mattgorman:

kevinslane:

While we’re on the subect of movies I’ve watched recently, I just finished watching Magnolia tonight with my roommate. I really enjoyed it, but still have a lot of questions about it. For those who have seen the film, what do you think of it? And for that matter, what do you think Anderson was trying to convey with the film (specifically the ending)?

Answer or reblog if you don’t have room, I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on it.

Edit: And now a question mark so you can answer…. ?

I watched it a long time ago and don’t remember all of it, but I’m pretty sure it was awesome. I really loved Tom Cruise’s character (something that doesn’t happen often), Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s awkward call to the grocery store asking for peanut butter, bread, and porn, and John C. Reilly’s whole existence.

As for the ending. I remember being confused by it when I first saw it, but looking back, I think I liked it. To me it just seemed like a post-modern slap in the face to the audience. Like “Oh, you thought this was one of those movies where all the different characters’ stories somehow come together in the end in some amazing way? NOPE, YOU GET FROG RAIN!” Although that may not have been the film-maker’s intent, that’s the way I look at it, and I respect it.

Apparently a lot of people think there’s a biblical reference there, but I’d rather look at it my way. Either way, the bizarre ending doesn’t take away from the fact that it was a great movie with a lot of interesting and compelling characters.

I agree with you completely, though I do have something to say about the Biblical references. The passage you’re referring to is Exodus 8:2, and there are many allusions to it throughout the film (constant use of the number 82, for example). However, I did a little research, and director Paul Thomas Anderson already had the script the way it was, and only after Henry Gibson (the old gay guy in the bar) pointed out the passage to him did Anderson add the allusions. So he had already planned the frog storm as the end of the movie, but just added the Biblical allusions to it to enhance the story.

Furthermore, while everyone seems to freak out about the storm, the young quiz boy Stanley sits contentedly in the library saying “sometimes that happens.” And he’s right. There have been instances in which it has literally rained frogs —probably not to the extent Magnolia took it, but as the initial narration says, sometimes crazy stuff like that occurs.

It would make sense that the wunderkind Stanley would have read somewhere about the rare but possible occurrence of this happening, and his calmness further highlights an emotional maturity beyond his years, which is the overarching theme for his character, along with being oppressed by his money-grubbing father.

I also agree with you about the prior assumption of everyone’s worlds colliding somehow. Once the movie was coming to an end, and everyone was out driving the LA streets in the dark, I assumed there would be a massive car crash of sorts, bringing all 9 stories into one spectacular finish. This seemed the most logical sort of end, but instead Anderson messes with us all with the frogs.

For those expecting an ending similar to Crash, there is no closure. Sure we see hints of it, as Tom Cruise’s Frank is once again forced into a caretaker role for Julianne Moore, most likely leaving behind the sexist chauvinist version of Oprah career he had lived. We see Jim arriving to comfort Claudia, and the final shot of the film shows her smile for the first time in the entire 3+ hour film. We see Stanley tell his father to treat him better, and he exudes a new sense of confidence. But so much is left to speculation, and is bereft of resolution.

Anderson said that his goal in the film was to create an epic mosaic of something most un-epic in nature, ie the lives of individuals trying to make it in San Bernandino Valley. And in my mind, he succeeds.