Posted by Rose of Sharons Dead Baby at cpia.jhu.edu on June 26, 2001 at 12:44:57:
In Reply to: Chill on Magnolia's frogs posted by Bokonon on June 26, 2001 at 11:35:02:
...if you assume that the whole "raining frogs" thing furthered his slow trek towards validating himself as an artist.
Personally, I think he was doing just fine with Magnolia (a wee long-winded though it may've been) until he fucked himself in the ass with the frog shit. If Anderson were really struggling to get his films released and was worried about the impact they'd have, Magnolia wouldn't have been three hours and the frogs might not've made the cut.
At three hours, complete with ILM-enhance "raining frogs," Paul Thomas Anderson assures us that he believes himself capable of doing no wrong and made absolutely no calculations in the editing which showed that he gave a shit about the audience.
With the frogs (and the length), Anderson tells me: "Hey, I think this is funny, wild and kinda poetic. If you don't like what I find funny and wild, well, who gives a fuck what you think?"
In fact, I can hear Anderson's voice wrapping itself around those very words.
: 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 (although being non-comprehensible doesn't automatically make something good or art either). If you want to actually see an interesting film by PTA in the future, you leave him alone and hope for the best.
If only Paul Thomas Anderson would stop making films simply 'cause we complain or "attack" him. God, that would just be too easy.
: Try some fucking thinking of your own for a little while.
Okay.