The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

[warren oates]

i think some phony character arc would've ruined the film and it's all the more impressive that a stronger emotional arc than any of those other films listed is presented here w/o those obvious textbook techniques of conflict-resolution

Well, that's just the thing right there, isn't it wigwam? Are character arcs in and of themselves phony? Is the authenticity and artistic achievement of films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Piano Teacher, The Devil Probably and A Woman Under The Influence, part and parcel of their clear and compelling dramatic writing/storytelling or in spite of it? Is this an argument about rules or tools? Underlying structures or cliches? For me, The Master need not present a "phony" character arc. But instead a clear, simple -- yet not necessarily simplistic! -- authentic character arc would do it.

So wigwam, what's your take on this "stronger emotional arc" than any of the other films I'm listing above?

[Michael]

i think some phony character arc would've ruined the film and it's all the more impressive that a stronger emotional arc than any of those other films listed is presented here w/o those obvious textbook techniques of conflict-resolution

also, wasnt the last shot a flashback of that same beach scene and sand-woman, this time framing the anatomy to correspond with his actual master, the bottle?

Spoiler

Now you got me thinking it might be a flashback. I need to revisit the film. I remember there was a scene somewhere in the middle showing Freddie building a sand lady with some frustrations, couldn't complete her. In the end, the sand lady seemed to be complete and the breasts perfectly formed...and Freddie cuddling with her in silence and alone, possibly contented?. A far cry from the Freddie he was in the opening, when he molested and fingered her violently in front of swimmers around him.

[mfunk9786]

It's the same shot used earlier in the film.

[Michael]

It's the same shot used earlier in the film.

How did I miss that?! Oh okay, that changed my initial reading of the film. Or maybe not.

[mfunk9786]

I guess my question that hasn't been answered by the "there's not enough plot" dissenters is: If there's not enough plot here, how has it inspired so much discussion and dissection? Not every plot-rich film goes from A to B to C.

[warren oates]

I guess my question that hasn't been answered by the "there's not enough plot" dissenters is: If there's not enough plot here, how has it inspired so much discussion and dissection? Not every plot-rich film goes from A to B to C.

For me it's not that there's not enough plot, it's that there's not enough story. And the crucial distinction I make is that a plot is just a list of stuff that happens. (And you're totally right, there are plenty of films full of nonstop busyness in which nothing of consequence "happens.") Whereas a story is stuff happening that matters utterly to the characters and therefore to the audience. It's not necessarily about a linear or easily definable arc either for me -- but the feeling that there isn't one underlying the protagonist or the film.

Freddie's not a passive character. He does plenty of things. He takes any number of actions. But, as like you say about the vast majority of films above, I feel about Freddie and Dodd: Their actions are full of plot, but too short on story. Mfunk, no one's interpolated Freddie's stakes and motivation better than you have. I just remain unconvinced that the underpinning dramatics are actually present and working to support those ideas in the film.

[wigwam]

sorry abt spoiler, i edited

oates, i was more interested in the comparisons w/ the earlier PTAs, The Godfather, Leaving Las Vegas, and Young Adult, but in general of those 5 "better" ones you mention, aside from Taxi Driver they all have a downward trajectory/arc from a starting point of power (in anger or solitude or alcoholism) and ending somewhere on a defeatist spectrum. Taxi Driver is much closer to Master but needs a traumatic catharsis and what could possibly be a happy ending (or not, but at least a change for the protagonist, achieving the attention he seeks at the beginning)

Godfather, Young Adult and LLV have similarly downward trajectories but also, like Taxi Driver, rely on cathartic moments (ie, classic narrative arc climaxes/denouments which change the characters)

The earlier PTAs to me are closest to what The Master acheives where there is nearly no character arc but still a strong emotional arc, however they rely on the familiar structures and beats and catharsis if not climax.

The Master doesn't set itself up at the beginning to require a balance from any arc like that though, largely through its episodic structure but also through the elliptical nature of the scenes themselves. Instead of conflict setup in this scene to be resolved in that scene, each scene is its own loaded unit of tension-release, moreso in form than content, with the dizzying crosscut montage in the middle serving as a type of climax (and the motorcycle scene another) but more like how symphonies peak mid-point, rather than narrative works. There's never really been any question of Freddy changing as a character.

[mfunk9786]

plot (n)
1. a secret plan to achieve some purpose, esp one that is illegal or underhand: a plot to overthrow the government
2. the story or plan of a play, novel, etc
3. military - a graphic representation of an individual or tactical setting that pinpoints an artillery target
4. chiefly (US) - a diagram or plan, esp a surveyor's map
5. informal - lose the plot - to lose one's ability or judgment in a given situation

[warren oates]

The Master doesn't set itself up at the beginning to require a balance from any arc like that though, largely through its episodic structure but also through the elliptical nature of the scenes themselves. Instead of conflict setup in this scene to be resolved in that scene, each scene is its own loaded unit of tension-release, more so in form than content, with the dizzying crosscut montage in the middle serving as a type of climax (and the motorcycle scene another) but more like how symphonies peak mid-point, rather than narrative works. There's never really been any question of Freddy changing as a character.

Thanks for the reply, wigwam. You're actually the first person I've discussed this with since one of the friends I saw it with who feels this way. And I can dig it. I feel like at least we've both seen the same movie. You're not arguing that it's so subtle or unconventional that I'm just not getting the way in which it's doing everything I claim it's not, but rather you just don't care that it's not really telling much of a story.

Though I still imagine there would have been more effective ways to construct a film in which a character does not change, getting to similar emotional places without sacrificing a more complete narrative. Like perhaps dramatizing the roads not taken, which I think a film like Young Adult is actually pretty good at doing in just about every scene. I'm not sure that the protagonist of that film changes -- though she's definitely given plenty of chances to -- so much as she comes to a small moment of clarity about the tragedy of her narcissism. But what matters is that we see clearly what she thinks she wants. We see how it's wrong. And we see all of the many chances she's had to see this and correct her course.

[warren oates]

plot (n)
1. a secret plan to achieve some purpose, esp one that is illegal or underhand: a plot to overthrow the government
2. the story or plan of a play, novel, etc
3. military a graphic representation of an individual or tactical setting that pinpoints an artillery target
4. chiefly ( US ) a diagram or plan, esp a surveyor's map
5. informal lose the plot to lose one's ability or judgment in a given situation

If that's the O.E.D. I guess you pwned me. Or we could actually discuss what I said about the film. I was making a distinction between the list of stuff that happens and the way in which or the strategy whereby that happening impacts the characters/audience. Every narrative is merely a plot until somebody cares about somebody caught up in it. We can use fancier terms if you prefer. I went to college too. We'll get all fabula and syuzhet etc. if you think it will help.

[Aspect]

Warren Oates is absolutely right when he says that The Master lacks story. A plot is not the story; rather it's the storyline, the map, or order, of events utilized in order to tell the story. The story is the creative heart of the work; the characters (and their traits), the setting, the object he finds, his goals, and all the details of things that happen along the way. The Master has a plot in that the events of the story are somewhat organized, though it is somewhat chaotic. The reason there's discussion generated by the film is because people are trying to figure out what the barely articulated or illustrated themes of the story are. They're also attempting to provide background to the characters that the movie doesn't bother to present. It's interesting that people are only focusing on Freddie, who starts the film as an animal and ends the film as an animal who's had one more experience of many, but who shows little to no understanding of what actually happened to him. Freddie's an interesting, yet pretty stable character. That's a major problem when we're talking about story. But let's forget about Freddie for now, there's been enough talk about him.

What the hell is the deal with Lancaster Dodd? Where does he come from? Where did he go to school? What kinds of writings did he produce before "The Cause?" Why did he decide to start a religion? What is he trying to find out about people and about himself by doing this? What are his motives? Absolutely none of this is in the movie, which makes Dodd's character essentially meaningless except as someone who wants to tame the wild Freddie. What I found bizarre is that the movie didn't really portray Dodd as a huckster. He seemed to believe what he was doing and got offended to his core when anyone criticized him and his writings. The movie played him straight, when it would have been so much more interesting to have him portrayed as a snake-oil salesman.

Perhaps this was PTA's attempt to distinguish Dodd from L. Ron Hubbard, but it just doesn't really work. His son knows he's making it all up, yet Dodd seems to believe his own hokum. L. Ron Hubbard certainly didn't believe his own hokum. He was a struggling sci-fi author who decided to create a religion. In the introduction to one of his books (can't remember the name of the collection now), Harlan Ellison claims to have been with Hubbard the night Scientology (or Dianetics, as it was called then) was born. During the 1950s, many New York authors and artists would gather to talk about writing and life. Hubbard would sit in the corner with a typewriter and actually write during these parties. He would stop and talk about stuff when people came up to him. He churned out stories by the ton. One night, he got exasperated and said he was tired of living from story to story and selling stories to magazines to pay his rent. He asked how the hell authors are expected to make any money? Someone came up to him and told him to start a religion, that's where the money's at. So he did, and it worked. He became rich beyond his wildest dreams.

Great story, right? Better and more humorous than anything in The Master, which treats everything with such deadly, plodding earnestness that one wonders what happened to the young PTA who had so much fun with the porno milieu of 1970s San Fernando Valley. That movie told a story, and did it without a boring moment. We knew more about the characters at the end than we did at the beginning. It wasn't a waste of time from a story perspective. People like to be told stories. That's why average film goers (and some perceptive critics like Jim Emerson and Roger Ebert) are saying the film is a bit of a waste. Aside from its beautiful aesthetic qualities, the film is lacking in many fundamental areas. I kind of wish Anderson would have taken in a writing partner on this one. He needed someone to help him flesh out his characters and integrate them in a satisfactory way to the ideas he was trying to get across. He needed someone to clarify his ideas. Great stories are interesting in their implications and should not be hard to understand. People are confused by this movie because Anderson himself was confused when he was writing and making it. This is all very clear in every interview he's given for the film up to this date. People are looking for, and providing, ideas and motivations that aren't actually present in the film itself.

Seriously, who is Dodd? How can we care about any of the characters and understand their emotions if they are barely sketched in by the writer and only presented in the vaguest terms? This is one of those movies that is more fun to talk about and figure out where it went wrong than it is to actually watch. I think people who love this movie need to realize that they love it despite its thin story. Not every movie is perfect, and this one is far from it. It's artful in places, but too unsure of its content to make any real lasting impact.

[Mr Sausage]

It's not the OED. Here's what the OED gives as definitions for plot and narrative (the latter being what warren oates means when he says "story"):

Plot
--The plan or scheme of a literary or dramatic work; the main events of a play, novel, film, opera, etc., considered or presented as an interrelated sequence; a storyline. Also in extended use.

Narrative:
--"An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account."
--"The part of a text, esp. a work of fiction, which represents the sequence of events, as distinguished from that dealing with dialogue, description, etc.; narration as a literary method or genre."

While the above more or less catches the distinction, dictionary definitions are still descriptive rather than prescriptive, so they really only tell you how the words tend to be used rather than how they ought to be used in a meaningful or critical discussion of an art.

There is a generally accepted difference between these two terms in criticism, and that is while plot means the order of events, narrative means the way the events are connected to each other and how that is presented to the audience. Eg. a non-narrative film can have things that happen, meaning a plot, without having any sort of identifiable connection between those events, which would be a narrative.

[warren oates]

Believe it or not, Sausage, I was actually hoping you'd leap into this discussion right about now. Thanks for bringing more clarity to these terms.

I suppose I prefer "story" for what the OED describes as "narrative" because "story" feels warmer and more visceral in English. If you have a friend who's endlessly fascinating to listen to, regaling you with tales left and right, you'll almost certainly describe him/her like this: What a great storyteller! Not plot-teller. Not narrative-teller.

Something that jumped out at me from the definitions are the ideas of "interrelated sequence" and "established connections." Which can occur in elliptical and non-linear work just as powerfully as in a more conventional narrative. The interior cause-and-effect logic of a good story doesn't necessitate obviousness. In The Mood For Love comes to mind (probably because the Blu is due soon) as a strong example of a film with the sort of more diffuse fragmentary emotional through-line that wigwam wants for The Master above.

[matrixschmatrix]

Ok, here's the thing- if this movie didn't work for you, that's fine, obviously, nobody's going to demand that you like the movie. The issue that I have, at least, is when people's explanations for the reasons they don't like it involve saying that all sorts of things- characters or story or theme or wherever- weren't there, when I and a lot of other people have all seen those things. They're there, and that's how come I saw them. Maybe they don't work for you, maybe they aren't interesting to you, maybe you wished you were watching a different movie, whatever, that's fine. It just kind of gets up my nose when people tell me I didn't see things that I saw.

[wigwam]

I'm reading back on the thread now, too much animosity! i think it's fun that the movie isn't obvious and pat and yes/no like/dislike

The story is the creative heart of the work; the characters (and their traits), the setting, the object he finds, his goals, and all the details of things that happen along the way.

all of those things are in The Master

[domino harvey]

Ok, here's the thing- if this movie didn't work for you, that's fine, obviously, nobody's going to demand that you like the movie. The issue that I have, at least, is when people's explanations for the reasons they don't like it involve saying that all sorts of things- characters or story or theme or wherever- weren't there, when I and a lot of other people have all seen those things. They're there, and that's how come I saw them. Maybe they don't work for you, maybe they aren't interesting to you, maybe you wished you were watching a different movie, whatever, that's fine. It just kind of gets up my nose when people tell me I didn't see things that I saw.

It is weirdly intellectual and reminiscent of the dread AntiChrist argument wherein the film's detractors insisted the picture could and should only be read as a joke, discounting all those viewers who found much worth and beauty in the film as "too dumb to get it"-- coded anti-intellectualism. Which seems to me what the anti-the Master argument is shaping up with this new wave. I don't think the film's a masterpiece. I'm not a cheerleader for the film. I do think the criticisms lobbed against it as being "flat" or in some way devoid of narrative pleasures are unconvincing, as it seems easy to disprove. It's okay that you didn't like it and didn't feel it was satisfying on a narrative level-- that doesn't mean it lacks one.

[warren oates]

Well, I'm sorry matrix if you felt I said something like that about your post. I was more focused on the specific claim you'd made about Freddie's self-loathing, which would imply a degree of self-consciousness I'm not sure Freddie's shown to have and which might be implicit in the film too subtly for me to notice but also arguably isn't there.

And I'm not saying the film has no story (just far too undercooked a story) or no theme (maybe too many in this case? no controlling idea, however blatant or subtle). And I wouldn't claim the film has no characters. I think almost everyone on here can agree that if The Master's about anything it's about character.

I suppose I and some of those who are disappointed in the film feel the opposite way. What's getting up our smaller collective nose is the idea that we should have seen things that we didn't see.

And for the record, I almost agree with what domino just wrote. I don't think the film is devoid of pleasure, beauty or ambition. Part of the reason I'm compelled to keep talking about it is that I feel like it has a lot more merit than a film with similar story problems that I mentioned a few pages back, Steve McQueen's Shame. Though I don't see how most of those who didn't click with The Master are making weird intellectual arguments. At least from what I've seen from the likes of King of the Jungle and Grand Illusion our biggest problems are more visceral/emotional than intellectual. We couldn't find a way to connect with the film or the characters and so begin to ask ourselves and the board why.

[matrixschmatrix]

I wasn't specifically arguing with you, warren, my post just fell after yours since I'm posting from work and have to write things in little chunks.

To respond specifically- I agree that the idea that Freddie is consumed with self-loathing is one that isn't necessarily something automatically derived from the text, it's an impression I got from the actions and attitudes the character shows; I certainly don't have a problem with someone reading those differently. I did see an over-riding theme to the piece, but again, that's something with which one might legitimately argue; I would say that any movie where the theme was so obvious as to brook no argument would probably not be a very interesting one thematically.

As far as people demanding that you see things that you don't see- I think part of that does derive from places where it's just hard to understand missing some things that seemed very clear to my eyes, such as that Freddie's character does go through an arc, or that Dodd's character has significant depth of characterization. I guess those are places where it's hard, reviewing the movie as it appeared through my eyes, to understand how you could miss them while watching the movie carefully, but again that's somewhat more debatable.

The thing I specifically take issue with is the Emperor's New Clothes kind of argument, which implies that the people who saw whatever thing it was are just imagining things that aren't really there.

[wigwam]

finally read through the whole thread - kudos, folks! there's so much great stuff!

a few things:

Spoiler

I don't think the motorcycle scene is him literally leaving The Cause right then, it's just the objective correlative of his being still out of control even under The Master's instruction, which The Master realizes. I assumed he was ousted for drinking between that and going to find Doris (did he ride up to her house on the motorcycle? If so, nevermind)

I don't think the naked scene is Freddie being a perv. The scene afterward reads like Peggy is reprimanding+satiating Dodd in order to stave off his taking The Cause into Hubbard-Parsons hieros gamos sexcult territory and so the women were naked at Dodd's instruction

I admire how the film isn't simplistically critical or mocking of scientology and accurately depicts the evolution of auditing

[warren oates]

I admire how the film isn't simplistically critical or mocking of scientology and accurately depicts the evolution of auditing[/spoiler]

I admired this too, as far as it went. Though I think aside from brief bits with Laura Dern and of course Freddie trying his darndest another thing missing from the film for me is more of a sense that this stuff actually ever even sort of "worked" for people, because why/how else would so many get sucked in for so long? A leader's charisma isn't enough. Part of the challenge for Scientology before it was a religion was, indeed, that it "worked" so well that people found they didn't need the writer/founder, but only his first book and were splintering off forming their own groups, "helping" each other without LRH/Dodd getting paid any money or respect out of it.

[lacritfan]

Well, count me among the disappointed. Honestly part of it is I think I built the movie up too much in anticipation. I was knocked out by the performances, cinematography, certain scenes enough to make it my current #6 but I was expecting #1-2. My main gripe is :

Spoiler

After the first "process" Lancaster does, I didn't exactly relate to Freddie but I could understand and feel his sense of "I feel great." I thought after this either : 1) there would be more processes and he would become a total brain washed cultist and you would understand how it could happen to someone, or 2) there would be more processes and there would be something he just couldn't agree with and leave. The pacing and flow of the movie up to that point had me ready for one of the two. But neither really happened. If anything I was hoping that the movie was gonna end with Lancaster staring at the point in the desert as it disappeared.

Maybe I'm just the forum's equivalent of an alcoholic drifter but despite reading the defenses for this film I

Spoiler

just feel like Freddie walking back and forth in the living room yelling "It's just a wall."

[Drucker]

Maybe I'm just the forum's equivalent of an alcoholic drifter but despite reading the defenses for this film I

Spoiler

just feel like Freddie walking back and forth in the living room yelling "It's just a wall."

But isn't that something that could drive a non-religious person up a wall? The idea that you might find something eventually so stick around, because if you didn't have a breakthrough yet, the problem must be you? This is another example of a potentially frustrating element of the film that makes perfect sense within its context I feel.

Spoiler

and perhaps is almost self-referential. e.g. if you didn't like the film the first time, keep coming back!

[Professor Wagstaff]

Spoiler

and perhaps is almost self-referential. e.g. if you didn't like the film the first time, keep coming back!

Spoiler

So in this scenario Paul Thomas Anderson is The Master of the title, making it up as he goes along, and the folks on the boards are his acolytes?

[Niale]

At the conclusion of The Master, I felt like freddie at the end of his processing, I felt good. So good in fact, I walked out of the theater...
Bought another ticket, and went back in. Scenes like the one that takes place at the movie theater, were transcendent.
I was glued to the screen from start to finish. This film was completely riveting, if it DID lose its way... It never lost my interest.

Spoiler

I think the reason why Freddie leaves, is that he was told,
to put something in the future for himself... And go after it. He felt the time was right. And, upon finding that it was not there...
Went back for another, last, assignment... And Dodd gives him one.

[Grand Illusion]

I'm enjoying the discussion, and I feel almost reticent to add more of my own thoughts.

Personally, I still think the problem of the film is Freddie. I just don't see any growth or change in Freddie OR any growth or change around Freddie, as a result of Freddie or his conflicts. He's such a volatile loose cannon that even when he

Spoiler

goes to visit his lost love

I'm not sure that I see this as any more a sign of growth/change as a swing of his mood. Anderson hasn't filled in the gaps, so to speak, by showing gradual evolution.

An easy test to determine change in a character is if I could see Freddie doing the same actions at the beginning of the film as he does at the end of the film. And honestly, I could. A simple swig of that Lysol concoction could've given him the same courage he takes at the end.

I also reject the idea that Freddie changing throughout this script would represent a "phony" arc. Keep in mind that this story is episodic in nature and presumably takes place over years. I know, personally, I have changed and evolved as a person over the course of the past five years. I assume a lot of people do. I would charge that it's more "phony" that neither Freddie nor Dodd nor Lady Macbeth have changed at all in this time period.

While I do think this film would benefit from a more traditional arc, there are certainly ways to avoid a psychologizing character arc and still have an engaging film. I'll list a few that work for me but I'll make up my own terms for them since I'm not a screenwriting grad.

- Implied growth. For an example of implied growth, I think of the film Kore-eda's Nobody Knows. In that film, four young children are abandoned and left to fend on their own. They gradually build their own nest and begin to fend for themselves. Then tragedy strikes towards the end. There is an implied coming-of-age that the children learned to fend for themselves materially and pragmatically. And when tragedy strikes, they've learned to fend for themselves emotionally, and then the film ends.

This is perhaps most similar to a traditional arc, but with a minimum of dialogue and focusing on a group of characters. There is no overt psychologizing, little dialogue, and a focus on a collective. Were the children capable of fending for themselves since the beginning of the film? It's possible, but the actions imply evolution.

The Master could work on this level, but I don't see Freddie's actions as implying any change. He beats up a character early. And then does it again later. He throws a tomato at someone speaking up against The Cause. Then roughs up the non-believing son later. He goes through a rough Processing early and is pleased with the results early. And then later, he does the same thing with the wall trick. His actions don't imply any growth or change. This is why I don't buy that he's a True Believer, either. Is he doing all this for The Cause or for the cause of friendship? Doesn't it matter?

- Peeling away layers. For this type of film, I think of a character that doesn't change themselves, yet the character is gradually revealed to the audience. The best example I can think of is Alonso's Los Muertos. In that film, a man is released from prison. He gradually sheds his clothing, enters the wilderness, and shows his animalistic side. I don't believe he necessarily changes internally, but his actions reveal new information to the audience about what he might (or might not) have done to land himself in prison. It's an extremely meditative film, yet there is a gradual unveiling that is fascinating.

Ironically, this can also be argued as a similar revealing process for Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood in which it was successful. It's arguable how much that character actually changes and grows from being a bastard to a slightly-more disagreeable bastard, yet we learn about his relationship about his son, how he deals with competition and family, and how he ultimately wins and loses everything. Again, it's not necessarily a conventional arc, but it's new information for the audience.

I feel The Master is primed for this type of film, given how impenetrable Freddie is at first, but, with the sole exception of his lost love, I don't believe there's anything underneath the surface. When you peel back layers of Freddie, you just get more Freddie.

- Actions writ large. Here, I think of a film like Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers. Way more than any character psychology or conventional arcs, we have two forces in history vying for the soul of a country. The characters' actions serve the greater narrative of history. And it's fascinating to see these actions play out on the grand stage.

Again, The Master seems primed for this. Ironically again, There Will Be Blood handled it quite well with the American battle/collusion dynamic between religion and capital. But with The Master, there is no battle, no conflict. Freddie loves Dodd. Then leaves. Then he comes back. Then leaves. It's like that line from Grand Hotel: "People come. People go. Nothing ever happens."

The actions aren't writ large. The success of The Cause has an inevitability to it. There is no drama even in seeing The Cause succeed or fail, and nothing about this film even puts the focus on The Cause, which is probably the most interesting idea in the script. You can probably tell when something's the most interesting part about the script when that's what everyone wants to talk about.

- Tone poem/Experimental. It's worth mentioning these types of films, but it's pretty clearly not the mode that Anderson is attempting to operate under. This isn't a mood piece, and for a number of reasons, including its conventionality, shot/counter shot dialogue-driven scenes, etc., The Master isn't a great experimental success.

For me, the key to all of these is that there is new information fed to the audiene, whether through implied growth, peeling away layers of a character that doesn't change, or watching history play out. I don't feel The Master succeeds in giving a steady stream of new information to the audience, despite its conventional scenes. As a result, regardless of the stagnation of its characters, the film itself stagnates. It becomes a series of scenes that each play out nearly identically to the last. There's an interesting film here, but I feel that film is twenty minutes long.