The Nonsense of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia
Posted in Analysis on July 21st, 2009 by Dwight – Be the first to commentIt’s not
What you thought
When you first began it
–Aimee Mann, “Wise Up”[1]
Ten years ago, Paul Thomas Anderson followed up Hard Eight and Boogie Nights with a three-hour plus powerhouse of a film. Interweaving the stories of nine main characters, Magnolia dealt with cancer, rejection, abuse, and reconciliation in a unique way.[2] While the interwoven and interconnected story line device had been used before (Magnolia owes a lot in this way to Robert Altman’s Short Cuts which also featured Julianne Moore), Anderson took the device to another level. Altman used the device to connect separate Raymond Carver stories with some aplomb, while Paul Haggis seemed to stumble over it in his poorly executed polemic Crash. Interwoven and connected stories can become so overly coincidental that it ruins any emotional connection. The story can become so unreal as to turn into farce. From the beginning of Magnolia, Anderson overcomes this potential pitfall by making it obvious that these overly-coincidental connections are not simply a device. They are a crucial component of his film.
And of course, there are the frogs. I suspect many viewers of Magnolia, if not turned off by the overly-coincidental interwoven story lines, were turned off by the deluge of frogs. Or at least perplexed. The first time I saw those frogs fall from the sky I was in love with this film. To this day, Magnolia remains one of my favorite movies of all time. For me, the frogs are also crucial to understanding the film.

The First Frog Drops
The frogs of Magnolia certainly will mean different things to different people. And there is no singular way to look at the frogs in order to appreciate and enjoy the film. In fact, my own interpretation has evolved over the years. But the immense talents of Paul Thomas Anderson surely necessitate a more thorough examination.
