The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#551 Post by warren oates » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:15 am

Alan Smithee wrote:Just wondering if anyone else has read Going Clear? I want to watch The Master now that I have. I was aware of Hubbards history a bit when I saw it first but now that I know the full deal it changes the way I've seen The Master completely. Anderson did a tremendous job of covering the birth of Scientology while making something distinctly separate that can be taken on its own terms. It seems now that Hubbard is split into two characters, Freddie and Lancaster are both distinct sides to Hubbard's Bio, and when you see the film from that perspective it becomes quite a bit darker.
Yeah, well, not to pour new gasoline on this old thread or anything, but I disagree. Going Clear is an interesting read, but less so if you're familiar with the Hubbard bio material covered similarly in other previous books like Inside Scientology. The good new stuff in Wright's book is about current church leadership. I'm not sure you can so easily make that leap from the Wright book to the idea that Anderson's film is somehow a psychodrama about Hubbard at war with himself. If the weirdness of church history and the inherent drama surrounding its foundation and continuity is what interests you, I suspect revisiting the film will only disappoint you. You should really just pick up Jenna Miscavige's harrowing tell-all Beyond Belief.

gfxtwin
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:22 pm
Location: Austin

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#552 Post by gfxtwin » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:29 am

First viewing was confusing, I admit. Second viewing it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. I'm convinced this is a comedy now. There are definitely some serious and dark aspects to the story, but notice how many scenes seem to be structured as jokes with the back and forth dialogue ending on an absurd or funny note. Almost straight-up goofy/cornball, like a scene in Billy Madison (as weird as that sounds). Joaquin phoenix's character makes you feel a lot of emotions at once with how his harsh and painful life experiences twist him up emotionally and physically into a character that makes you cringe but you also hope finds peace in life. And the comedy kicks in with how often his dramatic, suspenseful acting drifts unexpectedly into complete Sandler-esque physical comedy meltdowns IMO. Sometimes his performance can be hard to watch given how tragic his character is, but I find it tough to deny that his utter lack of control over his actions which results in him often doing bizarre, random as fuck crazy things consistently forced a laugh out of me.

And PSH's take on a smug, tightly wound, manipulative guy who goes from self-help guru to cult leader to full-blown religious figure is absurd in a dark but hilarious way. His performance seems Lynchian at times, his acting style in this movie would go from creepy, looming authoritarian figure to preacher to caring paternal figure to smug dick to absurd and cartoonish weirdo (his long, odd pause for no reason when he and his plaything/Quell dig up his oh-so-monumentally important life's work in the desert as though it was the archeological discovery of a lifetime, his goofy expression when he stares in the distance as Quell converges with the horizon line on Dodd's now stolen motorcycle before screaming his name in rage disguised as concern (as if Quell could even hear him at that point lol), his reaction when his wife randomly jerks him off (also one of many funny moments from Amy Adams) and his outburst of coiled back anger at Laura Dern's character when she asks him why he changed a word in his new book, etc). The movie is thoroughly hilarious in a cerebral way and I'm not trying to discred the psychological depth of the characters and seriousness of the subject matter but I'm really feeling it most as a comedy, a satire that deconstructs how bizarro cults like Scientology and Branch Davidians, etc come into being and it revels in exploring the minds of the quacks that lead them and the poor idjots and victims who often get duped into being made/brainwashed.
Last edited by gfxtwin on Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
barryconvex
billy..biff..scooter....tommy
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#553 Post by barryconvex » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:07 am

i have to say i pretty much completely agree with your first reaction and subsequent assessment of this. i watched it again the other day and you've summed up exactly why i not only think it's a great, great movie but also why hoffman's performance is really one for the ages. DDL gave the showier performance in there will be blood and its probably what got him an oscar, great as it is. but hoffman hits notes on opposite ends of the scale here that are nearly impossible to reach. a true tour de force by an actor at the top of his game. i mean the man says good-bye to his old comrade in arms by serenading him with "slow boat to china" right after telling him that in their next lifetimes they will be sworn enemies? and this comes after the even weirder randomness of the "go roving" scene? this is jaw dropping territory...for me, in terms of total command, hoffman's performance earns him a place on the short-shortlist with brando in last tango in paris and liv ullman in scenes from a marriage...and i haven't even gotten into phoenix' outstanding work. great movie...

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#554 Post by ianthemovie » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:29 pm

Has anyone commented on Ned Beatty's wonderfully flamboyant, scenery-chewing performance in Network as a possible influence on Hoffman's performance in this? According to IMDB Network is one of PTA's favorite movies. I just re-watched it the other week and Beatty's tent-pole-evangelist acting style immediately called to mind Lancaster Dodd. I know many critics have drawn comparisons to Orson Welles but I would bet money that Beatty was also a reference point.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#555 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:59 pm

I don't know about the influence, but we could also add Beatty's memorable role in Wise Blood, monetising the main character's sermons!


hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Paul Thomas Anderson

#557 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:22 pm

The Master frustrated me to no end. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get into it at all.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Paul Thomas Anderson

#558 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:23 pm

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:The Master frustrated me to no end. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get into it at all.
Care to... elaborate?

hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Paul Thomas Anderson

#559 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:43 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
hanshotfirst1138 wrote:The Master frustrated me to no end. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get into it at all.
Care to... elaborate?
I didn't find the film accessible at all. Any actual thesis of the film escaped me, and its meandering without a central narrative simply made it hard for me to get onto its wavelength. Anderson has clearly moved away from traditional narrative and towards a more ethereal style influenced by Kubrick and Herzog. I didn't hate the film, but I was just bored with it. It feels even more abstracted that There Will Be Blood, and like TWBB, there's almost no one to like or be interested in. It's like ambient cinema; the cinematography is breathtaking, the acting is unquestionably excellent,and soundtrack is appropriately moody. But I felt like I watched the film at arm's length, always observing the technical elements without actually be engaged by the characters or narrative.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#560 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:36 pm

Still not sure I'm understanding your specific issues with this film beyond a general (and pretty inaccurate) accusation that it doesn't have a linear narrative or a thematic philosophy. Especially because it's been exhaustively written about, both here (this thread is 23 pages long!) and elsewhere... no one is keeping any of this a secret from you. Usually if people dislike a film they talk about the film itself and what they took issue with. No one is requiring you to like it, but you've posted twice now out of the blue, and haven't said anything about the film.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#561 Post by Drucker » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:44 pm

It might also be more helpful to think of both of the films you mentioned as more akin to Raging Bull and other character studies than an alternative. They focus on the identities of one or two individuals, and focus most of their attention on a short period of that individual's life. These are films about the protagonists' lives and the events that shape them.

hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#562 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:14 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Still not sure I'm understanding your specific issues with this film beyond a general (and pretty inaccurate) accusation that it doesn't have a linear narrative or a thematic philosophy. Especially because it's been exhaustively written about, both here (this thread is 23 pages long!) and elsewhere... no one is keeping any of this a secret from you. Usually if people dislike a film they talk about the film itself and what they took issue with. No one is requiring you to like it, but you've posted twice now out of the blue, and haven't said anything about the film.
OK, fair enough. I don't hate the film by any stretch, I guess I just didn't "get" it. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box ;). I guess at the end of the day, I just didn't like anybody in the film enough to be interested in it. I see most of the themes: the appeal of cults, the desire to belong, the ideas about PTSD, sexual desire, etc. Like I said, I found myself bored, I felt like there was a mood and rhythm to the film I couldn't get onto. Maybe you're right; that's more my fault than the film's. I'd be willing to accept that. Like I said, it could just be over my head.
Drucker wrote:It might also be more helpful to think of both of the films you mentioned as more akin to Raging Bull and other character studies than an alternative. They focus on the identities of one or two individuals, and focus most of their attention on a short period of that individual's life. These are films about the protagonists' lives and the events that shape them.
Raging Bull is kind of a good comparison. It's certainly more a character piece than A-B-C storyline per se. I don't find Quell and Dodd quite as unlikeable as Jake LaMotta; they're interesting, but I never really felt moved by the film or the characters, and was left admiring the technique more than the actual storyline itself, that's all.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#563 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:28 pm

Guessing you're on the young side and perhaps just delving into sharing your opinions on films here (apologies if I misjudged either of these things, don't mean them as insults) - I'd either use this film as a jumping off point, or another you're interested in, and read up on the ways in which people write about it. A good place to start would be just finding a way to discuss it beyond your like or dislike of the overall product and getting into the texture of what you dislike within it. We get that you were bored by it, or that it wasn't your kind of filmmaking - that much has been made clear. But we don't have any idea why based on these posts.

hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#564 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:36 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Guessing you're on the young side and perhaps just delving into sharing your opinions on films here (apologies if I misjudged either of these things, don't mean them as insults) - I'd either use this film as a jumping off point, or another you're interested in, and read up on the ways in which people write about it. A good place to start would be just finding a way to discuss it beyond your like or dislike of the overall product and getting into the texture of what you dislike within it. We get that you were bored by it, or that it wasn't your kind of filmmaking - that much has been made clear. But we don't have any idea why based on these posts.
I’m 30, but I’ll take anyone who thinks I’m young ;). Not a problem at all, I’ll keep that in mind for future posts.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#565 Post by Drucker » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:40 am

Drucker wrote:Grand Illusion I quite disagree. Without responding point by point, I feel that Phoenix's character is constantly doing his best and trying to penetrate the Cause's world, but can't do it.

This won't come off eloquently but,
SpoilerShow
His frustration in not being accepted/not being able to break through in this cult is what I love about the film. He wants to change and to grow, but his efforts ring hollow not for his lack of will, but because maybe there really is nothing there. The Master is arguably full of shit. Laura Dern gets frustrated when "phase 2" or whatever begins, as well. That nothing changes and breakthroughs are often not accomplished I think is what makes the film more realistic and remarkable.
I don't know if he means to condemn religion in general with the film, but that's how I took a deal of it. (Master's procolmation that humans are above, not a part of, the animal kingdom, and such). I think the film was great, and Phoenix's character absolutely helps carry the film.
Five years later and this is far and away my favorite Anderson. Now having seen all of his work, and re-watching a ton of his films recently, I really don't think any of his films hit me the way this one does. I remember catching this on a Sunday morning and being very tired when watching this.

I guess I just re-upped this post to illustrate how wrong I was in my reading of the film. Freddie doesn't want to change and grow at all, nor is he capable of doing so. He's moving at his own pace, and going where the wind takes him. It's an absolutely beautiful performance, and Hoffman's ability to play someone so laughably full of shit in order to serve his ego is equally moving.

I'm skimming through this thread and just wanted to address one question: did people read Hoffman changing "recall" to "imagine" simply to account for Freddie? Is the enigma that is Freddie so impenetrable to him that he must redefine his own work to score Freddie as a win/convert, essentially?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#566 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:34 am

Drucker wrote:...I'm skimming through this thread and just wanted to address one question: did people read Hoffman changing "recall" to "imagine" simply to account for Freddie? Is the enigma that is Freddie so impenetrable to him that he must redefine his own work to score Freddie as a win/convert, essentially?
I like that idea and it seems to fit in with how Dodd's fascination with Quell is what compromises him in the eyes of his family and followers. I would disagree that Quell is unable to change and believe the film shows his growth in the slightly more measured way he accepts the loss of Doris (from what would be expected given his explosive temper). This is far from a dramatic change and that's the point: Quell's growth is genuine and has nothing to do with the Cause. In the end, he remains true to himself and even ridicules the processing language by using it as playful coitus talk.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#567 Post by Drucker » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:18 am

I saw your age-old post last night as I was skimming this thread, and you (and others) made a lot of great points. And I may have been a bit harsh on Quell last night, assuming he could not change. But every time I re-watch this film now, I am struck by his animalistic and simplistic ways, and Dodd's urge to "tame" him. There's something to Freddie's growth, but is he even wise enough to see it in himself?

As I continue to process the film, it's amazing how Phoenix plays the role just unintelligent enough. He's a simpleton, but a believable simpleton, and he's capable of existing in the world. (Contrasts nicely with another film I watched for the first time the other week, Being There, which is obviously far too fantastical to be anywhere remotely believable).

I was also taken aback by how early on and how clearly Dodd is presented to the viewer as totally full of shit. Hoffman's performance, from his first speech on the boat about taming the dragon, is so great because he really gives his all to this meaningless speech which says nothing at all. The only speech of his that I found striking is the one where he's attacked by Moore, and he does a better job explaining/defending his ideas than at any other point.

I fell asleep reading the disagreement about whether or not we know anything about who Dodd is, and I'd like to add what I think we know about Dodd:
SpoilerShow
-He's got two kids and is likely divorced
-I assume he's divorced because his current wife calls out his infidelity, and he's running what is likely a scam
-He's building his "movement" off of the pocketbook of gullible rich friends
-He's incredibly prone to his vices (drinking, cursing, outbursts)
-At the end, his movement is "succeeding" and he's making money building an empire
Maybe we don't know his whole life, but there's a ton there.

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#568 Post by Constable » Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:56 am

A question about a scene I didn't understand: it's the one where Amy Adams gives PSH a hand job.

She says you can do what you want so long as I don't find out and so long as no one I know knows. This follows that scene where he dances with some of the women in the house, so I take this to be her addressing potential infidelities, but then she says "Other than that, stop with this idea. Put it back in its pants. It didn't work for them and it's not gonna work for you." That part I don't understand.

What idea and who's "them" that it didn't work for. You could say the idea is fooling with other women, but it doesn't seem to fit with what she'd said just before that (you can do it, but other than that stop it??).

User avatar
Roscoe
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#569 Post by Roscoe » Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:39 am

Constable wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:56 am
A question about a scene I didn't understand: it's the one where Amy Adams gives PSH a hand job.

She says you can do what you want so long as I don't find out and so long as no one I know knows. This follows that scene where he dances with some of the women in the house, so I take this to be her addressing potential infidelities, but then she says "Other than that, stop with this idea. Put it back in its pants. It didn't work for them and it's not gonna work for you." That part I don't understand.

What idea and who's "them" that it didn't work for. You could say the idea is fooling with other women, but it doesn't seem to fit with what she'd said just before that (you can do it, but other than that stop it??).
The whole "Go A-Roving" scene is a puzzler sure, especially when the women are suddenly nude. I always assumed the handjob scene you describe referred to some plans of Dodd's that she knows of that we don't, or even that she can see him starting down a possible sexual path for the Cause involving free love and orgies -- "bad idea, don't do it" is her message. Is the bad idea "polygamy" and is "them" Mormons? Maybe. It's deliberately obscure.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#570 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:29 am

Yeah the key obvious takeaway from the scene is Adams' dominance over her husband and how easily she can manipulate his action, as well as how closely linked his animalistic impulses are to higher-brain decision-making in the most reptilian ways (just like Phoenix) without realizing it. Any specifics in what she's saying are, at least comparatively, superfluous

User avatar
pzadvance
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#571 Post by pzadvance » Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:37 am

I posted this a decade(!) ago after reading an earlier draft-- sounds like it's a bit of a remnant from that:
- The jerking off scene ("You stop this idea... It didn't work for them and it's not gonna work for you") succeeds a scene in which Dodd proposes to his followers that there is value in polygamy, even referencing Joseph Smith and the Mormons ("something Joseph Smith had right"). This clarifies her lines a bit more.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#572 Post by Roger Ryan » Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:38 pm

Roscoe wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:39 am
The whole "Go A-Roving" scene is a puzzler sure, especially when the women are suddenly nude....
The nudity is Freddie's fantasy of what is happening (his point-of-view which is often a basic sexual one). In a way, Freddie is accurately interpreting what Dodd might be thinking regarding polygamy ("Go A-Roving" kind of spells that out, right?). Dodd's wife, who is becoming more fully aware of Freddie's influence on her husband, feels the need to set Dodd straight.

User avatar
Roscoe
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#573 Post by Roscoe » Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:07 pm

Roger Ryan wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:38 pm
Roscoe wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:39 am
The whole "Go A-Roving" scene is a puzzler sure, especially when the women are suddenly nude....
The nudity is Freddie's fantasy of what is happening (his point-of-view which is often a basic sexual one). In a way, Freddie is accurately interpreting what Dodd might be thinking regarding polygamy ("Go A-Roving" kind of spells that out, right?). Dodd's wife, who is becoming more fully aware of Freddie's influence on her husband, feels the need to set Dodd straight.
That's one reading of it.

Soothsayer
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:54 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#574 Post by Soothsayer » Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:43 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:29 am
Yeah the key obvious takeaway from the scene is Adams' dominance over her husband and how easily she can manipulate his action, as well as how closely linked his animalistic impulses are to higher-brain decision-making in the most reptilian ways (just like Phoenix) without realizing it. Any specifics in what she's saying are, at least comparatively, superfluous
I see the Amy Adams character differently. Someone who feels vulnerable to her husband's drive to be a leader. That she could become castaway if he suddenly finds someone else he feels more attracted to/compatible with. She is aware that PSH is attracted to a maternal instinct, so she acts accordingly. But the dominance you describe could just be that, an act.

As far as her motivations in the handjob scene, there's certainly an open-endedness to it, and Roscoe's take above is an interesting one I hadn't considered.
SpoilerShow
I saw the scene as an attempt to remind PSH that control is necessary in every regard. Including who he decides to pursue sexually and the discretion necessary. Something akin to a caste system and a reminder that physical attraction is not the sole measuring stick. That's where I see the mystery of the Amy Adams character. I think she simultaneously approves of the notion of PSH sleeping with Laura Dern's character due to seeing her as a "worthy candidate". While simultaneously being intimidated by the prospect.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)

#575 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:19 pm

I agree about Adams' character's complexity, but I don't necessarily think that scene is what best highlights that aspect of her characterization, though plenty of others do and it certainly helps contextualize how she works with that vulnerability. Still, I stand by what I think PTA is aiming to signify there - in very admittedly oversimplified terms

Post Reply