criterionforum.org

Keep in mind that this story is episodic in nature and presumably takes place over years

Spoiler

I assumed it was only a matter of months, what with Amy's pregnancy...

Joe Buck wrote:Keep in mind that this story is episodic in nature and presumably takes place over years

Spoiler

I assumed it was only a matter of months, what with Amy's pregnancy...

Ah. Good point. I think my point still stands though. A lot presumably "happens", but nobody is affected by it.

Grand Illusion wrote:

Joe Buck wrote:Keep in mind that this story is episodic in nature and presumably takes place over years

Spoiler

I assumed it was only a matter of months, what with Amy's pregnancy...

Ah. Good point. I think my point still stands though. A lot presumably "happens", but nobody is affected by it.

It won't come as a surprise that I agree with this and I enjoyed reading your longer post this morning. This is the distinction I was trying to make yesterday between "plot" (stuff happening) and "story" (stuff happening that matters to characters/audience).

I like the films you've cited as examples of less conventional character arcing/revelation, especially Nobody Knows and There Will Be Blood. From my perspective, I'd say that Daniel Plainview could be seen to reveal himself gradually, though I'd tilt toward saying he changes from say, a hard-hearted if not ruthless rugged individual self-made capitalist to a greed-poisoned kleptocratic sociopath. A smaller, less conventional arc -- from the borderline of neutral/bad to the depths of worse/worst -- but a clear one nonetheless.

warren oates wrote:

Grand Illusion wrote:

Joe Buck wrote:Keep in mind that this story is episodic in nature and presumably takes place over years

Spoiler

I assumed it was only a matter of months, what with Amy's pregnancy...

Ah. Good point. I think my point still stands though. A lot presumably "happens", but nobody is affected by it.

It won't come as a surprise that I agree with this and I enjoyed reading your longer post this morning. This is the distinction I was trying to make yesterday between "plot" (stuff happening) and "story" (stuff happening that matters to characters/audience).

I like the films you've cited as examples of less conventional character arcing/revelation, especially Nobody Knows and There Will Be Blood. From my perspective, I'd say that Daniel Plainview could be seen to reveal himself gradually, though I'd tilt toward saying he changes from say, a hard-hearted if not ruthless rugged individual self-made capitalist to a greed-poisoned kleptocratic sociopath. A smaller, less conventional arc -- from the borderline of neutral/bad to the depths of worse/worst -- but a clear one nonetheless.

Interesting that we were on opposite sides of this discussion with regards to Cosmopolis. :p

Just arranged a trip to NYC Oct. 2 to see this at Village East in 70mm. Absurdly excited.

CSM126 wrote:Just arranged a trip to NYC Oct. 2 to see this at Village East in 70mm. Absurdly excited.

You won't be disappointed. Gorgeous theater. Hang out in Central Park right afterwards.

Central Park is a pretty long hike from Village East.

Like Grand Illusion, I don't think Freddie changes. But I'm of the opinion that this was what the film was shooting for. I see the film in pretty simple terms, though. Freddie stumbles around life and bumps into Dodd, gives it the old college try at trying to "fit in" with the promise of being more "civilized"... and Dodd tries his damndest to help him. But in the end, the project was a failure. He is what he is. If you want to cite *any* change, it's that Freddie is slightly more self aware than he was before. But that's it. He'll still fuck and drink and beat the crap out of people who piss him off. As Amy said in her last scene, Freddie simply doesn't want to change.

I see the film about characters and opposing forces, but it's not about a character "arc". Perhaps that would have made the film more emotionally involving. Though I think the current one is interesting on an objective level too, in a similar way that Imamura was doing in Vengeance is Mine. He shows a bunch of scenes to you about the subject character, but in the end, they all seem to add up to the same impenetrable conclusion--the subject simply is what he is. Whether this works as *well* in The Master as it does in that film, well, that is something to be furthered pondered over.

The Narrator Returns wrote:
- Seriously, how great was Joaquin Phoenix in this movie? The Academy should just hand him his Oscar (and they shouldn't wimp out and nominate him as a supporting actor, as it often the case)

His name is the first name to pop up during the credits. He is unquestionably the lead in this film. I am honestly baffled as to why there were some people speculating he would get a supporting nom instead.

mfunk9786 wrote:Central Park is a pretty long hike from Village East.

I got it confused with Lincoln Square and I don't know how. #-o

jojo wrote:I am honestly baffled as to why there were some people speculating he would get a supporting nom instead.

I think there's speculation, because the Weinstein brothers are, above all, experts at collecting oscars, and they're known for these kinds of tactics. Phoenix and Hoffman both give great performances, and the last thing the Weinsteins want is for the two to both get Best Actor nods and subsequently cancel each other out.

I think the odds are strong they'll push Hoffman for supporting, and Phoenix for lead, to maximize their chances to win. It's cynical, it's cheap, but then again, we're talking Hollywood, which is all about awards.

Even though he's the title character and gets a lot of screen time, Hoffman's character does play a supporting role to the lead male. That's why that distinction exists in the first place.

I'm based out of Vancouver which places a hefty price tag on 70mm. For this reason I'm planning to see The Master in 70mm coast-to-coast this week flying out of Seattle to New York. From the Cinerama to AMC Loews Lincoln Square.

I always try to fit in a truly special movie event whenever I get away (My last involved being introduced Thelma Schoonmaker!) so I'm delighted to have such an opportunity. I really appreciate that the marketing material seems to consist of moments not even in the movie. I don't know what I'm in for besides some sumptuous cinema.

mfunk9786 wrote:Even though he's the title character and gets a lot of screen time, Hoffman's character does play a supporting role to the lead male. That's why that distinction exists in the first place.

Yes. I wonder if those people a few days ago who were saying "Phoenix for Best Supporting Actor!" even saw the film.

It's a credit to Hoffman's performance that he has such great presence in the film, but he really is not the lead.

In interviews, Anderson has suggested that The Master followed an even looser development process than his previous scripts, with him instinctually putting a variety of elements together just to see how they would work out. (Versions of the script that were leaked during the film’s shooting were quite different from the finished product.) So, consider the possibility then that, on some basic level, The Master may actually be less about its ostensible story and more about its surfaces. It’s about putting the needy, nervous angularity of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance next to the avuncular, comfy generosity of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s, and seeing what develops, what ecosystems of character are formed in the back-and-forth between these figures.

I know this isn't the only interpretation of the film the piece offers, but isn't this essentially a cop out? A rationalization of a failed experiment? Is it not an artist's job to not merely "see what develops", but guide the development to a coherent end? How can one possibly support the idea of director-as-author - of a singular personality or worldview expressing itself through a work - if this is all there is to it?

If, as the piece further argues, that the film's best scenes are little more than experiments in method acting, wouldn't that make Phoenix and Hoffman (rather than Anderson) the real authors of The Master?

No

I've got to agree with king on what that copout says. Especially since if that was the case why bother with any story and not just let them riff against each other? It is a very flawed argument to say the least.

As much as I've agreed with King of the Jungle about The Master in the past, I'll have to disagree here a little. The bit he quotes above is precisely how I can make the most sense of my experience of the film. Like Jeff said earlier in this thread, The Master's not really about Scientology. It's also for me and a few others not really about its other ostensible ideas/themes like PTSD, post WWII masculinity, etc. What's foregrounded and what remains are exceptional performances that aren't necessarily backed up by the most carefully structured or deeply felt storytelling.

And still, if that's what The Master is, the interesting result of lots of on-set invention and structured improvisation, I have no doubt that Anderson's absolutely the auteur of the film. He is, after all, the one who cast the actors and created all of the conditions in which the actors could feel so free to play. And he's the one who choose the results in editing that seemed most compelling to him and put them in order for the final cut. Regardless of how loosely he hewed to his own script, the film didn't direct itself.

That said, I'll mention Cassavetes once again as someone who really understood both solid dramatic writing and how to utilize improvisation before and during production to augment his films' stories. And, like I said before, Anderson's experiments in this kind of territory would likely have been better served by a more simple storyworld.

warren oates wrote:Like Jeff said earlier in this thread, The Master's not really about Scientology. It's also for me and a few others not really about its other ostensible ideas/themes like PTSD, post WWII masculinity, etc. What's foregrounded and what remains are exceptional performances that aren't necessarily backed up by the most carefully structured or deeply felt storytelling.

I agree with this. My problem with saying that The Master is "about" the performances (i.e. putting two divergent characters together and seeing what happens) is twofold. First, it would seem a rather modest achievement for something heralded as a major work. Secondly, it seems a transparent effort to shift the debate away from the film's significant weakness (narrative underdevelopment) by deigning it a triviality.

warren oates wrote:And still, if that's what The Master is, the interesting result of lots of on-set invention and structured improvisation, I have no doubt that Anderson's absolutely the auteur of the film. He is, after all, the one who cast the actors and created all of the conditions in which the actors could feel so free to play. And he's the one who choose the results in editing that seemed most compelling to him and put them in order for the final cut. Regardless of how loosely he hewed to his own script, the film didn't direct itself.

I can see your point, but I think this a rather passive role for an artist to play - more that of a managing editor than an author. But perhaps the piece we're debating is correct, and this is simply where I diverge from Anderson philosophically. My gripes about lack of clarity could certainly have been resolved with some more deliberate shaping and guiding.

warren oates wrote:That said, I'll mention Cassavetes once again as someone who really understood both solid dramatic writing and how to utilize improvisation before and during production to augment his films' stories. And, like I said before, Anderson's experiments in this kind of territory would likely have been better served by a more simple storyworld.

Totally agree here.

kingofthejungle wrote:I know this isn't the only interpretation of the film the piece offers, but isn't this essentially a cop out? A rationalization of a failed experiment? Is it not an artist's job to not merely "see what develops", but guide the development to a coherent end? How can one possibly support the idea of director-as-author - of a singular personality or worldview expressing itself through a work - if this is all there is to it?

I'm wary of commenting, since I haven't seen the film nor read that article, but I see nothing wrong with the methodology outlined in that paragraph. I'll admit that I'm suspicious of any film that comes to "absolute conclusions". I find this, if it's indeed what the film does, represents something quite sophisticated, giving both Freddie and Lancaster equal footing, refusing to pass any condemnation or veneration on either. Which to put it in other terms: all Anderson does is create a thesis and antithesis, but instead of providing the synthesis himself (something that would be suspect, if not artificial) he allows it to emerge organically simply by exploring and complicating the interplay between the two (which ultimately is the work of the audience, in turning create a thesis-antithesis relationship between film and viewer). I don't find this to be a "cop out" on the part of the auteur, but if anything, perhaps the only way to tell a story: to give oneself up the ambiguity that constitutes the world.

To sum it up in one strawman argument: how great an anti-war film is All Quiet on the Western Front if war still happens? (And no, I don't believe everybody seeing the film would change a thing). There's a limit to "messages" and a filmmaker and film needs to be aware of that.

Then again, I'm a Robin Wood Incoherent Text-devotee, so what the fuck do I know?

A decent number of auteurs work in the mode of taking elements and experimenting with them. It's certainly possible to mix together certain things in a cauldron (such as acclaimed actors, Scientology, post-war ennui, unbridled sexuality, Lady Macbeth), stir it up, and see what you get. After all, someone is still the chef in that situation.

But on the other hand, if you haven't figured out what your film is about during development or pre-production, then you just have less time to come together with a coherent piece during production and post-production. Simply put, if you want to stumble into the dark, then you have a greater chance of falling down.

Cohesiveness is important, and that's something that The Master lacks. Its scenes don't progress, and the film says everything it can in the first twenty or so minutes. The film has a point of view (different from "a message"), but it doesn't evolve that point of view as the scenes tend to repeat themselves without further illumination.

Maybe the film was damned from the script phase; I don't know. But if Anderson entered production without having a clue what he wanted to say, then he knew he was taking a risk of failure.

"Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war." - Sun Tzu

Anderson's been making movies without knowing exactly what they were going to be or what they were about since at least Magnolia, and it's a known quality in his work at this point. It was a feature of his style I knew going into the film, and it did not feel any less cohesive than There Will Be Blood to me.

The film does progress (insofar as the relationship between the central characters develops depth and nuance, and the performances therefore change shape to reflect the different facets of the relationship) and it does not repeat itself (to cite an example brought up previously, calling something like the progression from the fairly straightforward psychology/hypnotism session of the 'What is your name?" sequence to the outright deconstructive psychological warfare of the wall touching thing repetition seems to expect a total incoherency from the movie, as though it should not build upon the foundations it lays.) It's hard not to read a lot of the criticisms claiming otherwise as being from people who just want a different movie, and attributing the perceived failures of the film to one of the key elements of Anderson's style just reinforces that impression.

matrixschmatrix wrote:The film does progress (insofar as the relationship between the central characters develops depth and nuance, and the performances therefore change shape to reflect the different facets of the relationship) and it does not repeat itself (to cite an example brought up previously, calling something like the progression from the fairly straightforward psychology/hypnotism session of the 'What is your name?" sequence to the outright deconstructive psychological warfare of the wall touching thing repetition seems to expect a total incoherency from the movie, as though it should not build upon the foundations it lays.)

Some of this perceived progress is inevitable in any film. Kuleshov effect meet modern neuroscience and narrative theory (see The Storytelling Animal by Jonathan Gotschall). After this, therefore because of this. The perception of progress, of implied cause and effect, is hardwired into the human brain's way of taking in the world and it's a quality that's uniquely attuned to filmic narrative, which plays on our most basic instincts. When we see stuff happen in sequence our lizard brain immediately begins assigning cause and effect, just in case we need that information to survive: red light mean stop! run red light mean crash! no run red light!

But that's not to say that The Master successfully dramatizes or narrates its events in such a way that the progression is understood to matter to the characters -- that the stakes of these movements are clear for Freddie -- or to the audience. The example you're citing above, about Freddie's training is a curious one to me. Because on the one hand, you're right, the training gets more intense. But on the other hand, we never get a feel for what's actually at stake for Freddie in any of it. Whether he thinks/feels he's progressing, what it means to him if he succeeds or fails, how he'd measure the results for himself or how Dodd would. This would not be unlike saying that a film about quarreling lovers progresses because the lovers shout louder and throw more stuff in each subsequent scene. Unless we understand the content of the stuff they're saying to each other, we have no idea how hurtful or deep the fight has gone. Unless we know that he's breaking her favorite vase, we have no context for his deliberate decision to do so. I think that this is a part of why much of Freddie's Cause training is condensed into montage. Because it lacks dramatic stakes/context anyway, and there's no real tension or suspense, so what's the point of drawing it out? Which is unfortunately the way that training montages work in most films that have them.

An even better example that's been brought up previously int the thread are Freddie's

Spoiler

two violent assaults on Cause apostates. First, after that initial processing session, he beats up an outspoken fancy party dissenter. Then he later pummels a true believer and adherent of the Cause who just thinks Dodd is crap writer padding out pamphlets to book length. What does either one of these assaults mean to Freddie? How is either one of the interactions different from the way he might have handled a challenge in the first few minutes of the film? How is the second beating different from the first? Is there actual progress from one beating to another in terms of Freddie's decision-making? Is his lack of progress the point?

matrixschmatrix wrote:It's hard not to read a lot of the criticisms claiming otherwise as being from people who just want a different movie, and attributing the perceived failures of the film to one of the key elements of Anderson's style just reinforces that impression.

If's that's the case, how come most of us Master dissenters really like much or all of Anderson's other work? Have we been too dense to grasp these so-called key elements before? Or were they just papered-over in his earlier films by the handholding gestures of phony character arcs and other crowd-pleasing accoutrements from the entire history of human storytelling that PTA has now transcended?

Has warren oates broken the record yet for Most Posts in a Thread for a Film You Didn't Like?

I dunno, James Mills was pretty obsessed with Winter's Bone