New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Magnolia (1999)

post #1 of 38
9/12/10 at 6:35pm
Thread Starter 
Before I watched this amazing film for the first time today, I was looking up Billy Wilder quotes (as I do every first Sunday of the month). A great many of them turned out to apply pretty well.

Billy Says...

"Don't be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also."

Certainly applies here. Unlike it's Altman structural counter-parts* (Nashville and, to a larger extent, Short Cuts) Magnolia doesn't require the audience to work too hard to make thematic connections. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Unlike Short Cuts and Nashville, Magnolia operates on a higher sense of reality. It's more dramatic, more operatic, and more unreal. I had already been spoiled on the (in?)famous raining frogs and Aimee Mann sing-along in the third act, but even before that happens, the film prepares you for the kind of movie it's going to be. The opening sets you up for the meditations on fate and chance, and the flurry of camera tricks that sets up your protagonists let you know this is NOT going to be as down to Earth and "real" as you might think. I'm still not convinced that the sing-along and frog rain were GOOD choices, but I don't think it's as tonally out-of-nowhere as I'd previously heard it was.

I think it's important to note unsubtle is not the same as shallow, which is why I feel the film still works. Compare this movie to Crash and you'll see what I mean.

"I have ten commandments. The first nine are, thou shalt not bore. The tenth is, thou shalt have right of final cut."

This one works on two levels.

One risk these kinds of movies* face is that one storyline will overshadow the rest, and that the audience will get invested in part of the movie, but not all of it. I think even defenders of Love, Actually will admit that it definitely has this problem. I didn't find that to be an issue with Magnolia at all. Every performance in this movie is riveting. From Tom Cruise (who probably gets to have the most fun) down to Michael Murphy (a favorite of Altman's) as Julianne Moore and Jason Robards' concerned lawyer. Every storyline is either interesting and captivating OR has an amazing actor doing great work. I think William H. Macy probably has the most out of place character, who exists seemingly only to mirror the current game show whiz kid, but he's so fucking good it never drags the film down.

And as far as the second part of the quote, it's nice that PTA presumably has final cut on a film like this. I'd hate to see what a studio would do in the editing bay to a film like this, given their druthers. Magnolia would still be a good movie if some of the wackier stuff (the three death introduction, the sing-alone) were cut out, but it wouldn't be as interesting a movie. And God knows what it'd be like if they tried to cut this down for time, down to 2 hours. It'd be crippled, for sure. A movie like this may be self-indulgent and flawed, but it's those flaws and self-indulgences that give it personality. Which brings me to...

"Trust your own instinct. Your mistakes might as well be your own, instead of someone else's."

Ambition is not a bad thing to have. Vision is not a bad thing to have. I'm not sure this movie is "Great" with a capital "G", but there are countless "good" movies that could be improved just by having some kind of real personality and singular vision. There are films that seem designed solely to give their lead actor an Oscar nomination, that are trite and generic in every other way. Some people I know have said that this is their least favorite PTA movie, and I wouldn't argue with that opinion, but if this is in fact some kind of failure, I only wish more movies were failures like this.

*There should be a definitive name for the Nashville/Magnolia/Short Cuts/Babel/Crash genre of film.
Reply
post #2 of 38
9/12/10 at 8:17pm
Great post, and it makes me think that I need to revisit this film. It has been a very long time since I've seen Magnolia, and I remember thinking that it didn't do what it set out to very well, mainly because it hits the same emotional note over and over again. It felt almost like a fusion of Chayefsky and Altman, and those two styles didn't really mesh for me. I remember feeling it went wrong because Anderson doesn't learn from Nashville that all of these sprawling stories reveal something about life. Sometimes it's tragic, other times it's warm. But, I'll give it another shot sometime soon and see if I still feel the same way.
Reply
post #3 of 38
9/12/10 at 8:28pm
Loved this movie in 2000 but now find myself agreeing with D.S. The film makes its point and then drags on for almost three interminable hours. There are rewards to be had along the way, however: the recurring game show, those very amusing contestants and Jimmy Gator's vivid breakdown on-air at the front of the line, followed by William H. Macy and (especially) Julianne Moore's hilarious, unbelievably hammy performances.
Reply
post #4 of 38
9/12/10 at 9:18pm
Thread Starter 
Did you really find Julianne Moore's performance to be hammy? I didn't feel that at all. It was fast and loud, but her character was on speed. I found myself VERY moved by her performance, actually.

Macy's was a bit more hammy I suppose, but it didn't stick out for me. I think the tone of the movie is a little surreal, a little larger than life, so all the bigger more "showy" performances fit it fine.

As for hammering home the same few points (parents and children, guilt and redemption, fate vs. blind chance) over and over, it certainly does that but I never felt like the film was dragging it's feet, so I didn't really mind. I barely noticed the length at all. I'd call it many things, but I certainly wouldn't call it slow-paced.

I will say that, like most movies that are unsubtle with their themes, it probably won't age well from repeat viewings. But that's not always the best way to judge a movie.
Reply
post #5 of 38
9/12/10 at 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.S. Randlett View Post
Great post, and it makes me think that I need to revisit this film. It has been a very long time since I've seen Magnolia, and I remember thinking that it didn't do what it set out to very well, mainly because it hits the same emotional note over and over again. It felt almost like a fusion of Chayefsky and Altman, and those two styles didn't really mesh for me. I remember feeling it went wrong because Anderson doesn't learn from Nashville that all of these sprawling stories reveal something about life. Sometimes it's tragic, other times it's warm. But, I'll give it another shot sometime soon and see if I still feel the same way.
I'd disagree and say that it does realize those "things about life." The movie is pretty down and depressing and full of awful things happening, but in the end, so much works out so well for the characters involved. The last 5-10 minutes resolves the miles and miles of emotional turmoil you just experienced. On top of that, the final shot of the movie is one of the most upbeat things I've ever seen. Every time I see it, I can't help but smile from ear to ear and feel great. The scene, music, that smile... it all just works so well. You go three hours through hell and a smile erases it all in the end. It's amazing.

I do believe this will be my favorite movie for the rest of my life.
Reply
post #6 of 38
9/12/10 at 11:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
One risk these kinds of movies* face is that one storyline will overshadow the rest, and that the audience will get invested in part of the movie, but not all of it. I think even defenders of Love, Actually will admit that it definitely has this problem. I didn't find that to be an issue with Magnolia at all. Every performance in this movie is riveting. From Tom Cruise (who probably gets to have the most fun) down to Michael Murphy (a favorite of Altman's) as Julianne Moore and Jason Robards' concerned lawyer. Every storyline is either interesting and captivating OR has an amazing actor doing great work. I think William H. Macy probably has the most out of place character, who exists seemingly only to mirror the current game show whiz kid, but he's so fucking good it never drags the film down.
I kind of take issue with your interpretation here. I haven't seen Love, Actually, and don't know anything about it, so I don't get what that does for your argument. But are you saying that Altman's multi-storied narratives are faulted by favoring certain plot-lines over others?

I see the difference between Magnolia and the Altman films as being very different stylistic choices. I don't know enough about Altman's process, but if I had to guess I'd say that while in production he drifts, allowing the characters and the story more than enough breathing room, whereas Anderson has everything basically story-boarded out, while still allowing the actors to give their characters their own personal touch. I don't think one approach is necessarily better or worse than the other. The big difference here would seem to be that Anderson was still a very young filmmaker on Magnolia, while Altman was at the top of his game on Nashville. I love Magnolia for its heart, but it may be too heavy handed. And I think I disagree in that there is very likely a great deal of importance to a piece of work aging well.
Reply
post #7 of 38
9/12/10 at 11:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump View Post
I kind of take issue with your interpretation here. I haven't seen Love, Actually, and don't know anything about it, so I don't get what that does for your argument. But are you saying that Altman's multi-storied narratives are faulted by favoring certain plot-lines over others?
No. That's why I brought up Love, Actually, instead of a Robert Altman film.
Reply
post #8 of 38
9/13/10 at 1:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_tyson View Post
I'd disagree and say that it does realize those "things about life." The movie is pretty down and depressing and full of awful things happening, but in the end, so much works out so well for the characters involved. The last 5-10 minutes resolves the miles and miles of emotional turmoil you just experienced. On top of that, the final shot of the movie is one of the most upbeat things I've ever seen. Every time I see it, I can't help but smile from ear to ear and feel great. The scene, music, that smile... it all just works so well. You go three hours through hell and a smile erases it all in the end. It's amazing.

I do believe this will be my favorite movie for the rest of my life.
I don't think that proves anything. You basically have every plotline following through on a redemption from darkness narrative in Magnolia. In a film like Nashville or Short Cuts Altman manages to weave a cohesive story out of all these peaks and valleys which feel more real than lots of darkness and then catharsis. Which is not to say that I have a problem with a "classic" narrative style as seen in something like Magnolia, I just feel it works better with a stronger sense of focus, which can allow a good artist to explore a particular aspect of a thematic and emotional milieu. I feel (and again, it's been a long time) that Magnolia's narrative ultimately has nothing to say about the feelings that it intends to evoke, or if it does it just gets muddled in the sprawling story.

And I don't hate the movie, I just expect PTA to deliver a certain standard, and this film fell short of that mark.
Reply
post #9 of 38
9/13/10 at 1:33am
I understand what you mean, but I much prefer what Anderson does. I didn't like Short Cuts all that much honestly. There are a few quality performances but overall, it didn't do it for me. And again I'd disagree and say that it does prove something. And as for the whole "redemption from darkness narritive," I realize that it's there, but it's never been the reason I love the movie. There's plenty of other things I focus on.
Reply
post #10 of 38
9/13/10 at 2:04am
I just saw this for the first time. I loved it. The second "weather forecast" section is amazing. It's like a super tense hour and change of film with the inter twining storylines that totally work and kept me watching.

The performances are all pretty great. And the frog rain is stunningly shot. Looked amazing in blu ray!
Reply
post #11 of 38
9/14/10 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_tyson View Post
I understand what you mean, but I much prefer what Anderson does. I didn't like Short Cuts all that much honestly. There are a few quality performances but overall, it didn't do it for me. And again I'd disagree and say that it does prove something. And as for the whole "redemption from darkness narritive," I realize that it's there, but it's never been the reason I love the movie. There's plenty of other things I focus on.

I prefer Anderson over Altman, myself. But I find incredible strengths in both filmmakers. I feel like Altman's films have more re-watchability than Anderson's (with the exception of Punch-Drunk Love). The thing I love about Altman is how voyeuristic it is towards conversations, especially as they overlap. He's graceful in how he handles dialogue, unraveling in a scene, especially for comedic effect. It takes awhile for Matthew Modine to notice Julianne Moore's lack of underwear in "Short Cuts," and that scene plays out beautifully because of Altman's choice to delay the reactionary response from Modine. But he's also an imperfect filmmaker, not so much meticulous in a way that Scorsese is. Sometimes his indulgences get the best of him, like in "Ready To Wear." Sometimes he's sloppy with the way he puts his films together, but I find that endearing. He's good at writing characters, and letting them evolve through the acting, rather than a script. "Short Cuts" is like hanging out with a group of people, and watching their lives from afar unravel. I will always give way too much credit to Anderson for affecting me in a personal way - like hearing a really great record that speaks to me at a vital or difficult time in my life. Two of his films back to back did that for me, from 1999-2002.

"Magnolia" works more on an emotional & visceral level for me, in a very similar way to "Punch-Drunk Love." It's probably because I can empathize with incredibly flawed, sad desperate people, in search of connecting to something they can't seem to hold on to. There's a lot of that in "Short Cuts" too, but "Magnolia" is a bit more surreal and outrageous. I am such a huge proponent of surrealistic absurdism in movies, probably even more than realism. Altman works for me as a filmmaker whose movies are like hanging out with familiar friends, whereas Anderson has created characters that represent certain components of the human psyche - the ones that are hardest to confront. So I'd probably watch "Nashville" a dozen more times than I would "Magnolia," but I adore them both for very different reasons.
Reply
post #12 of 38
9/15/10 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
*There should be a definitive name for the Nashville/Magnolia/Short Cuts/Babel/Crash genre of film.
Ensemble dramas? Toss John Sayles in there; the man's a master at it, and seems to walk a line between the open-endedness of Altman, and the "unsubtle" thematic explorations of something like this.

I agree with your overall take on the film. It used to be one of my favorites, but now, especially after There Will Be Blood, I'll concede that it's too flawed to be capital G great. Still rather have a fascinating, exhilarating, personal mess like this than most other films.
Reply
post #13 of 38
9/15/10 at 6:10pm
PTA makes absolute technical masterpieces with unusual subject matter and tons of creative ideas and brilliant performances that can even be genuinely emotionally affecting. Those surfaces are fantastic but beyond that I always end up feeling like there's some lack of depth there that stops them from reaching the level of world-conquering greatness that PTA is obviously aiming for.

With this and Boogie Nights and even his sacred cow There Will Be Blood there's so much to admire there but they can't get under my skin like the true greats because if you look under the surface there's just not that much going on. A lack of meaty subtext or something. Plus as a director I can't help thinking he's just an extremely talented mimic with good taste. I mean, is it even possible to describe his style without mentioning Scorsese, Kubrick or Altman? Imitation masterpieces. Still extremely good stuff though.
Reply
post #14 of 38
9/15/10 at 10:10pm
Quote:
*There should be a definitive name for the Nashville/Magnolia/Short Cuts/Babel/Crash genre of film.
Ebert uses the phrase "hyperlink cinema," which I think is more apt for the late 90s/early 00s style than Altman's work, although Short Cuts is certainly a major forerunner of it.
Reply
post #15 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:12pm
Thread Starter 
Hyperlink. That's the best I've heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez
Ensemble dramas? Toss John Sayles in there; the man's a master at it, and seems to walk a line between the open-endedness of Altman, and the "unsubtle" thematic explorations of something like this.
I don't believe I've ever seen a John Sayles film. What are some of his movies that do this?
Reply
post #16 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:18pm
See Lone Star immediately if you haven't before.

Other ensemble pieces: Sunshine State, Silver City, Eight Men Out, Casa de los Babys (although I wouldn't' recommend that one).

Other movies by him to see: Passion Fish, The Brother from Another Planet.

I still have much love for Magnolia, warts and all. I think it could have used one more re-write just to iron out some of the kinks. That stuff with the Worm and his little brother never worked, even in the extended draft where his character is explained in more detail. And I would totally town down Julianne Moore's character a tad. As others have noted above, she's distractingly over the top to the point where it's comical (she still somehow manages to win me over in it, though). I credit John C Reilly, Melinda Dillon, William H. Macy and Robards as performances to savor, although really everybody does good work (except Moore, who like I said, is still entertaining).

Despite the fact that it's ripped-off from Altman, I can't picture Altman making a movie like this. I really do feel like it's totally unique and we'll never see anything like it. I don't think it has a singular "point." By the end of it, there's so much to take away from the whole experience that it gets to be overwhelming, which is both good and bad. Mostly good.
Reply
post #17 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:23pm
For all the incredible highs this movie hits, I've never been able to fully forgive the "Dad, you have to be nicer to me" scene. I mean, all due respect to Wilder, but there's "making it obvious," and there's a thematic frying pan to the face.
Reply
post #18 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
For all the incredible highs this movie hits, I've never been able to fully forgive the "Dad, you have to be nicer to me" scene. I mean, all due respect to Wilder, but there's "making it obvious," and there's a thematic frying pan to the face.
I dunno- I think that part works because the Dad doesn't really acknowledge it. The kid needs the scene for his own arc, and I'm not sure what else he can do than stand up to his Dad.
Reply
post #19 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianDyka View Post
I dunno- I think that part works because the Dad doesn't really acknowledge it. The kid needs the scene for his own arc, and I'm not sure what else he can do than stand up to his Dad.
I agree. It's not about the theme, but about the character in that scene. He has to learn to take care of himself a little more, to stand up to his father, who's pretty much controlling his life while showing a total lack of interest. And it'd be one thing if his father had a total realization about what an ass he was being. He doesn't. He tells him to go to bed, which is about as close to ignoring him as you can get. That situation is far from over. But at least the kid made a crucial first step.
Reply
post #20 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:31pm
Thread Starter 
Agreed. The audience already knows he needs to be nicer to his kid from the first ten minutes, and we know the kid realizes it as the game show progresses, but seeing him actually tell his dad that shows that he's going to stand up for himself, which is new.
Reply
post #21 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:36pm
Also, that moment felt very real to me. One of many just crushing moments in that film for me.
Reply
post #22 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:38pm
My favorite PTA remains THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but I love this one more than BOOGIE NIGHTS - blasphemy, I know - or PUNCHDRUNK LOVE.

That mostly stems from personal reasons, though. I've lost family to cancer and the movie gets those parts - Cruise's breakdown is my favorite acting moment from him ever - really true and right.
Reply
post #23 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:40pm
I wouldn't say that's blasphemy, Nordling. I favor Boogie Nights myself, but I think Magnolia is up there warts and all.

Punch Drunk Love is the only one of his that I really don't care for. I rate it way down the list, though I'm about due for a rewatch to see if that sticks.
Reply
post #24 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:41pm
I'm not denying that the kid needed to come to that realization to complete his arc. I'm saying that there might have been a more artful way of conveying that.

The movie's full of similar outpourings of truth that work, and none of them felt hamfisted like that one.
Reply
post #25 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:43pm
Fun fact: PTA's dad Ernie, who was both a beloved TV horror host in the early 60s in Cleveland and a celebrated announcer/v.o. guy, was the basis for Robards' character. There's an interview, I'm sure it's on youtube, but it's the last one Anderson gave, and he's a mean old bastard in it. He looks so much like Robards at times it's pretty eerie.

Also, I don't know how you can have any interest in American cinema, particularly American independent cinema, and not know or have seen a John Sayles movie. Fact, and Boogie Nights all the way. Woo.
Reply
post #26 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Also, I don't know how you can have any interest in American cinema, particularly American independent cinema, and not know or have seen a John Sayles movie. Fact.
Yeah, he's the standout talent of the 70s Corman alums.
Reply
post #27 of 38
9/16/10 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
I'm not denying that the kid needed to come to that realization to complete his arc. I'm saying that there might have been a more artful way of conveying that.

The movie's full of similar outpourings of truth that work, and none of them felt hamfisted like that one.
He's a kid though. He's not going to give some speech, he's going to go with what's simple, and it absolutely has to involve his Dad, who is basically his antagonist.
Reply
post #28 of 38
9/17/10 at 1:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Hyperlink. That's the best I've heard.



I don't believe I've ever seen a John Sayles film. What are some of his movies that do this?
Man oh man , are you in for a treat. Sayles is fucking boss. Like Parker said, see Lone Star immediately, although in my opinion, his masterpiece is Matewan. Eight Men Out is great, as is Return of the Secaucus Seven, and though it's not as much of an ensemble as the rest, Limbo is fantastic as well (I also like Honeydripper, but I seem to be the only one).

The film of his that seems the most simaliar to this, and certainly one of his absolute best is City of Hope.
Reply
post #29 of 38
9/21/10 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
I mean, is it even possible to describe his style without mentioning Scorsese, Kubrick or Altman?
With PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, yeah.
Reply
post #30 of 38
9/22/10 at 1:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post
With PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, yeah.
That one has Altman influences all over the place. Overlapping dialogue, emphasis on sound. It's basically Anderson's version of Popeye. He even steals from that movie's soundtrack pretty liberally.
Reply
post #31 of 38
9/22/10 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
Man oh man , are you in for a treat. Sayles is fucking boss. Like Parker said, see Lone Star immediately, although in my opinion, his masterpiece is Matewan..
Matewan is also one of the first Chris Cooper films. Hell of a film and gives us Cooper.
Reply
post #32 of 38
9/22/10 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post
Matewan is also one of the first Chris Cooper films. Hell of a film and gives us Cooper.
And it has David Straithern kicking all kinds of ass in a role that turns out to be a complete 180 from what you first assume it will be. Also, for a movie whose main character is a noble pacifist, it sure does have a pretty damn cathartic explosion of violence at the end.

Sorry for the derail, but see that shit people!
Reply
post #33 of 38
9/22/10 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
That one has Altman influences all over the place. Overlapping dialogue, emphasis on sound. It's basically Anderson's version of Popeye. He even steals from that movie's soundtrack pretty liberally.
Practically every director has influences. The allegation wasn't that Anderson had strong influences--he does--but that his films boil down to "imitation masterpieces." With PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, Anderson creates an aesthetic style that draws on Altman (and some others; I can't remember which, but Anderson's vision of the food market is lifted almost directly from another film), but is nevertheless distinct enough that it is not defined by those influences.
Reply
post #34 of 38
9/23/10 at 10:20pm
Not much to add except for the fact that the Blu Ray's amazing, and the part that has wrecked and will continue to wreck me is Robards' monologue. No score, no sound except his voice. And the regret. Even with the myriad moments of oddity and quirkiness, and even without me having to really deal with death in front of my eyes in such a way, that scene, that performance is frightening.
Reply
post #35 of 38
12/19/11 at 1:28am

Rewatched this yesterday.

 

Good. God. What a film.

Reply
post #36 of 38
2/18/12 at 3:58pm

Didn't think much of it at first, but it has haunted me these 12 years.

 

Some of it's awful, some's brilliant, all of it is massively, epically heartfelt in a way I have seldom seen in American film since. PTA is the opposite of hipster: he just lays it all on the line.

 

I seriously don't foresee any three-hour dramas of this magnitude of strangeness and mood dissonance happening again anytime soon. I imagine Cruise was the angel on that project, saying to the bean-counters "He's not cutting a fucking frame of this film, you fuck with Paul and you go through me first," and for that he has my respect.

 

It was easy at the time to take it for granted. It was a golden year for weird, widely-released films. These days maybe only the (very) occasional Tree of Life comes close.

Reply
post #37 of 38
2/19/12 at 5:53am

Anderson fought all his battles himself on that film--poorly, as legend has it--but Cruise was apparently told at numerous points not to do the film. He ignored them all, and even took a massive hit in salary to do it. THAT's the respectable part.

Reply
post #38 of 38
2/19/12 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

I seriously don't foresee any three-hour dramas of this magnitude of strangeness and mood dissonance happening again anytime soon. I imagine Cruise was the angel on that project, saying to the bean-counters "He's not cutting a fucking frame of this film, you fuck with Paul and you go through me first," and for that he has my respect.


Well PTA had final cut on that film, so it didn't matter.  I think he was talking with Bob Shaye (the head of New Line) at a party off hours from the shoot and Shaye was telling him how he had to cut this and had to cut that, the movie is too long, etc.  PTA said something like "Bob, I only have two words for you...final cut" and walked away.  Shaye wanted to murder him.  But Shaye is the one who greenlit a 180 page script.  Probably out of fear of losing the hottest director in town at that point.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video