The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

[mfunk9786]

Of the three other people I went with, only one really liked it, but even he didn't have an answer to this crucial question. Why cults? Why post WWII? Why Scientology-a-clef? Couldn't this story of a troubled drifter and his roguish mentor been set arbitrarily in any number of other worlds?

Couldn't any (literally, any) story be set in any number of other worlds?

I might be the biggest Anderson supporter on this forum, but I am still going to come out and say w/r/t your review that I'm terribly skeptical whenever anyone uses "pointless" and asks "why" a whole lot in a review of a work of art, no matter how perfect, how flawed, or how seemingly useless.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think it's a consistent quality of Anderson's, for good or bad, that his movies are almost never streamlined things where every scene contributes to the elaboration of some particular theme- he's a visionary, in the sense that his movies are full of signs and signifiers and often there seems to be no conscious choosing of them to fit some particular purpose on Anderson's part. That's certainly true of Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, his two biggest works, and I think in the latter particularly it works to the film's favor- if it were a simple schematic story of capital vs. religion, or of the evils of money or the corruption of power, it would not have the particular vastness and unshakable quality that it achieves.

I think criticizing any Anderson movie for not answering 'why' questions is just asking him to be a different filmmaker, honestly. There's something about the construction of America and the American identity that's a theme throughout a lot of his work, including Boogie Nights and Punch Drunk Love as much as the two I've already named, and it's easy enough to see how post-war malaise and the rise of the sort of post-spiritual, obsessively charismatic religion that characterizes Scientology and a lot of evangelical Christianity in the last half century or so fits in with the messy, multi-faceted portrait of Americanness that Anderson is building- even if there's never any particular announcement of that being what the movie is about.

[warren oates]

Of the three other people I went with, only one really liked it, but even he didn't have an answer to this crucial question. Why cults? Why post WWII? Why Scientology-a-clef? Couldn't this story of a troubled drifter and his roguish mentor been set arbitrarily in any number of other worlds?

Couldn't any (literally, any) story be set in any number of other worlds?

I might be the biggest Anderson supporter on this forum, but I am still skeptical whenever anyone uses "pointless" and asks "why" a whole lot in a review of a work of art, no matter how perfect, how flawed, or how seemingly pointless.

What I'm saying is -- very much unlike There Will Be Blood -- The Master failed for me big-time in justifying the use of and capitalizing on the juice of its very specific and inherently interesting historical and cultural milieu. What the film seemed to want to be about, even in this messy form, doesn't seem integrally related to anything that Scientology is or even what its thinly disguised stand-in the Cause did within the context of the film itself.

I only said that the one set piece near the end was pointless, and I doubt even you will disagree once you've seen the film. And all my "whys" are essentially the same one: why this time, this setting, this cult? I'm not sure how that's an invalid approach to art in general, like you suggest. In trying to figure out what the film's up to, how it works, why it is as it is, instead of some other way, aren't those not just appropriate but necessary questions? And I guess I'm arguing, questions I wouldn't need to ask if the film were better and the rightness of all those choices could be felt in every frame.

[warren oates]

I think it's a consistent quality of Anderson's, for good or bad, that his movies are almost never streamlined things where every scene contributes to the elaboration of some particular theme- he's a visionary, in the sense that his movies are full of signs and signifiers and often there seems to be no conscious choosing of them to fit some particular purpose on Anderson's part. That's certainly true of Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, his two biggest works, and I think in the latter particularly it works to the film's favor- if it were a simple schematic story of capital vs. religion, or of the evils of money or the corruption of power, it would not have the particular vastness and unshakable quality that it achieves.

I think criticizing any Anderson movie for not answering 'why' questions is just asking him to be a different filmmaker, honestly. There's something about the construction of America and the American identity that's a theme throughout a lot of his work, including Boogie Nights and Punch Drunk Love as much as the two I've already named, and it's easy enough to see how post-war malaise and the rise of the sort of post-spiritual, obsessively charismatic religion that characterizes Scientology and a lot of evangelical Christianity in the last half century or so fits in with the messy, multi-faceted portrait of Americanness that Anderson is building- even if there's never any particular announcement of that being what the movie is about.

Huh. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wanted from the film. I never wondered why Daniel Plainview or Barry Egan had the jobs they did or set off on the particular trajectories each one took. I'm not asking for The Master to be schematic. Thematic would perhaps be enough for me -- thematically coherent. Not heavy handed. Not on a giant blinking billboard. Just actually about something. Instead of kind of almost but not really about a lot of things. And if you're looking for vastness in the new one, I hate to say that you're going to be disappointed.

[Lemmy Caution]

There Will Be Dud: Paul Thomas Anderson’s First Mediocre Movie

Seems to echo Warren Oates' criticism, but I'm skimming everything furiously at this point since I plan to see the film, and don't really want to know much about it beforehand.

[hearthesilence]

David Ehrenstein posted a negative review on Glenn Kenny's blog, and Jonathan Rosenbaum posted one on his own blog as well.

(I liked it...if anyone cares...)

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

This film is deliberately knotty. And I have to LOL at the idea that Rosenbaum posits that the film values sensation over unified coherence. The structure here is deliberate even if it doesn't seem so at first.

[warren oates]

This film is deliberately knotty. And I have to LOL at the idea that Rosenbaum posits that the film values sensation over unified coherence. The structure here is deliberate even if it doesn't seem so at first.

I sort of agree with Rosenbaum. Even my one friend who enjoyed the film took a similar line of argument. Not that the film is secretly subtly coherent, like you say, but that, for him, it didn't need to be because the pleasures of the film were all about the sensations generated in the big scenes between the two lead actors. But I'm most curious about this language of intentional knottiness. I really would like to hear from someone like you who's seen the film and thinks it is successful and coherent about the way in which The Master's structure works.

[Brianruns10]

Honestly, if "The Master" was a film about paint drying, I would've gone to see it, for the fact that he shot in 65mm.

That decision alone earns him especial admiration for me, on top of being a brilliant filmmaker.

[pzadvance]

This film is deliberately knotty. And I have to LOL at the idea that Rosenbaum posits that the film values sensation over unified coherence. The structure here is deliberate even if it doesn't seem so at first.

I sort of agree with Rosenbaum. Even my one friend who enjoyed the film took a similar line of argument. Not that the film is secretly subtly coherent, like you say, but that, for him, it didn't need to be because the pleasures of the film were all about the sensations generated in the big scenes between the two lead actors. But I'm most curious about this language of intentional knottiness. I really would like to hear from someone like you who's seen the film and thinks it is successful and coherent about the way in which The Master's structure works.

I'm not yet to the point where I can structure any sort of coherent argument in defense of this film, though I'm on my way (stay tuned!). I will say that the time period it's set in absolutely amplifies and enhances Freddie's feeling of alienation and this sort of wandering search for answers that I feel much of the country was experiencing in the wake of the war. The Cause's entire philosophy, of abandoning our animalistic impulses and reaching into "past lives" to achieve perfection seems to me a very clear method of reckoning with and attempting to justify the incomprehensible carnage of WWII. That Freddie returns with shades of PTSD makes this a perfect potential solution for his problems, though I think the film ultimately suggests that his issues are more deeply ingrained than that and, likely, beyond resolving.

I'm curious which pointless setpiece you're referring to because one does not immediately leap to mind. Feel free to spoiler tag it if need be.

[warren oates]

This film is deliberately knotty. And I have to LOL at the idea that Rosenbaum posits that the film values sensation over unified coherence. The structure here is deliberate even if it doesn't seem so at first.

I sort of agree with Rosenbaum. Even my one friend who enjoyed the film took a similar line of argument. Not that the film is secretly subtly coherent, like you say, but that, for him, it didn't need to be because the pleasures of the film were all about the sensations generated in the big scenes between the two lead actors. But I'm most curious about this language of intentional knottiness. I really would like to hear from someone like you who's seen the film and thinks it is successful and coherent about the way in which The Master's structure works.

I'm not yet to the point where I can structure any sort of coherent argument in defense of this film, though I'm on my way (stay tuned!). I will say that the time period it's set in absolutely amplifies and enhances Freddie's feeling of alienation and this sort of wandering search for answers that I feel much of the country was experiencing in the wake of the war. The Cause's entire philosophy, of abandoning our animalistic impulses and reaching into "past lives" to achieve perfection seems to me a very clear method of reckoning with and attempting to justify the incomprehensible carnage of WWII. That Freddie returns with shades of PTSD makes this a perfect potential solution for his problems, though I think the film ultimately suggests that his issues are more deeply ingrained than that and, likely, beyond resolving.

I'm curious which pointless setpiece you're referring to because one does not immediately leap to mind. Feel free to spoiler tag it if need be.

Well, I hear you pzadvance. All of that eloquently sketches in the raw material the film had to work with and what it may have been aiming for. I just don't think that the finished film comes anywhere close to making enough of it all. It seems to me that there's just not enough that's quintessentially of that time about Freddie or the way in which the Scientology-like self-help cult is portrayed (as opposed to the actual cult which would be hard to imagine without its founding environment). Since Freddie's personal problems ultimately seem hardly touched on by his work with The Cause, one wonders what was the point of having him encounter it at all. A Dodd figure might have easily exerted the same charisma and advanced the same conflicts with Freddie had he been, say, a mentor in the worlds of crime or commerce. Quite aside from the excellent performance by Phoenix, Freddie's PTSD (if that's even what it is) as it functions within the whole of the film strikes me as particularly generic and obscure. Another way of summing up my problem with this film is that, even for those who like it, the film seems to be a character study above all. And yet the two main characters remain ciphers for me at the end, just as inscrutable as they had been in the first moments we met them. If the journey of the film doesn't reveal or challenge these characters in any meaningful way, why are we watching it?

And the set piece I'm talking about is

Spoiler

the one in the desert where they ride motorcycles for a long time and nothing happens in the most uninteresting way.

[Jeff]

Looking to break the record for per screen average this weekend -- a record set earlier this year by the other Anderson.

[mfunk9786]

Paul W.S. Anderson's gonna fuck both their days up

[Grand Illusion]

I found the the film to be pretty trite and one-note. I can identify a few fundamental flaws why I felt this way.

The first is the impenetrable character. In There Will Be Blood, the impenetrable protagonist was the enigma. We watched this character to learn more about him and his actions and motives. It's important that the main character was the real question of that film.

In The Master, the structure of the film is that of the outsider coming into a brave new world. Joaquin Phoenix plays an impenetrable protagonist, but Phoenix isn't the enigma, The Master is. So we're less interested in the dumb, drunk sailor caricature that heads the film. Further, Phoenix's performance adds nothing of depth to the one-note stereotype nor does Anderson's attempt to add a single humanizing memory of a girl.

We want to try to get inside the Master's world and his motives for starting this group or even helping Phoenix's character. Instead, we're burdened with Phoenix flailing around with a one-note character. And the Master's character is no different. Nor is Amy Adams' character. With the exception of sudden outbursts, Hoffman plays the Master as one would expect. Charismatic at dinner parties, controlling, yada yada yada. It's all very... expected. There is no spontaneity, and, thus, there is no life.

Advancing the feeling of being one-note is that nobody changes or evolves their positions. It makes me feel as if this could've been a nice 20 minute film, but at 2 hours, it more than makes its point, over and over and over. Perhaps if Phoenix's character ever changed, then we could see variances in the Master or the religious group.

Typically, with the "outsider going into a new world" structure, we would see reflections of the world on the main character (see Last King of Scotland for a very classical example). But there is nothing to Phoenix's character that we don't learn in the first two minutes, and as a result we learn nothing about anyone else from his reflection.

The different entities could play off each other. But they don't. Drama is conflict, and there is very little here. So while Anderson's penchant for over-scoring is in full effect, there are few emotions and fewer ideas. Even the bond between the Phoenix and Hoffman seems like a misguided attempt for Anderson to graft on a father/son relationship, that falls completely flat in an ending that

Spoiler

basically just mirrors There Will Be Blood. The "son" returns to the "father." The father is now in an opulent throne room, mildly more successful. And then the father casts away the son.

Overall, it's a good-looking, but very hollow misfire.

[GaryC]

According to the Launching Films site, the UK release has been brought forward a week to 2 November.

[Drucker]

Grand Illusion I quite disagree. Without responding point by point, I feel that Phoenix's character is constantly doing his best and trying to penetrate the Cause's world, but can't do it.

This won't come off eloquently but,

Spoiler

His frustration in not being accepted/not being able to break through in this cult is what I love about the film. He wants to change and to grow, but his efforts ring hollow not for his lack of will, but because maybe there really is nothing there. The Master is arguably full of shit. Laura Dern gets frustrated when "phase 2" or whatever begins, as well. That nothing changes and breakthroughs are often not accomplished I think is what makes the film more realistic and remarkable.

I don't know if he means to condemn religion in general with the film, but that's how I took a deal of it. (Master's procolmation that humans are above, not a part of, the animal kingdom, and such). I think the film was great, and Phoenix's character absolutely helps carry the film.

[movielocke]

Saw this is 70mm at the Arclight (not the dome) on Saturday morning. The projection was at the correct brightness but plagued by stableness issues throughout the film, particularly the first reel. Having spent all summer watching 70mm films at the Samuel Goldwyn, it was disappointing to see the Arclight not live up to that standard--especially as the Arclight was my very first 70mm experience 10 years ago when they ran the Lawrence of Arabia revival.

The photography was wonderful, however, and that is perhaps the best thing I can say about the film. The second best thing I can say about the film is that Amy Adams is subtle in comparison to Phoenix and Hoffman, and this allows her to steal scenes, and in my opinion, steal the movie. All three Actors give tremendous performances, Phoenix is particularly unhinged, perhaps too much so, as the film at times loses any sense of nuance while he chews the scenery every moment he's on screen--he'll probably an oscar frontrunner because it is so showy. To me, his performance reminds me of Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: The Golden Age, way over the top with lots and lots of "acting" so volume=excellence, right? My wife--who Hated this film, she said she'd give it a four if she were feeling generous--said she thought a lot of scenes could have been much better with tiny shifts in the tone, and I think that's an interesting observation as it points to a problem with directing and editing more than acting, imo. I don't 100% agree, but I do feel like the film at times jumps off the rails because it is just drifting from scene to scene that even small shifts in tone at times feel 'wrong' because there isn't enough flow to carry you through the transition of tones that the film wanders between.

However, I think the script is fairly clever in how it approaches the relationships of the three principles and the way that the cult is expanded, there's quite a bit of subtle developments going on throughout the film. I actually feel like there is an obvious and continual direct criticism of Mormonism that has been overlooked because the Scientology parallel is so prominent. Which reminds me, another astute criticism of my wife's was that she said if you didn't have knowledge from outside the film that it is supposed to be about Scientology the film would be even less effective and meaningful, the film is even more dependent on the 'knowledge baggage' an audience member brings to a film than most other 'art' films that rely on an audience being primed with the correct foreknowledge.

This is probably surpassing Boogie Nights to become my least favorite Anderson, but it's still quite well done, even if it is mostly dull and exceedingly slow. Worth seeing once, but never again.

[warren oates]

Grand Illusion I quite disagree. Without responding point by point, I feel that Phoenix's character is constantly doing his best and trying to penetrate the Cause's world, but can't do it. This won't come off eloquently but,

Spoiler

His frustration in not being accepted/not being able to break through in this cult is what I love about the film. He wants to change and to grow, but his efforts ring hollow not for his lack of will, but because maybe there really is nothing there. The Master is arguably full of shit. Laura Dern gets frustrated when "phase 2" or whatever begins, as well. That nothing changes and breakthroughs are often not accomplished I think is what makes the film more realistic and remarkable.

This is why the film just doesn't work for me. You can't tell a story about nothing happening. Not without dramatizing the other possibilities, so we know what we're missing. Somebody has to at least really want a thing to happen that then doesn't and be definitively affected by the non-happening. But the film doesn't even offer us this. And because The Master's motives vis-a-vis Freddie and even his belief in his own shtick are not so well defined, because it's never clear what Freddie actually hopes to achieve from his involvement in the Cause -- however damaged he may be, however much he does play at Dodd's scenarios -- when nothing happens we're left feeling pretty much nothing.

[Grand Illusion]

Grand Illusion I quite disagree. Without responding point by point, I feel that Phoenix's character is constantly doing his best and trying to penetrate the Cause's world, but can't do it.

This won't come off eloquently but,

Spoiler

His frustration in not being accepted/not being able to break through in this cult is what I love about the film. He wants to change and to grow, but his efforts ring hollow not for his lack of will, but because maybe there really is nothing there. The Master is arguably full of shit. Laura Dern gets frustrated when "phase 2" or whatever begins, as well. That nothing changes and breakthroughs are often not accomplished I think is what makes the film more realistic and remarkable.

I don't know if he means to condemn religion in general with the film, but that's how I took a deal of it. (Master's procolmation that humans are above, not a part of, the animal kingdom, and such). I think the film was great, and Phoenix's character absolutely helps carry the film.

There's nothing wrong with a protagonist continuing to fail at his objective over and over. But a couple things needs to happen. The protagonist needs to change up his tactics to achieve his objective (which Phoenix doesn't really do). Or we need to witness some sort of character descent into, as you say, frustration or anguish as he continually fails the same thing over and over. But we don't see that either.

Phoenix starts as a ball of drunken rage and ends that way. And The Master, himself, doesn't really seem affected by Phoenix's failures either. Even The Master's motive to keep putting up with this one-note drunkard is so obfuscated as to only be comprehensible through the prism of Anderson's history of father/son dynamics. As a result, we end up watching the same scene over and over.

Even in the slowest of films, we see evolution in repetition. In Jeanne Dielman, we see the gradual, tiny cracks in her routine. In The Turin Horse, seeing the repetitions at different angles illuminates even the slightest differences in how people eat their potatoes. I don't feel any of this in The Master. Your statement on Hoffman's religious movement that "maybe there really is nothing there" is how I feel about the film.

Anderson is surely criticizing religion. Which is great. But look at what is on-screen, what he's saying. That prophets are charismatic. That someone claiming to know everything is usually full of shit. That they're making stuff up on the fly. That sociopathic loners (like Phoenix) are drawn to religion to belong. It's all so obvious. This should be the starting point. The stuff we all know before we even step into the theater.

And the religious criticism comes off as even more trite with Anderson picking the easiest of targets in Scientology, yet refusing to dig deeper. It feels especially slight in light of a crudely-made YouTube video, targeted at a different religion, setting the world ablaze.

[warren oates]

Even in the slowest of films, we see evolution in repetition. In Jeanne Dielman, we see the gradual, tiny cracks in her routine. In The Turin Horse, seeing the repetitions at different angles illuminates even the slightest differences in how people eat their potatoes. I don't feel any of this in The Master. Your statement on Hoffman's religious movement that "maybe there really is nothing there" is how I feel about the film.

Nicely put. The Master is arguably an even bigger failure in this way, because it's not even aiming for something as avant garde as the Akerman or Tarr films. Its ambitious are more squarely in line with mainstream narrative cinema, where this kind of repetition sans dramatic necessity and context is even less welcome.

Anderson is surely criticizing religion. Which is great. But look at what is on-screen, what he's saying. That prophets are charismatic. That someone claiming to know everything is usually full of shit. That they're making stuff up on the fly. That sociopathic loners (like Phoenix) are drawn to religion to belong. It's all so obvious. This should be the starting point. The stuff we all know before we even step into the theater.

I could not agree more. The film felt like 3/4 set-up to me, as I kept waiting for all this to build to something meaningful and revealtory. The final 1/4 wasn't a payoff so much as an aimless squandering.

[YnEoS]

For me although the film didn't really guide you in any clear path through the character relationships, the events seemed to clearly indicate changes in character as opposed to "nothing" though these changes aren't necessarily spelled out clearly. I probably need to watch it a few more times before I can fully flesh out my take on the film, but here's my rough take on it.

Spoiler

For me it seemed predominantly about the process of how one gets wrapped up in such a cult. Freddie is possibly the last person you'd ever expect to get wrapped up in such an isolated world of people so detached from reality. Similarly he's the ultimate test for them as the stereotypical disillusioned veteran who's most in need of help.

As *I think) he states, he initially interested in them because of how silly they are and plays along with their games because he's bored and looking for something new. Ultimately all the games they play force the feeling of help by forcing people, like Freddie, to dig deep and talk about all the incredibly personal emotional baggage of their past, without offering any useful insight into the problems.

The film illustrates how the various games slowly strip you of your personality, for example forcing someone not to react when something clearly upsetting is said to them, and constantly forcing a person to restart the game if it's not played properly. Ultimately we see that the purpose of these games is not to actually help someone, as they all require a person to continue to be dependent on the cult rather than trying to re-integrate into society.

I think what's interesting is that Freddie who's been through so much more than this cloistered group of people also has the built in bullshit detector for all the games. Yet he's also able to throw himself deeper and more aggressively into the cult than anyone else, since for him it's not simply a minor distraction from a fairly boring life. But in the end having been the most fanatical of followers he's able to see the cult for what it really is, and ultimately leave it to confront his issues from himself rather than playing silly games with a bunch of people who seem to have very little interesting happening with their lives.

I think what's interesting about the final confrontation in the end is that Freddie has used them to come to a personal revelation and be able to help himself (he hasn't resolved all his issues, but he's confronted them). And in the end it is revealed that ultimately Dodd was much more emotionally dependent on Freddie. He sees his leaving as some sort of ultimate betrayal (across lifetimes), when really him deciding to go sort out things for himself should've been his ultimate goal if he really had Freddie's best interests in mind.

I really think such a subtle and vague approach is necessary when making a film about Scientology especially post-South Park and everyone else doing their scientology parody. I think it wisely decides to examine the characters and processes involved in such a cult rather than simply poking fun of it, and making the criticism on aspect of that world rather than the intent of the movie. I also suspect Anderson is getting in his little jabs with lines like "If I see you in my next life, you will be my sworn enemy", though they're subtler and ultimately funnier because of serious they are to the characters involved.

Perhaps some of these points are a bit too murky and could be fleshed out better, but I don't think this film is quite the mysterious cipher of nothing that some people seem to be making it out to be.

[warren oates]

The film illustrates how the various games slowly strip you of your personality, for example forcing someone not to react when something clearly upsetting is said to them, and constantly forcing a person to restart the game if it's not played properly. Ultimately we see that the purpose of these games is not to actually help someone, as they all require a person to continue to be dependent on the cult rather than trying to re-integrate into society.

This idea is definitely present in the film, but I'd argue that the film fails to convey it dramatically. The audience may see the pointlessness of the games because of its relative distance from the action, but it's still not a given for us or any of the characters because we don't see the way in which it's specifically helping/not helping Freddie or a number of other characters.

I think what's interesting is that Freddie who's been through so much more than this cloistered group of people also has the built in bullshit detector for all the games. Yet he's also able to throw himself deeper and more aggressively into the cult than anyone else, since for him it's not simply a minor distraction from a fairly boring life. But in the end having been the most fanatical of followers he's able to see the cult for what it really is, and ultimately leave it to confront his issues from himself rather than playing silly games with a bunch of people who seem to have very little interesting happening with their lives..

Except he arguably doesn't throw himself into it more deeply -- as we have no real baseline for his need or commitment since we don't see or know much of Freddie beforehand, nor see much of anyone else's personal movement through the Cause. And though he is more physically violent in his defense of challenges to Dodd than other followers (arguably not a sign of anything, since this is how Freddie reacts to things beforehand too), Freddie's also not ultimately really fanatical in his belief or devotion to the Cause, nor does he break definitively from the Cause because of some moment of clarity so much as he passively slides back into drifting.

The lack of an arc for Freddie's progress (or lack thereof) via the Cause can be seen partly in the way that most of the self-help exercises are dispatched with cinematically: as a montage. Not just because the repetition is almost all there is to it, but also because with no way to know what's really at stake for Freddie -- what he wants/needs/hopes for/fears -- there's no interesting or meaningful way to track his own internal emotional idea of his progress. Regardless of whether any of it can be seen objectively to be working/helping him or not.

[rs98762001]

Glad to see that most people aren't falling for the hype on here. It felt like a thinly conceived ten-page story stretched out to interminable lengths.

[mfunk9786]

I saw this today, and am still digesting it. It's a difficult masterpiece to be sure, but one that refuses to be translated into a day-of review. There is so much great stuff here. I'll post more after my second or third viewing. Such a bloody relief to see a film that not only doesn't insist on holding my hand, but outright refuses.

[warren oates]

Ignaty Vishnevetsky's Mubi.com review. Not to be confused with his review of the new Paul W.S. Anderson joint.