The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)

[MadMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Yes he does.

[Stay Puft]

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]

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]

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.