I'd liken it to Eyes Wide Shut or American Beauty, as a film so hung up on being well-made and worthy that they forget that it needed more; it didn't even manage to be pretentious None of these three films are bad - they're just not all that good; Hollywood's standards are so low these days that as soon as anything with even the slightest characterisation and plot comes out everyone turns cartwheels. Until they see it.

I have to admit that I think Magnolia is a great film.

Viewing it as purely entertainment I was entralled through the whole length of the film both times I watched it, and it's not a short film. I felt very much emotionally drained at the end first time around; the emotional manipulation of the audience is relentless: most obviously musically. Rather than being gratuitous the effect is to make highly dramatic what one knows are, if not ordinary, certainly not extrodinary circumstances and relationships, which is rather the point.

Despite vowing to think harder about it the second time I just got dragged back into the stories: maybe next time around I'll manage it, and I certainly think there is much worthy of thought.

---

by Funky Monkey
Misskitty thought that she felt cheated by it, and I can see her point - its the sort of film that keeps you hanging on till the last minute for an ending that just isn't there.

---

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this; I certainly don't feel the film lacks resolution. Instead of ending by a device (rains of frogs aside which was metaphorical rather than plot-driving) it simply ends whent he characters reach turning points in their lives and the way they view their lives: surely what is demanded of a character piece which dramatises everyday life. There is no material change in circumstance during the film save what is born out of characterisation.

Or something. I'm trying to think about this as I type and working from memory: as I said I had difficulty thinking about the film while I watched, overwhelming as I found it.

I'd agree with Callum that the film is hung up on itself and that that is a problem with many Hollywood films today.

Another thing I realised since thinking about it more, or that there are more than a couple of good characters...I'd say my favourites are:

Tom Cruise as "Frank T.J. Mackey", John C Reilly as the Cop, Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the nurse, and William H. Macy as the Quiz Kid - they all did superb jobs. Tom Cruise's performance was probably his best since Interview with a Vampire.

Demona, I know what you mean about emotionally draining, maybe that's why I expected more, after three hours of that, you expect some big reward for hanging in there

I think I need to watch this one again too, I think it'd be easier to cope with the second time, and I could make more sense of it. Maybe its cos of its length, but I dont know anyone yet who has seen it twice!

oops that last post was from me! Must remember to log kitty out!!

I've had it on dvd for ages now, really liked at the cinema, but i haven't watched it yet. This is something i do regularly, unfortunately - there's a stack of video's i nicked off my brother at christmas that haven't graced my screen yet.

But it is a bit different with this one. I have strarted watching it a couple of times, but the mood hasn't been right and i've stopped quickly. I think my attention span is a bit shot these days - i'll often watch several episodes of something, but don't feel up to 3 hours of one film. Or i may be getting lazier (this is the likeliest one )

I think maybe its a film that is just hard to watch twice. I wouldn't blame you for your lazyness, cos everyone else seems to have not gotten round to watching that film again. Its like Blade Runner is not a film I watch when I want some light entertainment, as its anything but light. I have to be in the mood for it, and that isn't very often.

Right, I have now watched the film for the third time.

What struck me most this time was the Christian message...

...no, really, don't go...

Starting with the preface the narrator tells us he does not believe the incidents relayed are co-incidence, leaving us with the implication of a guiding power.

Quiz Kid Donny Smith is heard at one point to quote Exodus about the sins of the father. Apart from being an important quote to the film at large, Exodus is also the book of the Bible in which we get our amphibious plague. All the children in the film (Donny(?), Stanely, Claudia and Frank) are only children and therefore also the first born...

A lot of the suffering in this movie is the consequence of the actions of fathers - and here's the important bit - the suffering of their children causes the suffering of the father himself. This is the irony of the third introductory story, which we are told is not co-incidence.

I also find it strange that in a film about human lonliness and illness and death there is no talk of God. However, the character presented as the most moral and the one we are most encouraged to sympathise with is the police officer, who is seen at the beginning of the movie praying to a cross in his home.

I haven't put this together very well, but I hope it makes a plausible argument. There is also far more in this movie: themes of division through secrets and failed communication, excesses of lust and greed and other things I can't be bothered to mention now.


Questions I have yet to answer:
Why 'Magnolia'?

The line 'it is dangerous to confuse children with angels' strikes me as a key one, but I'm not sure I understand it. Different aspects of the angelic change the meaning of the phrase, though perhpas this is a deliberate ambiguity as the line is immediately denied by another character.

Who is the narrator?



So, have I managed to convince anyone that this is a worthwhile film?