RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 11, 2005 20:46:23 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 11, 2005 23:07:19 GMT
1. There Will Be Blood 2007 2. Punch-Drunk Love 2002 3. Magnolia 1999 4. Boogie Nights 1997 5. Sydney 1995
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 12, 2005 4:35:08 GMT
Hard Eight, Syndey...whatever the fuck its called Boogie Nights Magnolia Punch Drunk Love There Will Be Blood
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
Post by jake on Dec 12, 2005 14:11:23 GMT
1. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) 2. Magnolia (1999) 3. Boogie Nights (1997) 4. Hard Eight (1996)
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 13:16:12 GMT
1.There Will Be Blood 2.Boogie Nights 3.Magnolia 4.Punch-drunk love 5.Sydney
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jan 2, 2006 6:50:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 28, 2006 10:45:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Jul 4, 2006 21:53:58 GMT
1. Magnolia (1999) 2. Boogie Nights (1997) 3. Punch-Drunk Love (2001) 4. Sydney (1995)
EDIT: Ranked.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Jul 5, 2006 0:26:48 GMT
Are you ranking those in order of preference or just numbering them? To be 100% honest, I haven't slept in 48 hours and am feeling lazy. I just went with a copy/past method. But, it is in reverse chronological order, so I felt no need to re-arrange.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jul 22, 2006 0:32:49 GMT
1. Magnolia (1999) 2. Boogie Nights (1997) 3. Hard Eight (1996) 4. Punch-Drunk Love (2001) 5. There Will Be Blood (2007)
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 24, 2007 19:29:59 GMT
Magnolia
|
|
|
Post by connor on Dec 3, 2007 23:10:36 GMT
Magnolia (1999)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2008 21:55:45 GMT
Is it me, or are the clips with the narrator telling those stories in Magnolia the most profoundly stupid ideas in the history of cinema?
What's the point of them? Really?
"These strange things happen all the time..."
WOW PTA THANKS FOR THE INSIGHT BRO.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2008 21:57:24 GMT
Sorry, that's been bugging me lately. It almost ruins the movie.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 16, 2008 1:47:19 GMT
I've wondered about the film's emphasis on the themes of chance, coincidence and interconnectedness.
The characters are connected to oneanother in ways they're unaware of, but other than serving as a narrative device allowing linear, in-scene transitions from story to story, of what emotional or philosophical significance is that?
Not much, in my opinion. It feels to me like that theme arose necessarily from the narrative structure that was chosen, and the prologue was conceived afterwards, and is over-emphasis.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 16, 2008 2:01:27 GMT
Is it me, or are the clips with the narrator telling those stories in Magnolia the most profoundly stupid ideas in the history of cinema? What's the point of them? Really? "These strange things happen all the time..."WOW PTA THANKS FOR THE INSIGHT BRO. Wow, I don't agree with this at all. The film works so well because it's bookended by those segments. Unconventional and memorable. I said once that Anderson deserved a Best Director nod for the opening sequence alone. And his subliminal background audio mix is so complex, must be given special attention. I think it's a really interesting idea, a small prelude to a film that introduces and analyzes the major themes of the film through completely unrelated characters and sideplots.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 16, 2008 2:06:08 GMT
The prologue, in itself, is fantastic.
But it explicitly informs us that the film is about chance and coincidence, and, apart from the theme of the subtle interconnections between strangers that arises necessarily from the narrative structure, it's really not a major issue in any of the stories.
It's good to see you come out of the woodwork, Boz.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 16, 2008 22:39:30 GMT
But it explicitly informs us that the film is about chance and coincidence, and, apart from the theme of the subtle interconnections between strangers that arises necessarily from the narrative structure, it's really not a major issue in any of the stories. I disagree. Jimmy Gator would have shot himself in the head had it not been for chance and coincidence. It's good to see you come out of the woodwork, Boz. Good to hear you say that actually. I've long gotten the sense that I'm secretly hated here by some and I've felt particularly alienated following the removal of my star images (granted I stole those from you in the first place) thus rendering many of my posts meaningless as well as the deletion of my review database without any sort of warning to me. But yeah, that's the power of Mags; stirring words in the silent.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2008 13:04:46 GMT
I disagree. Jimmy Gator would have shot himself in the head had it not been for chance and coincidence. True. And Donnie wouldn't have fallen off the drainpipe. But all that's really saying is that the 'macro-event' (my term?) affects all of the characters simultaneously (as does the earthquake in Short Cuts). It just affects some more directly and physically than it does others, but all are subject to the same unusual event. Of what significance is it that Jimmy's suicide is averted by chance? How does that work in the context of the rest of his story? Though it serves the same narrative function, the earthquake in Short Cuts isn't as unlikely or symbolically cathartic an event as the frog rain, which, simply by being so astronomically unlikely, doubly stresses the importance of the characters' connections. Yet the theme of interpersonal alienation is much more plainly emergent in Altman's film than it is in Anderson's, which is more consistently concerned with parent-child relationships (estrangement), psychological pain carried from childhood, and death by wasting disease (and proximity to death). It just seems to me that the narrative structure of Magnolia was chosen first, mostly because Anderson admired Nashville and Short Cuts and because he was ambitious enough to attempt a similar kind of film. Certain observations are made necessarily by any film that utilises that narrative structure. It unavoidably casts whatever stories it contains in a particular philosophical light. The stories Anderson wrote to fill that form addressed the themes listed above more than any others, though. Having already decided that his film would climax with a macro-event, it's quite unsurprising that it would end up intervening directly in a couple of the characters' stories, as those stories would have to all be written to develop up to and beyond that event. This is all well and good, but where, before the macro-event, does he earn the right to so openly stress that his film is any more than peripherally about chance and coincidence? It's a de facto theme, but one he barely develops (except for the "Wise Up" scene, which I would criticise as an interlude with the same argument I'm making against the prologue). This is a pretty minor flaw, in my opinion (it suffers from bigger ones), but I definitely think the prologue, though superbly made, is basically disingenuous and unearned.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2008 1:22:35 GMT
What bigger flaws are there?
|
|