(USA 1999 188m) DVD1/2
I shall smite all thy borders with frogs
p Joanne Sellar d/w Paul Thomas Anderson ph Robert Elswit ed Dylan Tichenor m Jon Brion, Fiona Apple m/ly Aimee Mann art William Arnold, Mark Bridges cos Mark Bridges
Julianne Moore (Linda Partridge), William H.Macy (Quiz Kid Donnie Smith), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Phil Parma), Tom Cruise (Frank T.J.Mackey), Jeremy Blackman (Stanley Spector), John C.Reilly (Jim Kurring), Jason Robards Jnr (Earl Partridge), Melora Walters (Claudia Wilson Gator), Philip Baker Hall (Jimmy Gator), Melinda Dillon (Rose Gator), Alfred Molina (Solomon Solomon), Michael Bowen (Rick Spector), April Grace, Ricky Jay, Michael Murphy, Henry Gibson, Thomas Jane, Luis Guzman, Miriam Margolyes,
Ladies and germs, may I present the most ambitious masterpiece of American nineties cinema. If ever a film demanded multiple viewings to pick up its textures and nuances, this is it. Some called it pretentious, indulgent and even overlong and they have a point, but very few filmmakers have the balls to run with their indulgencies to the point where greatness is achieved. Boogie Nights promised much, especially in its director’s handling of its eclectic ensemble cast, but Magnolia surpasses it easily. Indeed, one can see his ensemble being the finest seen since the days of John Ford and Preston Sturges and his style being the modern successor to Altman. They, and he, are that good.
The plot itself is very Schnitzler like; a young black boy’s stepfather is murdered, the investigating cop falls for a young hyper-nervous drug addict, who in turn hates her father, who is dying of cancer and who for forty years has presented a game show about brainiac children (the 1968 champion of which is now reduced to working in an electronics store after his parents spent his winnings and the current champion of which is pressurised by his greedy excuse for a father) sponsored by a misanthropic old businessman, likewise dying of cancer and tended by a male nurse, who he asks to get in touch with his estranged son, a sex guru, much to the disgust of his once gold digging but now guilt-ridden and hysterical wife, who decides to end it all, only to be rescued by a young black boy who happens by…
This all takes place in a single twenty-four hours in the San Fernando Valley, but the opening prologue with its three tales of coincidence and chance tell us to expect the unexpected. Here, fate and destiny rules and nothing is pure chance. Those continual references to 82 and variations thereof point to the very quote from Exodus Ch8, Vs.2 that explains the almost Twilight Zone biblical ending (predicted by the arcade game in the bar being “Frogger”). Yet this is not only a film about complex lives and performances (of which Walters, Hall, Robards, Hoffman and Macy are superb and Reilly, Moore and Cruise simply extraordinary), but the sheer bravado. The incredibly complex tracking shots leave one spellbound and have since become known as Anderson shots. He dares to have his characters introduced as infuriating, telling much of the plot through Aimee Mann’s wonderfully meaningful song lyrics (all the while squirming through the continual renditions of Gabrielle’s “Dreams”). Some of the speeches and monologues reach almost poetic proportions; one particularly recalls Robards’ deathbed speech on regret (“use that regret for anything, any way you want…”). Though the narrator may say that “if that was in a movie, I wouldn’t believe it…”, you do because it’s so extraordinarily well done, with the finale surprising despite the cryptic clues. The title itself is indeed only explained by cryptic clues (the Masonic symbols in the studio are because the 82nd – that number again – chapter of the Masons is in Magnolia, Arkansas). Emotions are at a high throughout and you just have to go along with it, and each repeated viewing is a richer experience than the previous one because those previous viewings are history. As the film says, “we may be through with the past, but the past aint through with us.”
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Anderson’s greatest film, and without question a most deserving Top 5 finisher. It’s a complex, metaphorical piece with a bevy of Biblical references (as you note.) Excellent review as expected.
As usual, I enjoy reading your reviews and assessment…. but count me in the minority on this one (and in PTA in general, with the exception of There Will Be Blood). I just don’t get it at all. But I won’t take up the space here from others who do enjoy, of which I know there are many.
I’m pretty sure the title is also a simple reference to Magnolia Blvd in Van Nuys, CA, where the film takes place. A few of the street scenes take place there in the film, I think at the cross section between Magnolia and Van Nuys…..or possibly Magnolia and Laurel Canyon. I forget which.
Anyway, it’s a very ambitious and personal film, and I particularly enjoy the opening prologue and the performance by Tom Cruise. However I do think it’s a lesser companion piece to Altman’s “Short Cuts”, from ’93, and not quite as compelling as the two films that have marked PT Anderson as such an original and essential voice in contemporary American film for me: “Punch-Drunk Love” and his masterwork, “There Will Be Blood”. That said, “Magnolia” is still a triumph, especially considering he was only 28 or 29 years-old when he made the film. He’s an enormous talent. I can’t wait to see what he does next.
Oh, Ari, good call…Short Cuts is superior and was a clear influence here. As such, I had the Altman ranked higher than the Anderson on my top 25, but both are most deserving to be on any list.
Magnolia definitely deserves a high ranking in any Nineties survey. The ensemble cast is tremendous and so is the editing in balancing the storylines while maintaining a relentless pace. There Will Be Blood may have some of Anderson’s best work in it, but I think Magnolia is still his most wholly satisfying film
Holy hell, Allan, you convinced me I need to watch this again. I was an instant fan upon first view, but then second view I didn’t think it held up so well…then I rewatched Boogie Nights and thought I needed to give Magnolia another go because Boogie Nights had aged so well…and here I am, yet to have given Magnolia a much needed third full view and I have yet to have picked up on some of the things you mention here (the whole Masonic reference for instance). And weird, I just saw some Aimee Mann concert on TV and she played two of her songs from this (Save Me being my favorite), and I couldn’t stop thinking about the film and how much I need to see it AGAIN! That closing shot of Melora Walters’ “smile” creeping up on her while John C. Reilly is talking and the aforementioned Mann song is playing….classic classic classic.
That being said, I disagree with both Sams. There Will Be Blood (which I have seen at least five or six times in full) is Anderson’s greatest film. It’s on a whole different level than anything he has ever done…though this Magnolia (and Boogie Nights) are brilliant on their own terms. But that film will be discussed in the next list I am sure (I hope).
At any rate…I think P.T. Anderson is the greatest American film-maker working today. I can’t wait for whatever he comes up with next.
“Some called it pretentious, indulgent and even overlong and they have a point, but very few filmmakers have the balls to run with their indulgencies to the point where greatness is achieved.”
Nice line there Allan. That’s probably the most succinct way of describing this film that I’ve seen.
I threw my thoughts out on this in the Monday Morning Diary this week — to sum up, I love the ambition that PTA throws out here, he has a mastery of all the technical aspects of filmaking, and the acting ensemble and music are top notch. There’s just something about the movie that feels distant and inert — the emotions in the film have just never rang true for me and it’s always bugged me for some reason. Even with that said, I can’t argue with your placement here.
Hmm, I think I’ve got one of your top two figured out, now if I could only figure out the other…
A film, I felt, that strained for some sort of grand meaning and came off as unbearably pretentious. The acting was grandstanding and unconvincing and the emotion trite and sickly.
One should look at Kieslowski’s films for intelligently made stories of fate and destiny that don’t rely on the empty puzzle-box narrative of inane coincidence.
I have to agree with Stephen and Dave. Although I should see it again I thought, like Stephen, that the film attempted to go somewhere meaningful, but was just pretentious. The sing-along to Aimee Man by the cast, the falling frogs and the opening sequence came off as very self-indulgent and preachy – and added to a 3 hour duration just made for an unfulfiling piece that I would disagree as successful.
It’s been a few years, so I should give it another try, but I just don’t feel like investing my time in it before other unseen films on your lists.
I have the soundtrack and love it, though.
Definitely PTA’s most ambitious film to date and the one where his Jonathan Demme/Robert Altman influences reached their apex. I saw it as his everything-and-the-kitchen-sink film where he just went for it and I felt succeeds more than he fails. It certainly is not a film for everyone and the fact that it divides people so passionately says something about it right there. I don’t think PTA is capable of making a dull film and I can’t wait to see what he’s got cooking next.
Nice to see this masterwork place so high (particularly after yesterday’s supreme dump on intelligence). I love this film and also rank it amongst the 10 best of the decade. However, I will refrain from calling it the best of the 90’s or Anderson’s supreme achievement as I truly believe THERE WILL BE BLOOD is his best work. I also happen to believe that BLOOD is, unless the world explodes before December 31st of thids year, that it’s, most likely, also the best film of THIS decade. Terrific essay, as always, Allan.
Dennis, I’m right there with you on TWBB.
Count me among the yay sayers on this film. It’s Anderson’s best (sorry, Dennis) by quite a distance. It’s his most auspicious film, and the lion’s share of the ideas visualized work.
PETER-Whether its MAGNOLIA, BOOGIE NIGHTS, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, HARD EIGHT, or the shamefully under-rated PUNCH DRUNK LOVE as a favorite, its small matter in comparison to the fact that Anderson is a direrctor wqe should cheer, rally behind and savor. He is a gift to art in film, one of the top in the U.S., and a real kick away from the brainless boobs that just churn out the same repeated junk year-after-year. I happen to love THERE WILL BE BLOOD best of all. But, I love all of his films as well. Let’s thank God we still have film-makers like this around.
I probably liked this the best out of the Anderson’s work (still haven’t seen Hard Eight) though in retrospect maybe I like Boogie Nights better. I’ll have to take your word on repeat viewings, since I’ve only seen Magnolia once, and it was probably about 7 or 8 years ago. I haven’t quite warmed up to the director, who is obviously one of the premiere talents of his generation. A whiff of smugness about him, that I don’t get from other youngish filmmakers, even Sofia Coppola and that other Anderson, Wes, who are both accused of smugness at times. Not sure what it is exactly. Anyway, need to revisit.
Like this review Allan. It’s obviously a fantastic film in ever respect (I also placed it at #3 for this decade), and maybe/maybe not Anderson’s best. I also like PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD quite a bit (the latter I saw three times at the theater).
The thing that really got me the last time I watched it wasn’t anything emotional (though it’s great in that respect), but once this thing starts going and switching between all the plot lines, each building on the previous one… I realized that I was watching one of the greatest edited films… EVER. Is that hyperbolic enough? But I think it’s that great in this respect, absolute powerhouse. This film (as well as PUNCH DRUNK LOVE) also thoroughly thrash the notion that Anderson is ‘misanthropic’ (by far the most over used word in a film fans vocabulary).
….
MovieMan, perhaps saying Wes Anderson or Sofia Coppolla is preferred to PT Anderson? I agree with you, another viewing of MAGNOLIA is in order! Wes Anderson isn’t in the same league as PT Anderson, Coppolla though better then Wes probably, isn’t either. I’m not sure it’s even close enough for debate.
Marvellous choice. By his own admission, the two modern cinematic mentors for Anderson are Scorcese and Altman and this movie achives something that’s the equal of those two at their very best. I found it to be vastly more engaging emotionally that Altman’s tepid ‘Short Cuts’ (haven’t seen ‘Nashville’ yet). It takes the multi-story from a supposed master such as Altman, with Scorcese inspired delirious camera movement, and the ambitious reach and fervour of Welles and Powell.
‘There Will be Blood’ left me emotionally untouched and cold despite the bravura direction. This movie does the complete opposite and something often lost, it looks into its varied multifarious characters – of all different stripes and finds their shared humanity and got me caring for every single one. At that rate, it could have been six hours long and I wouldn’t have been locked in. I wanted to applaud the sheer audacity of the sing-along, the cutting between the different character story arcs and the slow motion tracking shots done as if he were conducting a symphony. Marvellous.
you do ‘boogie nights’ a huge disservice by rating ‘magnolia’ so high. magnolia IS self-indulgent. it’s a laundry list of “what-goes-into-a-brilliant-film.”
‘boogie nights’ simply is brilliant. i can’t think of a better example of the difference, than comparing these two films.