The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#526 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:40 pm

Might've been a simple matter of what they could fit on the disc. Oh well, it'll be nice to see it the way PTA did the first time (not to sound too hero-worship-y, though, let's face it)

User avatar
eerik
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Location: Estonia

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#527 Post by eerik » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:04 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Might've been a simple matter of what they could fit on the disc.
Nope, average video bitrate is only 24.72Mbit/s, according to Blu-ray.com. If the total average bitrate is around 28Mbit/s (3.28 for audio), it would take less than 29 gigabytes, leaving 20 gigabytes for the special features. Disc space is definitely not a problem.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#528 Post by Jeff » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:12 pm

I'd guess it's a financial issue. The film is in the public domain. Licensing the new restoration, however, would not be free.

User avatar
eerik
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Location: Estonia

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#529 Post by eerik » Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:28 pm

UK release has the same set of special features, so I'll get that one.

Image

Source: DVDActive

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#530 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:02 pm

A lot more stars, though!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#531 Post by knives » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:51 pm

Really weird film. It almost seemed like he was trying to make a character study without going into the psychology of the character(s). That I suppose would answer Warren's question of why for the various story aspects. The basis in Huston's doc leaves a sort of nudity of the psyche that allows for Anderson to forgo any internal exploration. Probably why the introduction of Scientology helped too given the anti-psychology stance that allows for Anderson to basically make his film external. I can't say yet if it succeeds at this completely, but I certainly feel that I know about Phoenix's character's essence which suggests some success. Also gives a lot of purpose to the structure of the film since everything is so event based. This isn't to say the film has a strong story, but the structure is rather ingenious which each part creating Phoenix further and further so that he ends the film as a human.

username
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:13 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#532 Post by username » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:54 pm

Let me start this post by saying that I really enjoyed this movie.

I've read a lot of criticism and I actually do see where most of it is coming from (re: no thematic progress, no message communicated clearly, no inclination for emotional investment towards characters, etc), so from a narrative standpoint, I can definitely see why the film may be perceived in whatever ways it may be. Oddly enough, however, I found that a lot of the things people are complaining about, to me, worked in it's favor. For instance, yes, it's a very cold and distant film that fails to create any real attachment between audience and characters. However, I still felt like that was the purpose it was meant to serve as opposed to it simply being a shortcoming to itself. From the moment we see Freddie on the beach fondling sand women, we are cluelessly dropped into Freddie's life to observe the way he is and accept him as such, which just so happens to be in the same manner that he himself is dropped into Dodd's life and is forced to observe how The Cause functions and accept it as such. In that sense, we know just as much about what's going on around Freddie as he himself does. Easily I can see how that would be frustrating for some, although I thought it was pretty interesting.

This may also sound slightly peculiar, but I didn't feel cheated by the lack of catharsis at the end of the film. Honestly, I felt as if instead, I was watching a science experiment of some sort taking place throughout the course of the movie rather than the conventional narrative with a fully realized conclusion. Of course, this experiment would be Dodd's attempt to transform Freddie Quell, with the film's core centering solely on whether or not Freddie could indeed change. Correspondingly, this sort of journey on film is just as unique as it is demanding as there is no clear justification or reason for who Freddie is and why he is the way he is. However, I felt like this is exactly where this film took a huge risk that (depending on who you ask) pays off. There's one particular scene at the end where Peggy makes the assertion to Dodd that Freddie does not want to change and that trying to help him do so was a waste of time. For me, this particular scene brought a question to mind, about whether it is possible to become emotionally invested towards another who suffers as a victim to their own habits, or is some sort of reason and justification required for their faults in order to care altogether? Throughout the course of this film, I found myself asking a few questions along those lines and that in itself provided for a very unique viewing. As a result, I feel that "The Master" is probably one of the most interesting and challenging films to come out in the last while, with a form/structure that is very unique on its own. I can only speak for myself as I'm sure there are some detractors out there (some of which make up a good portion of this thread, which is entirely okay too lol)

Also, another interesting notion that the film touches upon in particular pertains to the nature of man and what it takes for it to transcend it's primitive/carnivorous form, or whether it can do so altogether (which kind of recalls McQueen's "Shame" in a way; both films dealt with sexual deviants who succumb to their damaging habits and we see them suffer as a result of them. albeit with different endings).

User avatar
geoffcowgill
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:48 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#533 Post by geoffcowgill » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:59 pm

This may seem a superficial remark, but this film struck me as Anderson's A Clockwork Orange, with Quell following a narrative arc remarkably similar to Alex's. At any rate, I think a comparison between the two is interesting as a framework for interpretation.
SpoilerShow
The final sequence, even final shot if memory serves, is also very similar to Kubrick's, both graphically and thematically.
With There Will Be Blood's allusions to 2001, I will have a hard time watching Anderson's next film without expecting echoes of Barry Lyndon.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#534 Post by peerpee » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:12 am

geoffcowgill wrote:With There Will Be Blood's allusions to 2001, I will have a hard time watching Anderson's next film without expecting echoes of Barry Lyndon.
Anderson's next film will be his first that hasn't originated entirely in his head (it being Pynchon's INHERENT VICE), so maybe we'll have to wait until the one after that! :)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#535 Post by knives » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:48 pm

That's not true. Technically There Will Be Blood is an adaptation though not a terribly close one.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#536 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:40 am

It bears so little resemblance to the book that it only has an "inspired by" in the credits, not an actual adaptation credit.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#537 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:15 pm

Spoilers:

I really liked the film - definitely not one to go to for a driving narrative experience (I could imagine someone lightly questioning PTA about that and getting the same response from the director that Dodd gives to his critic during the house party/seance sequence!), instead much more of a film to get lost in the tone of - the hazy, lazy pace fitting perfectly with the meandering cod-philosophising of The Master and the alcoholism of Freddie.

I particularly loved that Freddie's motivations (if he has any, which is something that troubles the other acolytes) are never really explained. Why does he stay, or leave? Why does he explode with rage, either against those who question the Master (including Kevin O'Connor in a role amusingly similar to There Will Be Blood as a character who turns up to injudiciously speak candidly and then get abused for doing so!) or to fight the police seemingly as a way of going into jail with him? Was it a way of remaining close to Dodd and finally getting to put some questions to him, or only a subconscious rebellious reaction to outsider authority figures?

There is definitely a master/favoured disciple relationship going on there, and I think it is to the film's credit that we are left wondering how far both Freddie and Lancaster Dodd really understand the compelling, charismatic power that they have over each other. Even when Freddie is 'processed' and at his most submissive (in a beautiful parallel to the early scenes in the department store, he is back taking portrait photographs and even seems to have taken over the 'semi-prostitute' role of the shopgirl modelling the coat in the store, saying that what she is wearing is available for only $49 if the customer likes what they see, in the scene where he is on the street handing out the flyers and trying to entice new custom himself!) his underlying nature feels antithetical to blind belief, no matter how hard he tries (usually by beating up fellow doubters!) - Freddie is never going to be as complicit as the women in the film or Dodd's son because he isn't trying, or being allowed to, create a niche in which to exist as anything more than a tag-along or an interesting figure to experiment on.

It strikes me a little about how far a friendship will stretch in order to accommodate each other's behaviours. There is a friendship there, but with a user on one side and a caged animal on the other, there doesn't seem as if there could be a common ground. In a sense that final parting between the pair is an acknowledgement of their importance to each other (did anyone else think that the "future lives in which we will be sworn enemies" was amusingly reminiscent of Punch Drunk-Love, with the angry and violent Adam Sandler character going up against Hoffman's bed salesman prone to sudden outbursts of true character-revealing profanity?) along with a releasing of the group's hold over Freddie.

The most powerful moment was that final scene with Freddie back to bedding women again - after all of the talk of trying to go back into your past and change bad events of your life, or even regressing back trillions of years and lives to the core of a bad event and changing it to achieve enlightenment, the final scene after Freddie parts from Dodd feels as if a great weight has been lifted and that trying to change or 'fix' what you feel is wrong with yourself, or that others feel is wrong with you, really doesn't matter.

Freddie is kind of back to where he was at the beginning of the film, but in that beautiful moment in which he, in a laid back and relaxed manner, talks the uncomprehending English girl through the 'processing' process, it feels as if the film is showing that even the negative experiences of life, even abuses, are folded into an individual's make-up and can be re-presented in a positive manner. It reminds me of that Australian film Bad Boy Bubby in that sense.

stwrt
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#538 Post by stwrt » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:59 am

That is such bad sleeve art, it could put you off buying the disc, it's like early 80s VHS sleeve art, floating heads without the things to be floating above. But you can reverse the US sleeve and use the alternative which is an improvement.

The second time I watched The Master it clicked what was wrong. The story should have been about how good the Cause was and why it made people's lives better and what Lancaster Dodd had achieved. We didn't need the character at the rich woman's house telling us it was all claptrap and a ruse to take rich people's cash. We knew that before the film started. I think it is his best movie because he improves every time he directs a new one.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#539 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:42 am

We might not need that character to voice dissent but that scene is important for showing how Dodd reacts to interruptions and comparatively slight criticism of his philosophy, paralleling beautifully with the much later scene with Laura Dern's character where her understandable question about the changing of one word in the new text (from "Can you recall" to "Can you imagine" in the question about past lives) is met with similar defensive hostility by Dodd.

Dodd doesn't seem to be considering that any changes he makes to his texts are inevitably going to shake the belief systems of those around him as they struggle to try and accommodate this new information into what they previously thought that they had known about the underpinnings of the philosophy.

This emphasises the bigger theme of the film, which is that it really isn't about what the individuals around The Master are getting out of the philosophy. As that final scene suggests, when Dodd tells Freddie to try and live without being subject to someone else, as soon as people give themselves over to to group they aren't important as individuals any more. They're part of the wider group and therefore have submitted themselves entirely to The Master's teachings. Freddie is an extreme example, but even he doesn't really develop as a character until he is outside of the group, or attacking people because he cannot control his urges (he is kind of the extremist wing of the movement!) Even when he tries to submit he has already been isolated by the group and is already on his way out the door. While most of the other people around The Master are prepared to exist within the confines laid out for them, Freddie is trying but always pushing on past the limits of acceptability into unexplored territory (the motorbike scene).

It kind of stresses that this is a little as if the texts of the Bible were written by God and not by the Disciples, who aren't allowed to argue over interpretations, translations and semantics to keep their faith alive (the 'Disciples' here are used and discarded as experimental subjects in The Master's personal research, rather than putting their own feelings about how they relate to their beliefs and what their religion means to them down on paper. There is only one central text and that, pending amendments, is the only 'correct' one. Therefore it makes sense that it is eventually being taught in the context of a school in England, presumably like a set text to be studied and absorbed, but never questioned). That, more than the criticism that Dodd faces in that scene, suggests that the movement is essentially monomanaical, and, like a cult, lives and dies with its Creator rather than spreading further than that through scholarly inquiry and interpretation.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:02 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#540 Post by Zot! » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:15 pm

Thought this was a dud, unfortunately.
SpoilerShow
The best hypothesis I've read in the preceding pages is that it was willfully obfuscating any sort of message in an effort to simulate what PTA considers the bluster of organized religion by presenting a heavy acting excercise that leads nowhere. I think this is too high concept however, and what we are left with seems like overblown take on Antonioni's Red Desert with ambiguity, a broad canvas, and furious performances disguising something very slight and inconsequential.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#541 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:06 pm

...ambiguity, a broad canvas, and furious performances disguising something very slight and inconsequential.
Isn't that a good metaphor for the philosophy at the centre of the film though? Bluster and riffing skills essential in spreading the message across the country and eventually over international boundaries in order to confer a little extra sense of weight to a non-existent message?

(Another fascinating parallel with There Will Be Blood is that this is another film where religion meets capitalism, with the packaging and commodifying of religion in an audience pleasing manner predominating here)
Last edited by colinr0380 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#542 Post by Zot! » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:14 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
...ambiguity, a broad canvas, and furious performances disguising something very slight and inconsequential.
Isn't that a good metaphor for the philosophy at the centre of the film though? Bluster and riffing skills essential in spreading the message across the country and eventually over international boundaries in order to confer a little extra sense of weight to a non-existent message?
That's what I was hypothesizing. That it is some kind of meta-movie about religion, where the film is designed to fail in the same ways the director feels religion does. Seems too high-concept to be true, but sure, let's go with it.


flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#544 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:46 pm

SpoilerShow
What's the deal with Freddie and the phone in the theater? Does he own it?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#545 Post by swo17 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:51 pm

SpoilerShow
That's a dream sequence.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#546 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:58 pm

Does anyone have this on Blu-Ray? I have a quick question. When you go to 1:30:47 (which should be a close-up of Joaquin Phoenix as he's being tested), do you see a slight flickering in the image? It's especially noticeable when you focus on the background, which is all white. It's just this shot. I'm wondering if it's the disc itself, or maybe even the shot itself either from the light or camera?

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#547 Post by Oedipax » Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:16 pm

Yeah, it looks like a slight flicker from a light fixture to me.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#548 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:32 pm

Aw man, wish they caught that, it's supposed to look like a "daylight" shot - later on they cut to a wide profile shot and it's just a white room with a large window with clear, midday sun pouring in.

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#549 Post by Oedipax » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:19 pm

Well, it might still be daylight - that could be a practical lamp in the room causing it, or just a supplemental light that was unbalanced and had some mild flicker to it. FWIW, you can fix that sort of thing in post too, so PTA must've liked it. I think it gives it a little texture and edge, myself (plus it seems to me you can hear the camera in the background of that shot as well, maybe it's meant to be their reel-to-reel recorder).

User avatar
Alan Smithee
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:49 am
Location: brooklyn

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#550 Post by Alan Smithee » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:58 pm

Just wondering if anyone else has read Going Clear? I want to watch The Master now that I have. I was aware of Hubbards history a bit when I saw it first but now that I know the full deal it changes the way I've seen The Master completely. Anderson did a tremendous job of covering the birth of Scientology while making something distinctly separate that can be taken on its own terms. It seems now that Hubbard is split into two characters, Freddie and Lancaster are both distinct sides to Hubbard's Bio, and when you see the film from that perspective it becomes quite a bit darker.

Post Reply