Paul Thomas Anderson

[equanimus]

PR,
I'm not sure what exactly is being debated here (sorry, haven't exactly read through all posts). Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.?

[kid-glove]

P_R,
I don't think he was messing around with the universe simply as to tease (OTOH, he did overuse 8 and 2 numerical symbols, signifying the exodus, to grab attention of symbol-hunters. That in fact defies 'realism', and simply reiterates that the universe is the filmmaker's sandbox. And the kind of operatic undertones with which he moves forward the story is further evidence. The frog rain at the end is his own intervention, not divine. He isn't afraid of making his presence (storyteller) felt. He prepares us in the prologue. It'd be a lack of trust over audience if he carried on the voice narration for exposition, standing in for him & beat our head with it.). I hope I didn't come out that way. It isn't even the universe as we know it, the one inhibited by his characters. So there's no point of saying he 'messed it up'.

And finally it isn't that such an event wouldn't be 'plausible'. At no point, one feels PTA reduced it to 'fantasy'.

[P_R]

PR, I'm not sure what exactly is being debated here (sorry, haven't exactly read through all posts).

The Magnolia Ending.

Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.?

Hmm... I don't understand the distinction between realistic and real here. Except special cases fantasy etc. in general you (I mean I) want to believe what is being shown is real. i.e. it is a slice of A's life, that is how A would speak, how A would react B, would do in a situation such as this etc. Any creation that fails here fails fundamentally.

When Milan Kundera says கதைமாந்தர்கள் are அயோனிஜர்கள் in TULB it is interesting in passing. Quite daring to attempt to take you behind screen during the course of the story. The tingling thrill is because he is doing something he is not supposed to do.

The other film ending I think of here is Taste of Cherry (இந்தப் படத்தை நான் பல தடவை இங்க திட்டிருக்கேன்). The ending could be scene as a stroke of genius for its 'btw this is just a movie, okay'-ness.

That seemed like a total cop-out to me. Wanting to beat cliche is quite noble. But if this is how it is going to be done then it doesn't feel like 'beating' to me.

Of course Magnolia is far far more interesting than ToC. I am talking only about the idea behind such an ending.

[P_R]

(OTOH, he did overuse 8 and 2 numerical symbols, signifying the exodus, to grab attention of symbol-hunters. That in fact defies 'realism', and simply reiterates that the universe is the filmmaker's sandbox.

நானே சொல்லணும்னு நினைச்சேன். என்னத்துக்கு self-goal போடணும்னு விட்டுட்டேன்.

Not that I caught any of the planted symbolisaums in this film. I agree that planted symbols are what are patently unreal. But if don't subtly enough, that does not rankle me at all.

I don't at all mind symbols - as long they are not make or break. (No meat - Trojan horse 2001 theories).

He isn't afraid of making his presence (storyteller) felt.

Well if he was well nigh absent when he wanted us to build relationships with his characters. And then he taps us on the shoulder with : 'well, you do know this not the real world right'. Or atleast that's how I understood thus far in the discussion of how the ending can be read. (Perhaps I crudely reduce). That didn't make much of an impression on me.

It isn't even the universe as we know it, the one inhibited by his characters. So there's no point of saying he 'messed it up'.

The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?

And finally it isn't that such an event wouldn't be 'plausible'. At no point, one feels PTA reduced it to 'fantasy'.

Hmm...once again, at the risk of bruntly reducing, I paraphrase one of the reviews you quoted: "if it can rain frogs in this world, anything can happen (i.e. not in a hopeful way, just as an observation of the limitless possibilities)"

That did not strike me as profound.

[kid-glove]

But ' limitless possibilities ' doesn't have to be reduced to fantasy, right?

And I don't think it was a tap on the shoulder. He renders the film in such a way that we looking through the spectacles.

What do you mean by,

The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?

The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.

I repeat Equa's question,

Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.?

We aren't arguing it's profound per se, but the dissension doesn't across as judicious. At best, it's restrictive. One that I find less rewarding and most times misused.

[P_R]

Equa's questionukku dhaan (ennaala mudinju aLavukku) mEla answe fannirukkEnE

[kid-glove]

ToC ending vis-a-vis Magnolia ? Sorry, you lost me.

[P_R]

The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?

The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.

Why is that important?

To be trivial: the same laws of physics apply, the same laws of human relationship, social interactions, basic reasonability, logic -all of that applies.

To quote the waeld famous line: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

[P_R]

ToC ending vis-a-vis Magnolia ? Sorry, you lost me.

As I said, the link may be weak. thONichu sonnEn, that's all.

In ToC *foiler for those who have not seen and despite my best advice are going to* they don't show the ending of the story. They suddenly step back and show him as an actor, show the film crew and what not.

Whatever the point of that was - one of the things was to shake out of the reality of the story and show that this is 'after all' a story being told by a storyteller.

That is the ending I am reminded of when reading the analyses of Magnolia.

As you know, I didn't have any reading whatsoever myself when I watched the film. Just WTF

[kid-glove]

The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.

Why is that important?

Filmmaker's dramatization and stylization at service of the story and theme. The physics of frog falling down as rain could be governed by the universal laws. But its very existence has different connotations. What sum effect it has on the characters. When substituted with larger objects like cats & dogs, it fails to bridge what is decidedly real and what is Fortean (Fort is credited and referred at multiple places). The biblical allusions are the sleight of hand. It's within filmmaker's realm to do this.

OTOH, Taste of Cherry is bookended by documentary footage. That's something different. To break the darkness of the screen by showing him up as actor has entirely different connotation. I didn't think on lines of cop-out (I didn't fully get it then). But 'shaking out of reality' (with reality) and so on, reminds a Sensesofcinema article. It's worth a read.

Whether it's books/films, they conjure up the imagery in such a way that we find it to be immersive experience & sustain our interest. One way to get around it is by making it extremely 'realistic'. You find that a challenge. In some cases perhaps, but never laudable as it is.