FROGS FALLING FROM THE SKY!!

[Andy_Alderslade]

Pretentious would be to re-hash what everyone has seen before, give them what the numbers say they want.

 

I think you need to check the dictionary, thats a very unusal undertanding of the word 'pretentious' which normaly translates (in the context of film) something which has been targeted to the high-brow or intelectual class, but which actually lacks integrity and meaning.

[David Sweetman]

I think you need to check the dictionary, thats a very unusal undertanding of the word 'pretentious' which normaly translates (in the context of film) something which has been targeted to the high-brow or intelectual class, but which actually lacks integrity and meaning.

it doesn't have to be targeted at any specific class; a film using all the conventions of film but without undertanding them, that's a truly pretentious film. And the model of that pretention is the commercial film. It's unfair to isolate pretention to the art film, or to moments of surrealism.

[Andy_Alderslade]

it doesn't have to be targeted at any specific class; a film using all the conventions of film but without undertanding them, that's a truly pretentious film. And the model of that pretention is the commercial film. It's unfair to isolate pretention to the art film, or to moments of surrealism.

 

I think this disagreement may be an anglo-american difference regarding the meaning of the word.

 

However I've never heard someone refer to an Arnold Shwartzneger film as being 'pretentious!'

[Brad Grimmett]

Well then your pretty much the only one Max, because unless you live on Pluto, you've probably hear that story somewhere alone the line or at least seen The Ten Commandments once in your life.

He's not the only one. I didn't think of the bible when I saw it either.

 

If you put something as famous as a rain of frogs in a movie and NOT expect it to be taken as mediphoric, I re-iterate, you're an idiot.

How do you KNOW what he meant? Maybe you're the idiot for thinking you know what every director "means" or intends....

 

If you just want to "expirence" it why not make it a rain of fish or a rain of squirrels or a rain of salemanders? It is pattenly abserd to NOT assume a rain of frogs will be taken as a Biblical refference and if you can't see that, then I really don't know what to tell you.

YOU can assume whatever you want, but don't expect everyone to think just like you.

 

On a side note: Please use spell check. It's very frustrating to have to wade through dozens of mistakes in every post.

[David Sweetman]

I think this disagreement may be an anglo-american difference regarding the meaning of the word.

 

However I've never heard someone refer to an Arnold Shwartzneger film as being 'pretentious!'

Well, not exactly, I'm trying to change it over here too...

 

give me a few years to publish my complete philosophy of cinema...

 

But the heart of the matter is, what is the highest "distinction" and "merit" a film can achieve? This must be defined first, because pretentiousness must be the undeserved claiming of that status.

 

Just like a self-conscious film does not regard the human's "self" but the film's "self," so pretentiousness must not conform to humanly distinction, but cinematic distinction.

[David Mullen ASC]

I am reminded of Kurosawa's comment "If I could express what I meant in words, I wouldn't have bothered to make a film".

 

Another aphorism comes to mind: "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."

 

Not that I agree art has to make literal sense. It's clear that the frogs falling from the sky is not a random thing just thrown in there by the director on a whim, but that doesn't mean he has to articulate that meaning in words to a confused viewer. It's a surreal moment but it oddly doesn't feel out-of-context; it's almost an answer to a metaphysical joke "what else can go wrong in my life?"

 

As far as the biblical connotations, I see those all the time but my wife, who is better-read and smarter than myself, never had any religious upbringing so bible stories are fairly unknown to her. Where I see a clear reference to Job in a movie, or Jonah for that matter, just goes by her.

[James Steven Beverly]

He's not the only one. I didn't think of the bible when I saw it either.

 

Well, I re-iterate, you AND Max are still WAY in the minority....UNLESS you have any reason to believe that majority of people who saw this film would associate that scene with ANYTHING but the Biblical account of the Plagues of Egypt.

 

How do you KNOW what he meant? Maybe you're the idiot for thinking you know what every director "means" or intends....

 

I may well be an idiot but, I'm smart enogh to realize that any image put into a film by such a good director as Anderson was put there for a purpose. If he hadn't intended a responce, the sequence would have been left on the cutting room floor.

 

 

YOU can assume whatever you want, but don't expect everyone to think just like you.

 

I expect nothing, this is a logical deduction, taken from the film's content. A conclusion is not a want but a fact. A rain of frogs will create confusion for an audience who is primarily Christian, such as is in the US, the film's primary target audience. If you what to avoid such confusion and have your audience simply expirence the scene without preconceived judgment, using another animal whould be an advisable course of action.

 

 

On a side note: Please use spell check. It's very frustrating to have to wade through dozens of mistakes in every post.

 

This forum doesn't have spell check or I would be happy to use it for every post as spelling is not my best skill as I have stated on more than one occation.

Edited April 10, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

I am reminded of Kurosawa's comment "If I could express what I meant in words, I wouldn't have bothered to make a film".

 

Another aphorism comes to mind: "Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."

 

Not that I agree art has to make literal sense. It's clear that the frogs falling from the sky is not a random thing just thrown in there by the director on a whim, but that doesn't mean he has to articulate that meaning in words to a confused viewer. It's a surreal moment but it oddly doesn't feel out-of-context; it's almost an answer to a metaphysical joke "what else can go wrong in my life?"

 

As far as the biblical connotations, I see those all the time but my wife, who is better-read and smarter than myself, never had any religious upbringing so bible stories are fairly unknown to her. Where I see a clear reference to Job in a movie, or Jonah for that matter, just goes by her.

 

Yes but what I'm saying is that by using an event so associated with the biblical account of the Plagues of Egypt, Moses and Exodis, coupled with the biblical refferences in the film, it could not be the filmmaker's intent that this is simply a surreal event UNLESS the event was meant to be ironic, in which case it still references the Bible. If it was simply the metaphysical joke of "what else can go wrong in my life?" why not reffernce the trials of Job, which whould run a much closer parrallel to the "what else can go wrong in my life?" question. No, one is forced to conclude this event in the film is referencing the story of Moses. A rain of frogs demands that conclusion because of the widespred knowlage of the details of that particular story. Ignoring that fact denighs the basic religous makeup of this nation and I for one refuse to believe Anderson could be so insulated from reality.

[David Sweetman]

Yes but what I'm saying...

It just sounds like you're reaching for justification to dislike it. Anyway it's not parallel to the biblical account, because the frogs weren't said to fall from the sky, but to come from the Nile. So while an allusion might be clear, the reference is not direct. The film is certainly not transposing the message from Exodus, which would probably be the disobedience of Israel vs. the faithfulness of God (since this faithfulness is the main thing depicted in the plague of frogs, part of the 'campaign' which freed Israel from slavery in Egypt). To read Magnolia from an Exodus-based meta-narrative is ridiculous, and it's not at all what Anderson was intending.

[Erik Bien]

Ya know, I really try to refrain from 'snark' around here, since some of the regulars strike this newb as a trifle combative at times ... :blink: but ... surely others must agree, the portions of this thread nitpicking the generally accepted definition of "pretentious" are ... what's the word?

 

Oh yeah. IRONIC. :P

 

*ducking*

[David Sweetman]

the portions of this thread nitpicking the generally accepted definition of "pretentious" are ... what's the word?

 

Oh yeah. IRONIC. :P

Good call. I stand by it, though.

[Brad Grimmett]

Well, I re-iterate, you AND Max are still WAY in the minority....UNLESS you have any reason to believe that majority of people who saw this film would associate that scene with ANYTHING but the Biblical account of the Plagues of Egypt.

You're inferring that everyone has to associate that scene with something....in your case it's a bible story. What I'm saying, is that I didn't associate it with anything. It's a scene in a movie. You're acting as if we're outcasts because we don't think like you and make the same assumptions as you.

 

I may well be an idiot but, I'm smart enogh to realize that any image put into a film by such a good director as Anderson was put there for a purpose. If he hadn't intended a responce, the sequence would have been left on the cutting room floor.

Of course the scene is there for a purpose, but why do you think the audience HAS to associate a scene with something else? The scene got a response, but I guarantee the first thing in most people's mind is not, "Oh, like from the bible" it's "Holy crap! Frogs are falling out of the sky!"

 

I expect nothing, this is a logical deduction, taken from the film's content. A conclusion is not a want but a fact.

No, just because YOU made a conclusion about something doesn't make it a fact. Logical deduction or not....WANTING something to be a fact doesn't make it so.

 

A rain of frogs will create confusion for an audience who is primarily Christian, such as is in the US, the film's primary target audience. If you what to avoid such confusion and have your audience simply expirence the scene without preconceived judgment, using another animal whould be an advisable course of action.

I've never experienced any of this confusion you're so sure this scene created. I just think you're trying too hard to figure out meaning where maybe there isn't any. When I've spoken to other people about this film in the past not one has mentioned the bible, but they've all mentioned the frogs. I guess they're all WAY in the minority too, huh?

 

This forum doesn't have spell check or I would be happy to use it for every post as spelling is not my best skill as I have stated on more than one occation.

Yes, you keep saying you can't spell. Fine. Then learn to spell. I mean really.....there are people that post frequently on this forum who are dyslexic, or who don't speak English as their native tongue, and they are able to spell considerably better than you. It's not as if it's something you can't change.

Saying, "It's not my best skill" isn't a good excuse, it's a cop-out. If you had more respect for the other members of this forum you'd want to make sure every single one of your posts was darn near perfect. You're a grown man. You should be able to write a couple of paragraphs without people snickering when they read what you've written.

[Dan Goldberg]

:unsure:

 

I seem to have started quite the...uh...discussion? I mean there are great ideas being passed around, and already I see the scene (and the movie) in a slightly different way than I did the first couple times, but please, PLAY NICE :P

 

Regardless of religious connotations, regardless of biblical connotations, could we see the rain of frogs as another idea that brings the concept of coincidence and chance to light? I mean, the raining of frogs is the ONLY thing that actually affects all the characters at once. Each of the main 9 characters suffer their own individual problems. Perhaps it is to resemble a sense of unknown community, how each character is part of a community of sufferers, yet they do not know it. They all feel alone.

 

Just a thought. B)

[David Sweetman]

but please, PLAY NICE :P

I don't know if you're referring to me...but if you are referring to Erik's post, I wasn't kidding, I appreciate it, it was a good call. His response fit so well I couldn't help but see it, and say "AAAHH! Freakin' A!" First it made me laugh, then it got me thinking. Which is really my problem...I think too much...and most of it is garbage, as you all witness, but I think my distinction is only to make myself a more aware filmmaker. If the entire world thinks it's nitpicking semantics, that's fine; I stand by it because of its function for me.

 

Back to the frogs...the beginning, the climax, and the end clearly have the same message. I don't think it's necessary to look much further than that.

[James Steven Beverly]

You're inferring that everyone has to associate that scene with something....in your case it's a bible story. What I'm saying, is that I didn't associate it with anything. It's a scene in a movie. You're acting as if we're outcasts because we don't think like you and make the same assumptions as you.

No, you're not outcasts, just not in the majority on this particular point. It's not a jab. A for me, the scene just annoyed me and the movie bored me. The Biblical references were there but I didn't nessesarily dwell on them. Like I said, I can really believe I'm actually discussing a film I was so throughly ambivolent about but it's more about the impact of images and their relationship to the rest of the film that I continue on with this. You didn't find them biblical, that's you. many if not most people did. That's not a slam against you, it's an observation. From that observation, I can only conclude that if the director want to have the scene work in some other way than a biblical reference, then he failed for a majority of his audience. This does not make your reaction to the scene invalid, it is what it is. Your defeance of the scene to not have the potential to be taken outside the director's intent, even if that intent is that the scene had no meaning at all, is what I take issue with. The scene, IF it was meant to only be "expirenced" , has then been mis-read by a great number of people, including myself, so in this reguard, the dorector has FAILED, to make hus point, even if that point was to have no point.

 

Of course the scene is there for a purpose, but why do you think the audience HAS to associate a scene with something else? The scene got a response, but I guarantee the first thing in most people's mind is not, "Oh, like from the bible" it's "Holy crap! Frogs are falling out of the sky!"

 

But there are people on this forum who had JUST that reaction, and these are filmmakers. The general public, particular in the heartland, or much more religiously oriented than many people in New York and LA, ESSPECIALLY LA, so how could you possibly know they didn't react EXACTLY like that. A filmmaker has to consider tje impact of his images on more than just the insulated world in which he lives if he wants to communicate to a broad and diverse audience.

 

No, just because YOU made a conclusion about something doesn't make it a fact. Logical deduction or not....WANTING something to be a fact doesn't make it so.

 

You're right WANTING someting to be a fact doesn't nessesarily make it a fact but also doesn't nessesarily exclude it from being a fact. I'm going by the reactions I've heard and scene and for the record, I don't want it to be a fact or not want it to be a fact, it is what it is.

 

I've never experienced any of this confusion you're so sure this scene created. I just think you're trying too hard to figure out meaning where maybe there isn't any. When I've spoken to other people about this film in the past not one has mentioned the bible, but they've all mentioned the frogs. I guess they're all WAY in the minority too, huh?

 

I'm HONESTLY not trying to figure out anything. I really, really REALLY, don't give a rat's ass about this movie. It's not surprising that you got that reaction from people, you live in LA and religion is not as pronounced in LA particularly among an artistic, younger crowd, as it is in America's heartland and most of America live in the heartland.

 

Yes, you keep saying you can't spell. Fine. Then learn to spell. I mean really.....there are people that post frequently on this forum who are dyslexic, or who don't speak English as their native tongue, and they are able to spell considerably better than you. It's not as if it's something you can't change.

Saying, "It's not my best skill" isn't a good excuse, it's a cop-out. If you had more respect for the other members of this forum you'd want to make sure every single one of your posts was darn near perfect. You're a grown man. You should be able to write a couple of paragraphs without people snickering when they read what you've written.

 

Well, yes I am a grown man, Brad, but I haven't really noticed anyone snickerng, in fact the only one who seems to get upset about it is you, so let me apologize personally to you. I'm so terribly sorry that my spelling offends you. I would therefore like to lobby for a spellcheck feature on this forum so I won't again offend your delicate sensibilities in this area. I'm sure anyone elso on this forum who suffers from this horrible affliction, would also appreciate this service so they might also benifit from the ability to not offend you.

Edited April 10, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Leo Anthony Vale]

As far as the biblical connotations, I see those all the time but my wife, who is better-read and smarter than myself, never had any religious upbringing so bible stories are fairly unknown to her. Where I see a clear reference to Job in a movie, or Jonah for that matter, just goes by her.

 

Since the Bible is a major part of Western civilization there are frequent references to it in Western art, both visual and litereture. The non-religious, among which I include myself despite being a product of Catholic schools, need to be just as familiar with it as with Classical and Norse mythology.

 

I've not seen 'Magnolia', but I usually check forteantimes.com before going to cinematography.com.

So I probably would have went with the random happenstance explanation rather than the Exodus reference. After all the Plague of Frogs was part of a series of plagues as terrorist attacks to get Pharaoh to release the Hebrews. As I understand it, this is not the context in 'Magnolia'.

[Brad Grimmett]

You didn't find them biblical, that's you. many if not most people did.

Hey, do me a favor and email me that scientific study you did (or any study finding the same) proving that "most" people found that scene biblical.

The point is that YOU think everyone thought of the bible, and I would disagree. Again, just because you WANT it to be a fact doesn't make it a fact.

 

The general public, particular in the heartland, or much more religiously oriented than many people in New York and LA, ESSPECIALLY LA, so how could you possibly know they didn't react EXACTLY like that. A filmmaker has to consider tje impact of his images on more than just the insulated world in which he lives if he wants to communicate to a broad and diverse audience.

Yes, my poor little insulated world....

I saw the movie in Missouri. That's how I could possibly know how people reacted in the heartland. Did you actually make the assumption that I've never been outside of Los Angeles? I've traveled and lived all over the world. I'm not in a cocoon.

Your constant assumptions are a big issue here.

I don't know "EXACTLY" how people reacted. Why are you claiming that you do?

 

I'm going by the reactions I've heard and scene and for the record, I don't want it to be a fact or not want it to be a fact, it is what it is.

Your vehement insistence in this thread that it is indeed a fact is contradictory to your statement above.

 

It's not surprising that you got that reaction from people, you live in LA and religion is not as pronounced in LA particularly among an artistic, younger crowd, as it is in America's heartland and most of America live in the heartland.

If I lived in "the heartland" would you be arguing that I would think differently if I lived in LA? Arguing geography is pretty baseless and pointless. But since you mentioned it....MOST Americans DON'T live in the heartland. That is just patently false. Take a look at this population map and you'll see that most people don't live anywhere near the heartland. There's a REAL fact for you.

 

Well, yes I am a grown man, Brad, but I haven't really noticed anyone snickerng, in fact the only one who seems to get upset about it is you, so let me apologize personally to you. I'm so terribly sorry that my spelling offends you. I would therefore like to lobby for a spellcheck feature on this forum so I won't again offend your delicate sensibilities in this area. I'm sure anyone elso on this forum who suffers from this horrible affliction, would also appreciate this service so they might also benifit from the ability to not offend you.

Just because I'm the only one that mentions it doesn't mean I'm the only person bothered by it. Attempting to make me look bad (while misspelling it) is silly. You're the one who looks uneducated, not me. How can you think that anyone would take what you say seriously when you can't spell the words you're using in your argument? And you don't even care enough to re-read what you've written and fix your mistakes....

Instead of being so ridiculous and sarcastic, why not just say "fu** you" and be done with? It would save everyone the pain of reading even more spelling mistakes.

[Luke Prendergast]

Hey Brad,

 

I suggested the use of paragraphs to a particularly verbose and grammar-challenged user, and the reply was:

 

That's a laugh. There is nothing constructive about you "criticism", your nothing more than a simple minded flamer who has trouble putting together more than 2 sentences at a time. It's painful for you to read beacuse you probably have to sound out the words. When you get to the 4th grade and can read the big words you might see that what I say make a tremendious amount of sense but if you find my posts to long and it tires you to read them, then by all means PLEASE DON"T. Nothing you can say is of the slightest interst to me and I find your pathetic comments not so much annoying as just plain sad.

 

 

Some people won't be helped. But you can ignore them. :rolleyes:

[James Steven Beverly]

Hey, do me a favor and email me that scientific study you did (or any study finding the same) proving that "most" people found that scene biblical.

The point is that YOU think everyone thought of the bible, and I would disagree. Again, just because you WANT it to be a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Yes, my poor little insulated world....

I saw the movie in Missouri. That's how I could possibly know how people reacted in the heartland. Did you actually make the assumption that I've never been outside of Los Angeles? I've traveled and lived all over the world. I'm not in a cocoon.

Your constant assumptions are a big issue here.

I don't know "EXACTLY" how people reacted. Why are you claiming that you do?

Your vehement insistence in this thread that it is indeed a fact is contradictory to your statement above.

If I lived in "the heartland" would you be arguing that I would think differently if I lived in LA? Arguing geography is pretty baseless and pointless. But since you mentioned it....MOST Americans DON'T live in the heartland. That is just patently false. Take a look at this population map and you'll see that most people don't live anywhere near the heartland. There's a REAL fact for you.

Just because I'm the only one that mentions it doesn't mean I'm the only person bothered by it. Attempting to make me look bad (while misspelling it) is silly. You're the one who looks uneducated, not me. How can you think that anyone would take what you say seriously when you can't spell the words you're using in your argument? And you don't even care enough to re-read what you've written and fix your mistakes....

Instead of being so ridiculous and sarcastic, why not just say "fu** you" and be done with? It would save everyone the pain of reading even more spelling mistakes.

 

aaahhhppphh, OK, you're right, I'm wrong. You win. B)

[Dan Goldberg]

Do you think PTA wanted to bring the 9 main character's together as asort of community in which none of them recognize they're in? Perhaps to portray the idea that "we are not alone" in suffering or sadness? I mean, the rain of frogs IS the only thing that affects all of them at the same time, so could this be a metaphorical image that puts them in a sort of community?

 

...or am I just crazy :blink:

[Walter Graff]

From:

 

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_14210...u=news.quirkies

 

Frogs rain down on Serbia Traffic came to a halt and locals fled inside after thousands of frogs fell from the sky onto a Serbian village.

 

Residents in Odzaci told local daily Blic they thought the world was coming to an end.

 

Aleksandar Ciric said: "I saw all these small frogs just start raining down. There were thousands of them."

 

Another villager, Caja Jovanovic, added: "This huge 'cloud' seemed to come out of nowhere and its shape and colour looked very strange.

 

"We were all wondering what it was when suddenly frogs started to fall from the sky. I thought maybe a plane carrying frogs had exploded in midair."

 

But climatology expert Slavisa Ignjatovic said there was a simple scientific explanation for the incident.

 

He said: "A whirlwind has sucked up the frogs from a lake, the sea or some other body of water somewhere else and carried them along to Odzaci where they have fallen to the ground. It is a recognised scientific phenomenon."

[Dan Goldberg]

From:

 

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_14210...u=news.quirkies

 

Frogs rain down on Serbia Traffic came to a halt and locals fled inside after thousands of frogs fell from the sky onto a Serbian village.

 

Residents in Odzaci told local daily Blic they thought the world was coming to an end.

 

Aleksandar Ciric said: "I saw all these small frogs just start raining down. There were thousands of them."

 

Another villager, Caja Jovanovic, added: "This huge 'cloud' seemed to come out of nowhere and its shape and colour looked very strange.

 

"We were all wondering what it was when suddenly frogs started to fall from the sky. I thought maybe a plane carrying frogs had exploded in midair."

 

But climatology expert Slavisa Ignjatovic said there was a simple scientific explanation for the incident.

 

He said: "A whirlwind has sucked up the frogs from a lake, the sea or some other body of water somewhere else and carried them along to Odzaci where they have fallen to the ground. It is a recognised scientific phenomenon."

 

...but it DID happen B)

 

works perfect with the idea of coincidence and community if you ask me. I don't feel the religious connotations work as well with the rest of the film.

[David Sweetman]

I am reminded of Kurosawa's comment "If I could express what I meant in words, I wouldn't have bothered to make a film".

David, do you have a reference for that quote? I want to use it in a paper, but couldn't find it on his imdb quote-list or by doing a google search.

[Brett Topey]

David, do you have a reference for that quote? I want to use it in a paper, but couldn't find it on his imdb quote-list or by doing a google search.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Rashomon-Rutgers-Fil...a/dp/0813511801

 

it's referenced in the opening line of this book. you can actually read the first page with the "search inside" feature.

[David Sweetman]

http://www.amazon.com/Rashomon-Rutgers-Fil...a/dp/0813511801

 

it's referenced in the opening line of this book. you can actually read the first page with the "search inside" feature.

Awesome, thanks!