sequence is my favorite from the film, and in my opinion, one of those 'perfect cinematic moments' (although there are several in the film).


What an incredible film, for me it's alternately about hope and despair - about people trying to piece their lives back together into something new and maybe something better.

Adam

 

[JohnRice]

For me, and as was pointed out in Edwin's post, the basic, almost overwhelming point of this film is...

"Like it says in the Book, we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."



I have only seen it twice. The first time didn't get me nearly as much as the second. I was basically numb after the second viewing. I think it is absolutely remarkable. Not for everyone, though.

 

[Paul_D]

It's one of the most frustrating film's I've ever seen, if only because I was so enraptured with the technical construction, but so utterly enfuriated by the emptiness of the story. How I feel about it seems to vary from viewing to viewing. Similar to most other posters here, I think it is remarkable, but not for the same reasons listed above. I agree about the complex emotional web that PTA has created. The construction of the script is amazing. Technically, the film itself is wondrous. Beautifully shot, and edited so well that the full complexity of the parallel stories and intersecting lives is accesible to the audience.

Acting wise, there are plenty of meaty roles, and each actor attempts and succeeds at delivering their character vividly to the screen. But despite these qualities, I repeatedly find the film really empty. The score, builds up each and every scene into an emotional climax. Which feels fitting because aside from the frog shower, there is no real climax. Julianne Moore's scenes are woefully badly written IMO. I greatly enjoyed Tom Cruise's part, but more so as comic relief than as a consistent dramatic part fo the film.

I put myself in both the love it and hate it camp. It recommend anyone to see it, but I'd put a big disclaimer on that recommendation.

 

[Carlo_M]

I think it would be a mistake to overanalyze this film. It exists well within the realm of the emotional and quite apart from the analytical. It's not something to be solved cerebrally, but rather something to be experienced at a gut level.

This I completely agree with. There are films that definitely need to be studied at a deeper level to be appreciated, but this one I think illicits the response it wants upon the initial, "gut" viewing. Which is why others have posted, I think, that with repeat viewings they aren't as "impressed" with Magnolia. Once we start to rewatch movies, we are generally looking for deeper meanings.

 

[Joseph Young]

Once we start to rewatch movies, we are generally looking for deeper meanings.

were a stroke of genius and I feel there is genuine emotional payoff at the end.

As we all know, the frogs were not a conscious attempt at Biblical allusion but rather a result of PTA's seclusion at Bill Macy's cabin, which was - you guessed it - surrounded by frogs (or something along those lines).

"I used to be smart, but now I'm just stupid." -quiz kid Donnie Smith
"Let's drink to that, shall we?" -thurston howell

~joseph

 

[Daniel Demarco]

Magnolia was and is a film for people who love film,period.All films do not have to be 2 hours long,they can be well over 3 hours,and if you love film,it doesn't matter,You don't always have to be able to predict the outcome.Films can involve many characters,and yet still have them well defined.I love the message in the picture,But IT Did happen,That made my day,because someone behind me in the theater,said,"Come on,,Theres NO Way,,",and as soon as they said that,,here comes PTs message for those who refute the story.This was a great film,this wasn't my favorite of the year,but 99 was a Great year,and this film could have easily been #1 any other year since for me.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

I was bored nearly to tears watching this film, for the first and only time, last weekend (DVD). As many have said, the technicals of this film are brilliant, and were all that saved me from turning it off nearing the two hour mark.

I found the story empty, laborious, and strung out. I'll readily agree that it may be a personality conflict: raw emotion, no matter how well performed and strewn together, is not enough to hld my interest and/or attention for an extended period of time. The most I could come out of this movie with was "Yes, well, there's a lot of hurt and misery in this world, and that movie did a great job of showing us a big chain of miserable lives."

I'm partial to thoughtful movies, and I didn't find there was very much thoughtful about Magnolia. The brilliant performances, gut feeling and fantastic editing only kept me interested for a little over an hour. For the remainder of the film, my gut kept telling me, "Ok, enough is enough! Just shoot the DVD player and get it over with! I get it already!"

Unfortunately, I didn't have the courage, and I subjected myself to another hour and some of more of the same. All was not lost, however. At least he threw in a neat little gimmick (the frogs) to try and make things interesting near the end.

 

[JonZ]

My biggest copmplaint is the way women are potrayed. I wanted to just grab Julianne Moore and shake her and say "Get a grip!!!"

BTW, Tom Cruise was just great in this and the Mackie extras on disc2 are awesome.

 

[Jon Strong]

As we all know, the frogs were not a conscious attempt at Biblical allusion but rather a result of PTA's seclusion at Bill Macy's cabin, which was - you guessed it - surrounded by frogs (or something along those lines).

Wrong. The frogs came from him being a big fan of Charles Fort, who, in one of his stories, wrote about frogs falling from the sky.
The thing with Bill Macy's cabin was in the beginning of the documentry on the DVD: He'd written the first part of the script, and once he got to Macy's cabin, he had to stay inside, because there was a "snake outside the door", and the script just flowed out of him, it just, sort of, came out like throw-up, I guess.
PTA found out about the the bible thing when...oh jeez, I forget who, but one of the cast members or crew members brought it up to him (I have a feeling it was Ricky Jay, also a fan of Fort) and he put all the references in the film.
Sorry if I sound like I'm spewing this all out, trying to look cool, just, this was the film that made me wanna be a filmmaker, etc., so: I Take It Very Seriously.

(Also, I think it's on the DVD too, Phillip Baker Hall actually had frogs rain on him from the sky, a few years ago.)