PDA

View Full Version : The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)



Boner M
09-11-2012, 04:04 AM
IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/)

http://media2.firstshowing.net/firstshowing/img4/TheMasterBlueTheatricalPosterf ull4.jpg

Boner M
09-11-2012, 04:18 AM
Wow this wasn't good to see at 8:30am after 4hrs of sleep.

It's definitely a step forward for PTA in its sheer craft, even if it's his most problematic film since Magnolia. Oblique to a fault at points, though that could've just been my early morning grogginess speaking. As a period piece, it's utterly transporting; and its evocation of postwar malaise is spot-on. Most of all, the love story at its centre is really sad and tragic in a low-key, elusive way, and I found it way more emotionally affecting than TWBB for that reason. Phoenix is magisterial, and Hoffman exciting for the first time in ages. The final scenes pack a quiet punch.

The 70mm was guhhhhhhhh

"PIGFUCK"

Boner M
09-11-2012, 04:32 AM
Kent Jones' piece (http://www.filmcomment.com/article/the-master-paul-thomas-anderson-review), as ever, is magnificent.

Pop Trash
09-11-2012, 04:52 AM
Kent Jones' piece (http://www.filmcomment.com/article/the-master-paul-thomas-anderson-review), as ever, is magnificent.

Weird...I was just in the middle of reading this, and yes, it is superb. Who knew Jones had all this knowledge of old weird Americana?

Pop Trash
09-11-2012, 05:05 AM
I think it's funny that the pop-up shows for this were simultaneously geared towards our insta/interwebz/twitter age (I GET TO SEE THE MASTER B4 U HAHA!) but the movie itself is so densely not made for a few sentence insta-review (SAW DA MASTER LOL WUT?!).

Watashi
09-11-2012, 05:56 AM
The 70mm was guhhhhhhhh


Is this good or bad?

Derek
09-11-2012, 07:00 AM
I think it's funny that the pop-up shows for this were simultaneously geared towards our insta/interwebz/twitter age (I GET TO SEE THE MASTER B4 U HAHA!) but the movie itself is so densely not made for a few sentence insta-review (SAW DA MASTER LOL WUT?!).

Twitter is the bane of film criticism, though primarily because most critics aren't as pithy as they think they are. And b/c pithiness in criticism gets really fucking old, really fucking quick.


Is this good or bad?

It's PTA in 70mm. It can't be a bad thing.

Milky Joe
09-11-2012, 07:33 AM
Cannot fn wait

baby doll
09-11-2012, 10:54 AM
I eagerly await Armond White's review.

Ezee E
09-11-2012, 03:38 PM
To continue from the other thread, I think it was Pop Trash that said PTA got self-indulgent after Boogie Nights with some of the choices he made in Magnolia. I watched it again yesterday, and I think it was the movie after that in which he had the biggest ego explosion on film. I love Punchdrunk Love still, don't get me wrong... I think it's a great thing to get out of him so that it led to the ways of TWBB.

The sequence in which Emily Watson asks out Adam Sandler is so perfect and strange, best thing about the movie.

baby doll
09-11-2012, 04:16 PM
Does anybody else find it vaguely depressing/creepy how people seemed to be praising this movie as a masterpiece even before it premiered? Obviously I want to like this movie (as I've liked all of Anderson's previous films), but after all the fanboy drooling over each trailer and clip to be leaked online, I have to admit that a part of me was hoping that reviewers would uniformly hate it just to see the online shit storm that would occur. After all, the fact that nerds have taken to issuing fatwas against reviewers for critical heresies like bashing Christopher Nolan movies indicates that the principal function of a reviewer is merely to ratify the hype. Or to put it another way, the reason that reviewers' annual ten best lists are so depressingly similar is that awards season hype has a way of making certain films seem important while consigning others (perhaps equally deserving of attention) to oblivion; specifically, looking back on last year, would as many reviewers have put A Separation--as good as it is--on their ten best lists had it been distributed by Strand Releasing (instead of Sony Pictures Classics) and opened in March rather than December?

Mr. McGibblets
09-11-2012, 04:24 PM
After all, the fact that nerds have taken to issuing fatwas against reviewers for critical heresies like bashing Christopher Nolan movies indicates that the principal function of a reviewer is merely to ratify the hype.

That might be what a few hundred people on the internet think the function of a reviewer is, but it's a gargantuan leap to go from there to declaring that's what their function actually is.

Sven
09-11-2012, 04:25 PM
Does anybody else find it vaguely depressing/creepy how people seemed to be praising this movie as a masterpiece even before it premiered?

Happens all the time. I'm surprised you're asking the question.

Dead & Messed Up
09-13-2012, 01:58 AM
Bought my ticket. Excite.

Watashi
09-14-2012, 10:09 AM
Good movie is good.

MadMan
09-14-2012, 07:34 PM
Or maybe perhaps reviewers actually think the movies they see are really great, and that other reviewers also thought those movies were great, and so those movies crack the best of the year lists. Shocking, I know...

Watashi
09-15-2012, 06:42 AM
I really want to write a lot about this because it's just so mesmerizing.

I really don't think the structure is that complex. At the film's center beyond the parallels to Scientology, is the story about two lonely men who wrestle with being in control and out-of-control on a daily basis.

I don't know if it was intentional, but I spotted a lot of influence of Ernest Hemingway all throughout The Master. The film could work as a visual companion to The Sun Also Rises and the rise and fall of the Lost Generation. Freddie is the ultimate modernist character who relies on alcohol, sex, violence, and endless wandering to wash away his post-war psyche. He's always trying to run away yet somehow gets roped back into the world he's trying to escape.

I want to see this again as soon as possible.

Pop Trash
09-15-2012, 08:28 PM
I don't know if it was intentional, but I spotted a lot of influence of Ernest Hemingway all throughout The Master. The film could work as a visual companion to The Sun Also Rises and the rise and fall of the Lost Generation. Freddie is the ultimate modernist character who relies on alcohol, sex, violence, and endless wandering to wash away his post-war psyche. He's always trying to run away yet somehow gets roped back into the world he's trying to escape.

I want to see this again as soon as possible.

Right...Steinbeck is another literary allusion. Grapes of Wrath in the vegetable fields, Of Mice and Men with JP's character having a Lennie ability to keep fucking everything up, Cannery Row in the coastal setting and the metaphor of the sea "washing up" disperate people together.

I also really need to see this again to grasp a lot of it.

Dead & Messed Up
09-16-2012, 03:04 AM
This was excellent, and the melancholy was just so intense and vivid. By the end, I was deeply sad...in a good way. I just kept thinking, "This man needs help...and this man truly wants to help...but this is all so toxic." My chief complaint - a minor one - is that there were all these intriguing characters at the sides, but Anderson will at most give them a scene or two to show us their story. Maybe. I wanted moar.

I couldn't decide if Joaquin Pheonix was channeling Shaggy from Scooby-Doo or a dying vulture. Either way, lovely work.

baby doll
09-16-2012, 12:12 PM
Or maybe perhaps reviewers actually think the movies they see are really great, and that other reviewers also thought those movies were great, and so those movies crack the best of the year lists. Shocking, I know...I'm not saying they don't like these movies, just that their top ten lists are systematically skewed towards late-year releases--in part, because these films are fresh in their memories, but also the climate of hype which makes some movies seem "big" and others "small." That said, obviously the vast majority of reviewers aren't interested in challenging movies (Dan Kois, Anthony Lane, Christy Lemire, Leonard Maltin, Rex Reed, Peter Travers, to a lesser extent Roger Ebert), and are perfectly content to cheerlead for whatever Harvey Weinstein has on tap for this year (hence, The Artist cleaning up at last year's New York Film Critics Circle Awards).

ledfloyd
09-16-2012, 06:00 PM
i would argue that Paul Thomas Anderson directing a film alone makes it seem "big" in comparison to other movies. his pedigree separates it from your typical late-season hype machine like The Artist.

Derek
09-17-2012, 05:41 AM
Yeah, this was fantastic. I mean goddamn, does PTA get great performances out of just about all his actors or what? I certainly disagree with Boner's "oblique to a fault" complaint since the alternative is having more clearly defined character motivations, which for me, would ruin what's so fascinating and complex about Phoenix's character. He's not merely a drifter attempting to escape the world or his "demons" through booze and sex; he's a primal force that defies categorization and flies in the face of all forms of systematization (social, psychological, scientific and mystical) simply through his innate ability, or perhaps compulsion, to follow his own instincts without being hampered by a need to conform, seek approval of others or, especially, see the world in absolutes. He really is representative of the birth of modernism, both in his post-war outsider role (although I liked that PTA is purposefully ambiguous about how much the war actually reshaped his psyche since it seemed like he was probably already a little nutso beforehand) and because of his resolute rejection of the traditionally concrete perspectives on reality, the need to conform to a socially approved code of morality and answer to a higher power.

There's a lot to unpack, so I definitely need another look to get a better grasp on this one, but loved it.

Watashi
09-17-2012, 06:27 AM
Did you see it in Cinerama Dome, Derek? I saw it at midnight last Thursday. I don't think I can see it traditional 35mm anymore.

Derek
09-17-2012, 07:06 AM
Did you see it in Cinerama Dome, Derek? I saw it at midnight last Thursday. I don't think I can see it traditional 35mm anymore.

No, at one of the regular Arclight Hollywood screens. It was still 70mm and I don't like the curve on the Dome screen for movies like this. But it certainly was eye-poppingly crisp and added so much depth to the frame. It's been a few years since I've seen anything in 70mm...forgot how glorious it is.

Pop Trash
09-20-2012, 03:38 PM
Ebert is not a big fan:

http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120919/REVIEWS/120919984

I dunno, I feel like most of the criticisms (see also the Derek and Boner discussion) would make the film less interesting. I don't think the film is that obtuse, plus unlike There Will Be Blood, there were no moments that took me out of the film or that were poorly handled.

Also, Ebert recently credited The Girlfriend Experience to James Toback and put a Beverly Hills Cop photo up for an American Werewolf in London rec on his fb page, so make from that what you will.

baby doll
09-20-2012, 03:44 PM
Also, Ebert recently credited The Girlfriend Experience to James TobackI knew Soderbergh couldn't direct all those movies himself!

MadMan
09-21-2012, 12:23 AM
I'm not saying they don't like these movies, just that their top ten lists are systematically skewed towards late-year releases--in part, because these films are fresh in their memories, but also the climate of hype which makes some movies seem "big" and others "small." That said, obviously the vast majority of reviewers aren't interested in challenging movies (Dan Kois, Anthony Lane, Christy Lemire, Leonard Maltin, Rex Reed, Peter Travers, to a lesser extent Roger Ebert), and are perfectly content to cheerlead for whatever Harvey Weinstein has on tap for this year (hence, The Artist cleaning up at last year's New York Film Critics Circle Awards).Normally I just watch whatever the hell I can get my hands on. And I um, loved The Artist, so I guess I'm part of the problem, eh? ;)

That said, the reviewers you mentioned are people I don't read. I even stopped reading Ebert. I'd much prefer to read the opinions of the fine people here at match-cut (yes, even you baby-doll) instead. Perhaps that's really the big problem: film criticism has filtered down to the masses.

Anyways this came to my local theater, and I should probably go see it. Especially since I will end up watching it anyways if it gets awards buzz, just to see what the fuss is all about.

Ezee E
09-21-2012, 12:28 AM
Quite the wide release. I'll see it tomorrow afternoon.

Bosco B Thug
09-21-2012, 12:51 AM
So I'm not not not a PTA fan (his films are like big empty vessels), but I liked this and was distinctly moved by its story by the end. A picture of man-as-animal and the suffering and vacant relations caused by trying to delude ourselves otherwise.

The emotional reprieves allowed to Pheonix's character in the end are touching, as well as allowing us to be sort of happy about the Cause flourishing under a very-together Seymour Hoffman, whose friendship and symbiosis with Freddie is entirely real and genuine, while we in a very shrewd glimpse see Amy Adams the one seemingly capable of breaking apart at the seams.

There were also pacing issues and audience engagement issues, which PTA usually doesn't have a problem with. First quarter is very whatever. Criticism of its regular use of extreme close-ups seems to be the de rigeur criticism by nerds, but I respected that decision.

Mr. McGibblets
09-21-2012, 01:09 AM
Should this definitely be seen in 70mm?

Bosco B Thug
09-21-2012, 01:27 AM
Should this definitely be seen in 70mm? The nerds (and most are PTA fans), again, are like, "Oh, this didn't need to be 70 mm, it's all close-ups!" But I say yeah, go for it. Bigger the better and I can't slag on PTA's visuals. Don't expect TWBB set pieces, though.

Ezee E
09-21-2012, 11:20 PM
I had no option to see this in 70MM sadly. I think it would certainly be better. Not sure I understand Bosco's comment of PTA nerds... Pretty much any PTA fan is ecstatic at the idea that he did a movie in 70MM.

I'm at a mixed bag. I certainly didn't love it like all his previous movies right off the bat. It seems like one that I'll enjoy reading and discussing about more then actually watching it.

Looking forward to more talking about this before I give a rating. Maybe a second viewing too... Someday in 70MM hopefully.

Ezee E
09-21-2012, 11:23 PM
oth in his post-war outsider role (although I liked that PTA is purposefully ambiguous about how much the war actually reshaped his psyche since it seemed like he was probably already a little nutso beforehand) .

Think a army recruiter talked him into it with the idea that it could shape his future or something?

Freddie's character is great in the way that everyone wants to help him, even though they should be repulsed, which some obviously are later.

Bosco B Thug
09-22-2012, 12:09 AM
Not sure I understand Bosco's comment of PTA nerds... Pretty much any PTA fan is ecstatic at the idea that he did a movie in 70MM. Oh, I meant general film nerds, and more so the "technically knowledgeable" kind. When I clarified that most were PTA fans, it was simply to say that it was fans of his work (who so happened to be "film-knowledgeable" types) who were still being super persnickety and super-critical about the "repetitive" shooting style, the 70 mm factor (saying the film didn't warrant the format), etc.

Ezee E
09-22-2012, 12:54 AM
I still think any film nerd would say 70 mm is the only option if anything.

ledfloyd
09-22-2012, 06:53 AM
this was totally engaging, and i like seeing a PTA who seems content to step back and let the work speak for itself rather than intoxicate audiences with spectacle. it's such a seamlessly crafted film. the lead performances are spellbinding and serve as a fascinating study in contrasts. phoenix's nervous, twitchy, method inhabitation of his character juxtaposed with hoffman's stately, wellesian performance. as to what it all means, i will have to ruminate on it further. but in terms of craft, it's stunning.

Watashi
09-22-2012, 07:22 AM
Who will be the first nay? My heart goes out to Melville.

MadMan
09-22-2012, 08:15 AM
Who will be the first nay? My heart goes out to Melville.I predict trans, for some reason.

transmogrifier
09-22-2012, 09:28 AM
I predict trans, for some reason.

I've liked all Anderson films to date; I don't see that changing. But you never know.

Ezee E
09-22-2012, 01:50 PM
If I were to compare, it's more TWBB then anything, but not as masterful. Maybe more to think about though.

ledfloyd
09-22-2012, 02:00 PM
i don't think it will take long, there are some legitimate problems someone could have with this film.

Pop Trash
09-22-2012, 04:56 PM
Who will be the first nay? My heart goes out to Melville.

Sven, given his distaste for PSH is likely. I'm sure there will be others. Quite a few mubi-ers are 'meh' on it already.

Ezee E
09-22-2012, 05:24 PM
i don't think it will take long, there are some legitimate problems someone could have with this film.
I'm borderline meh/good...

I think it may be his least watchable movie. It has the style of There Will Be Blood but without the multiple conflicts, set pieces, a rather epic nature, and a performance that outdoes PSH/Joaquin.

MadMan
09-22-2012, 05:31 PM
I've liked all Anderson films to date; I don't see that changing. But you never know.Ah, my mistake (in other words, damn I was wrong :P)

ledfloyd
09-23-2012, 04:47 AM
I'm borderline meh/good...

I think it may be his least watchable movie. It has the style of There Will Be Blood but without the multiple conflicts, set pieces, a rather epic nature, and a performance that outdoes PSH/Joaquin.
i found it incredibly watchable, i want to see it again.

Ezee E
09-23-2012, 04:51 AM
More good and good as I think about it. Seems about the usual response too.

Favorite scene is PSH singing.

Idioteque Stalker
09-23-2012, 05:32 AM
I agree with pretty much everything in the negative Slant review. Just got back though, so I'll give it time.

Ezee E
09-23-2012, 05:47 AM
This is my main problem with the movie, as written by Slant:


When these moments arrive, Anderson is operating in top form; the problem is simply that, unlike the films which came before it, The Master boasts too few of them.

Milky Joe
09-23-2012, 05:58 AM
I know I've occasionally defended Armond White in the past, but this (http://cityarts.info/2012/09/17/battle-of-the-andersons/) is one of the worst pieces of film criticism I've ever read. This combined with his championing of Mitt Romney on twitter has made me finally see the light: this guy is a joke who in his blind contrarianism very occasionally stumbles into being right.

I still don't quite know what to think of the film at hand, other than to echo what many people have said, ie, I was enthralled while watching it but I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from it, or more than that what I can take away from it. I need to see it again.

Watashi
09-23-2012, 06:30 AM
I just learned that Armond White is a hardcore Christian neo-conservative. Now I know why he hates the movies he hates.

MadMan
09-23-2012, 09:39 AM
I just learned that Armond White is a hardcore Christian neo-conservative. Now I know why he hates the movies he hates.We should use this as basis to ignore him. Remember how on RT I posted that we shouldn't feed the trolls? Well that applies to White. He's a troll, and a lame one at that. Oh you liked Fast Furious 6 and a half? That's nice, I don't care.

DavidSeven
09-24-2012, 07:24 AM
Yeah, I don't know if I'm entirely sold on this.

There's a lot to admire: the performances, a few brilliantly executed scenes and the general peculiarity of the damn thing. I'm especially in love with the initial question/response scene with Hoffman/Phoenix, the play on that scene in the film's closing and Adams' "handling" of the Master in the bathroom. But I think I agree with that line in the Slant review that says that much of this film is running on only the fumes of drama. There's a feeling that the narrative is consciously pared down, but to what end? The film feels too big to be pure character study, too quaint to be epic. Somehow it seems to want to be both Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood, but in trying to meld the two, it achieves the stratospheric heights of neither.

Initial impressions only. I definitely need to think about it more, and I'm honestly not sure how I'll feel about it in 24 hours. I know I didn't hate it or even dislike it. The question is whether it ranks with the iconic pieces in his catalog, which in my view, encompasses each of his four films immediately following Hard Eight. My gut reaction is that it comes a bit short of that standard, though certainly still one of the more worthwhile things I've seen this year.

Sven
09-24-2012, 02:26 PM
I just learned that Armond White is a hardcore Christian neo-conservative. Now I know why he hates the movies he hates.

This is a pejorative. He is a Christian conservative, but I really don't think there's much "hardcore" or "neo" about his politics.

Mr. McGibblets
09-24-2012, 03:04 PM
I don't see how one could read Armond as anything but Christian and (very) socially conservative. It's as much a part of his reviews as his love for Spielberg.

Sven
09-24-2012, 03:09 PM
I don't see how one could read Armond as anything but Christian and (very) socially conservative. It's as much a part of his reviews as his love for Spielberg.

His advocacy for queer cinema is at odds with your "very", and he admires plenty of left-leaning films.

number8
09-24-2012, 03:16 PM
Well, if you consider "hardcore" to be synonymous with "devout," then it probably fits.

"I’m a believer. I think God is the force for ultimate good in the universe. He made the movies, didn’t he? If you cut me open, that’s what you’d find: the movies, Bible verses, and Motown lyrics." - Armond White

The neocon bit is debatable. I know he supports gay rights and has said that GayToday.com is one of his favorite sources of film criticism, but he was also prone to defending George W. Bush. White himself contends that he's not that conservative, just that he seems that way because all his colleagues are "knee-jerk liberals."

Mr. McGibblets
09-24-2012, 03:17 PM
His advocacy for queer cinema is at odds with your "very", and he admires plenty of left-leaning films.

Maybe 'socially conservative' is the wrong way of putting it. He is very opposed to common ways of advocating progressive ideology in films. That's not to say that he is opposed to the progressive ideas themselves.

Sven
09-24-2012, 03:25 PM
but he was also prone to defending George W. Bush.

This in itself is hardly grounds for being a neocon.


White himself contends that he's not that conservative, just that he seems that way because all his colleagues are "knee-jerk liberals."

Anyone who reads his work can see this.

Pop Trash
09-24-2012, 04:28 PM
Watched it again last night, this time w/o all the sold-out prescreening fan fair...the film definitely peters out a bit in the last act, right around the unearthing (or burying?) of the new book in the desert. It kind of coasts along until the final scene between the two leads in England, then the final two scenes of the film, which I'm not entirely sure what they represent (if they are meant to represent anything?).

Still like it a lot tho, esp. everything up until that desert scene.

Dead & Messed Up
09-24-2012, 06:40 PM
Watched it again last night, this time w/o all the sold-out prescreening fan fair...the film definitely peters out a bit in the last act, right around the unearthing (or burying?) of the new book in the desert. It kind of coasts along until the final scene between the two leads in England, then the final two scenes of the film, which I'm not entirely sure what they represent (if they are meant to represent anything?).

Still like it a lot tho, esp. everything up until that desert scene.

My take on it, and it's a guess, is that Freddie's full experience with Dodd, seeing that he wasn't a man with all the answers, helped him to find a measure of personal peace. Him loving the girl (and then closing the loop on the sand sculpture) is evidence of that.

ledfloyd
09-24-2012, 08:27 PM
i kind of like that anderson didn't go for the spectacular set pieces this time around. the low-key aspect of the thing provides a lot more food for thought. the more i think on this one the more i enjoy it

Spaceman Spiff
09-24-2012, 08:53 PM
Yeah, I don't know if I'm entirely sold on this.

There's a lot to admire: the performances, a few brilliantly executed scenes and the general peculiarity of the damn thing. I'm especially in love with the initial question/response scene with Hoffman/Phoenix, the play on that scene in the film's closing and Adams' "handling" of the Master in the bathroom. But I think I agree with that line in the Slant review that says that much of this film is running on only the fumes of drama. There's a feeling that the narrative is consciously pared down, but to what end? The film feels too big to be pure character study, too quaint to be epic. Somehow it seems to want to be both Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood, but in trying to meld the two, it achieves the stratospheric heights of neither.

Initial impressions only. I definitely need to think about it more, and I'm honestly not sure how I'll feel about it in 24 hours. I know I didn't hate it or even dislike it. The question is whether it ranks with the iconic pieces in his catalog, which in my view, encompasses each of his four films immediately following Hard Eight. My gut reaction is that it comes a bit short of that standard, though certainly still one of the more worthwhile things I've seen this year.

This, this, this. Every word. Exactly what was running through my head (just got back home from seeing the film actually).

I like D&MU's interpretation there. I'll admit to not really understanding the final scene with Lancaster-Freddy, and the subsequent breakup. The entire England segment felt strangely detached from the rest of the film, and to be honest, I was kind of wondering how and when this was going to finish. I thought it a shame how cursory and slight Fredd'y backstory was treated (with Gloria) - much of the most interesting scenes with Lancaster (ie: the first interview on the ship) had touched on it, and I never felt like there was any real resolution or insight to his issues/aggression. Still, as a technical exercise it was all pretty darn tip top.

Mysterious Dude
09-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Anderson's characters are so prone to fits of rage that it's not even surprising when it happens anymore.

Hoffman reminded me of Orson Welles, somehow.

ledfloyd
09-26-2012, 04:00 AM
Anderson's characters are so prone to fits of rage that it's not even surprising when it happens anymore.

Hoffman reminded me of Orson Welles, somehow.
i pointed that out in a review i wrote, and then read an interview with hoffman in which he said he used welles as a model.

Boner M
09-28-2012, 05:06 PM
Revisited it last night. Much more satisfying when you know the defiantly languid stretch it ends on in advance. A few observations:

- The jump-cut from Quell getting the call from Dodd in the movie theatre to the former sleeping directly after seems to suggest the call was a dream.

- This film has the saddest and most desperate laughter I can recall.

- The fact that the cops come immediately after Dodd's son tells Quell "he's making it up" almost seems to prevent Quell from lashing out at the son ala the other skeptical members/outsiders, which would surely be the dealbreaker re: the group's decision to keep him. It's stuff like this that reveals how precarious and delicate the Quell-Dodd bond is. I don't think it's a father and son dynamic ala previous PTA joints, just a tender bromance between two dudes equally adrift in the world. I called the film a 'waltz' directly after seeing it, and I think that's what it works best as, in tone and narrative and even its camera moves (and soundtrack choices, obv).

- I think a few reviews have mentioned that the repeated shots of choppy seas behind the boat resemble a Rorschach blotch, and Quell's sand-woman seems as much of a blank canvas. The penultimate scene in bed w/ his pub pickup, and the final shot of the sand woman, implies that Quell's love has been spent on both Doris and Dodd, and he's destined to be living his memories of both loves in whatever relationship he has from thereon (eg, the repetition of Dodd's questioning techniques in bed with the British woman, however frivolous). :sad:

Ezee E
09-29-2012, 02:21 AM
- The jump-cut from Quell getting the call from Dodd in the movie theatre to the former sleeping directly after seems to suggest the call was a dream.


I thought Quell even mentioned that it was a dream to Dodd in London?

Pop Trash
09-29-2012, 02:54 AM
I thought Quell even mentioned that it was a dream to Dodd in London?

Really? I don't remember that. The dream theory makes sense since the second time I watched it, I was thinking how Dodd would even accomplish that (my theory: he hired a private detective to follow him around, the P.I. called Dodd and let him know he followed him to the movie theater, Dodd calls the movie theater).

The first time I saw it, I was tripping out too much to pay attention to logic, since I'm pretty sure that scene was shot at the Castro Theater in SF where I was watching it. So it was like looking into a mirror and seeing Joaquin Phoenix sleeping.

Boner M
09-29-2012, 05:48 AM
Pretty sure I'll need another 10 viewings to a) decipher all of Phoenix's dialogue b) not be fixated on his face to do so.

Spaceman Spiff
09-29-2012, 07:54 PM
Can't say I agree with that interpretation. I understood the last meeting between Quell/Dodd, as a tying up of loose ends with Amy Adams' character correctly pointing out that "he doesn't want treatment". He has accepted that the Cause and Dodd's teachings are all a whole lot of bull, and yet it has helped center him and realize that even a genius like Lancaster Dodd doesn't have all the answers ("If you find this paradise - let us all know. Share it with the world"). I interpreted his random fat slag hookup and subsequent jocularity as a moving on process. Dodd is clearly a big part of his life, and perhaps Freddy will never be truly emotionally stable, yet here he is smiling tenderly and trying to get to know this girl.

I'm perhaps remembering the final shot wrong - does Freddy end up forming a half smile? He has love to give, now that he realizes that we are all inconsequential, and it's not him against the world.

Besides, he does show some progress as the film goes on (ie: not fucking the shit out of Dodd's daughter, and not beating the hell out of her husband later).

Thirdmango
10-02-2012, 01:01 AM
I fully expected to be the first Nay on this movie considering I hate Boogie Nights and Magnolia. I went into the movie really tired and accidentally fell asleep for about two minutes right near the beginning. But once on the boat I began to really get into the story and the whole universe presented in it. Maybe it was because I was tired but I picked up on a lot of the craziness. Like for instance in the final scene when Quell met Dodd in London, Quell ran his fingers along what was clearly a circular table and then suddenly the table was a rectangle. It started for me during the nudes scene where I wasn't sure if it was actually happening or just Quell being drunk and unknowing. Or how Dodd's daughter rubbed Quell's leg but then later she said Quell was creeping her out I think maybe it was just his imagination/paint thinner that she was doing that. There are a lot of good paint thinner moments in there.

During the movie I couldn't help but think of my next door neighbor growing up who in the span of ten years went on a Mormon Mission, slept on my couch for like 6 months, got married, joined a cult, founded his own cult, wrote a lot of prophecies and then lost his faith and now believes in tree spirits. A lot of the religious and insanity overtones were present with his story so it was sorta fun seeing that sort of thing happen.

Mr. McGibblets
10-05-2012, 06:16 PM
I saw this a week ago, and I'm still having trouble figuring out what I didn't like about it. I think both lead characters were too inscrutable (a problem I also had with TWBB). We get to see and observe them, but because we don't get to know them, they're only interesting when they're doing something interesting. Almost all of the 'big moments' in the film work, but there's little driving the movie between them except waiting for the next one. And it really peters out after the motorcycle scene.

EyesWideOpen
10-06-2012, 11:00 PM
I thought Quell even mentioned that it was a dream to Dodd in London?

Yes he does.

Stay Puft
10-09-2012, 06:50 AM
I was quite taken by this at first - agree with Boner that it's a big step forward in PTA's craft, and the 70mm presentation was remarkable - but in the end also struggled to make sense of where it was going, echoing the sentiments of Pop Trash, et al, here in that it seemed to just peter out around the arrival of the second book, and I wasn't sure what to make of the closing scenes. There's explicit, surface level closure (the final separation between Quell and The Cause, the echoing of images from the beginning), but it arrives without force or clarity. Maybe that's the point, maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing, but I couldn't shake the feeling that something was also missing. Part of that may be as D7 says, an uneasy mold between the quaint and the epic. I also like how the mubi.com review put it, the feeling that something so large ends up being about so little, that not all of the threads are followed through in the second half, or at least for the me that the major thread being followed is among the less appealing. Ignatiy's comparison to Updike actually crystallized that a bit for me; as a character piece the film is compelling to a point, but ultimately suffers the same problems I have with writers like Updike.

However, still an interesting film, and one I enjoyed more than There Will Be Blood, if only for PTA's inarguable growth as a craftsman. This is really one of the more aesthetically accomplished films I've seen this year, so it's an easy yay even if I'm feeling a bit mixed on the thematics.

Stay Puft
10-09-2012, 07:01 AM
I mean, hey, I liked Greenwood's score for TWBB, but his work for The Master is wowza, and the way the score is woven into the fabric of the film feels so natural. As much as I loved the cinematography here, the look of the film, the sound design is where I think PTA made the biggest strides, and I tip my hat to him for that. Easy points from me, as I'm a sucker for any movie that pays serious attention to that aspect of the craft.

Bosco B Thug
10-09-2012, 07:47 AM
For the tally, I for one thought the latter half was of a marked improvement over the first half.

Maybe it's just the fact that I had no idea what was going on when we're on the yacht that's pushing that balance.

Benny Profane
10-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Saw this last night and was fascinated from start to end. PTA's films have this unique rhythm and pace to them that really sucks me in. Some highlights were definitely the initial "processing" on the boat, the "dummy" montage, the "wall to window" exercise, the jail scene, among others. Somebody mentioned how they couldn't stop staring at Phoenix's face and I couldn't possibly agree more. I was utterly transfixed by his performance and how it was shot/framed by PTA.

Some questions:

Why did Freddy fly all the way to London if he wasn't going to rejoin The Cause? Or was he intending to and something in their conversation (perhaps from Amy Adams about him not being able to drink) made him change his mind?

Was the naked scene in Phoenix's head or real? And what was up with the juxtaposition of Adams jerking off Dodd in the next scene? Did Dodd cheat on her and we didn't see it?

Fezzik
01-13-2013, 05:15 AM
I'll be part of the minority, I guess.

I didn't like this. Hoffman and Phoenix were great, but I just couldn't get interested in the story. There were long stretches of nothing that almost put me to sleep, and when it finally ended, I actually started to question my own film tastes, since I've never really been a fan of anything PTA has done.

Ah well.

Winston*
01-13-2013, 10:13 AM
Loved this.

Ivan Drago
01-14-2013, 04:53 AM
As a PTA fan, I was let down. While the performances and cinematography were great, I thought the story didn't build to anything or go anywhere. It's still resonating very well with me, though.

transmogrifier
02-03-2013, 09:19 AM
69/100


Great start, with the lead character deliberately made part of the wallpaper in his own film (barely related scenes of army life, the showcasing of the salesgirl with Freddie as mere punctuation at the end, putting Freddie in the background of the "poisoning" etc) in order to depict his disassociation with society and living life.


Remains interesting throughout as a study of personal embarrassment (Freddie the hedonist embarrassed to admit that he needs the warming embrace of group values and shared direction, if only for short periods at a time; Dodd proclaiming that he has found the key to transcending our self-imposed cages, finding a higher plane of exstence, yet still embarrassed by his very personal attraction to the down-and-dirty Freddie, a representative of basic human impulses.....Amy Adam's character proves to be crucial in this reading, seeing as she is the one that recognizes her husband's duelling motivations and helps to service one - hand job, allowing Freddie into their circle - while protecting the ideal she is truly interested in) but fails to soar because Dodd's character is somewhat shortchanged, and we are left too often guessing about scene-to-scene motivations. Phoenix's craggy face is so compelling that Anderson doesn't cut away from it enough to let the film breathe a bit, and the ideas to coalesce naturally.


Beautifully directed, as usual.

Henry Gale
02-07-2013, 09:51 PM
Finally saw this early last week. Projected 70mm, no less.

It is incredible stuff. In terms of trying to tie it all together in my mind, it's almost like a less haphazard or quiet wacky Serious Man, at least in the sense that it essentially gives the viewer all the pieces it feels it needs to leave with its ideas, but deliberately leaving significant gaps to allow creative theorizing and individual theses.

Obviously that isn't for everyone, and after months of hearing widely divisive reactions to the film, it was nice to finally see the exact elements that cause people to be so polarized on it. But there's still such a level on craft on display here, with some of the best performances of the year all within a pasture of mood and atmosphere unlike anything else audiences would've likely seen last year, it's still surprising to me that anyone could have an entirely negative reaction.

I love it, but at least now I can understand where many found it hard to do the same.

And the 70mm, oh man. It really did feel like a slight step away from being a truer, cleaner, brighter version of 3D in places. Some sequences, like the motorcycle one, pushed my jaw firming towards the floor.

angrycinephile
03-04-2013, 05:51 PM
The deleted scenes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqrte2JZRBI

So disappointed some of these shots/scenes didn't make it into the finished film.

Ezee E
03-10-2013, 07:29 AM
Second viewing. I think there's more Freddie dream scenes then the one in the movie theater. Dodd's singing with the naked ladies and the subsequent jacking off seems to be one.

Grouchy
03-11-2013, 06:34 AM
I thought the naked women and cinema phone call scenes were clearly in Freddie's head. Everything else I take at face value.

This is an excellent film and I'm really excited at the direction PTA is taking. As much as I loved Magnolia I always had the feeling that everything in it fits together a little too neatly. And that's a criticism that's hard to level at stuff like There Will Be Blood or this one.

If nothing else, this is exceptionally good cinema simply because of Phoenix's performance. His transformation here is almost supernatural.

Milky Joe
03-11-2013, 07:32 AM
Given the final shot, the whole film could be a dream. I don't think it is, but I do think the film's reality is intentionally a little blurry.

dreamdead
03-11-2013, 06:10 PM
This was really interesting. It felt rather languid throughout the start, and I wish that Anderson had extended out some of the clothing store sequence. Pheonix's character was quite fascinating in that environment and some of that element deteriorated as he began to be around similarly wayward individuals. I felt that Amy Adams delivered on every monologue she had, but each of her monologues felt disconnected from the larger context. That is, she never seemed to be involved enough with the rest of the proceedings when she wasn't saying anything.

Hoffman and Phoenix were both magnificent, though, and the central dualities were nicely handled. Both Sarah and I both felt that it's essentially a repressed love story between the two, and that the two characters branch off even though neither promises to be all that healthy again afterwards. I do rather wish the story had ended with Phoenix driving away on the bike... not sure if anything had the emotional payoff that that beat had...

Grouchy
03-11-2013, 06:14 PM
Given the final shot, the whole film could be a dream. I don't think it is, but I do think the film's reality is intentionally a little blurry.
While I get what you're saying, what I'd call the Once Upon a Time in America effect, I just find it hard to see what other scenes could be considered dreams and why. Those two are for me the only moments that stray from reality.

Something I like a lot about this script - it would be a lot easier to write if Lancaster Dodd was a genuinely bad guy. But in Hoffman's performance you can see that he really believes in his bullshit and that he's honestly interested in helping out this guy.

Milky Joe
03-11-2013, 06:23 PM
While I get what you're saying, what I'd call the Once Upon a Time in America effect, I just find it hard to see what other scenes could be considered dreams and why. Those two are for me the only moments that stray from reality.

Methinks you're thinking about it too objectively. I don't mean to suggest that some scenes are "dreams" and some are "real" but that the film, particularly with the final shot, actively calls into question the very meaning of those phrases. What separates a subjective "dream" from objective "reality"? Think about it as if you are Lancaster Dodd believing in his bullshit, as you say. "Mankind is asleep." Etc.

Grouchy
03-11-2013, 10:30 PM
Methinks you're thinking about it too objectively. I don't mean to suggest that some scenes are "dreams" and some are "real" but that the film, particularly with the final shot, actively calls into question the very meaning of those phrases. What separates a subjective "dream" from objective "reality"? Think about it as if you are Lancaster Dodd believing in his bullshit, as you say. "Mankind is asleep." Etc.
It's true, and it also talks about the notion that, if many people believe in something and find those beliefs changing their lives, then for them they're real.

Mr. Pink
03-12-2013, 07:10 AM
I stuck with it for about an hour or so, but after that I started to tune out. I liked bits and pieces of it but not much as a whole. Pretty disappointing - he's one of my favorite working directors and it's a subject that fascinates me, but after a while I was just frustrated that I was so bored when I really didn't expect to be.

Spinal
03-15-2013, 02:06 AM
It took me a couple days to figure out what to say with this one.

I keep coming back to the idea that it's a love story at its core. A love story in which two souls are lost in life, except one doesn't realize it and the other doesn't care. The master purports to have the answers, but he's no closer to finding truth than the wayward alcoholic who dry humps sand sculptures.

They fulfill needs within each other. The master gives Freddie direction. Freddie gives the master purpose. I think there's probably a big chunk towards the end that isn't reality. I'm wondering if any interaction Freddie and Dodd have after the desert motorcycle scene is real. The song Dodd sings to Freddie seems a lot like someone who knows he's breaking up with a loved one but doesn't want to let go.

And then there's the scene where Freddie takes a new lover but he plays at master by asking her questions and telling her not to blink. And the last image is a return to the female sand sculpture. But it's peaceful and loving. Not drunken dry humping.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a film about love and how lovers can fulfill needs in each other and cover deep pain. It seems to only coincidentally be about religion. Religion seems more of a way in to discussing the chaos of souls that need attention and guidance.

Kurosawa Fan
03-20-2013, 07:45 PM
Watched this Monday night. Didn't have a chance to write about it until now, so my thoughts are less coherent than I'd like them to be.

Pretty brilliant study of desperation and dissatisfaction. It took me a while to work through what I wanted to say. Phoenix is superb here. He presents Freddie as a man still suffering from the effects of a life without parental love. His mother is locked away in a ward, his father drank himself to death. As a grown man (or rather, a child locked away in the body of an adult), his loss of love and care manifests itself in sexual desire and self destruction. His genetic disposition toward psychosis and alcoholism interferes with his ability to fill the void in his life. This is perfectly encapsulated in the moment with the sand sculpture of the naked woman. His first instinct as a sexual being is to violate the woman. It is only after his sexual release that he reveals his need for comfort, curling up in a childlike pose at her side.

This same desire for loving companionship leads him to Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd. For his part, Dodd sees the weakness and desperation in Freddie, making him the perfect candidate for a burgeoning religious movement. He fills the role of father figure for Freddie, under the guise that his guidance can "fix" Freddie and bring him the peace he desires. Freddie becomes protective of Dodd, often to the point of violence, though it becomes clear that this defense is born out of frustration at the failing nature of this relationship rather than out of loyalty to a true "master." In the end, this frustration, and the realization that Dodd and his movement offer no solution for Freddie, leads to his abandoning Dodd and seeking respite in his love for Doris. Coming up empty again, Freddie is left on the beach, building his own woman from sand and curling up in the fetal position next to her. He ends up in the arms of a random woman at a bar, attempting the processing with her in bed in the hopes that he might eventually become the master, yet recognizing in a fit of laughter that this is futile, and abandoning it to finish having sex with her. Alcohol and sex remain his only relief in this world.

If the film is truly an examination of Scientology, it has nothing kind to say about the effectiveness of their ideology. Yet I can't help thinking the film is more than that. It seems as though the critique is against any system of thought in which the objective is to distract and deconstruct rather than address the issues at hand. Lancaster never attempts to deal with Freddie's issues. He aids in his alcoholism by asking him to brew his concoction and drinking along side him. Only his wife tries to stop the drinking, but for her own peace of mind and not Freddie's. Dodd strikes at the core of Freddie's pain when he gets him to admit during their first processing session that his mother is psychotic and he had sex with his own aunt, yet this is never revisited. Dodd's efforts with Freddie are all self-serving, usually for an audience. The goal is to promote the religion, not to help the follower. This is not dissimilar from most religious doctrines that claim salvation for their followers in another life, yet ask that this life be spent worshiping their god.

It's a really strong film, perhaps a bit rambling at times. Not quite on par with There Will Be Blood, but yet another exceptional entry into Anderson's oeuvre.

Spinal
03-22-2013, 04:30 AM
I really enjoy watching Philip Seymour Hoffman react to drinking strong alcoholic beverages.

Ezee E
03-27-2013, 02:32 AM
I really enjoy watching Philip Seymour Hoffman react to drinking strong alcoholic beverages.

Certainly one of my favorite things about the movie, lol.

transmogrifier
03-27-2013, 02:54 AM
Seems like an odd thing to laugh out loud about.

Ezee E
03-27-2013, 03:24 AM
Seems like an odd thing to laugh out loud about.

Wasn't at all. I laughed both times I've watched the movie.

Grouchy
03-27-2013, 04:57 AM
Seems like an odd thing to laugh out loud about.
Your mom... is an odd thing to laugh out loud about.

Yxklyx
03-30-2013, 09:53 PM
I found this to be a total bore. What was the point of it all? And if it had no point then what remains is not interesting enough.

Spinal
03-30-2013, 10:03 PM
A couple of us wrote about the point of it a few posts back. I definitely think it's a film with purpose.

Rowland
03-31-2013, 02:07 AM
This is the type of film that I've enjoyed reading about more than I did watching it, but I admire it a great deal, and I'm willing to give it another look.