Posted by Darth Mabel at proxy-567.public.rwc.webtv.net on January 18, 2000 at 00:00:25:
In Reply to: A definitive answer to an age-old query posted by Kevin on January 17, 2000 at 21:27:02:
: Ah, but my enthusiasm is for my material and for the audience as well. And while I'd never deny Paul has an enthusiasm for his material, he doesn't seem too concerned with the audience. If he was, 'Magnolia' (Good Lord, I know I'm just asking for it now; but since nobody else will let it die...) would've been a far trimmer film. The story (such as it was) could've been told in a third less time than he took. Even the most dedicated fan can concede that.
The only reason I'm popping in here ( God only knows I don't want to extend this argument ) is because I think you've nailed the reason so many people see this film differently.
For you ( and many others from the looks of things ), "Magnolia" fails because its story fails. It takes too long to tell the story as well. It seems to me, though, that the way the story is told is just as important as the story itself ( and this isn't the first work of art that's been true of ). Were it a shorter film, were it merely concerned with "the facts of the case," so to speak, "Magnolia" wouldn't achieve what it sets out to achieve. I don't think it would have the same weight it does.
I don't think it means he lost touch with his audience or that he felt every word he wrote was too immortal to be trimmed. I think that for "Magnolia" to work on any level, it has to be as long as it is. Which also means that when it fails for a viewer, it fails spectacularly. I think, though, for some folks ( I'll admit I'm one ), it's an exhilirating experience. Part of what makes it exciting is that it's unashamedly trying to make a grand statement. You don't get a lot of that these days.
Well, at least not in movies without angels...
Darth Mabel