..for the very first time? This from a girl who I recently recommended the film to:
"Just finished magnolia, I was crying through most of it, very sad movie.. I dont understand the frogs though : ("
Every .. single .. time. It's always about the frogs. I guess I just got it right away. It made sense in such an urgent tenor that I never really gave it a second thought. Has anyone else had this experience with almost everyone they've recommended this movie to?
Quote from: Myxo on December 06, 2006, 03:24:22 AMIt's always about the frogs. I guess I just got it right away. It made sense in such an urgent tenor that I never really gave it a second thought.
Explain the frogs to me, please.
they ask me if i want to go with them on a trip to new york city and climb the world trade center, cos it's 1999 and life is sweet.
one guy I know said simply "I did not like the frogs...it was too silly with the rest of the movie. but everything was enjoyable". fuck.
this other guy could barely fnish it. he kept saying "I wanted to throw myself out a fuckin window after this was over. even jason robards fuckin died after doing this movie. thats how depressing it was."
'replace altman?' please.
Quote from: I Love a Magician on December 06, 2006, 04:29:52 AM
Quote from: Myxo on December 06, 2006, 03:24:22 AMIt's always about the frogs. I guess I just got it right away. It made sense in such an urgent tenor that I never really gave it a second thought.
Explain the frogs to me, please.
It's a reference to Exodus 8:2, but I wouldn't call it very fair for almost anyone to pickup on that. I believe PTA himself mentioned a lack of intention in using biblical allegory, but it ended up working for the film. Sins of the father, for example, is found in MANY different places throughout the bible and muttered by Donnie as he's throwing up in the bathroom. Psalm 79:8 is a great example. The crowd are holding up bible verses during the gameshow, etc etc. We've all visited this dozens of times in other threads.
..but all of that aside, I hardly think PTA ever wanted his audience to be bible scholars and have that allegory be it's only meaning or purpose in the film.
"but it did happen"
"these strange things happen all the time"
In a film full of coincidence, where this whole web of characters are creating cause / effect (a bunch of bad karma), why would frogs falling from the sky be surprising? That's what I took away from it. We go through life thinking that we're unique. That somehow our suffering can't be understood by anyone but ourselves. Claudia was molested as a young girl. Frank Mackey's father abandoned his mother, and forced him into caring for her when he was far too young. Donnie wants braces because he thinks a bartender will love him if they have something in common. I could go on, but you get the idea. Frogs falling from the sky (in my opinion) was a way of bringing all of this suffering under one umbrella. All of the characters in the film had to endure fear, pain and disbelief together. You'll notice some real redemption after the frog scene. For some that meant death and for others it meant forgiveness or acceptance. I'm obviously not calling this the truth, but it was true for me.
:shock:
I'm totally never going to watch this film again in quite the same way.
are you people serious?
welcome to 1999, stay a while. (http://www.cigarettesandredvines.com/film.php?id=MM1)
the worst part is myxo is WRONG. PTA had no knowledge of the bible passage existing until way after the frogs had already been written into the script, of course all this rare information can be gleaned from the source i just linked above.
unless that's what you meant to acknowledge by saying "I believe PTA himself mentioned a lack of intention in using biblical allegory", in which case how can you still glibly offer the explanation that it's a reference to Exodus 8:2 when PTA didn't even realise it himself? the biblical explanation is the most stupid of the lot. it only gained popularity cos the recurrence of the numbers made it seem hugely important like it was LOST or something. it's cute and creates just another thread throughout the film but it's hardly a satisfying explanation for why it rains frogs from the sky. "oh it's in the bible, case solved" and just like that, no other explanation necessary. uh.. that's exactly what sucks about ppl who refer to the bible.
no offence to anyone who just started to think about the movie, 7 years late is better than never, but the frogs discussion just feels like someone is still trying to discover what makes an apple fall from a tree. i guess the answer to both questions is not that different.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 07, 2006, 09:44:09 AMunless that's what you meant to acknowledge by saying "I believe PTA himself mentioned a lack of intention in using biblical allegory", in which case how can you still glibly offer the explanation that it's a reference to Exodus 8:2 when PTA didn't even realise it himself? the biblical explanation is the most stupid of the lot. it only gained popularity cos the recurrence of the numbers made it seem hugely important like it was LOST or something. it's cute and creates just another thread throughout the film but it's hardly a satisfying explanation for why it rains frogs from the sky. "oh it's in the bible, case solved" and just like that, no other explanation necessary. uh.. that's exactly what sucks about ppl who refer to the bible.
I'm pretty sure PTA helped edit his own film, and Exodus 8:2 is mentioned in many, many places throughout. Whether or not he meant to include the allegory in his initial writing doesn't matter. It's there, and open for discussion regardless of it being 9, 25 or 100 years after it's release. Do I think the frogs have some sort of biblical explanation for being in the film? No, but it obviously offends some people when anyone brings it up.
Quote from: Myxo on December 07, 2006, 11:09:14 AM
I'm pretty sure PTA helped edit his own film, and Exodus 8:2 is mentioned in many, many places throughout. Whether or not he meant to include the allegory in his initial writing doesn't matter. It's there, and open for discussion regardless of it being 9, 25 or 100 years after it's release.
I don't think Pubrick is denying that the biblical reference "is there". We all know it's there. But the movie is left more open ended, you could look at it and argue the case of that Villa Flores in Mexico where it actually
rained frogs (but it did happen, scientific) or the whole god thing (8:2, biblical).
I think it's just a matter of overdraining the issue, there isn't much to be discussed a year after the film let alone 9, 25, or 100 years later.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 07, 2006, 09:44:09 AM
are you people serious?
I'm sorry... are we not... pretending that this is new to all of us?
My mistake.
The actual discussion I meant to start was based around people we've recommended this movie to, and what their initial reactions have been. Is it 7 years old? Yes. It could be 100 years old and I get the impression people will always go, "I didn't get the frog part."
To say we can't talk about the film because its seven years late is pretty stupid. ( Eyes Wide Shut came out seven years ago, and a good analysis never gets boring.) A more imporant point is, this board originated as a PTA board. All the points were made way back when, and can be found in other threads here.
Pubrick, I think its wrong to deny the ending and movie of its biblical allusions merely because of the order in which the ideas were concieved. as a viewer, that really should be of no concern to us. thats another problem with directors talking to much, i think we should be able to view a movie free of any glimpses into the creative process or too much knowledge of the creator's backstory (i.e. because "so and so" was raped as a boy, the scene is clearly a metaphor for "so and so"). i want to be able to view a final product free of any biases, so then the movie takes on a life of its own. there should be a point where the creator surrender control and the final product authors itself. like a baby.
but P is right, because its wrong to think that the crux of the whole "frog" ending comes from any biblical references. its deeper than that i think. numbers are like a trendy and easy way of creating a metaphor and i would like to think that the film runs a little deeper than that...
Yeah..
How much allegory in film has been discovered or discussed by viewers only to have the director go :doh:, I never noticed that? The point I was trying to make earlier is that actual intention vs. coincidence is pretty irrelevant. It is what is is. What we choose to glean from a film can be as blatant as it can be simply based on a personal experience. The frustrating part about someone saying "I didn't get the frogs", is a general indifference to actually discover allegory at all. For whatever reason, sometimes it's easier to give in to indifference. It takes less effort.
Quote from: JG on December 07, 2006, 04:43:46 PM
To say we can't talk about the film because its seven years late is pretty stupid. ( Eyes Wide Shut came out seven years ago, and a good analysis never gets boring.)
who the hell is saying that? my problem with this thread is that it's NOT about discussing the FILM at all.
there's no theories being offered here, it's the same old bullshit about the frogs and the stupid numbers which are NOT the whole point of the movie. it's like the goddamn suitcase in pulp fiction. it could easily have been HAIL falling from the sky and hit all the right notes, as PTA has said, but it was made frogs to wake ppl (and the characters of the film) into reflecting on how incredible it is that anything happens at all.
Quote from: Myxo on December 07, 2006, 01:37:39 PM
The actual discussion I meant to start was based around people we've recommended this movie to, and what their initial reactions have been. Is it 7 years old? Yes. It could be 100 years old and I get the impression people will always go, "I didn't get the frog part."
so there, let's say i just explained the frogs away, is this thread about the film or the frogs? that's my problem with it. so to bring up JG's point against nobody, ppl don't harp on about just ONE thing on EWS, the orgy if anything, but if someone kept bringing it up like it mattered that it's the one thing everyone brings up about it, and that by extension the film hinged on finding out what it means, i'd call that person an idiot and move on with my life.
who cares what ppl's initial reactions are? and even less if apparently the only initial reaction one can have with magnolia is to wonder about the frogs. that's exactly the reason the frogs and the initial reaction is useless because once ppl get over that, real discussion about the film can begin. at this point i would hope ppl are still not bringing it up unless they just saw the movie yesterday. in which case, get over it and and then come talk to me when you want to discuss the movie and not the frogs.
Wait a second? i didn't quite get that frogs thing, can you explain that one more time...in great detail?
leave the comedy to the professionals. and leave living to those who deserve it. i hope to god you're sterile.
is that necessary?
yes, even moreso if you were serious.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2007, 04:54:37 AM
Wait a second? i didn't quite get that frogs thing, can you explain that one more time...in great detail?
I Live to make sure this question is rarely (and only necessarily) asked.
"That film was exquisite! Where can I get ten cases of prop frogs, as seen in this lovely, lovely movie?????"
Well, funny you should ask...
http://cgi.ebay.com/MAGNOLIA-CREEPY-PROP-FROG-HORDE-HORROR-WHOLESALE-LOT_W0QQitemZ190113288227QQihZ009QQcategoryZ60360QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
OK, so if we all mass-donate to xixax again, the admins could bid for us and with 10 cases, we could each get our own frog!
Quote from: The seller
EACH WEIGHS "ABOUT" 80 LBS.
Translation: each weighs exactly 82 lbs.
Quote from: sparrowhoff on May 16, 2007, 01:44:29 PM
OK, so if we all mass-donate to xixax again, the admins could bid for us and with 10 cases, we could each get our own frog!
That would be so cool to have one of those.
It is now down to three bucks a frog. Get 'em while they last.
I bought three, as to not be greedy.
And, well, really... how many frogs do I really need?
The answer is quite a bunch, but three will do.
"INTERNATIONAL BIDDERS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME,BUT I DO ASK A MINIMUM $20.00 ORDER"
ok so would that be at least 7 frogs to total $21 pre-postage? or is postage part of the deal, cos it's prolly gonna cost more than $20 just to send ONE over, let alone a whole bunch. i will ask him!
and the frogs are described as "unpainted", so they're not the ultra realistic ones are they? i dunno.
My sister got me one years ago and they aren't the easiest thing to maintain or display....
They're kinda sticky, so its not something you wanna handle too much.... and god forbid you ever drop on the floor, i imagine you'd be picking lint off it forever. When i got mine, it still had street tar crumbs stuck to it from the set, which only made it that much cooler. And the paint is bound to rub off.
And there's really no possible way to display it. if you leave it out, itll just become a dust magnet. Mines in a big ziplock baggie tacked up in my bathroom... It makes for a good conversation piece to say the least and is actually a pretty cool way to segway into sitting them down and watching Ol' Maggie...
oh and if you re a prankster, they're super realistic looking and they're hollow, so you could fill it up with jello/spaghetti-o's/etc. and throw it at someones car and really fuck them up for life... <--- someone do this!
i'd buy three.
one for fanboy
one for prankboy
and one more because it's the best piece of movie memorabilia ever!
It's my birthday, who's gonna hook a brother up?? :yabbse-grin:
damn, bidding has ended :yabbse-undecided:
Quote from: pozer on June 01, 2007, 11:51:05 AM
damn, bidding has ended :yabbse-undecided:
That's for the wholesale lot. Buy 'em individually:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190116578613&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX_Stores&refitem=190113288227&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget
Or an armature puppet:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190116569601&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX_Stores&refitem=190113288227&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget
Quote from: Pubrick on June 01, 2007, 01:59:14 AM
"INTERNATIONAL BIDDERS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME,BUT I DO ASK A MINIMUM $20.00 ORDER"
ok so would that be at least 7 frogs to total $21 pre-postage? or is postage part of the deal, cos it's prolly gonna cost more than $20 just to send ONE over, let alone a whole bunch. i will ask him!
and the frogs are described as "unpainted", so they're not the ultra realistic ones are they? i dunno.
There's an auction for the painted and unpainted sets.
Luckily, the painted frogs are over $20 each, so we can survive shipping costs paying for just one.
I also asked what the international shipping would be. I hope it's not too much.
Edit:
"$10.00 SHIPS UP TO 5 FROGS"
So I ordered one of the painted ones, and 2 of the unpainted.
i ordered three unpainted cause they were cheap and you never know when you'll need extras and i immediately regreted not going all out and ordering a painted one. ah well.. let me know how that painted one goes, over.
i hate to be the skeptic here, but how do we know these are authentic?
too, why wait this long after the film came out?
got mine (1 painted, 3 un) set up in a display case with a card/magnolia pic of the frog sliding down Kurring's windshield. works nicely.
Quote from: picolas on June 02, 2007, 03:04:52 AM
i ordered three unpainted cause they were cheap and you never know when you'll need extras and i immediately regreted not going all out and ordering a painted one. ah well.. let me know how that painted one goes, over.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1062%2F548591768_7d440e39da.jpg&hash=eec9a312b84c9c61d4b9b517226823f4074b16f5)
The painted one came rather abused, I wasn't expecting that much damage done to them. Most of the damage I think was caused by the skeleton wire. Unlike the unpainted ones, which do not have the wire, they were just fine.
I already scared my sister with one.
how much was international shipping?
Quote
"$10.00 SHIPS UP TO 5 FROGS"
That was the shipping I paid.
my roomates gave me such hell on these. "you gonna bid on rubber spock ears next?" "how 'bout a locke of chewy's hair?" i made them watch the frog scene: "ooo, i just saw one of yours land next to that gas pump!" haha.
You made them watch the frog scene without the 3 hours of greatness leading up to it? Thats almost unfair to them.