|
So Wing Chun
had been saying great things about Magnolia, and I trust
her taste in movies, and then my friend Molly scored free passes
to see a preview screening, so I went.
I think it was a really good movie, but I don't think I understood
it all that well. The thing is, it's not a very plot-driven movie.
It's not your traditional three-act Hollywood movie. The writer/director's
previous effort, Boogie Nights, was also a little renegade,
structure-wise, but at least it mostly chronicled the rise and fall
of Dirk Diggler, porn star (no pun intended). Be warned that pretty
much anything I say about this movie beyond those first two paragraphs
there could be construed as spoilers, so if you don't want to know,
stop reading right now. I mean it! Stop!
And really, all the movie does is set up relationships and then
show how messed up they all are. The themes of the movie, as I see
it, are the nature of children, family, and forgiveness and redemption.
But that's about all I had put together. So I ICQ'd Wing Chun, to
discuss what she had gotten from the film and figure out what I
was missing. Rather than try to recreate our conversation, I'm just
going to include it here. Keep in mind that if you haven't seen
the movie, not only is most of this conversation spoilers (and hey,
you were supposed to quit reading earlier!), but it won't make much
sense. So go see it, and then come back.
K: So about Magnolia -- do you think when the actors
were reading the script, they got to the raining frogs part and
just went, "The fuck?"
WC: Yeah. I kept seeing the signs and billboards and posters
and stuff with Exodus 8:2 on them, but of course I didn't know what
verse that was, so I had no idea what was coming up. But I thought
it was supposed to be like in the Bible, when God sends the frogs
because his people are being oppressed -- and then resolution comes.
K: Yeah, I thought it served a dual purpose. Within the
film, it got the characters moving again, like it forced the mother
to reunite with the daughter and suddenly all the storylines started
moving forward. In terms of audience, I think it broke the viewer
out of the movie -- up until that point, I was very absorbed and
as soon as the first frog hit, I remembered that I was sitting in
a theater and I had to pee. I'm not sure what the purpose of that
second point was...but given all the meta-references to film within
the movie, I was sure it had to be on purpose. For example, when
Philip is on the phone and he says how "this is the scene in the
movie where I beg for your help" or whatever. I know there was a
theme there about the role of the viewer, especially with regards
to the whole "unbelievable coincidence" thing he had going on, but
I haven't quite pieced it all together.
WC: I really need to see it again. I haven't stopped thinking
about various scenes, since I saw it. John C. Reilly rocks my world.
K: I saw it with a bad audience. It was a free preview,
so all the idiots come out. The guy behind us left in the middle
because it was "disorganized". Whatever. I thought the first half
was incredible, but the second half got a little bogged down for
me. I really noticed the last hour or so.
WC: It flew for me. I cried at the scene where they all
sing that [Aimee Mann] song. Chills!
K: See, again, the audience in my theater sucked. This annoying
woman behind me started laughing during that AND Jason Robards'
death scene. It kind of ruined it for me. The first half went SO
fast, mostly because of all the quick cuts between scenes and then
the second half was a lot of LOOOOONG close-ups of people's faces.
I remember one of Claudia that seemed to last 15 minutes and I was
like "OK, Cut!" but maybe I just have ADD.
WC: The Jason Robards bits were a bit draggy for me, but
then, even as I was thinking it, I thought, "Maybe that's the point?
That's how I'm supposed to feel, because it's how he feels?" Which
would go in well with your audience-involvement theme. What did
you think of Tom Cruise?
K: I thought Tom Cruise was amazing. I usually don't like
him at all because he reminds me of this asshole who went to my
high school and I can't get over it. But he was spot on. Jason Robards
really looked like he was on death's door. I wanted more about the
little kid.
WC: I was really surprised by how excellent Tom Cruise was.
Sometimes it's hard for huge stars to play bad characters (John
Travolta in Broken Arrow much?) but he really committed to
it. He was incredible. I thought Julianne Moore's role was awfully
slight, for her. And I normally don't like Melora Walters but I
was shocked to see that she, like Tom, can actually act.
K: I didn't get what they were trying to do with the game
show. Like, the questions were absurdly difficult, and I wasn't
sure what the point was, except that Stanley is really smart.
WC: I thought part of the point of the game show was to
show that Stanley's really smart, but also to have the Bad Dad Factor.
Also, it set him apart from the other two kids who were just filling
up space hoping one day they'd graduate to being Personalities.
K: Yeah, how annoying were the other kids? I definitely
give the movie an A+ for effort -- I just think it could've been
a little bit shorter. Just a little bit. I think every movie should
star Philip Seymour Hoffman because he is fantastic in every movie.
I have loved him ever since he was Scottie in Boogie Nights
and he wore that godawful tank top and tried to kiss Marky Mark.
WC: This movie is just packed with wicked actors. I was
annoyed that Felicity Huffman didn't have a bigger role.
K: Yeah. On the other hand, I wasn't crazy about the guy
who played little Stanley's dad. What was his deal? He was totally
one-dimensional. Maybe that was the point, and I know it was a small
role, but he could have done something interesting with it, you'd
think.
WC: Yeah, that was the only thread that wasn't resolved
to my satisfaction.
K: I guess the ultimate message of the movie is that parents
do bad things to their children, and the children suffer the effects
of that damage all their lives, and I just don't know if I necessarily
agree with that worldview, even if I think Anderson did a fabulous
job in presenting it cinematically.
WC: But some characters aren't damaged. John C. Reilly is
a good man. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a good man. Okay, that's it.
But still.
K: But I think the ones who are supposed to be the "children"
in the film (i.e. the ones where the audience meets both the parent
and the child) are all damaged goods, and I think the message is
that they became that way due to their parents. The only one with
any hope is Stanley, but if you look at William Macy as future Stanley,
there's not much hope there.
WC: But Stanley doesn't give the impression of having the
ego Donnie does. You can't picture Stanley sitting in a bar in twenty
years whining about how he used to be smart. Stanley has the presence
of mind to tell his dad that he sucks; at least that's a step in
the direction of stopping the cycle, no?
K: Maybe. Maybe that's the message of the movie -- that
you have to forgive your abusers (Tom Cruise) or forget them (Claudia)
or let go of your past (William Macy) or take control of your destiny
in some other way (Stanley). Maybe it's about taking charge of your
own life instead of being passive and letting your childhood dictate
who you are today?
WC: I like that.
K: Molly thought there was a lot of significance attached
to the line "Do not mistake children for angels" and then William
Macy say they ARE angels. She thought John C. Reilly and Philip
Seymour Hoffman were supposed to be like angels in that they are
not children or parents (in the context of the film) but instead
outside agents who help further the action.
WC: I can see that -- they're the only ones (other than
Donnie) not attached to a family, or to the context of anyone's
storyline, particularly.
So that's that. We went on to discuss some small matters about
which we were both still confused, like the role of the African-American
kid who interacts with John C. Reilley. I would love to see a transcript
of his rap, because I couldn't understand what he was saying. Also,
what was the deal with the murder in the beginning of the movie,
where they found the body in the closet?
Clearly, it is a movie that bears repeated viewings. I don't know
if Anderson succeeded in conveying his message, or if it was too
far buried to be understood by the average viewer. I have no problems
with a movie that is overly ambitious, and I far prefer it to one
that is oversimplified (although those have their place as well).
I prefer a movie that make sense the first time you see it, but
on repeated viewings offers up nuances you missed out on the first
time. But I'll take a movie that generates interesting conversation
over one that I forget as soon as I walk out of the theater any
day.
|