Posted by Bokonon at 1cust55.tnt7.nyc3.da.uu.net on June 26, 2001 at 11:35:02:
The mere fact that you don't immediately understand something isn't grounds to attack something like a troupe of rabid, feces-flinging baboons. Okay, raining frogs is referential to the bible. So fucking what, the mere fact that a scene is referential or intitially uncomprehensible doesn't invalidate it as art. Read Pynchon or Beckett or Gaddis or Joyce, if you can understand them completely the first time you get the fucking prize, but that doesn't make it bad (although being non-comprehensible doesn't automatically make something good or art either).
Admittedly, Magnolia was a fairly mediocre film, BUT the raining frogs was one of the only interesting parts. When a guy tries to take a little risk and maybe even develop himself into a full-blown artist you don't attack him for that. If you want to actually see an interesting film by PTA in the future, you leave him alone and hope for the best.
Besides which, the attack on PTA seems more to be inspired by a desire to emulate the Kevin than actual opinions of your own. Kevin has a perfect right to hate Magnolia and say so publicly, it's called the first amendment jack-offs, but that doesn't obligate you to lick his asshole and simply parrot his positions. The mere fact that you like Kevin's films doesn't obligate you to stray to the party line. Try some fucking thinking of your own for a little while.