Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:01 am
so is this it are we breaking up
That's interesting. Personally, I wouldn't agree as some of the best art I've ever had the pleasure of encountering I had no idea who the the director, musician, painter was but, it was thru their work I gained a better understanding of the world. Therefore I would certainly argue that art is a lot more about the audience than the artist. After all, how many times have we read about people taking a deeper meaning in something that was nowhere near the artist's intention?Grand Illusion wrote:Why do we look at any piece of art? For me, it's to get an understanding of how the artist views the world.
Where is the confusion in what makes Freddy or Lancaster tick? To me they're very much caricatures of archetypes that we are very familiar with and not per say characters at all. Further clarity would likely strike me as unnecessary, if not irritating. Furthermore, why was it necessary to show him be traumatized? It's not clear to me how a resolution on this, whether uplifting or bleak would change much about The Master.Aspect wrote:Many of us are here on the Criterion Forum because we love films that make us think. The classics in this area include L'Avventura, L'Eclisse, Blow Up, 8 1/2, Persona, anything by Bunuel or Tarkovsky, etc. The difference between those films and The Master is that they were attempting to be more unconventionally enigmatic, while at the same time being more intellectually cohesive, than The Master tries to be. In those films, we have character information and dramatic information at our disposals. What our minds must fill in are the thematic and intellectual elements. Every scene, line of dialogue, and action illuminates a clearly articulated theme and the films all end after having tremendous, traumatic effect on the main characters and, by proxy, the audience. We're not confused about what makes the characters tick. That information is supposed to be there, and it's not hard to provide it in a quick and efficient manner fusing action and dialogue. There's an arc to the proceedings; even if a character started out in an empty place, they were in an even bleaker, emptier philosophical place by the end.
I'm not sure the characters in The Master are in different places when the credits roll than they were at the beginning.... He doesn't seem traumatized by what happened to him. We needed him to be traumatized. As viewers, we wanted to be traumatized.
To be clear having read thru your p15 post, one note because Freddy remains unchanged?Grand Illusion wrote:And no, I don't think the film is deep. I think it's trite and one-note, but proceeds to replay that one note over and over again. Because of that, I'm not going to give the filmmaker credit. If I'm doing all the heavy lifting, then that's just projection.
I was reminded of M. Hulot. I also couldn't decide if this posture was meant to be a sign of back problems from war injuries, or just some drunken buffoonishness on his part.HistoryProf wrote:an even quirkier distraction for me that I must ask if anyone else noted was the persistent hunched posture Joaquin adopted with the hands of his hips stance sort of shown here:
It was really bugging me every time he stood like this as I felt like he was using something from a previous film...something he'd done elsewhere. about 2/3 of the way through it hit me: it wasn't something he'd done, it was Forrest Gump. that was difficult to ignore for the rest of the film!

I would say that we gain a better understanding of the world by witnessing an alternate perspective, which is the artists'. I'm not saying that that biography of the artist is important. But their viewpoint is important. At the very least, it's important insofar as it shapes what the final piece of art will be. Even if they abandon it to the audience's own interpretation.Black Hat wrote:That's interesting. Personally, I wouldn't agree as some of the best art I've ever had the pleasure of encountering I had no idea who the the director, musician, painter was but, it was thru their work I gained a better understanding of the world. Therefore I would certainly argue that art is a lot more about the audience than the artist. After all, how many times have we read about people taking a deeper meaning in something that was nowhere near the artist's intention?
Not just Freddie. Everything beyond the 20-30 minute mark remains unchanged. Freddie, Freddie's actions, The Cause, Dodd, Amy MacBeth, the environment, the dinner parties, the milieu. Those are a fine 20 minutes, but after that, the film stagnates. The same themes are repeated, played out in different situations (Processing with no blinking this time; Freddie sexualizes naked party guests instead of a sand woman; Freddie drinks Lysol instead of a jet fuel; Dodd preaches to a book store instead of a dinner party; etc.).To be clear having read thru your p15 post, one note because Freddy remains unchanged?
I was responding to a quote that said that the depth isn't on screen.Also, in general I don't think agree that projection is necessarily a bad thing. Why do you feel that it is?
Do you often expect others to do something for you that you could better do yourself?Grand Illusion wrote:I'm not really asking for a "messsage". Just a point of view or a vision or some entree into this world. Every cut is a choice, yet I feel like the edit is arbitrary. The artists' job is to make me care. About something.
Just as clarification, what I said above doesn't need to be pun-like. A good example of expansive ambiguity is The Innocents, where each event could either be the act of ghosts or the product of a disturbed mind. And the movie achieves its full effect when these two meanings are held equally in the mind. That's how this kind of ambiguity works: by having all the separate meanings be present at each moment in the mind of the viewer.onedimension wrote:...or in terms of conveying multiple meanings, like a pun...
I think that's another really key moment in the film, perhaps ambiguous in intention but thematically very resonant. Compare the emotion during that processing scene to the intensity of the first one Freddie had with Dodd (or indeed, the intensity of several of their meetings). The Cause may all be an elaborate ruse but there was something undeniably powerful about that first encounter, something in those probing personal questions that pierced Freddie to his core. It was, in one way or another, something of a spiritual experience for him. To see him recreate this moment so limply and so casually with someone he'll likely never see again is simultaneously sad and frightening. Sad because it's such a pale, pathetic imitation of the bond he had with Dodd, and frightening in how it hints at Freddie's potential (or at least longing) to perhaps one day become his mentor.onedimension wrote:Take Quill's scene at the end where he starts 'processing' the girl he went to bed with
Yeah I see this criticism. For me I felt the repetition served its purpose as I saw the film's vision as misanthropic. The lack of evolution in characters showing how people are ultimately incapable of changing but, at the same time the lack of creativity within these scenes is indeed somewhat lazy.Grand Illusion wrote:But even then, I still find the film repetitive.
What I think is valid about saying that the film doesn't have a point of view is that a film, one that runs 2 hours and 20 minutes, better be pretty damn interesting to take up that amount of time. One way to interest me (and many other critics/posters who have cited the same problem) is to present an new way of looking at the world, a new viewpoint, a vision.
Well I think that's exactly it. 'Cults' or anything cult-like do possess a lot of grey area within them. I personally liked that it didn't fall on one side or the other showing, just like anything else, there's good and bad. Not sure why it would be necessary to depict it one way or the other.onedimension wrote:in the way it left indeterminate (to my mind, on one viewing) some key questions- the nature or character of 'the Cause' (it doesn't seem to me depicted "unambiguously" as a cult or a benevolent movement... Take Quill's scene at the end where he starts 'processing' the girl he went to bed with- when he stops and laughs about it, how do you interpret it? Is he laughing because he has positive distance and has been 'released' from the grips of a cult, is he laughing because he's 'healed' and able to have healthy relationships, or is he laughing because he's an 'animal' and he never took any of Dodd's work seriously?
Yes! I'm blown away that it took so long for somebody to bring this up. I wasn't particularly moved by The Master, but I found this scene breathtaking. Among other things, it spoke to my great longing to see a modern film about 1950's fashion and film photography, two great passions of mine. The Ella Fitzgerald song itself is gorgeous & it's seemingly choreographed to the visuals with an almost balletic effect. The girl in this scene, Amy Ferguson, is a former model and that really comes through in her movement as she circles the store saying "Forty-nine ninety-five." Also, the lighting set-ups (and styling) of the couples and children and teenagers as Phoenix was photographing them was just spot-on to the kind of portrait photography being done in the era.Michael wrote:Saw The Master again today. I was struck once again by how much I loved the department store scene. My favorite scene of the entire film. I could watch three hours of that scene stretched out. So beautiful and perfect.
I think that's the one they started with when Jeremey Renner was cast as Quell and the financing fell apart and rehearsals w/ Renner, PTA and PSH left the last two disheartened and PSH told PTA that the interesting part of the story was Queel not Dodd. My understanding is that was all late 2010.aberfoyle wrote:I found a posted script online that appears to match up with the early version described earlier in this thread.
http://yardsofgrapevine.files.wordpress ... -draft.pdf
I'm about 2/3 through reading it but so far it makes a whole lot more sense as a narrative than what ended up in the film, which I've seen twice.
I saw this and it was damned delightful. Slashfilm basically breaks it all down but it featured a lot of the missing bits from the script I detailed in an earlier post. I love that Anderson puts some effort into the presentation of this extra material--much like he did on the Punch-Drunk Love DVD, this functions more as a 20-minute companion piece, a short film in its own right, rather than just a series of excised scenes.domino harvey wrote:PTA screens 20-minute reel of deleted scenes, will appear on Blu/DVD