Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master

awepittance · August 9, 2012

On 8/9/2012 at 8:34 PM, patternoverlap said:

On 8/9/2012 at 7:53 PM, Awepittance said:

In the case of Adam Sandler, definitely.

Yeah, really surprising role for him, but also believable for him to do. I was hoping he would branch out after PDL and try some more new things but alas he went back to his usual stuff.

he actually did, but he failed outside of the PTA sphere. He was in i think 2 dramatic roles after Punch Drunk Love that were actually borderline laughable.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Awepittance

patternoverlap · August 9, 2012

yeah, I've unfortunately seen both Reign Over Me and Funny People. Both were pretty meh.

Redruth · August 17, 2012

[youtubehd]m0Col9wnE_E&feature=player_embedded[/youtubehd]

Edited August 17, 2012 by Redruth

August 17, 2012

Reveal hidden contents

Quote
GRADE: A-
Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master is both exactly what you expect and completely unexpected. Fans of the filmmaker will undoubtedly recognize his style, even though it has constantly evolved with each work. The movie is mesmerizing and unsettling. If you didn’t like There Will Be Blood, you more than likely won’t enjoy this one either. The pacing is similar and the momentary spouts of violence are there. Yet, as much as The Master feels like a blood relative of Anderson’s prior film, it’s far from it.

To write a review only a day after the special pop-up screening in Chicago seems contradictory, as this is not a film that warrants a gut reaction. It deserves deep thought and consideration, both in its narrative structure and its existential message. The Master is a film that should be constantly reflected upon, for months, not days or hours. I fully expect it to be Paul Thomas Anderson’s most discussed film. It’s message is so enigmatic and its characters are so multi-layered that it finds a way to keep your brain running in circles.

The two main characters, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) and Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) are complete opposites. As expressed in one intense argument by Dodd, we need “the positives and the negatives.” They feed off each other so well, both as characters and actors, that every moment they share on screen is as exciting as an action movie climax. Dodd is always collected and calculating, but not in a sinister way. He has an unwavering passion for waking the human spirit and forcing mankind to acknowledge themselves as superior in every way (I’m aware of the Scientology buzz around this film, but I didn’t see it, mainly because I don’t care. It worked as its own story.). And that’s why he is so drawn to Freddie, a man so in tune with his animalistic instincts that he seems impossible to tame. We actually do not get to witness Dodd and Freddie’s first interaction. It happens off-camera during one of Freddie’s blackout drunk evenings after he stumbles onto Dodd’s private boat. Yet, in hindsight, we can imagine just what went through Dodd’s mind as they met. He must have seen this broken man, a lost man, coming back to the States from World War II with nothing to offer. His disgusting personality is reminiscent of a more primitive species. He hunches over like a man caught between the evolution of ape and man. He snarls like a rabid dog. He has no sense of etiquette. He mumbles his dialogue, which actually helps add tension because you are on the edge of your seat trying to decipher his language. And it’s on the edge of your seat that you lose all control as an audience member. So, when he bursts, you’re not ready. In typical P.T. Anderson fashion, all these characteristics come off as comical at first.

The Master is a film of patience. Dodd’s goal is clear as he attempts to tame Freddie. The film’s strength lies within its own patience. Yes, it grows weary and arduous. Many will check their watches in the theatre. It feels like four hours, even though it’s just over two. But if you inspect it a little closer, you’ll see the method in the madness. Anderson understands what each film needs. He is a master tactician of both pace and framing, depending on the story being told. One “application” sequence in The Master goes on and on and on. But had he simply skimmed over it in the best interest of the antsy audience member, he would have done the story a disservice. Because Freddie’s gradual transformation into the character he is destined to become in this film is one that doesn’t come easy. It frustrates Dodd and his equally influential wife, Mary Sue (Amy Adams). At times you have to wonder if Freddie’s presence will be the end of Dodd and his isolated secret society. That’s the real tension of the film. You just never know when or if the fragile tower of Cause (Dodd’s society’s name) will come tumbling down and who might get hurt in the fall.

At about the halfway point in the film, I started to feel a strong vibe from another one of cinema’s most beloved films – The Godfather. Without giving away the plot to The Master, it’s pretty clear that Anderson drew heavy influence from this masterpiece. I couldn’t help but see dozens of similarities between Freddie Quell and Michael Corleone. It’s all under the surface, really, but it’s there. They share an unpredictable nature. They seem calm, but you know that at any moment they might bash somebody’s face in. And like Corleone, Freddie enters an unfamiliar world that is set in its way, controlled by a singular figure. While I don’t expect any kind of sequel, an argument could be made for a trilogy with the The Master. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it went down almost exactly like The Godfather. But like I said, it’s a more subterranean comparison here. I wish I could say more, but I don’t want to spoil it for you. Just consider the similarities when you watch the film.

Without question, this film will earn its place among the year’s best. The characters alone warrant many awards nominations. But it’s so wonderfully written that it’s hard to imagine any film topping it in screenplay. The dialogue is cryptic at times, but at other times so deliberate and direct and thought-provoking that it will stick with me for a long time. But the script owes a deep gratitude to the actors. Phoenix is completely unhinged in the best possible way. He channels so many great performances of the past, namely Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. Phoenix’s physicality is everywhere and his violence is palpable when the outbursts do arrive. I’ve only seen a few performances as riveting as Phoenix here. Hoffman is completely in his element as well. He is just so good at being calm, while also making us nervous. Amy Adams brought her own intensity, playing a character similar to a Presidential First Lady. When she sees Dodd’s vulnerability surface, she steps in with such ferocity that you wonder if she wears the high-waisted pants sometimes. It’s an interesting dynamic.

As usual, Paul Thomas Anderson’s most obvious strength lies in his visual style. He is arguably the best “framing” director today. His placement of characters within environment is unparalleled. He tells the story not just with dialogue and action, but with his shot selections. The cameras are steady. The shots are long. It just oozes confidence. The focus is pristine and the 70mm print we were blessed with viewing was as clear as anything I’ve ever seen. Just a few weeks removed from The Dark Knight Rises, I was immediately taken back to the image quality of IMAX. They share a quality that makes you want to touch the screen. And while I would argue that digital cinema is fast approaching this level of quality, there’s a gentle side to film that will never be matched. The very first shot is a bright, blue ocean getting ripped by the engines of a warship. It is impossibly beautiful. I’m not sure how this will translate to regular movie theaters, but it should still impress.

Prepare yourself for something special when you go to The Master. It’s not quite like Anderson’s past work, but you feel the DNA of his style here. No other filmmaker would have made this film, but it stills feels fresh in Anderson’s repertoire. He is clearly still evolving, but one thing is certain – he knows how to rely on his actors. The casting is perfect in The Master. At one point I thought back to Shia LaBeouf’s recent questionable comments on his future in acting and though, “LaBeouf is going to be pissed off he missed this role.” Yet, if LaBeouf played Freddie, I imagine the character would have seemed less deliberate and more childish. Childish this film is not. It is the very definition of mature cinema. It’s thought-provoking, unnerving, tense and a little perverted at times. It’s a must-see.

What Should You Do? Watch it. Study It. Discuss It. It might be the most talked about movie in the film community this year. Don’t be left out.

http://themoviemash.com/2012/08/mikes-review-the-master-is-a-slow-burn-tense-and-a-little-perverse/

Not really any spoilers, but I thought I'd hide it in case anyone wants to go in completely fresh. It sounds like PTA's deepest and most 'mature' film to date. I won't read another review from now on.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Gary C

**Atop** · August 17, 2012

awepittance · August 17, 2012

everytime i hear johnny greenwood's stuff im baffled at how Radiohead ends up sounding so bland in comparison, does he just not get to write any of the music in the band?

**vamos scorcho** · August 18, 2012

Not all of it is bland, is the only answer I can think of. Some songs are way better than others.

**Atop** · August 18, 2012

Radiohead, so popular yet so polarizing.

I love most of their music.

I consider them to be one of the greatest bands in history.

Do you need me to make a greatest hits comp for you Robbie?

You do enjoy some of their music though?

I cannot enjoy most Venetian Snares.

Slayer has its place and time.

O P I N I O N S

awepittance · August 18, 2012

i mean by all means show me some Radiohead music that sounds as magical and evocative as johnny greenwood's score work, id love to check it out. I've heard pretty much the entire catalog (my sister is a fan and has subjected me to almost all of it), and nothing holds a candle to his solo compositions

by the way both of those clips you posted look excellent, i'm glad it actually looks sort of light and funny but still unsettling. I guess i was just too much of a pussy to be able to enjoy There WIll Be Blood, too drastically dark for my mood when i saw it

Edited August 18, 2012 by Awepittance

**Atop** · August 18, 2012

try it out again some day, it is brutal but one of the best films to be made since the 2000's began.

Totally hates on big business, ego centric/cut throat political behaviour and cult leaders that try to entrap their followers with tales of hell damnation.

There will be Blood seems to be a story of how America became so selfish and domineering.

Oil/Big Money and Christianity.

lumpenprol · August 18, 2012

Hehe, I came away with a totally different "takeaway." I don't think the film was trying to make an larger point about business, America, or politics (though it can be read that way, by people with an axe to grind". I think Anderson's main interest was and is human nature, or the "human condition."

This is one of the few films I can remember that is basically a character study of unadulterated human ambition ( (Fitzcarraldo and Citizen Kane would be others, I guess). Some people would argue that that kind of ambition is a very American thing, and that therefore the film is quintessentially American; I wouldn't argue with that but I don't think it's really the main point.

I think the point is, seeing a creature of pure ambition, you can't help but somewhat admire him. You can see how his ambition allows him to naturally slice through red tape, and the hypocrisy of religion. Plainview is clever but also a man of action. I don't think it's unnatural to want to be him, when you watch the film - not held back by self-doubt or shyness. However, the film also shows how being a creature of pure ambition probably leads to a dark endgame - it's ultimately self-defeating, in terms of capturing a "good life" (which is ironic, because in vague terms it's what these souls probably yearn for, even if they see it in misanthropic terms, as "being able to get away from humanity and find some peace and quiet.").

But there's absolutely nothing judgmental about the film. We're not supposed to hate or pity Plainview - he's lived his life by his own terms, right up until the end - the old Frank Sinatra "I did it my way." You could argue Plainview's son is the "moral center" of the film, in the sense that he's the one who seems to have the most level-headed understanding of life, but as with other Anderson films, I don't think Anderson solely endorses him. The film is really about Plainview, after all, a realistically-drawn but larger-than-life character.

Redruth · August 18, 2012

to keep facts straight, christ was vehemently opposed to anything resembling modern christianity. christ would be against christianity if he was alive (in the physical sense) today, but would still stand behind strict morality etc etc, advanced forms of empathy / harmlessness and 'the law' which is eternal and written into our spirits (souls) and hearts if we chose to become sensitive enough to it by searching for it within ourselves, passionately. christ was probably the most outspoken and influential anarchist in the history on the world, holding any human authority (governments / institutions / leaders etc) to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. christ stood firm for this truth, eventually being brutally, publicly chastised and murdered for his belief

awepittance · August 19, 2012

On 8/18/2012 at 7:15 PM, lumpenprol said:

Hehe, I came away with a totally different "takeaway." I don't think the film was trying to make an larger point about business, America, or politics (though it can be read that way, by people with an axe to grind". I think Anderson's main interest was and is human nature, or the "human condition."

This is one of the few films I can remember that is basically a character study of unadulterated human ambition ( (Fitzcarraldo and Citizen Kane would be others, I guess). Some people would argue that that kind of ambition is a very American thing, and that therefore the film is quintessentially American; I wouldn't argue with that but I don't think it's really the main point.

I think the point is, seeing a creature of pure ambition, you can't help but somewhat admire him. You can see how his ambition allows him to naturally slice through red tape, and the hypocrisy of religion. Plainview is clever but also a man of action. I don't think it's unnatural to want to be him, when you watch the film - not held back by self-doubt or shyness. However, the film also shows how being a creature of pure ambition probably leads to a dark endgame - it's ultimately self-defeating, in terms of capturing a "good life" (which is ironic, because in vague terms it's what these souls probably yearn for, even if they see it in misanthropic terms, as "being able to get away from humanity and find some peace and quiet.").

But there's absolutely nothing judgmental about the film. We're not supposed to hate or pity Plainview - he's lived his life by his own terms, right up until the end - the old Frank Sinatra "I did it my way." You could argue Plainview's son is the "moral center" of the film, in the sense that he's the one who seems to have the most level-headed understanding of life, but as with other Anderson films, I don't think Anderson solely endorses him. The film is really about Plainview, after all, a realistically-drawn but larger-than-life character.

i agree with almost everything you are saying here up until where he kills paul dano's character with a bowling pin.

i don't know how the audience would be able to admire him after that since it seems just completely pointless and has nothing to do with his ambition to succeed.

lumpenprol · August 19, 2012

Well I think that's sort of the point, if you're one of those kind of guys, and you've "climbed every mountain" already, what's left to do but collapse into alcoholism and lash out at whomever happens to be at hand?

Not sure if Anderson knew he'd get such a cartoonishly endearing performance from Day Lewis from the start, but the end result was that for the first 4/5 of the film the viewer grudgingly sort of admires Plainview and despises Dano, but in the end when Plainview kills Dano it's rather grotesque, so you're lead to question your own personal drives and motives. To this extent it can be read as critical of the rapacious drive to succeed, but I'd be careful to read too much into it. It's more like "you may have wanted to be this guy...do you really want to be this guy?" In any case, it feels totally inevitable and fitting for the character.

awepittance · August 19, 2012

that makes sense, i think part of the reason why the movie was so disturbing for me and making it hard to enjoy is Daniel Day Lewis does an uncanny impression of my dad

Redruth · August 20, 2012

On 8/19/2012 at 8:27 AM, Awepittance said:

that makes sense, i think part of the reason why the movie was so disturbing for me and making it hard to enjoy is Daniel Day Lewis does an uncanny impression of my dad

same

Dpek · August 27, 2012

I think he might've reached into his own psyche for the image of HIS dad - it is just a fucked-up father image projected through him through the whole movie. I can see it too

Redruth · September 10, 2012

venice film festival http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19537242

September 10, 2012

don't want to derail er anything but I was on thomas pynchon's site yesterday and it looks like PTA is trying to adapt fucking Gravity's Rainbow. couldn't even imagine where to start with that book.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Franklin

September 10, 2012

http://m.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/09/17/120917crci_cinema_lane

Whoops, just remembered that I'm not supposed to be reading reviews.

J3FF3R00 · September 17, 2012

Hey. Anyone else see this yet?

I saw it today (70mm print).

I thought it was really good.

The acting, particularly by Joaquin, was terriffic.

If he doesn't get an Oscar, it will really be an outrage.

I don't want to say too much, but I will say a little bit.

It is definitely more of a performance piece than a story driven film. I could see some people expecting a bigger story and being disappointed or angered by it, but I happened to really like it.

I think it was definitely better than TWBB, but that's just me.

It's the best role Philip Seymour Hoffman has had since The Big Lebowski.

I think the music was also crucial to the success of the film. Without it, I could imagine it failing pretty hard. It was very well done. It set such a great tone.

Seriously though. Joaquin Phoenix is really amazing in this film. Totally organic. If you are on the fence about seeing it, go see it just for him.

**vamos scorcho** · September 17, 2012

On 9/10/2012 at 4:42 AM, Franklin said:

don't want to derail er anything but I was on thomas pynchon's site yesterday and it looks like PTA is trying to adapt fucking Gravity's Rainbow. couldn't even imagine where to start with that book.

dream come true. he's probably happy to be done with The Master... it looks pretty similar in approach to There Will Be Blood.

Edited September 17, 2012 by vamos scorcho

Tauhid · September 17, 2012

On 9/17/2012 at 10:00 AM, jefferoo said:

Hey. Anyone else see this yet?

I saw it today (70mm print).

I thought it was really good.

The acting, particularly by Joaquin, was terriffic.

If he doesn't get an Oscar, it will really be an outrage.

I don't want to say too much, but I will say a little bit.

It is definitely more of a performance piece than a story driven film. I could see some people expecting a bigger story and being disappointed or angered by it, but I happened to really like it.

I think it was definitely better than TWBB, but that's just me.

It's the best role Philip Seymour Hoffman has had since The Big Lebowski.

I think the music was also crucial to the success of the film. Without it, I could imagine it failing pretty hard. It was very well done. It set such a great tone.

Seriously though. Joaquin Phoenix is really amazing in this film. Totally organic. If you are on the fence about seeing it, go see it just for him.

I saw it opening day, in 70mm as well. I agree with pretty much everything you said, really enjoyed it, though not sure if I prefer it to There Will Be Blood or not yet. I don't know if TWBB started a new "trend" in Paul Thomas Anderson's creative process, but yeah these two films are definitely more of a character study than narrative based, which is cool with me. I remember people on IMDB complaining that TWBB had no plot. I can kinda see their point, but I wouldn't knock the film over that.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tauhid

J3FF3R00 · September 17, 2012

On 9/17/2012 at 7:47 PM, Tauhid said:

On 9/17/2012 at 10:00 AM, jefferoo said:

Hey. Anyone else see this yet?

I saw it today (70mm print).

I thought it was really good.

The acting, particularly by Joaquin, was terriffic.

If he doesn't get an Oscar, it will really be an outrage.

I don't want to say too much, but I will say a little bit.

It is definitely more of a performance piece than a story driven film. I could see some people expecting a bigger story and being disappointed or angered by it, but I happened to really like it.

I think it was definitely better than TWBB, but that's just me.

It's the best role Philip Seymour Hoffman has had since The Big Lebowski.

I think the music was also crucial to the success of the film. Without it, I could imagine it failing pretty hard. It was very well done. It set such a great tone.

Seriously though. Joaquin Phoenix is really amazing in this film. Totally organic. If you are on the fence about seeing it, go see it just for him.

I saw it opening day, in 70mm as well. I agree with pretty much everything you said, really enjoyed it, though not sure if I prefer it to There Will Be Blood or not yet. I don't know if TWBB started a new "trend" in Paul Thomas Anderson's creative process, but yeah these two films are definitely more of a character study than narrative based, which is cool with me. I remember people on IMDB complaining that TWBB had no plot. I can kinda see their point, but I wouldn't knock the film over that.

Totally.

No spoilers, but I liked the ending of this one more than TWBB (just one of the things I liked better).

In TWBB, it just seemed to lapse into this unbelievable farce after Paul Danno came back as a man. I just didn't buy any of it and then it got goofy as fuck and totally broke the film's tone. I think it would have really benefited to cast someone older who looked like him to play that scene opposite DDL. I just don't think Paul Danno was a good enough actor to pull that off. It really killed the movie for me.

I should go back and watch it again tho. Haven't seen it since it came out.

I saw The Master with a friend who didn't like the ending and thought it was unnecessary, but I thought it was good. It maybe lost a little steam, but again, not exactly your traditional film.

Also, 70mm projection, if available, is definitely the way to see this film.

Some of the shots are ridiculously gorgeous and just having that extra depth of detail adds soooo much.

September 18, 2012

saw it last night and I was in a bad mood and it did nothing for me really. the cinerama dome is really nice inside though.

the music reminded me of the quirky rhythmic pieces in punchdrunklove (despite a different composer weirdly) but here they didnt fit most of the time.

I recently rewatched magnolia and found it a slog too so maybe I am just not a PTA fan.

yeah it looks nice and pheonix acts well with his elbows but otherwise i was a bit underwhelmed

i just didnt find the relationship between quill and master compelling enough to sit through one singing to the other

Edited September 18, 2012 by Jimmy McMessageboard

Stay up to date

Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Gary C

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Franklin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Gary C

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Jimmy McMessageboard

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 1 Member

Similar Content