Fav pta character redux- ladies' choice

Started by godardian, May 13, 2003, 11:57:40 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions

godardian

May 13, 2003, 11:57:40 PM
Since the other pole didn't mention a single female character (I still don't quite understand why), here they are.

I think PTA stands in the tradition of Bergman and Woody Allen; he writes complex, full female characters and seems to appreciate that they're human beings as legitimate and dramatic as his males. He does stand apart from many of his contemporaries in the boy's-club "indie" film world in this regard.

Enjoy voting.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Jeremy Blackman

#1
May 14, 2003, 12:09:46 AM
Claudia, with Amber Waves in 2nd.

and I think Pubrick mentioned Claudia

The Silver Bullet

#2
May 14, 2003, 12:25:41 AM
QuoteHe does stand apart from many of his contemporaries in the boy's-club "indie" film world in this regard.
With Lars von Trier too. Just saying.

I voted Lena. As much as I love the closing shot of Magnolia, and all of the Claudia/Jim stuff, I think Lena [and Emily Watson as Lena] is the best female character Anderson has written as yet.
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    [/list:o][/size]

godardian

#3
May 14, 2003, 12:34:16 AM
Quote from: The Silver Bullet
QuoteHe does stand apart from many of his contemporaries in the boy's-club "indie" film world in this regard.
With Lars von Trier too. Just saying.

I'll agree with you there, though Stephanie Zecharek (in Salon) wrote that PTA was "the anti-Lars von Trier." (In her view, von Trier likes to see women as victims and takes sadistic pleasure in their inevitably horrifying fates.) I don't agree with her, but it's an interesting viewpoint that deserves consideration.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#4
May 14, 2003, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanClaudia, with Amber Waves in 2nd.

and I think Pubrick mentioned Claudia

You can vote that up top. No other votes for Claudia as of yet.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

The Silver Bullet

#5
May 14, 2003, 12:53:43 AM
I actually dislike Linda, and am rather indifferent in terms of Amber. I am hoping that the next time Anderson uses Moore, he uses her in a new way. They are fine parts, and finely played, but they aren't really performance pieces.

My opinion, not gospel, you can't touch me...
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    [/list:o][/size]

godardian

#6
May 14, 2003, 01:20:15 AM
Quote from: The Silver BulletI actually dislike Linda

?!?!?!?!?!

I think she's a great character. The so-called "hysterical woman" is a brilliant analogue to Walters's so-called "drug addict victim." Both are made human, imploding (I think) the sexist categories. Like the other characters, they're people the world would narrowly judge without considering where they're coming from, and more harshly because they're women and therefore supposed to be "likable" and supposed not do gross things like stick up for themselves when they're misunderstood and cornered and attacked, or do drugs and scream at their father because they were abused. I actually sort of think the very concept of disliking Linda is under attack by her presence and actions in the film... I think the drugstore scene is a triumph, really.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

The Silver Bullet

#7
May 14, 2003, 02:41:40 AM
QuoteI actually sort of think the very concept of disliking Linda is under attack by her presence and actions in the film...
Oh, I get her presence and actions in Magnolia. I respect the choice to have her there. She is a very well crafted character. I just personally dislike her as a person. I believe that, sure, she is now in love with Earl, and that is just fine. I don't believe [so much] that her actions are the result of that love, but out of a more selfish need to redeem herself and rid herself of any guilt she may feel after his death.

Of course, the suicide attempt maybe disproves my point, and so maybe I am just shallow. Not that I think I'm shallow. I don't.
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    [/list:o][/size]

brockly

#8
May 14, 2003, 04:37:02 AM
Damn, i was going to open up a pole exactly like this. oh well. My vote goes to Amber. Second is Clementine because she is da hottest!!! And that waitress outfit :-D

But to tell you the truth, and please dont crucify me for this, im not really a big fan of PTA's female characters. None of them really interest me in the same way that his male characters do. IT IS NOT A GAY THING!!! I love alot of female character, Quentin Tarrantino's Mia Wallace was an excellent character, althought he is not half the director PTA is. It's just a personal opinion, so excuse me if you disagree. Alot of my friends do.

BTW why is Rollergirl on their. She is a character PTA intended the audience to HATE.

Who is Gweneviere, may I ask? I know she's not from BN, I know that film all to well. My guess is she's from Magnolia, but I honestly can't think of her.

The Silver Bullet

#9
May 14, 2003, 06:29:00 AM
She is the woman who interviews Tom Cruise.

Meanwhile, I think Tarantino is half the director Anderson is. They make completely different films for Christ's sake. They're easily as good as each other. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were both outstanding pieces of filmmaking, and Jackie Brown was by far one of the best movies of 1997, along with [ironically] Boogie Nights. Trying to draw a distinction between the two directors, to me, personally, seems so stupid. Let's compare chalk and cheese now, shall we?
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
    [/list:o][/size]

brockly

#10
May 14, 2003, 08:04:18 AM
Quote from: The Silver BulletShe is the woman who interviews Tom Cruise.

Ah yes, thats right. Thank

Quote from: The Silver BulletMeanwhile, I think Tarantino is half the director Anderson is. They make completely different films for Christ's sake. They're easily as good as each other. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were both outstanding pieces of filmmaking, and Jackie Brown was by far one of the best movies of 1997, along with [ironically] Boogie Nights. Trying to draw a distinction between the two directors, to me, personally, seems so stupid. Let's compare chalk and cheese now, shall we?.

I never compared the two, dude. All i said was that I think PTA is a much better director then he is. Kevin Smith makes completely different films to Scorsese, so is it wronge to say that Scorsese absolutly shits all over Kevin Smith?

I love Tarantino, ALOT. I can't count how many times I've seen RD and PF. Tarantino makes crime films, that are just so fucking great, but each have simular ingrediance, so to speak. He hasn't really developed in the way that PTA has. And hey, I'm not saying he should. He's doing great the way he's going and if he wants to stay that way, I'm happy, cause im confident he'll keep making excellent films (although I am a little nervous about KB). But PTA took the challenge of exploring news areas. He gives each of his films a distinc style, and has clearly mastered a variety of genres. And it really takes a fucking genius to do this as well as PTA has. So I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I think PTA is the finest director today, so don't take this the wrong way. I am obsessed with Tarantino's films, but just don't have the same passion for them as I do with PTAs. Sorry.

SoNowThen

#11
May 14, 2003, 09:06:47 AM
Actually, Scorsese DOES shit all over Kevin Smith. That's like comparing an Olympic sprinter and a cripple in a race.

I would pick Claudia, but my little head votes Rollergirl, cuz she never takes off her skates... but luckily, everything else.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#12
May 14, 2003, 12:13:09 PM
Quote from: Brock Landers

BTW why is Rollergirl on their. She is a character PTA intended the audience to HATE.

I have a really, really hard time believing this. I may not think Heather Graham is much of an actress, but I think Rollergirl is just as sympathetic as any of BN's other major characters...

How do you infer this? I hope it's wishful thinking ("I don't like Rollergirl, so PTA must have intended us to hate her") and not something PTA said...?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#13
May 14, 2003, 12:21:38 PM
Quote from: The Silver Bullet
QuoteI actually sort of think the very concept of disliking Linda is under attack by her presence and actions in the film...
Oh, I get her presence and actions in Magnolia. I respect the choice to have her there. She is a very well crafted character. I just personally dislike her as a person. I believe that, sure, she is now in love with Earl, and that is just fine. I don't believe [so much] that her actions are the result of that love, but out of a more selfish need to redeem herself and rid herself of any guilt she may feel after his death.

Of course, the suicide attempt maybe disproves my point, and so maybe I am just shallow. Not that I think I'm shallow. I don't.

Yes, but... Earl has plenty to feel guilty for, too. As do most of the characters. With the exception of Jimmy Gator, they all take steps to redeem themselves. What makes Linda's attempt "selfish" but, say, T.J. Mackey's unselfish? Or Claudia's (we assume)? Or Earl's need to see his son? Or Jim Kurring's desire to stop being so judgmental and self-righteous? Aren't those all selfish in a way, because they will get the characters something they want?

I don't think any of the motivations are PURELY selfish, but there's a selfish element any time someone asks forgiveness, just as there is in granting it. PTA gets the complexity of human emotion; Magnolia sure as hell ain't black and white on this stuff. The characters each have good parts and an ugly side, which makes them... HUMAN.

Anyways, I voted Linda as my favorite PTA female character. My emotional reaction to her in the film, as to most of the characters, but especially with her, was to feel very moved and very protective. I couldn't abide the people in the theatre who laughed at her breaking down any more than I could people who laughed at Jim and Claudia's high-strung chance meeting. Where IS their fucking decency??[/i]
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#14
May 14, 2003, 12:22:57 PM
Yeah, Paul doesn't want us to hate any of his characters. Even though he tries to rag on Jimmy Gator, when you watch Magnolia you can see how lovely the camera coddles even him. Like people have said before, Paul's humanity is like that of Fellini (who even made Nazis seem like okay guys). Because human understanding of every character creates the deepest and most lasting portraits.

But that being said, he certainly doesn't make EXCUSES for Rollergirl. I like that.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions