Magnolia Discussion

Today, with this film, we continue our journey into some essential questions raised in our experience of art: "what is the nature of humanity?" and "what is the potential of humanity?" Who are we, and what makes us who we are? Is there a moral imperative that directs our path, or do we construct a morality that suits our intentions? Is there such a thing as evil? Is there such a thing as good? Do we choose between them, or do we simply fall into categories that conveniently describe our behavior?

As you work your way through this film, think carefully about the variety of human flaws these characters have. P.T. Anderson is very interested in exploring human responsibility, but he is also interested in the nature of weakness and the need for help. Do you find yourself judging or sympathizing? Is it possible for you to forgive or can you only condemn? Are all flaws created equal? Try to frame your question and debatable statements with P.T. Anderson in mind. Magnolia is a film unlike most you have probably scene, so you will need to work hard to size up these characters.

Here are some questions and ideas of my own:

• How do you make sense of the fragmented narrative? What effect does the dilated cross-cutting have on your viewing experience?
• Given its epic proportions, what is the effect of the film's personal focus on the characters? Is the film personal?
• Can we say what this film is about? Does it expand beyond the boundaries of a unified theme? What might that unified theme be?
• Judgment? Forgiveness? What's the difference?
• P.T. Anderson has said this film is his favorite of the ones he's made, but he also regrets making the final cut so long. How do you reconcile these contradictory points of view?
• My thesis: Magnolia is a film about forgiveness, the difficulty we face in forgiving, the necessity of forgiveness, etc. My reason for thinking this way is that the characters who wield justice in the film, without the opposing urge to forgive (be merciful), fall into a vortex of pain and suffering. Anderson seems to be challenging us to consider what we can forgive. I take this to mean not what crimes and misdeeds deserve forgiveness but how far WE can let ourselves go to forgive what we might call the "unforgivable." To the extent that the film is about forgiveness, it is also about love, for love, properly understood, is synonymous with forgiveness. That is, the opposite of love is condemnation (of the person, not the deed). "Tough part of the job. Tough part of walking down the street." Even Jim can see that life, like his job, is no easy task. It is, however, governed by a simple idea: love. Everything else is sickness and death.
• My other thesis: P.T. Anderson is the man. That is all.