Culture Snob Comments

theseboots on "Ebert's Game: Still Hidden"

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:28:12 -0600

I just saw this movie for the first time this afternoon, and I thought it was brilliant and thought-provoking. One thing that I have not seen discussed by any reviewer or blogger is the fact that Georges tells Anne that, as a child, he lied about Majid in order to have him removed from the family home. In other words, he lied and told his parents that Majid was coughing blood NOT that Majid was in fact coughing blood. I thought of the association between tuberculosis and coughing blood; sly and spoiled six-year-old Georges could have frightened his parents to think of his contamination by the orphaned Algerian. The second lie had to do with the killing of the rooster. In the horrifying dream sequence, we see Georges menaced by Majid with the axe. If it is true that Georges lied to have Majid removed, then would it not stand to reason that Majid was the cowering victim and Georges was the plotting aggressor? The dreams perpetuate the fabrications that Georges told his parents rather than what actually happened; because Georges is such an unreliable narrator, his audience, including Anne, is left to wonder what else he is not telling. At the end of the movie, I did catch the meeting between Majid's son and Pierrot. I think that they probably were co-conspirators. Pierrot, I believe, was motivated by his sense of invisibility. Much of the dialogue regarding him is centered around one question, "Where's Pierrot?" Perhaps Pierrot was gone missing, trying to shake his parents out of their false and comfortable existence that seems to approach any unpleasantness from angles instead of head-on. The swimming sequences seem to be an extended metaphor for Pierrot's attempt to wash away the sins of his father.

Culture Snob on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:54:06 -0600

Nathan: I prefer to look at the text rather than what the creator intended, or what the creator intended originally. And regardless of direct references to Exodus, the rain of frogs is inevitably going to be interpreted by many people in its cultural context. That is, it's going to be read religiously, and it's a valid interpretation no matter what the creator intended. But if we're going down this path, I'd say that many good or great ideas were born from bad ones. So if Paul Thomas Anderson initially intended the frog storm independent of religion (which I think would be a bad idea), that doesn't affect how I feel about his ultimate decision to reference religion (which is a good one).

Nathan on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:26:10 -0600

I just watched "Magnolia" for the first time, and in the daze afterwards I stumbled on this article. I found it very interesting, but after looking on imdb I found that Anderson had the idea for the frogs before being aware of the biblical story. It was after finding out that he incorporated all the 8s and 2s. What do you make of that? To me it means that, on one level, Anderson incorporated the religious story into his film which definitely makes it relevant when discussing the frogs. I get that. In fact, it's easier for me to process this way. But, on the other hand, that means Anderson had this idea as the original ending anyway, without any religious framework. What the hell does that mean? I guess it could still suggest God interfering, and maybe it does. Maybe it's just a huge coincidence that he thought of that and then found the perfect story to support this image. Anyways, something to think about.

toasted on "Ebert's Game: Still Hidden"

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:06:20 -0600

If anybody is still reading this, there is LITERALLY what to this naive viewer appears to be a smoking gun (as in, a gun with a cigarette coming out the end of it), on the edge of the dinner table beginning at 20:29 or thereabouts. I assume that's what Ebert was talking about, which is why he uses the expression 'smoking gun' twice. Cause, you know, he's having a little fun. I think he's been having a laugh for a couple years now over this. Is the 'gun' a gag or clue on the director's part? I have no effing idea. It is pointed at Georges, though, indicating that perhaps he is somehow responsible for the videos?

JH in SF on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:28:28 -0600

Thanks, Culture Snob, for this excellent series of Magnolia analysis. Last night I watched it again for the first time in ten years, having seen it (and loved it) 4 or 5 times when it was first released. I've since waited impatiently for other such moments of filmic brilliance, only to be fully satisfied by There Will be Blood and more recently by Synecdoche, New York. I would love to see you delve into the many complex, perplexing, and fascinating details of Synecdoche. It requires multiple viewings and though I've spent some time trying to fully understand it by myself, you are far more prepared and capable of doing it full justice. There is plenty of existing analysis of it out there--but it is most often trite, poorly written, and riddled with superfluous hyperbole. Consider it?

Clifford Jackman on "No School for Scandal"

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:44:34 -0600

Great post. Very relevant five years later - when we went through the financial crisis. Again there was loads of indignation but very little understanding of what actually occurred. Scary to think we are not making progress. Enron is a black box, but it didn't have to be. No one cares about the details.

Todd McGreevy on "Gross Error"

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:31:30 -0600

Ah-ha. NOW, I know where/why the South Park writers included a Steve Jobs announcing the latest killer app as the human centipede in this season's debut episode. I wondered aloud, "Where in the world do they come up with this shit?" Show's how far behind the times I am when it comes to culture, eh?! Maybe the South Park episode pulled off what the film could not on the visceral level... however, I must say that the jaw dropping premise of the human centipede (called CentiPad in the episode, I believe), WAS effective in supporting another premise in the South Park episode of "You mean you did not READ the Terms of Agreement for iTunes?!" Cartman's rants to his mother in the Best Buy storer are also over the top and legendary in this episode. A helluva season opener. http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad

Culture Snob on "Short-Film Week: A Sweet, Whimsical, Dirty Movie About Rape or Regression"

Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:20:05 -0600

It was never claimed otherwise.

Anonymous on "Short-Film Week: A Sweet, Whimsical, Dirty Movie About Rape or Regression"

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:30:54 -0600

The shrinking lover wasn't used in another film, it was made specifically for the film Talk to Her by Almodovar.

Natalie on "My Movie Life"

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:59:32 -0600

Read and enjoyed every word of this unique bio. And recognised a kindred spirit. Thank you so much for all of the work that you put into your blog. I'm just smart enough to understand just how impossibly brilliant your analyses are, but not smart enough to comment here in a way that might actually genuinely flatter you. Sorry about that. Thank you also for providing reviews that are the most fair-minded and honest that I have ever read. My hat's off to you.

Alfred Welles on "A Lean, Mean Shakespearean Machine"

Mon, 16 May 2011 07:40:53 -0600

Nice review. I like it when the reviewer mentions a film that's unexpected, like Magnolia here.

Culture Snob on "The Prestige: Drunken Commentary Track"

Thu, 12 May 2011 15:03:27 -0600

Jessica: Thanks, and sorry to it took me so long to publish your comment. (If you couldn't tell, I've been a serious slacker lately — miraculously, even more than over the past six months.) There is no cooler person trying to come out. For better or worse, when we try to talk for two hours straight — and try to argue and comment and still watch the movie while drinking — it's sometimes a struggle, and sometimes there are stretches. But don't doubt the wedding-ring rule. It's ironclad. I can (and someday will) provide dozens of examples. (Here's one.) You say: "The rest is just people wearing rings — not everything has an 'obvious' meaning." But every aspect of every character's appearance in a movie is designed — including whether a ring is being worn. You might not think that has an "obvious" meaning, but there is inherent meaning in each choice filmmakers make.

Jessica Bender on "The Prestige: Drunken Commentary Track"

Tue, 03 May 2011 19:02:11 -0600

I'm glad you guys made this. I was hoping to watch the commentary on the DVD but found there was none. However, a bit of advice, don't try so hard to sound intelligent on some elite level. Just talk to the audience and say what you think. Numerous times I can hear both of you stretching to make some academic-sounding explination or go out of your way to use film lingo but it just comes off as pretentiousness. When your wife counters your copy of a copy idea with the concept of digital copies, you don't have to grasp at straws for a new explanation. You can just say "you're right" and move on. It's a problem with people who try to be academic where they can never admit fault and confuse that with intelligence. You don't really want to live up to the title of this blog, right? =) The only "wedding ring rule" is that married people wear rings and you can frequently see people's hands in movies. In the one scene where Freddie is playing with the ring, that is intentional. The scene when Angier takes his ring off, that's intentional. The rest is just people wearing rings - not everything has an "obvious" meaning. Snobs read in to things to the point where they see what isn't there! =P In any case, I'm sorry for talking like a jerk here, I usually try to spread peace and love in my life. And as I said, I am grateful that you guys made this - truly. But too often it felt like you guys were TRYING to sound like pretentious film snobs, and I believe your inner voice is a much cooler person trying to get out, yet scared of being thought "stupid" if you don't talk like a cryptic college professor.

Anonymous on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:13:11 -0600

wow, i saw "magnolia" for the first time just now...right after watching "transformers" for like the 100th time...weirrrrd...loved "magnolia" tho.

Matthew Nielson on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:33:56 -0600

I've seen the movie multiple times, and it strengthens its' themes of life NOT being something for us to control and not being safe or wrapped up neatly. First you have the opening monologue, then you have the greater suspension of disbelief with that song they all sing (which could and probably does happen every day. I like to sing out loud, I like certain songs that others surely do, etc). Then you've got the frogs at the end. After all the stories have built up to a frothing climax, it's not about whether the frogs are from God or a freak storm, it's about how the characters see the event. None of them openly question it, but we know they're mostly intelligent and perceptive just as we are. The policeman for example ended up taking a huge emotional risk by going to the lady's house. The words I'm looking for are getting increasingly more difficult to come by, as it's late for me. But I felt the urgent desire to write something, ANYTHING, about the glories of this film. For more context, I'd suggest the detractors watch something like Nashville, or just stay the freak away from 'serious movies' and stick to fare like Transformers.

Danielle Marinelli on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:31:47 -0600

All of the characters are connected. If you watch the credits at the end of the quiz show, Earl Partridge, Frank's father, is the producer of the show. Both Earl and the host of the show have done terrible things to their children when they were young. They are both now dying of cancer, and their children want nothing to do with them. Linda married Earl for his money. Now that he is finally dying, she has fallen in love with him for real. This is her punishment. Donnie, the now grown up quiz kid and young Stanley are following the same path. Donnie says he has love to give, but he doesn't know where to put it. Stanley will be the same way if his father doesn't start being nicer to him, as he asked toward the end of the movie. Not having love while you are a child makes you unable to love as an adult. This is why Frank feels the way he does toward women, and why Claudia is so messed up. The frogs were an intervention. They made Claudia step away from the coke, and her father drop the gun. They made Donnie put the money back that he stole. They also gave Jim back his gun, his power. Tho the simplest character, he was the wisest, and made the most sense of it all. Stanley, who we thought was the smartest character, said this is just something that happens. Jim said this isn't just something that happens. Everything happens for a reason. The 3 stories at the beginning of the movie also happened for a reason.. This is God's plan.

Charles Passy on "Acts of Hashem"

Fri, 24 Dec 2010 22:43:56 -0600

Fascinating dissection. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite movies of all time -- I'm a fan of the Coens, I'm a self-loathing Jew, but the strange, glorious appeal of this movie goes beyond that. Found your piece after googling A Serious Man and Hashem, looking for some astute commentary. I do think, in the end, you've got it right: The answers aren't always there in the faith, but the idea of doing good remains essentialy. And that's perhaps why Marshak's ultimate message to the bar mitzvah boy -- most likely, glossed over by many a viewer -- is "Be a good boy." What seems so simplistic -- it's the shortest of all the rabbi "answers" -- is ultimately so right. We can't make sense of anything (as the Jefferson Airplane said, the truth eventually becomes lies), but we can be good in the meanwhile. My question -- since I think the Coens don't do anything by accident -- is how this all relates to the movie's prologue.

Culture Snob on "Magnolia and Meaning"

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:43:25 -0600

elkinsvideo: I love The Wire, too, and I have no delusions about my relevance. However, there are more ways to skin a cat than "realistic characters with a larger coherent message about powerful meaningful themes."

elkinsvideo on "Magnolia and Meaning"

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:30:16 -0600

Magnolia is a terrible film. Incoherent is the word. There are some interesting parts of the film, and good performances, but those brief moments don't add up to anything. As a whole, the film is an incoherent mess that means NOTHING. Do you want an example of a sprawling epic piece of art that someone can wrap their head around and endlessly pontificate about..? "The Wire" on HBO. Heres a show that is firmly on planet earth with realistic characters with a larger coherent message about powerful meaningful themes that are RELEVANT. And you're championing a crap film about god knows what about unrealistic contrived characters that exist only in the writers mind with an incoherent theme behind them. This is why film criticism has become irrelevant. Every filmmaker is a genius, every film is a masterpiece... you browse Rotten Tomatoes, and Magnolia is a universal masterpiece and the best film ever made. If you want to hail this shit as one of the best films ever made and a timeless masterpiece.. then welcome to irrelevancy. I'll be re-watching all 5 seasons of The Wire in the meantime.

arbit on "Ebert's Game: Still Hidden"

Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:03:02 -0600

Okay, I think I have figured out Ebert's "Shooting Gun" based on POV, as well as an ALL ENCOMPASSING solution to the mystery (until you all put a dozen holes through it). The POV in the shot at about the 20 minute mark before the 'boy with blood' memory has two characteristics: 1) It is a still shot, implying that is is the objective perspective from someone filming, and 2) It is from a second story level at the street leading right up to George's front door. Therefore, Ebert is implying that the person making the tapes was taping from the second floor of George's house (i.e. Pierrot). Additionally, even if it a Subjective POV shot, it is still coming from a member of George's household and aimed directly at the spot from which the opening frames of the movie are being filmed. In other words, Pierrot is looking from his bedroom window at the spot from where they are being filmed and knows where the camera is before his parents tell him of the tapes. (However, unlike Ebert I am not convinced that POV is the solution, because anyone could have been looking from out of that window, out of pure fear, not neccessarily knowledge. They know they are being filmed from that general direction. And if Ebert means the POV of the person seeing the bleeding boy, it seems to be the POV of someone the height of age six, so it had to be George's POV from memory and no one else.) One issue not discussed anywhere of vital imprtance to solving the mystery is that George is a dedicated liar and never reveals what actually happened between him and Majid, although there are two hints: 1) After killing the rooster Majid appears to approach George with violent intent holding up the axe when the scene suddenly ends, and 2) George tells Majid something to the effect of "You were older and stronger than me, I had no choice". Therefore, what did George do? Was it much more violent than what George finally admits to his wife at the end of the movie? It had to be when he says he was older and stonger and had no choice. George probably beat the living crap out of him and caused him to bleed for days on end, which he has suppressed in his memory as "spontaneous bleeding". George doesn't appear to admit to much and is obviously hiding a lot more as implied from the two scenes just mentioned, which is why it is such a painful memory for the Grandmother. It must have been a lot more violent and the family had to send Majid away for his own safety after brushing the family violence under the carpet, and bringing a doctor in to check the boy after waiting for exterior wounds to heal. Kid's skin wounds heal fast, it could have been a wait of only one or two weeks. One other issue not mentioned by bloggers which is part of the solution is that Majid may actually be George's brother conceived through an affair between the Grandmother and the Algerian farmhand. This would explain the desire to adopt him and the guilt caused by exiling him at a young age and the mysterious dissappearance of both parents. This theory is based on the fact that Waleed (Majid's son) appears to be in touch with the Grandmother and knows about her health. Why if he is he in touch with her does the Grandmother claim to have no memory of him? Something stinks there to high heaven. The only reason they would be in touch is due to a blood or a continuing adoptive relationship. In any case the story George tells is very very innocent and could not be the cause of so much trauma on Majid's part and so much guilt on George's part. His only admission is that he said "I saw him bleeding" and "I told him to kill a rooster". Hell, on a farm there is a lot of chicken killing going on. Majid would only kill himself in that gruesome fashion due to very serious childhood trauma, not just being sent away to boarding school. I don't think we can say who sent the films, but we can determine who made the films for one good reason: No one had access to Majid's house to film the confrontation between George and Majid except Majid's family. Therefore, Either Majid made the tapes, or his son did (independently or in cohoots with Pierrot, it doesn't matter) Finally, the second generation seems to know each other based on the closing shot. Majid's son and Pierrot have some kind of positive relationship. Perhaps Majid's son approached him at school and made friends with him. Whether they are in league with one another or not is not important. The point of the movie is that there is a silver lining on the history of violence betwen France and Algeria, led by a new generation that is able to look past racial differences. Pierrot's hero is none other than Algerian Zinedine Zidane who led France to its last World Cup and has his poster hanging on his bedroom wall. This generation can look past racial differences; Pierrot can have a good relationship with Majid's son, although we cannot imagine that George's generation can have an honest relationship with their colonized neighbours.