Talk:Magnolia (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Table

I thought since the theme of this movie is the unlikely connections between the characters, it would be interesting to list what those connections are. That's why I feel the table is justified, in case anyone thinks about scrapping it. I added as many of these connections as I could think of off hand, and I know there is still a lot there that I can't think of at the moment. It is probably possible to fill up the whole table (above the diagonal).

I know all this effort might seem silly, but in my opinion this movie is truly an epic. CyborgTosser 07:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just added more about the plot of the film and some further insight on the ending. Also, I started a themes section... I've seen and thought about a lot of different themes and I'm sure that this section could be filled up.

I didn't want to touch the table (too much work has been done with it so far), but it doesn't look very appealing in the article. A table would be a good way to present the character relations, but it has to be a big table. Can anyone think of a cleaner way of presenting that?

BTW CyborgTosser, I agree. David Lynch may be a master of composing a film that you can watch over and over again and still see new plot points, but Paul Thomas Anderson is the master of creating films that you can still see new ideas and themes.

I just corrected a few typos and made minor changes to wording in a couple of places. I deleted reference to Turston, as he's not mentioned anywhere else, but added that the bartender's name was Brad. Couldn't resist adding the "We might be through with the past..." line!
The table is, imho, an good addition and a way of helping understand the complex weaving of relationships between so many characters. I agree with you about the epic nature of the film, although it's a view not shared by many casual moviegoers.
Agendum 09:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I think some of the connections listed in the table were really stretching (eg: "Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show produced by Frank's father"). I've added a graph that shows the hard character relationships and edited the table to only list thematic relations. Vagary 09:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firefighting Plane

Does anyone know what those firefighting airplanes are called? Is there an article about them except forest fire? CyborgTosser 07:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Does anyone know why the film is called Magnolia? ThePeg 17.08. 2006

I'm pretty sure that the events of the film are supposed to have happened on a street named Magnolia. I don't have a source for this offhand, but something somewhere gave me that impression. Britteruci 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

could you exlpane why the movie is called "Magnolia"?

Could be to do with the idea that the stem of the magnolia flower joins all the flowers together - in the same way that all the characters are linked in some way. There is a Magnolia Avenue in the Valley, and toward the end of the film, Jim the cop is driving along Magnolia Ave when he sees Donnie climbing the drainpipe. 203.46.66.219 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was something to do with the number of petals the Magnolia has and the number of plotlines in the film, but I think I'm wrong because there seem to be nine stories and the flower only has five petals or something.

[edit] three factual events?

as far as I know, the events detailed in the introduction are mostly urban legends, not actual events. 130.225.96.2 15:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame, but it's all fiction.
Agendum 22:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stumbled in while creating a Jon Brion article - nice work, guys! I like the table, too. I created a separate Music section with info re: Aimee Mann's contribution, etc.; hopefully the order is OK. Also a few spelling fixes, the biggest of which was Jim Kurring's last name.

I am concerned that this isn't really an "independent" film in the true sense of the word; I believe Anderson had a contract with New Line (the studio he did Boogie Nights with).

BTW, I recall reading somewhere that the hypothetical scenario of the "attempted suicide/successful homicide" actually WAS presented at a forensic science conference, as is stated in the movie.

Of course you're right about it not being an independent film. I removed that word from the opening description and added an explanation of how it is stylized like an independent film later in the paragraph. I'm concerned it may be a little too wordy for the introduction.
As for the factuality or otherwise of those events, I've had trouble trying to verify either way. Every hit I see on google is talking about the movie. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 06:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

snopes discusses two of the three supposed factual events and concludes that they are indeed "urban" legends. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=magnolia&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

[edit] proposal to merge movie and album

It has been suggested that Magnolia (album) be merged into this article or section

I personally think this is a bad idea. The album is notable in its own right. I think there is a problem conflating the album of songs with the soundtrack, and would suggest deleting the song list from the movie page and referring across to the album page instead.Rachel612 05:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rachel612, bad idea. Jon Brion's score would be more applicable to the film's page anyway--Weebot 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. There is a strong precedence of sountracks having their own articles. Generally, where a soundtrack doesn't have it's own article, it's only because no-one has written it yet. --Qirex 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above three comments.Smedley Hirkum 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who proposed the merge and I'm fine with the decision to keep the soundtrack on a separate page, but then what happens to the CD and tracklisting for the score? Both the Aimee Mann and Jon Brion soundtrack wikiprojects have been taken off of the article. The Aimee Mann soundtrack article still exists, but now information on Brion's work is nowhere. The score should be mentioned somewhere. Pele Merengue 23:47, January 28 2006 (UTC)

Given this consensus I removed the merge tag from here and over at the album page. The score information should also have its own article, but failing that can be in this article. An appropriate disambiguation in the section should prevent its inadvertent deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external link problem

there is a problem with the external link to the Magnolia.com website - has it been hacked or something? Please can someone fix.

[edit] "Many" essays and other writings have been composed on it.

"Many"? Great... But where? -_- Could you please provide any references?


Thanks in advance.

Best regards.

--Ncrfgs 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I originally wrote that. I've read a number of essays and articles online about the film (not reviews, but analysis). I also know that there was a student who wrote a masters thesis about PTA and specifically this movie. I'll try to dig them up and add links (and hopefully a few more bullet points). --Kilby 02:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, any progress on finding some references? I have to agree with the concern expressed above re: this section. "Many essays and articles have been composed" on tens of thousands of films. That's what the whole academic field of film studies does, it composess essays on films. I'm not sure Magnolia is distinct in this way. It seems unnecessary to have this comment there and potentially misleading, giving casual readers the impression that this film has had significantly more critical work done on it than other films. I agree it is a great film. I am a phd student writing on it myself. But I know for a fact that, relatively, Magnolia has not had that much attention paid to it. Also, "This, along with Anderson's other film Punch Drunk Love, is considered to be one of the greatest examples of existentialism in film" seems expecially misleading. Again, it needs to be backed up with references or removed. I'm pretty sure this is simply wrong but anyway "considered to be" implies someone's opinion and this leads to the question: whose? Just some thoughts... Great work on the page by everyone, esp. the chart. Aglie 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connections

I think that many of the entries in this section are problematic because they are not connections that are explicitly made in the film. For example, "Jim is the kind of guy who could ostensibly benefit from Frank's material." A more valid connection, in my opinion, is that Jim ends up dating the daughter of a man who was the host of a television program produced by Frank's father. I think that these thematic connections are original research, and including them at the expense of the more tangible connections that can be made doesn't seem appropriate. I edited the connections for Frank. Unless someone feels strongly that the old connections were better, I'll do the rest in a few days. I wouldn't oppose a paragraph stating that in addition to these connections, many of the characters are linked by themes of parental abuse, drug use, etc. Britteruci 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the connections as I would make them. Almost all of them revolve around WDKK (the removal of Dixon as a major character made some of these connections more distant than they would have been otherwise), but none of them are more than five degrees removed. As much as I love Julianne Moore, I think that her character should be removed from this section because she is not particularly central to this linking system (a similar argument could be made for the exclusion of Frank and Stanley).

Jim dates the daughter of the host of a game show produced by Frank's father. Earl is Frank's father. Jimmy is the host of a game show produced by Frank's father. Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show produced by Frank's father. Phil is the caretaker for Frank's father. Stanley is a contestant on a game show produced by Frank's father. Donnie was a contestant on a game show produced by Frank's father. Linda is Frank's stepmother.

Jim dates the daugher of the host of a game show produced by Linda's husband. Earl is Linda's husband. Jimmy is the host of a game show produced by Linda's husband. Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show produced by Linda's husband. Phil is the caretaker for Linda's husband. Stanley is a contestant on a game show produced by Linda's husband. Donnie was a contestant on a game show produced by Linda's husband.

Jim rescues Donnie during the rain of frogs. Earl is the producer of a game show on which Donnie was a contestant. Jimmy is the host of a game show on which Donnie was a contestant. Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show on which Donnie was a contestant. Phil is the caretaker for the producer of a game show on which Donnie was a contestant. Stanley is a contestant on a game show on which Donnie previously appeared.

Jim dates the daugher of the host of a game show on which Stanley is a contestant. Earl is the producer of a game show on which Stanley is a contestant. Jimmy is the host of a game show on which Stanley is a contestant. Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show on which Stanley is a contestant. Phil is the caretaker for the producer of a game show on which Stanley is a contestant.

Jim dates the daughter of the host of a game show produced by the man for whom Phil is a caretaker. Earl is being cared for by Phil. Jimmy is the host of a game show produced by the man for whom Phil is a caretaker. Claudia is the daughter of the host of a game show produced by the man for whom Phil is a caretaker.

Jim dates Claudia. Earl is the producer of a game show hosted by Claudia's father. Jimmy is Claudia's father.

Jim dates Jimmy's daughter. Earl is the producer of a game show hosted by Jimmy.

Jim dates the daughter of the host of a game show produced by Earl.

Britteruci 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the connection tree picture, I think there should be a line connecting Linda and Donnie since when Linda is in the ambulance, it passes Donnie who then decides to take the money back. Just a thought.

Mr Fist 18:46, 25 November 2007

[edit] Clarification needed

"The pilot of the plane, Craig Hansen, had met Darion a few days prior at the casino where he worked as a blackjack dealer." <- Which of the two worked at the casino? Xiner 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Scuba-diver man is the blackjack dealer in the casino, pilot has an argument with him a few days before the accident. 203.46.66.219 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking on IMDB's Top 250 list

As of 6 pm PST on 8 January 2007, the Wikipedia entry says: It currently has a position the IMDB.com Top 250 Films, at #175. ...yet on IMDB, its ranking is #177.

I'm going to change the wording to say, "As of 1/8/07, it is ranked at #177..."

In general, citing a movie's ranking on the IMDB Top 250 (or Bottom 100) list is problematic because both lists are extremely fluid. If you're going to mention a movie's ranking on either list, at the very least mention what time and date this is effective as of. Some people could argue that this shouldn't even be mentioned at all.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Magnoliacoverart.jpg

Image:Magnoliacoverart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler tags

I have had to explain this on several user pages, so I decided to put it on the talk page for the film. There is no plot summary. The "Overview" section is almost totally character description with almost no plot. Thus, WP:SPOILER's statement about spoiler tags being redundant does not apply here, at least until a plot summary is added. Ward3001 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is "almost no plot" in the Overview section, what purpose does the spoiler tag serve? --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Some details about the film are given (especially character description), but almost nothing in the form of plot. Reading those details can "spoil" the film for the reader. Look, here's the main point. If "Overview" could correctly be titled "Plot summary", no spoiler tags would be needed because the reader gets a clear warning from the section title. But "Plot summary" is not accurate. "Overview" is vague and does not necessarily warn the reader that "spoiling" information is in the section. The section title could accurately be "Overview, character description, and a few plot details", but that wouldn't fly either. I normally delete spoiler tags for plot sections because I understand the redundancy issue. But this is one of the unusual exceptions. Even WP:SPOILER says that spoiler tags are "usually" not needed. The best fix for this article would be to add an adequate plot summary, but right now it's not there. Ward3001 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not an 'overview'. It's a summary of the plot. It doesn't explain the plot in chronological order, but it still summarizes the plot. It would be perfectly acceptable to change the heading to "plot summary" or something similar. Cop 663 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If a plot summary enables a naive reader to read it and develop a step-by-step (usually chronological, unless the actual plot is not chronological) understanding of what happens in the film, the section is the weakest plot summary I have ever read. Every time I watch a movie on DVD I read the Wikipedia article's plot summary, and it almost invariably follows such a pattern. I think if you read the "Overview" for this film, you might understand some things about the characters, but you would have very little idea about what happens sequentially in the film, except for the summary of the three urban legends, which is actually just a prologue to the actual film. It's not a plot summary. The term "Overview" may not be accurate either, but it clearly does not summarize the plot. I would prefer to title it "Character descriptions" if "Overview" is not used. Ward3001 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we simply change the word "Overview" to "Plot overview"? Then it will be apparent to anybody who might read the relevant section that he is about to read information about the plot. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Character overview" might be more accurate, but not "Plot overview". It's 98% character description and 2% plot. Ward3001 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How about "Character histories" ? The details don't really matter, as long as we're agreed that we should give this section a name that clearly indicates that it is intended to impart information about the film to the reader. Remember that we're here to impart the facts, all of the facts. and only the facts.
Then again, maybe you have another idea of what Wikipedia is about. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has had nothing to do with WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR. It has to do with opinions about how to title the section and what the section contains, and then reaching a consensus about how the article should be written. Please tell me where WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR has been violated.
Then again, maybe you have a different idea of what discussion and consensus are about. Ward3001 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. let's not get into a scrap about the use of capital letters in place of actual words in English.
I also apologised to you for any offense given. I freely apologise, again, here.
I changed the section heading to one that I think adequately describes the content. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, no "scrapping", but just for the record, you're the one who made the first "But then again" comment.
Your edit does take care of the spoiler tag problem. However, it creates a very awkwardly worded section title that someone else will likely revert. My personal opinion is that it was better the way it was, including the spoiler tag. But I welcome other opinions. Ward3001 04:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Magnolia poster.jpg

Image:Magnolia poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)