the way it deals with chance and intersection and loneliness and the primal need that humans have to connect is just beautiful.
It had something to do with a reminder of things greater than our mundane lives, no matter how great and horrible our tragedy and trauma may seem.
What Plei and Jess said, and a little more. I think the rain of frogs is meant to symbolize that, despite the illusions we let ourselves believe, almost nothing in our lives is really within our control, and that life is dangerous, wonderful, strange, and all fucked up, all at the same time, eta: and all we can control is how we react to it.
And it was meant as a wake up call to all of them, though perhaps John C. Reilly and Melora Walters are the only ones who get the message, and even then we're not given total knowledge of that outcome either - only the knowledge that they kept trying.
My hatred of Tom Cruise means that I'll never see
Magnolia
but it sure does stir up some mighty emotions.
I think the rain of frogs is meant to symbolize that, despite the illusions we let ourselves believe, almost nothing in our lives is really within our control,
Huh, I thought almost the opposite. Well, not really, but I came at it from completely the other direction. None of the characters think they're in control of their lives. They're all basically living on inertia because they've resigned themselves to their ruts, where they're all desperately unhappy. They don't make choices because they don't see the point. And the rain of frogs is a drastic example of a "thing that happens" -- an event that is truly out of their hands. And by contrast, it becomes obvious very quickly that they do have choices. They have options. They can take them or not.
I'm in the camp that can't quite articulate why I loved it so much, but I am very fond of the amphibian storm. I can buy people's explanations, but it's one of those things that I just can't put words to.
However, "This is a thing that happens" has becomes something that bubbles to the surface of my brain from time to time, and is strangely comforting.
How much of my "Give Up" love comes from me, at some point, saying, "Oh my God, that's Wesley", I do not know.
Huh, I thought almost the opposite. Well, not really, but I came at it from completely the other direction.
I'd accept that, too.
A lot of what's at the heart of that movie is a little difficult to express simply, yet another thing I liked about the movie.
A lot of what's at the heart of that movie is a little difficult to express simply, yet another thing I liked about the movie.
This is the part of the conversation where I start to babble about film being an audiovisual medium, and how I don't think that one necessarily should be able to express why movies work simply, in words, and I'd probably also throw in something about high concept rarely producing high art.
But it doesn't really work without the hand gestures, so I'll restrain myself.
"Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture"?
But it doesn't really work without the hand gestures, so I'll restrain myself.
Okay, but only if you promise to give this presentation in SF. I gotta see this.
And I'm in total agreement with you.
"Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture"?
Well, writing single sentences, anyway.
