“Magnolia” and “Punch Drunk Love” are two grand narratives that showcase the power of love. Despite being directed by the same individual, recent Academy Award winner Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA), these movies are very different in terms of their scale. “Magnolia” focuses on 10 characters, while “Punch Drunk Love” focuses on a single character. Both of them, however, have the same storyline of healing previously untended wounds. From understanding family and finding a significant other to standing up for oneself , the two films have many similarities in their resolutions. So what was the purpose of taking such different approaches in structure?
The contrast of thesePTA films emerges when we consider their use of two cultural frameworks: individualism and collectivism. Individualism values the freedom of an individual taking responsibility for their goals, while collectivism values the needs of a group to create a sense of belonging among the greater whole. I’m sure you can tell which film aligns with each framework.
“Punch Drunk Love” uses a lingering camera to highlight Barry’s (the film’s protagonist) presence in fairly empty places. Whether it is an empty office or a barren hallway, as long as Barry is there, the camera stays. “Magnolia”’s camera, however, is erratic, as it spins between the 10 main characters and blends their occupations to create a singular viewpoint. The worlds in and of themselves set up the functionings of individualism and collectivism, respectively. But that point has not been reached. Barry hasn’t achieved satisfaction in his life, and none of the protagonists in “Magnolia” are aware of each other’s needs. So what leads to change?
If you’ve watched “Magnolia,” the climax of raining frogs likely sticks in your mind: such an odd, off-the-cuff event that miraculously brings everyone together. They become aware of each other’s struggles and help one another out. Jim helps Donnie, Rose helps Claudia, Frank helps Earl — everybody has their needs acknowledged. This resolution was only achieved by chance, a coincidence if you’re ignorant to the film’s logic. It is an external solution that no one can control.
“Punch Drunk Love”’ doesn’t come close to having a swift resolution. Barry’s determination comes in a series of gradual victories such as defying his family, protecting his girlfriend and confronting the Mattress Man. There’s no randomness to these acts, and all of them come from his own will. If Barry didn’t choose to act, he would not have been able to find satisfaction.
But why were these the solutions? Why didn’t “Punch Drunk Love” have frogs rain onto the mattress store? Why didn’t “Magnolia” have each of the characters agree to meet-up in Earl’s house, or something? To answer these questions,we must turn to the fundamental ideas of individualism and collectivism.
For individualism to be valid, an individual must be willing to satisfy their needs for personal benefit. But as we see, Barry does not start that way. He is a doormat: he doesn’t stand up to his sisters or have an independent view of himself. The characters of “Magnolia,” conversely, each have a strong sense of self-reliance. The reason all 10 characters are separated is because they’re each concerned with their own goals, which leads to the formation of personal differences. So, as you can gather, the two films start with opposite frameworks. “Magnolia” begins with individualism, “Punch Drunk Love” begins with collectivism. These are the status quo, the unsatisfactory state of each film. Throughout the films, the goal becomes to shift frameworks. It’s seen as a necessity for finding love.
Do the characters deserve this conclusion? Is it right for everyone in “Magnolia” to prioritize the beliefs of the overall cast, for Barry to face his struggles alone? Why do the stories conclude in the way that they do?
Film works as an objective medium. There are some exceptions, but what you see in film is what is actually happening in the story. Unlike in first- and third- person omniscient books where you can look inside the characters’ minds, we don’t understand who the characters on screen truly are or what they are thinking. And that’s especially the case in both PTA films. Because the camera is shifting so dramatically in “Magnolia,” we don’t have the time to understand the circumstances behind everyone’s life. This is how the film is able to hide truths; it takes time for us to see the reality of people. A frequent plot point of “Punch Drunk Love” is people misunderstanding Barry and why he behaves in the way he does. Keep in mind, these are the circumstances before the films. Each character struggles because they don’t understand each other. In this way, the language of storytelling allows for expression.
We may not have much time with the individual characters of “Magnolia,” but by showing their stories back-to-back, we can pick up on patterns. We learn a lot about a character by understanding that their problem and another person’s problem are similar.
By letting the camera linger in “Punch Drunk Love,” we see the little actions that Barry takes and what he does when others are not around. It helps us, the audience, to understand how human he is, how he’s more than a collection of circumstantial incidents. In this way, we can find similarities between ourselves and Barry.
That is the power of the storyteller. PTA chooses to narrate lives in different ways, and it strengthens our perception of the humans who struggle. The director’s external control manifests into the lives of both films, with how the characters find resolve. These films have the solutions they do because it’s how we understand who the characters are truly like as human beings.
Of course, our own lives aren’t directly controlled by someone else. Obviously, we all have differing beliefs and ways of being, but it’s hard to manipulate the way others perceive us. We can’t frame our life into an artistic expression. Who knows if we’ll even get the time to share our stories. But strange things happen all the time. Maybe we find the strength to argue for ourselves, or find someone to connect with. The notion of individualism and collectivism are not singular, they are not cemented. You can’t dedicate your life to following one principle. Life flows and bends; depending on the moment,one lens may be more suitable than the other. But who knows what happens to the characters in the aftermath of both films. Barry seems to share Lena’s needs, while characters like Stanely seem more confident in standing up for themselves. What we see is merely what’s needed at the moment.
The truth is stranger than fiction. As people, our mindsets can and do shift on a whim. Externally, and internally, the world changes. But within the intimidation of this grand evolution is a moment for us to find love and to express hidden sides of ourselves. Films may not be reality, but they can show us what we need. And perhaps, no matter how unrecognizable the status quo is, we all deserve a little love. I’d say that’s that.