Day 47: Magnolia

"And the book says, We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

There is this notion that the sins of the father have a carry over effect on offspring. This is not only prevalent in a biblical sense, but also in a psychological one. The idea is that the trespasses of one’s parents can often seep into the persona of a child, which may or may not lead them down a righteous path. In the case of Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Magnolia”, the sins of the father stings the future of the son and daughter. Featuring an assortment of characters who are coming to grips with the distrustful behavior of their fathers, “Magnolia” is a film that heavily focuses on the dark path a human being can take. Amongst the family issues, the characters also face moral concerns and serendipitous events that seemingly magnify the coincidences and challenges that make up a life. Much like Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts”, “Magnolia” isn’t a film that’s hell bent on pushing the notion of ‘we’re all connected‘. As a matter of fact, works like “Babel” or everyone’s darling ensemble “Crash”, are too heavy handed in their approach as they attempt to capture a grand scale by trying to connect everything neatly. Instead, PT Anderson is far more focused on crafting a lush film filled with characters who are brimming with pain and regret. There are characters who do intersect and are connected, but their connection is through a rather frivolous  facet: the media. I must stress this particular connection is extremely loose. Rather the real connection these characters share is through their broken bonds and their ability to continuously set their lives back because they can’t get over a damaged past, or events beyond their control.

Now, the film hosts nine main characters and in order to properly develop them, the film swells to a gargantuan three hour running time. Don’t let the running time, nor the breadth of the characters scare you away. The film doesn’t drag, as PTA infuses it with a kinetic energy that begins with a seven minute opening monologue that stunningly details three separate events that resemble the work of Serendipity. Said monologue  works its way through the film, but most notably pokes its head in the finale. From the monologue we go straight into character introductions, in which PTA cleverly moves from character to character through the use of a TV. Initially, he only gives us the names of the characters and a light sketch. Then he propels us straight in to the lives of these characters, moving us from vignette to vignette. Right away we can see that the characters are sitting on top of a powder keg ready to blow. Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Reilly), the first character we meet fully, is a bumbling cop of sorts. When he rides around in his cruiser, he often talks to himself as if he’s talking to a camera a la ‘Cops’. Through a domestic disturbance call, Jim meets Claudia Gator (Melora Walters), a cocaine riddled woman who has yet to establish a connection with a man that goes beyond meaningless sex and doing cocaine lines. Claudia has father issues, as her father, Jimmy Gator (Phillip Baker Hall), a host of a hit television show that pits children against adults in trivia, has done something to disrupt her trust. Jimmy doesn’t quite understand what he’s done, but he’s desperately trying to reconcile with Claudia before his life succumbs to Cancer.

Crossing Jimmy’s path via his show is Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman), a young prodigy whose ability is exploited by not only Jimmy Gator’s show, but also his own father. Unfortunately, Stanley’s father is using him as a revenue stream. Stanely’s plight rivals that of Donnie Smith (William H. Macy), who thirty years earlier, was on Jimmy Gators show, and much like Stanley, was swindled by his own parents. Speaking of bad fathers, enter Earl Patridge (Jason Robards), a media mogul who is on the verge of dying from Cancer. On his death bed, he enlists his hospice nurse, Phil Parma (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), to track down his son. His son is none other than Frank ‘T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise), a ruthlessly charismatic businessman who gives seminars on ‘seducing and destroying’ women. Tom Cruise is riveting as Mackey, as he handles a vicious character whom misplaces his rage and often emulates the downfall of his father. The two haven’t seen each other for a long time, much to the happiness of Earl’s young wife, Linda Partridge (Julianne Moore) who’s on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Yes, there is a lot to digest character wise, but PTA’s visual flair and ability to keep the scenes moving at a brisk pace, which is meticulously accompanied by Jon Brion’s great score, allows for the characters to grow without the film feeling like its running time is beyond two hours. This notion is further exacerbated by PTA’s use of tracking shots on characters. This technique not only literally brings us into the character’s vulnerable worlds, but it feels as if their worlds are collapsing in on them, thus thrusting us further into the film. Not to mention, the film features a terrific cast that makes PTA’s dialogue pop with power and significance, no matter how melodramatic it may look on paper.  All of this leads us to an ending that has each character’s past and future coming to a juncture. At this point, the characters make life altering decisions, all of which are trying, but demonstrate the care PTA has in the structure of his characters, as well as their predicaments.

But, for as wonderful as the film is on the whole, many of the film’s detractors get hung up on PTA’s dramatic flourishes. More specifically, some view that PTA’s use of a sing along near the end of the film and an ending that prominently features frogs, ultimately derails the film from reaching greatness. I disagree. These ambitious spots in the film demonstrate the mental rut each character is in ,as well as what course of action, be it through divine intervention, coincidence, or the hand of god, is needed to shake these characters from their shattered pasts. Even for those who initially scoff at the film’s ending, I will once again redirect you to the film’s opening monologue, which seemingly sets up an unpredictable ending. With this in tow, the ending isn’t a cheap way to tie characters further or to cop out of a satisfactory ending. In my view, it takes a magnificent event for these characters to realize the absurdity their lives have become, and it takes an enormous predicament, that can be explained based on your interpretation of the film, to shift their paradigms that have been rooted in back sliding, violence, and anger.  Furthermore, it takes an extravagant stage for these characters to realize that they don’t have complete control over the moments that make up their lives, but they do have control over their actions. It’s with these numerous themes at play, and PTA’s assured direction and writing that the film succeeds when it should probably fail. So, take a chance and become immersed in PTA’s epic mosaic that deals with shattered pasts and an unknown future.