character groups in magnolia

[kotte]

That's a very cheap solution,  I'd say.

It's not Pulp Fiction.

The film isn't about people crossing paths in good ways.


This must mean you don't like the film...? How else could this be a problem for you...when it's not even a problem.

Big Picture.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

there is a User Comment rooted deep within the IMDB Magnolia reviews where a woman analyzes the film and how the real coincidence is in the characters. Frank and Claudia are symmetrical partners, because they both had fatherly abuse, and Donnie and Stanley are obvious partners. There are only 4 'kids' and each one tends to stick to their own environment to hide in, such as the TV studio, the Apartment, the Bar or Onstage. Now that I think about it, Jim Kurring is kind of a kid in the way he is hiding under the Good Cop facade and in his police car.

Anyhow, this is probably the best explanation of coincidence I read about the whole movie, and I'd write more, but i wouldn't do it justice.

[Pubrick]

good stuff antidumbfrog. i think the problem kelvin is having stems from his Two Groups theory.

the film is much more abstract than that. if there are any two groups, it's like u said Father and Son. it's funny then that Jim Kurring is the one major character whose parents are not addressed. he and Linda, who can be seen as finding a father figure in her lover Earl, for whom she then plays the tender mother. working with ur Environment theory, it makes sense that these two characters don't hav parents, cos they roam the streets like regular orphans.. and indeed hav their catharsis in the streets.

[(kelvin)]

I appreciate those theories...maybe the connection resides in the role the characters play, and not necessarily in their social interconnections.

So there are indeed two groups, but the groups are defined by the father/mother and son/daughter schemes. Maybe there are even three groups:

the protectors (or those who should protect)
the protected  (or those who should be protected)

those who switch between the two previous groups: Jim and Linda

P already mentioned Linda's role as daughter/mother. Jim would be the "father figure" for Claudia, but he also expects her to help him find his way to through life.

PS: I still think that PTA should have found a more "aesthetic" solution for Earl.

PPS: I like the movie nonetheless, kotte.  

[subversiveproductions]

Ah, I like this protector/protected idea.  I would take that one step further though and say that rather than providing or receiving protection, these two groups are attempting to provide or recieve redemption.  What are they trying to be redeemed from?  The past of course.  This is where the frogs come into play: the people are not able to redeem one another, and sooner or later frogs must fall from the sky, and everyone is cleansed in this rain of shit.  No?

[whisperer]

I think the most obvious, and the only visual, link, is dixon: at the beginning he's with jim kurring, at the end he finds linda...
and his rap should be the key to some kind of meaning to the film...
I know pta might not be concerned with all these connections, but this doesn't prevent us to find one, no matter if it's right or not.
and what is right, anyway?