http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw
Tarantino on TWBB
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw
Tarantino on TWBB
Courtesy: app_engine
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/03/...3001267492501/
Quote:
LAJAMANU, Australia, March 1 (UPI) -- Weather experts said the fish that fell on a remote Australian town for two days had likely been sucked up by a thunderstorm before falling to the ground.
Residents of Lajamanu said hundreds of small white fish, believed to be common spangled perch, fell from the sky during the weekend despite the town's location 326 miles from the nearest river, The Sun reported Monday. Locals said many of the fish were still alive when they hit the ground.
Mark Kersemakers, a senior forecaster with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said the fish could have been transported by a storm system.
"It could have scooped the fish up 40,000 to 50,000 feet in the air," he said. "Once they get up into the system they are pretty much frozen. After some period they are released."
Locals said it has rained fish in the town twice before, in 1974 and 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcthPJ88h8k
Interesting, what Ebert made of it.
The film is very conscious, in its construction of the interlinked story lines. There are some unfavorable connections to manipulative and contriving films, notably Kevin smith who found it to be "Cinematic root canal" and preference of"Shortcut", which ties the rug closely (somehow, I feel, this very quality masks a lack of talent. This excessive and forbearing need to "round" off the plot) and dissembles with its natural disaster, even if symbolically, the American dream. "Magnolia" works on a higher level, despite the lack of political allegory.
An excellent analysis (quite rightly dismissive of reading in biblical terms) to offer credulity to deliberate fortean themes implanted in Magnolia. Even if it is enough for PT Anderson's admission in dvd extras and interviews, it's interesting to look into the work. The deliberate ploy to implant biblical references happened much later after final shooting draft. It doesn't mask the actual intention and the interesting (fortean) forethought before lending the device (exodus 8:2), as a sleight of hand. Hell, the film is a bag of tricks.
Summary from the link,
Quote:
Paul Thomas Anderson presents Magnolia as a sort of Fortean tale. It is a story full of wonder. For some, wonder is provided by the supernatural. For others, it is provided by nature. The credulous among us will believe that “this is something that happens” and be content to leave it at that. Their credulity will inspire awe and provide a basis for hope. But, the skeptics among us will look at the film as sheer entertainment crafted quite masterfully. We will be inspired simply by excellent storytelling and a common human experience. For all of us, Magnolia can be a wondrous experience, nonsense and all.
Agree with this. Btw, the analysis doesn't curtail the final epilogue to the frog rain, the gun, returned back to officer Jim. In eyes of some people, A token award to the benevolence and forgivingness he'd bestow towards Donnie (and his kindess to the girl who does drugs and had been a victim of incest), and the strings are so explicitly pulled. Well within the realm of the world of magnolia, by PTA. Officer Jim could be instantly seen as the model hero (and Christian evangelicals could even concede that's the whole point of the film), forgetting the incompetence and his failings that follows him everywhere, unless given a hand by the creator. As are the other characters. But as the analysis (in the link) aptly identifies,But rather, as I had said, this particular author opts this way to uplift the children, even if temporarily, like a fantasy Even if, the word "fantasy" is problematic.Quote:
All of this stuff, including faith, motivational dogma, conspiracy theories, and paranormal explanations become desperate rationalizations for some people. Such easy answers are nonsense. The raining frogs do not resolve anything. They do not make someone good. They do not create love or fix damaged relationships. They do not cure cancer.
Magnolia Extras: Jason Robards on his own cancer experience, coming to fore...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tnPnMmO7As
Another trivia: PT Anderson, being a Robardian like mentor J. Demme, was inspired by their work in "Melvin and Howard", would inspire young PTA, and lot of the father-son thematics (notably Hard Eight, or Sydney) are inspired by this film.
Interestingly enough, there are some influences of Peckinpah's "Ballad of Cable Hogue" in "There will be blood". Some visuals, random lines, and certain characters. On that note, an anecdote by Robards on "Ballad of Cable Hogue" in Magnolia extras:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZS3LnwO32c
Sticking to Robards, a very interesting character actor. After Melvin and Howard, He went to TV, and gone off radar for a while. His best days were gone for a while, until films like Philadelphia, Magnolia (that was his last film, and he died of cancer :( ) happened in 90's.
I suppose, it would have turned out different, had he done Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, but that's certainly Kinski territory. Look at this, Robards and Jagger's take was so dreadful. Kinski, on the other hand, was born to play the role!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgDXu_Nhys
Charlie Kaufman's mock-interview as a foreward to shooting script of Human nature, parodying PT Anderson's foreward to his published script for Magnolia. Especially PTA's usage of profanity.. :lol: :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaufman
:rotfl:
Read your review of TWBB.
True. Just that I found the film extremely boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid_glove
But I kinda see there is perhaps no other way this story could have been told (having decided that it would have to be told!)
yaar andha theorist ? :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.imdb.com/user/ur22480757/comments
Yeah. But - to use an exaggerated expression - it kinda violates the contract you have with the audience about reality. And if that is supposed to be the very point then I'll have to say it didn't work for me. In fact it pretty much ruined whatever I liked about the film till then.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid_glove
I see the links about how it is physically possible for such a phenomenon. :lol2: That is not the point. To portray an abnormal event on screen and say 'wierd stuff happens you know' is quite unacceptable.
(varisaiyA varEn, yet to read Ebert revee ling)