Ryan McNeil
Over the past few weeks, many of us have reflected on what might be the best films of the decade. The trickiest part about this is considering legacy, especially when one only has a short window to consider it. For instance, if I tried to convince you that a movie released yesterday needs to be seen as one of the very best of the decade, you’d likely scoff at me.
However, back on Christmas Day 1999, a movie was released that was, and still is, one of the very best the decade 90’s had to offer. The movie was MAGNOLIA, and it’s the next movie up in the 1001 Movies Club. My thoughts on P.T. Anderson’s opus can be found after the jump.
If you’ve never seen MAGNOLIA, it’s hard to say precisely what it’s about. The story is about ten lives that intersect on one fateful day in Los Angeles. Follow me here…
Stanley is a contestant on a show called “What Do Kids Know?”. The show made Donnie famous a whiz kid thirty years ago. It was hosted then, as it is now, by Jimmy – whose estranged daughter is a young woman named Claudia. Claudia gets a knock on her door by the LAPD one afternoon and meets Jim; an officer who answers the call about a disturbance, but ends up falling for Claudia and asking her out. The show Stanley and Donnie both competed on, and Jimmy hosts, is produced by Earl; a man so sick with cancer that his young wife Linda can no longer care for him all by herself. She calls Phil, a hospice caregiver, who in turn reaches out to Frank, Earl’s estranged son at the dying man’s behest.
Get all that? too bad, I’m not repeating it.
What makes this convoluted, six-degrees movie so good is the way it makes us take a look at the most insecure parts of ourselves. Moments after a truly nice guy walks out her door, Claudia needs to do another line of coke. Donnie, in his own words, “has a lot of love to give”. However, he can’t seem to express that love – misguided as it might be – without getting stinking drunk and arranging to get dental braces he doesn’t need. Why is it that sometimes, like Claudia and Donnie, we know exactly what we want, but can’t seem to express it?
If that isn’t a harsh enough lesson for this film to teach us, it makes us consider where we’ve come from, and specifically the mistakes that we’ve made. It believes that we may be through with the past, but the past isn’t through with us. Frank and Linda both find themselves at a crossroad of their individual relationships with Earl. They know how badly they have screwed up their connection to this frail man, and in Frank’s case it’s even a two way street. However, like so many of us when we fear that it’s too late to change anything, both Linda and Frank break down when confronted with the truth, and forced to face just how damaged everything really is.
If it seems as though this movie is a look at some of the dreariest traits about human beings…well, you’re right. Of course, none of this is helped by the way the overlapping circles spin towards individual breakdown. We’re forced to watch as lies are told, people are threatened, diseases dig in, and shame takes over.
However, right when it seems as though neither we the audience, nor any individual character can take any more…the movie stops cold, to the sounds of four lonely notes on a piano. The film’s soundtrack washes Aimee Mann’s “Wise Up’ over us like baptismal waters – and every character in the film sings along with the aching melody. It’s an especially moving moment, since in full understanding of the messes their lives are, every character is able to sing the lyrics “It’s not going to stop / ‘Til you wise up”…often in tones barely above a whisper.
The story does include a few beacons of honesty – namely in Stanley’s wholesomeness, Phil’s nurturing, and Jim’s determination. However, it doesn’t feel like any of them have been put there for us as the audience to actually identify with. In actual fact, their presence makes it all the more painful, because it puts a face on those who we end up hurting. By the time it’s all over, Jim will offer to absolve us if we so choose, but not before noting that “What people don’t see is how hard it is to do the right thing.” While Anderson’s film brings in themes of co-incidence and freak occurrences, it’s the human emotion and plea for decency that makes MAGNOLIA endure.
I lied earlier – it’s not that hard to sum up what MAGNOLIA is about. It’s about attrition. It’s about absolution. It’s about wanting redemption so very badly, but not even realizing it until you’re almost too broken for it to do any good. Like the street that gives the movie its name, it wants us to take the chance to turn around. It’s a special call for us to understand human connection for the fleeting moment it is, and not to squander it with our own selfish actions.
But Ryan, Is It List-Worthy?… Yes, but I preach patience. This movie wants you not only to meet these people, but to know them as well as you know your own family by the time its all over. MAGNOLIA is the best film Robert Altman never made, and a delicate fable about the decisions we make. Take some time, let it play out, and you won’t be sorry.
"MAGNOLIA is the best film Robert Altman "
Interesting… when I did my review of 1999 this was somewhere at number 11 [although PT. Anderson I thought was one of the best directors of the year] I saw it again and I'm still not sure if I'd move it up but I will say that Julianne Moore was particularly phenomenal.
I absolutely adore this movie, forgot to do my IWAL post yesterday (watched the movie during the time I intended to post about – had to show it to my sister who had never seen it). You seem to be getting a head start on the 1001 movie club films.
Amazing writeup though, many of the same things I was going to discuss in my post on Monday 🙂
No, Kings and Queen is the best film Altman never made. I'm never able to focus on anything save the admittedly jaw-dropping camerawork, but it ends up being worse than crap direction because I am at all times drawn to it and not the story, which maybe isn't so bad as for me it never went any deeper than its melodrama. Boogie Nights worked because it never allowed itself to become too serious and thus could discuss serious things, but Magnolia argues for a cosmic importance it just doesn't have.
And I love Julianne Moore, but her performance was horrendous. Absolutely, painfully awful. She's far too talented for people to keep praising the scenery-chewing, hysterical performance she gives here.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be contrarian, and it's been a while since I've seen it last but I'll take PTA's twisted character studies that allow him to use his technical skill to greatest effect than this thin spread. Oh, but this couldn't make a best of the decade list, at least not for this one. A decade list for the Aughts would be, depending on how anal you are, 2000-09 or 01-10.
@ Jake… Perhaps my intro was unclear. I'm not suggesting that MAGNOLIA is one of this decade's best film…I was trying to suggest that it is one of the very best films of the 90's.
Thing is, it went into limited release Christmas Day of 1999…so suggesting a movie mere days needed to be included on a list of "The Best Films of The 90's" would have been a tough sell at the time.
Just thought I'd clarify – I'll argue with the rest of your comment later 😉
Hmm, now that I've rubbed the sleep from my eyes I can see my post was quite terse, so let me soften before you address it: I think that the acting, save Julianne Moore's wretched performance, is generally high-caliber. I think that Tom Cruise in particular is stellar, giving his finest performance — and I'm someone who couldn't tell you whether Daniel Day-Lewis put in better work for My Left Foot the year he played Ron Kovacs in Born on the Fourth of July. I like his story arc, as well as William H. Macy's.
I just find that so much of Mangolia is derivative of his biggest influences at the time, Altman and Scorsese. Now, it's a testament to his strengths as a director that he can honestly be compared to the two — I think he's by far the greatest of the modern American filmmakers — but he, in this film at least, lacks Bob and Marty's ability to make the viewer a part of the story. Altman made us the camera, so that when he drifted away from what seemed like the action it felt like we were making that choice; Scorsese is (or was) so skilled at placing us in the headspace of his films' protagonists that we became a part of their fractured perspectives. Magnolia never does that for me; I feel left out in the cold with this film, capable only of admiring its direction when it should be drawing me into the film until the movements become a perceived extension of my own thoughts.
Magnolia takes Altman's Short Cuts and attempts to add to its theme of the ties that link us all, no matter how arbitrary, with more personal ideas like parent-child relationships and sexual confusion, but it never finds the balance between the two and not only fails to add something to Short Cuts but it doesn't even match Altman's magnificent work. Of course, this is just my opinion and it doesn't bewilder me that people like this movie like, say, the bubbling underground of praise for Southland Tales does.
OK, then I'll argue some of Jake's points right now…B-)
Of course, I have to do this from a personal standpoint as this film grabs me on a variety of different levels. I'll admit that one of them is the sheer bracing power of the filmmaking. I understand how his direction and camera work may have pulled you out of the story Jake, but it did the opposite for me. It sucked me in with wide eyes, dropped jaw and goofy grin on my face. That opening – man, I want to watch it again right now – is a breathless run through coincidences, biblical analogies and character introductions that actually focused me on the people and their stories. It seems like each time we come back to a character, we get to spend a little bit longer with them. I'm not sure I agree with your point about the movie arguing for cosmic importance – it's a tale of people needing a chance to "bloom", unsure of whether they can be redeemed or even whether they should be redeemed.
Hey, I'm biased towards it I admit. I can probably rationalize any of its faults until the cows come home, but I think it pulls these disparate stories together beautifully to offer hope to those that feel lost. And I am absolutely a sucker for using the art of film to tell your story – the use of "Wise Up" in the middle of the film is terrific, the long tracking shots let you live the moments with the characters, etc.
I can see how Julianne Moore's performance might be viewed as chewing the scenery, but I felt it worked. She was at the end of her rope, finally realizing her love for her husband, but knowing it was too late to make up for her past mistakes. If you can't use melodramatic emotions for her character, when can you? I don't think Anderson was looking for subtle – the emotions are full blown.
The film isn't perfect, but I love it.
@ Andrew… Your mention of its ranking is kinda my point. It's sort of the same reason why I prefer to give a movie a night or two's worth of reflection before writing about it. Time allows perspective, right?
Funny you mention Moore's performance – given that Jake argues the opposite.
@ Univarn… It's one of my personal favorites too. I had to get a head start on the 1001 films this month, I had other stuff planned for the days the various movies were supposed to be posted.
@ Jake… Funny thing about Tom Cruise's performance. At the time I was impressed, because it felt like the first time Tom Cruise wasn't playing "Tom Cruise". But in light of his massively dickish personality turn in the middle of the 00's…maybe he was tapping into a part of himself he'd been keeping quiet.
It's been a long time since I've watched SHORT CUTS, so I can't accurately compare the two, but I never felt distanced from the very human moments going on in MAGNOLIA. I think that's what Anderson does as well as Altman, and perhaps better than Scorsese…he gets us looking at ourselves as we watch others Like Altman, he stands back and lets a scene play out, allowing us to choose who we identify with.
Points for coming back and revising your reaction – gotta love that kind of gracefulness in a blogger. My only suggestion might be, since you mention it's been a while, is give it another watch sometime soon.
@ Bob… We're in agreement??? It's a Cjhristmas Miracle!!! Jokes aside, I'm with you (obviously). As I watched it before writing this piece, I made a note that Moore's performance is one of desperation…she knows how very screwed up she is, that's why she goes off at the slightest touch. But what really makes it work, is how she's able to show that just like Earl, she's gone to her own private hell. She's in a place where she knows she's been hurtful, and is pleading for absolution.
Problem is – she can see that it might never come.
Her screaming can get a little much, but I see that screaming and raise any naysayer her apology to Phil as evidence of how great this bit of acting really is.
Yeah, it's like I opened up an ants' nest mentioning Julie. And the thing about Magnolia is that I saw it in 2001 and only once. I still don't think I like it more. It's one of the films that I don't really "like" but the direction [I think] is good. The different parts are good, but they don't add up to the great whole for me.
"Bob… We're in agreement???"
Yeah I know…What the hell, eh?
S'OK, it'll pass…B-)
Weird thing is, as much as I love "Magnolia". I think "Punch Drunk Love" is even better.
Oh boy, I love this movie so much. I'm one hundred percent behind you when you infer it's one of the best films of the nineties.
Hatter,
I'm soliciting bloggers' favorites (of their own posts) for my year-end round-up at The Dancing Image. I finally realized there was just too much stuff – and too much unread stuff, sadly, as I've both spread myself more thin and spent less time perusing the net than last year, to go about the round-up as I did last year. Nonetheless, this "soliciting submissions" approach, in addition to being less taxing on my addled brain, also has the added perk of being more democratic. Hope you'll jump in!
Here's the explanation (with a bit of a mea culpa):
http://thesunsnotyellow.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-of-blogosphere.html
Feel free to leave your own selection there – links to all submissions will be posted around the 30th, but I'll certainly be taking them after that too.
Thanks,
MovieMan0283
Still my all-time favourite movie! It is the one non-holiday film that I watch during the Christmas/New Year's week every year. Weird tradition, I know…
@ Andrew… Funny you mention that the parts don't add up, since Blake mentioned in his review this morning that it's only bringing all the stories together that make this movie work. Individually none of them are as interesting as they are when brought together.
@ Bob… Damn, it's been a while since I watched PDL. Might have to cue myself up a little Anderson marathon!
@ Blake… Indeed. haven't left a comment on yours yet, but I really liked your take on it as well!
@ Movieman… Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look back through my work and definitely pass along a post or two for your consideration.
@ CS… As an all-time fave I like the choice! (My all time favorite is ALMOST FAMOUS for what it's worth). I think MAGNOLIA is aging quite nicely, an interesting detail given that many of the films that knocked us on our collective ass in 1999 are starting to show signs of age.
I find it hard to give an objective opinion on this film as I have yet to watch it without reducing myself into a bundle of twitching nerves.
I wouldn't put it among the best of the decade. Like, not at all. It beats out a lot of movies, but the 90s had a lot to offer. There were several movies better than this one. Hell, even Legend was better than this one, if we're talking Tom Cruise movies only. It was good, but not great.
In talking about the William H. Macy part, it did make me really sad and I felt for his character, but in terms of making the overall plot more interesting and concise, I'm just saying that his character would be at the top of the list of characters to cut. Second would most likely be Julienne Moore's character- she didn't really do anything either.
@ Evil… In a good way?
@ Mistress… OK, this makes me curious – what would you rate as the top ten or so films of the 90's??
True, Macy's character doesn't do much to advance the overall story, he's mostly in place to serve as a cautionary tale as to what could happen to Stanley. Moore's character, hammish as she may seem, really needs to be there because she has finally understood how she got to where she is through gold digging. Now she is pained by feeling terrible for how she got where she is, but knowing that nobody can – or scarier, *will* – grant her absolution.
Oh, and not only is LEGEND not a 90's movie, but there's no way it makes the list of top five Tom Cruise movies.
Both Macy and Moore's characters are equally important to the film. Quiz Kid Donnie represents a flip side to a character like TJ Mackey – Mackey is all about taking whereas Donnie has (as he says near the end) so much love to give. He's living off his past fame while others are trying to shed or ignore their own pasts. It would be a shame to lose the scene where Donnie breaks down with Officer Jim…
It's scope, it's grand themes, the way the scenes pop from one to the other, the sheer technical moviemaking skill and the wonderful creativity on hand (when the shadows of the frogs slow down behind Stanley, all the characters singing "Wise Up", etc.) should garner more of a reaction than simply "it was OK". Just my opinion though Mistress, not criticizing you or anything. I can more easily understand someone hating it or calling it pretentious than shrugging it off. They would be wrong of course, but I can still see that…B-)
@ Bob… Couldn't agree with you more, you actually have quite a knack for expressing ideas that are knocking around in my head but can't seem to get out.
I must say, I do wish that Oscar had gone with their 10 best Picture Nominee idea ten years ago…odds are, this would have been one of the ten.