Review: Magnolia

Several L.A. based tales of longing, loneliness, disconnection, and ultimately chance/fate. Tom Cruise is T.J. Mackey, a misogynistic self-help guru (‘How to Fake Like You’re Nice and Caring’ is probably the least offensive of his cock-strutting, uber-macho mantras) about to confront the past he has long tried to sweep under the rug. Philip Baker Hall is game show host Jimmy Gator, who has just found out he has terminal cancer and tries to reconnect with estranged daughter Claudia (Melora Walters), a drug abuser. Claudia seems frightened of her father for some reason. John C. Reilly plays lonely heart police officer Jim who senses a kindred spirit in Claudia after arriving at her apartment to look into a noise complaint made against her (She’s too wasted to realise her stereo is up way too loud). Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Phil, nurse to terminally ill former TV producer Earl (Jason Robards), who on his death bed requests to be reunited with the son he neglected long ago. William H. Macy plays former quiz kid Donnie Smith, now hopelessly lonely, bitter, and middle-aged. Jeremy Blackman plays the latest quiz kid, whose dad (Michael Bowen) is extremely demanding of him. Julianne Moore plays Earl’s much younger wife who seems to be coming apart in neurotic fashion. Melinda Dillon plays Jimmy’s long-time wife who is starting to wonder just why their daughter is so hostile towards her father. Alfred Molina plays Donnie’s current employer, Henry Gibson turns up as a barfly, and magician Ricky Jay has two roles as the film’s narrator and a TV producer on the quiz show.

 

This epic-length, multi-character study of broken parent-children relationships, loneliness, disconnection, chance and fate from 1999 is not only the best film to date from writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Punch-Drunk Love”, “Boogie Nights”, “There Will Be Blood”), but the best film of this type. Like my favourite film “The Misfits” there’s a bit of me in this film, thematically. I definitely ‘get’ it and can identify with aspects of the characters. The film is too long, but it’s one of those film’s where it’s too much of a good thing so that it’s hard to really find anything you’d really cut out (There’s definitely one showy scene I’d cut, which I’ll get to later. Fair warning, I’m probably going to piss you off).

 

The first thing you notice about the film is not only is it audaciously epic (practically biblical by the climax), but also a very dynamic piece of filmmaking for what is essentially a character piece. Especially early on, the camera is constantly on the move, as are the characters seemingly as we travel between characters and stories. Anderson and his ace cinematographer Robert Elswit (“The River Wild”, “Good Night and Good Luck”, “Nightcrawler”) show how to use roving camerawork for more reason than just ‘because I can’. It’s necessary here because without it, the film would be about 6 hours long instead of 3. Meanwhile, as much as this is a pretty heavy, weighty drama it does have moments of humour. Most of this comes from the gimmicky prologue narrated by magician Ricky Jay, and the scenes featuring dopey, well-meaning cop John C. Reilly in perhaps his best-ever role. Reilly is really funny (and sweet) without jarring with the rest of the film. It’s kind of light romantic comedy humour, and it strangely works.

 

It’s not just Reilly who has a good showing, here, however, there’s several terrific performances. Tom Cruise is the one who walked off with a Best Supporting Oscar here, and it’s certainly a memorable character turn for the underrated actor. As a kind of misogynist Tony Robbins, Cruise proves perfect casting, and gives quite a brave, bold, occasionally funny performance. Yes, funny. The silly thing here is that he delivers all this anti-woman, macho bullshit with a Pat Rafter hairdo. It’s just a little absurd and I think Cruise knows it. Cruise’s casting is important. Today the role would go to Matthew McConaughey or Ryan Gosling and it would miss the point. This guy is only surface-level slick. He’s putting on an act, and is broken inside. Because it’s Cruise, the character isn’t entirely slick, there’s a goofiness to his schtick that lets you realise it’s a bit of a front. He’s smooth, but not silky. The key scene is his interview with a journo played by April Grace. It’s all fun and flirty games until about halfway through the interview. It sneaks up on you, but this guy is clearly troubled, has tried to bury the past, and does not take kindly to it being dug up. Watching Cruise’s character bristle with uncomfortable questions in an interview is very interesting to see in 2016. Who knew how close to the real Cruise this was going to be? Of course, Cruise isn’t his character and shows once again what a good actor he can be, but the similarities are hard to miss here.

 

I don’t disagree with giving Tom Cruise the Oscar nomination, he deserved one. However, for me, there are two other guys who perhaps deserved it even more. William H. Macy is truly heartbreaking in this, as a child quiz champ who has to go through the rest of his life knowing he’ll never top that. In fact, he has since fallen on seriously hard times. He even got struck by lightning, the poor sonofabitch. No one cares who he was or is anymore, and he is painfully, sorrowfully lonely and desperate to connect. With anyone. At all. It’s a painful, pathetic, and moving performance, and one of Macy’s finest hours on screen. When he cries ‘I really do have love to give…I just don’t know where to put it’, you just want to give the poor guy a hug. The late Jason Robards (Jr.) will always have the black mark of his zombie-like portrayal of Brutus in “Julius Caesar” against him, however, with his performance here he gave us one great, final gift. An amazing character actor in the right role, he gives perhaps the most realistic depiction of a terminally ill man in his final moments I’ve seen in film. It’s a tricky thing to play dying but not quite dead, but Robards nails it (Sadly he would pass away from the same cancer his character has in this film, a year later). In the right role, he was the kind of actor that made you just sit there and listen completely fascinated. Here his character is barely coherent, yet in those moments of coherence, he is completely gripping and powerful. Most of that is his unmistakable command of voice, as he doesn’t have much else to work with here beyond his voice and face. I was genuinely surprised that Robards didn’t get an Oscar nom for this. There are other good performances in the film like Reilly’s, Philip Baker Hall (the man born to play Richard Nixon has never given a bad performance that I’ve seen), and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (rock-solid as a sensitive carer), and a whole lot of small roles for very familiar actors like Luis Guzman, Felicity Huffman, Alfred Molina, Patton Oswalt, Michael Bowen, and Henry Gibson, whose presence may tip the hat to the Robert Altman influence in several of Anderson’s films.

 

The one performance I wasn’t thrilled with was Julianne Moore. Due to her chilly early work, I’ve been a bit slow to get on the Julianne Moore train and her performance here didn’t help, either. Her character adds nothing to the film except running time and is one of the few things I definitely would remove from the film if I could. I didn’t buy her gold-digger who has a change of heart character, as Moore just didn’t sell the change of heart well at all. She also has two of her worst-ever moments on screen here: 1) A histrionic breakdown in a chemist, and 2) The scene where she has to deliver one of the worst lines of dialogue in cinematic history; ‘I sucked other men’s cocks!’. The line is only matched for comical badness by her terrible delivery of it. I actually feel sorry for her, I don’t think anyone could’ve sold that line, but nonetheless she’s the one performer in this very fine cast who is off their game. Get rid of her character, replace her with one of the other characters in THAT moment towards the end (if you’ve seen the film, you know what the moment is), take out an unnecessary scene of Reilly out in the rain chasing a supposed suspect, and I’m good. Take those things out and I really would have a hard time finding fault here. Oh, with one exception that really does deserve mention on its own. Maybe it’s because it was part of a Uni assignment I did so I watched it over and over, or maybe it’s because I don’t like Amiee Mann, but the ‘Wise Up’ scene definitely doesn’t work for me in 2016. It’s the one bit of audacious filmmaking that I now (and probably at the time, too) roll my eyes at. It’s everyone’s favourite moment, I know. For me, it’s pretentious and needlessly breaks the fourth wall. Oh, and no one gives a shit about Aimee Mann now anyway. It hasn’t dated well, in a film that otherwise holds up very well. Is the apocalyptic finale completely ridiculous? Of course, but I went along with it due to the goodwill the film had already built up. Aimee Mann may have taken me out of the film, but that’s the one and only moment that I truly objected to. You’ll certainly remember the finale, whatever you make of it. Perhaps it’s not even meant to be taken literally. And whilst I hate the song and the scene it’s used in, the message ‘Wise up’, a figurative wake-up call to the characters and to us all still resonates to this day (The other big message in the film is how things are interconnected yet life is ultimately full of chance and surprise).

 

Just by sheer balls alone this is a helluva achievement from Anderson. He could’ve really looked the fool if he failed to pull this one off as well as he does. It’s a go-for-broke film and he indeed pulls it off very well. Original, remarkable, audacious film is clearly too long, but there’s really not a lot you could cut out here. Several amazing performances, quite moving moments, and a truly bizarre and memorable finale. It won’t be for everyone, but it’s a film everyone should see at least once.   

 

Rating: B+