Culture Snob Comments

Bruno on "Ebert's Game: Still Hidden"

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:25:02 -0600

I just watched the film today for the first time. Amazing experience, that's for sure, especially reading about Roger Ebert's finding and all the theories that people came up with to solve the mystery. Of all the comments here, I think theseboots' came closest to what I understood. I think the dream scenes were actual flashbacks (the first time the bloodied-mouth kid is seen, during the night facade tape, Georges was not sleeping) rather than depictions of Georges' supposed lies. I think Majid actually bullied Georges', out of anger after the death of his parents by the hands of the French - Georges being his scapegoat. If the dream scenes are to be interpreted as literal memories, than they directly contradict Georges stating these events were lies, COMPLETELY turning our interpretation of the plot (Georges as guilty) upside down (Majid as guilty - ultimately commiting suicide when ghosts of his past return to torture him). I honestly think that is the conclusion Roger Ebert came to, the smoking gun being the flashback of a young Majid actually coughing blood. As for the tapes, I agree that Waleed conspiring with Pierrot make some sense, even tho Waleed denied and Pierrot receives that card and seem oblivious to the meaning. At any rate, as Haneke (the director) seem to reinforce in interviews, it doesn't matter WHO sent the tapes; the point of the movie is not that.

Oblisseus on "Five Minutes: The Truman Show"

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:03:36 -0600

One can make a strong argument that he is the first cyber hero. this movie relates more and more to our daily lives with the massive amounts of attention and time ppl spend on social media. it also suggests that there is some irony involved in searching for something genuine in such a convoluted medium. the portrait he makes from magazine scraps and ads is more real than the entire TV show.

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

Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:15:01 -0600

Strange things happen all the time. This is the belief of the narrator. If we see it in a movie--or perhaps read it in a book--we are inclined not to believe it--but our narrator assures us that these strange coincidences do happen all the time. But the narrator is telling us about a strange coincidence that did "really happen" even though we are inclined not to believe it because we are seeing it in a movie. The only allusions to God or religion in the film are the symbolic links to Exodus, where that narrative is explicitly about God and "strange events" that "really happened". But here too we are faced with irony. We are disinclined to believe those stories too, having read about them in a book, even though strange events like that "happen all the time" in the opinion of our narrator. But in contrast to the ancient stories, our modern or perhaps "post-modern" story is ambiguous. We do not see clearly the hand of God intervening in judgement, against the sins of the oppressors. Instead we see coincidence, and are left to infer if there is any meaning to such strange things, or if they are just strange things and nothing more. Some have claimed that after the "rain of frogs" we see a new reality emerge. Perhaps the sins of the fathers have been healed or forgiven. People have been saved, in the words of the Aimee Mann song. The gun is returned. The addict seems freed from her addiction. This is what we would expect from the biblical narrative, where the plagues save the people from Pharaoh. But we don't believe those strange things anymore, so we aren't sure. In a postmodern move we are left wondering, with different perspectives: "It happened, it really happened," but is it a coincidence? After all, strange things happen all the time. There is no certainty of a divine intervention, of a forgiveness and a redemption from the terrible effects of the sins of the fathers, visited on their children and their children's children--especially if we see it in a movie, or read of it in a book. Franks' father dies looking into the face of his son. Is there forgiveness? Perhaps not. As mentioned, the nurse weeps. The other father's suicide is, ironically and coincidentally thwarted by frogs, but this is no act of forgiveness, just a random coincidence according to our narrator. His drug addicted daughter seems better, and the cop also leads the Macy character to make restitution. But the boy who longs for his father's love, like Frank, is coldly rejected. There is left, in the experience of those "in the movie", only the random coincidences of strange events, and there is no clear hand of God, no clear sense of meaningful redemption or forgiveness. There is for some and not for others: "and so it goes, and so it goes..." But we are at least reminded, in the book, that the past isn't through with us. Even if we cannot see a clear hand of God, as was so clear in the Exodus, the past will continue to hold us in its grip. Every now and then things will get so bad, and our sins will be so destructive of our relationships, that only a plague of such frightening proportion will be sufficient to re-orient us to a new future. For some that will be the intervention of God, but for others, merely a random strange event. Post-modernism is all about perspective, and there are multiple perspectives in this film, with no meta-narrative to guide us, only ambiguity.

Shane Hipps of Eric Horssius on "Why Are There Frogs Falling from the Sky?"

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:23:39 -0600

Seeing Is Not Believing In Magnolia, we witness a visible and cataclysmic act of God. But in a strange paradox, no one in the film—nor those of us watching the film—recognizes its significance or even acknowledges the role of God. How could we? For the magician-director completes his trick by cueing the narrator for the final distraction. When the falling frogs stop, the narrator emerges again to blur any meaning we might have discerned: “There are stories of coincidence and chance and intersections and strange things told . . . And which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, ‘Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn’t believe it.’ . . . And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says . . . ‘We may be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.’ ” Anderson’s sleight-of-hand returns once again in the narrator’s meandering monologue. We are encouraged to accept the fact that these things happen all the time, and that we shouldn’t over-think any of it. Focus your attention instead on the juicy piece of meat—the last sentence. The profound yet irrelevant quote: “The book says, ‘We may be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.’ ” It’s a quote taken, appropriately enough, from, The Natural History of Nonsense by Bergen Evans. We should consider the whole thing “nonsense.” But if we can see past this distraction then we can discern Magnolia’s deepest subtext. The frogs reveal Paul Thomas Anderson’s longing for a visible and tangible experience of God. One need not be “religious” to long for a cataclysmic and visible sign from heaven, a sign that we are not simply living in the chaos of a meaninglessly spinning world. Deep down, in secret places, we long for something so tangible that no one can deny it was divine intervention—like Jules’s (Samuel L. Jackson) near-death experience in Pulp Fiction. When we see it in reality, we will know it is truth. But that’s the trouble. Reality doesn’t tell us about truth. Unfortunately, the stubborn world of truth is not expressed or accepted in a real world that is seen. We nonetheless continue our longing for truth to be made visible in this tangible world. We go on believing that if we just see something for real we will believe it is true. But reality never seems to last. As soon as it happens it begins to decay. Reality, residing in memory, has a half-life, but truth, which does not live in our mind, is far more tenacious. The visible plague of frogs faded in the Pharaoh’s memory, its effects present only as long as he could see them. It is no coincidence that his part of the Exodus story does not end well. The response from Stanley’s father reveals that the effect has, similarly, already begun to decay for the adults in Magnolia. And the book says, “Blessed are those who have believed but have not seen.”

Megan Roche on "Evolved Sexuality"

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:42:25 -0600

1) Why do men never want to have a relationship like women do? For example, in my opinion, women like to have companionship, sharing things together, romantic things together, whereas men sometimes do not think those things are as important. 2) In reference to Buss' statement about men having casual sex to pass on their genes. I disagree with this statement becuase in my opinion, some men do not want to commit to a single relationship because they like the idea of having more than one partner. 3) I agree with Buss where he said "people look for people who resemble their opposite sex." I agree that they are looking for all the good qualities in a person, such as a hardworking person and family oriented. 4) I was very surprised to read that sexual differences were universal instead of being more local or cultural. 5) I agree with Buss that certain mating behaviors can be changed and that's why it is so important that this subject is being researched so behaviors could be understood.

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

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:07:24 -0600

Isn't the frog storm supposed to be ironic? After seeing multiple characters in their cars, and knowing that many of these players have connections to one another, then isn't the trained viewer supposed to expect some deus ex machina. Except Anderson plays on the term and gives us something completely (un)natural. I feel like it is equally as Greek as it is Hebrew, and i think Aristophanes would agree.

Sharon Winters on "The Tell-Tale Tapes? The Trouble with Caché"

Sat, 26 May 2012 17:50:25 -0600

In order to determine who provided the tapes, let's determine how Majid's son manage to attend the same school as Georges' son? Wouldn't the son of a successful television host attend private school? Majid's son doesn't fit the demographics of the student body -- did he gain admittance due to scholarship and hard work? If so, what does that reveal about Majid's intelligence? Does his placement and academic success extend to having a strong character? A sense of empathy, justice, respect, loyalty and love for his hardworking father? At their first encounter, Majid told Georges that he had recognized Georges on his television program several years ago. Wouldn't any person/father boast about his childhood connection with a popular television host? Did this produce a father/son conversation about Majid's past, including the turn of events, the pain of rejection, his orphanage experiences, loss of family, etc. If the two boys attended the same school, shouldn't Majid's son recognize (by name?) Georges' son and relay their coincidental connection? Why was Georges' son featured minimally in the story? Most scenes include only Georges/Anne; some show their relationships with friends/coworkers. Aside from the opening meal scene and the swim meet, when do the three act as a family? Suspicion of the kidnapping allowed for our second encounter with Majid (and introduction to Majid's son), but if he isn't the answer to the big question, why even bother featuring him in the film at all? (I saw so little of their son I kept wondering if there was a stepparent that was housing the kid.) Watching one's parents live in fear would be a passive/aggressive, yet ever-so-satisfying way to get even for the neglect and anger this kid is feeling. The two boys conspired to terrorize Georges with information only Majid would have shared with his son. Each boy has their own motive for making the tapes. Because George does film editing at work, it's possible some of his technical knowledge (including editing) was passed on to his son. Majid's son is considerably older (and taller) than Georges' son, likely of driving age, capable of filming the scenes away from residence, including the POV needed to film the height identifying Majid's apartment number. I watched this movie with my hubby last night, five years after watching it the first time (by myself). There's nothing more frustrating than spending 2 hrs on a movie and feeling confused with no one to point out the details that are missed the first time around. My hubby expressed the same boredom and confusion I had five years earlier. This time around I enjoyed the film knowing the ending school scene held a clue to the mystery. Problems I had with the film: If Majid wasn't part of the taping, it's unlikely a small apt could hide a functioning video camera. BUT - there was a time when cameras were able to film babysitters abusing their charges -- maybe these cameras are activated when motion is detected? Also, why would Majid close the door (twice) to the room in his apartment that Georges and he have their conversations -- the second time for the blood to spray effectively? (I enjoyed the mirrored elevator scene -- which occupant on the elevator was the cameraman?) Sharon Winters

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.