Finnegan Begin Again

Here I go again, trying to compensate for the sins of my computer, or Windows, or whatever...

Back to Basics: Finished the latest NYTimes Crossword, which, once again, was something of a disappointment. The theme? Basic White and Basic Black: At certain blocks in the puzzle, one had to put the word 'black' or 'white' into a single square to make everything fit. Although the puzzle is better than the last several have been, this one too suffers from what Huck Finn might have called 'stretchers,' including the incredibly inane answer 'suety' for 'fatty.' The Times puzzles have been pretty uninspired lately, and I can't say I've been much impressed by them lately. They haven't had their once-characteristic cleverness I so enjoyed. Meh.

Hit Me, Baby, One More Time: Speaking of the Times, it turns out that a number of the recent links to this site from Google and elsewhere have had their connection to the Times Crossword puzzle. I find this a bit amusing, and a bit curious, considering one would have thought links here would have come more from material more extensively mentioned or quoted here, but.... The Internet is a very bizarre thing.

Living History: Did anyone with more than a pair of brain cells honestly think Hillary's book would be either informative or insightful? No, I've not read it, and don't really intend to read it, but I particularly like Maureen Dowd's description of the book as 'neither living nor history.' Click here to read the rest of the article, if you have a free NYTimes subscription.

How Much Can You Forgive?: I finally watched Magnolia last night (yes, I know, I'm perpetually behind the times), and was more or less impressed by it. In a way, though, criticizing anything about such a film seems to me a lot like quibbling, even if quibble I must. Anderson's script and filmic style are fascinating; he elicits from his actors some excellent performances; and there are few films that would dare to assume such a complicated stream-of-consciousness kind of project, and handle it with such panache (in this way, Anderson has more in common with Eliot, Joyce, and the French symbolistes than he does with many of his contemporaries in the film world). The film is eminently quotable, it is in many ways emotionally 'very true,' and it is gorgeously filmed. So, you're waiting, what's to quibble?

Magnolia seems to me suffer from the same problem that sank Pulp Fiction in my books. It is too ambitious, it out-clevers and out-insights itself by half, such that it doesn't know when to wrap thingsup, or to leave certain things in the realm of cinematic ellipsis. The film goes on a good 45 minutes after it probably should have, and the film as a whole becomes somewhat anti-climactic: it undoes itself rather than going out with force. My feeling is that the film would have been better if it had been ended with its apogee, with the emotional tensions brought out during the quiz show filming, instead of dissolving into a peculiar series of personal codas and a mock-apocalyptic gesture that seemed to me more self-indulgent than cinematically satisfying. Like Pulp Fiction, the film eventually falters when it comes to pacing and catharsis; it loses its sense of urgency and momentum, and the quirky nature of the film becomes overstated. As such, the last forty-five minutes-- despite being in many ways beyond fault per se-- seem like a struggle to a pre-made ending and to 'get out' of the situation(s) it had created. The result is that the film is less satisfying than it could have been; it become the guest that overstays its welcome. I should add this, though: while Pulp Fiction for me is a failed film, a ponderous exercise in Tarantino's self-indulgence, Magnolia remains a good film, a very, very good one indeed. While Boogie Nights and Reservoir Dogs were less ambitious films that dealt with far less complex issues, they were marvels of pacing and control. So here's my overall statement: Boogie Nights and Reservoir Dogs are minor films that are extraordinarily well done, and which achieve far more than they set out to accomplish; Magnolia and Pulp Fiction strike me as fundamentally flawed major (or 'great') films, films that set high goals for themselves, accomplish many of them, but which falter with many of them. The first set are less ambitious but more satisfying films; the second set are more provocative but ultimately less complete. Hmmmm: an eternal question-- to aspire toward greatness and risk falling short, or to kick ass while setting the bar within your grasp. There's no answer to this, but it reminds me why there has never been a successful attempt at the true 'epic' in English poetry since Paradise Lost. I'm very glad I watched Magnolia, and I'll definitely have to grant it repeated viewings (and I do strongly encourage the two of you out there who haven't seen it to do so), but the inevitable quibble lingers....

For CSM: Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. New- klee- er. New- klee- er. Pass that on to Herr Bush, so the South can enunciate again! ;-)

Wow, I think I've retyped just about everything. Yes, it's a dull, dull Saturday.... Best, all....