Why is the title of the film 'Magnolia'?

I watched the film only recently and wanted to find this out myself and, handily, on the message boards on IMDB I noticed the above question. It was answered by "swlf63" ...

"Just as there are many thematic layers to the film itself there are several layers to the title:

*Magnolia Blvd. is a street in the San Fernando Valley where the film takes place. Some of the characters in the film I believe drive down this street.

*Magnolia sounds similar to "Magonia", a term created by Charles Fort (who wrote about strange phenomena and is referenced in the film's closing credits) which is an alleged place in the sky where things are kept until they fall from it.

*There is a legend that the bark of the Magnolia tree can cure cancer.

*A magnolia is a type of flower, which is used as a symbol throughout the film. The concept of the blooming flower has been used as an analogy for the film's structure and flow.

*Magnolia is an 8 letter word with 2 "a's", being the 2nd and 8th letters. This is an odd coincidence which relates back to the numbers 82 featured frequently in the film as a reference to Exodus 8:2: "If you do not let them go, I will send a plague of frogs."

I am going to buy the soundtrack and anyone who has not seen the film must watch it now.

How the topic can change so swiftly...

Brett Ratner
Just to rectify some details. I have only seen two Brett Ratner films - 'Rush Hour' and 'Red Dragon'. As far as 'Rush Hour' goes, its alright although not really my type of comedy. So that is not so much a directorial problem - more a personal preferance on comedy because the film was successful enough - thus funny enough across the board - to warrant two further sequels.

'Red Dragon' on the other hand is AWESOME! Ratner uses a script written by Ted Tally, the writer of 'Silence of the Lambs' script, and there is a huge influence of the stand-out director Jonathon Demme - director of 'Silence of the lambs'.

Yes, yes, It's all preference. I get that, but I would be interested to see how Brett Ratner - a director who is no Tarantino or Fincher - gets so much criticism from Mr Jo Gudgeon. Ratner has never claimed he is brilliant - unlike Shyamalan who, although I like him, I can see why he can rub people up the wrong way with his really arrogant attitude. Brett Ratner is a director who seemed to do a good job with 'Red Dragon' - he didn't try to 'make it his own' he simply studied 'Silence of the lambs' and tried to make it live up to that, which, I think it comes close.

I have friends who think that 'Red Dragon' is in fact the best one of the three.

Nevertheless, looking at Ratners directing credits on IMDB (a whopping 16!), very few of them are that successful. X-Men 3, I have heard, is not great - but everyone cocks up at one point and it hardly warrants a lifetime of disgust from avid film fans - such as Mr Jo Gudgeon.

Is it possible that I can get an informed, fair and just review from Mr Jo Gudgeon stating why Ratner is such a bad director? Has Gudgeon seen enough of Ratners films to put together a whole-hearted opinion on the subject? I can admit that I have seen very, very few on the whole of Ratners film - and music videos - to really claim whether he is any good or bad. I am really waiting to watch X-Men 3 before placing any kind of offensive or insulting judgement on the man.

I doubt that the film is as bad as 'Cube' though.

I await peoples responses (that goes for everyone!)

P.S. The single point I was making about Mel Gibson was: How can you say he is a bad director when you have only seen one film? Could it just be a fluke bad film? Or a film that simple 'wasn't-your-thing'?