Director: Paul Thomas Anderson (Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood)
Writer: Paul Thomas Anderson
Producers: Paul Thomas Anderson, Megan Ellison, Daniel Lupi, JoAnne Sellar
Starring: Amy Adams, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, Jesse Plemons, Laura Dern, Kevin J. O’Connor
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 137 min.
(4.5/5)[HUGE heaps of thanks(!) to our buddy, Patrick Ripoll,
from The Director's Club for putting this review together for us]
If you care about film and have any vague awareness of what happens on the internet’s film community, you probably already know that Paul Thomas Anderson screened a 70mm print of his upcoming film, The Master, at Chicago’s historic Music Box Theater on August 16th. Despite being announced and going on sale a mere day’s notice, approximately 800 tickets sold out in hours. As we waited in line, it felt like a group of Catholics waiting to meet the Pope, especially since PTA was rumored to be there.
Luckily, he had the good sense to not come out to introduce or close the film. As much as I’d love to have seen the man, imagine Kubrick coming out after the second ever screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey to field questions about the Star Child. The Master is a similarly beautiful, bizarre and elusive film, with an incredible central performance that appropriately calls to mind two iconic Kubrick performances. Joaquin Phoenix’s performance as Freddie Sutton, a mentally disturbed (PTA never lets the diagnosis of Freddie’s mental state get much more specific than that) WWII vet first and foremost calls to mind Malcolm McDowell’s Alex in A Clockwork Orange. He’s a man who seems to operate purely on base impulse and desire, with little use for society’s manners and conventions. He openly propositions women for sex in public. His anger turns to violence on the turn of a dime. He compulsively makes and drinks strange concoctions of various non-potable chemicals. You get the feeling that any time he spends not acting wildly is more a result of him being too bored or tired to do so than any kind of submission to the social contract.
It’s not until he meets Lancaster Dodd, creator and leader of a cult called “The Cause” (clearly based on Scientology) that he begins to resemble a second Kubrick character: the ape in 2001. Dodd’s fascination with Freddie, who directly challenges his cults call to destroy one’s animal impulses and evolve to a higher plane, leads to an unusual mentorship. It’s as if Dodd sees Freddie as an opportunity to prove to himself that his philosophies and theories actually are worth a damn. In turn, Dodd and “The Cause” represent an acceptance and unconditional love that’s been absent from his nomadic lifestyle. Simply put, they are Freddie’s monolith. They make him point his head up and acknowledge that he is not just an animal. But while Kubrick represented that evolution within the space of the world’s most famous jump-cut, Anderson dives deep into the pain of it.
Those going into this film expecting to find an indictment of Scientology, or organized religion of any kind, will likely leave as disappointed as those who assumed that There Will Be Blood would merely be an indictment of capitalism and religion. PTA has found his stride, and it would seem his films will be a lot less easy to define from here on. PTA seems to view religion as inherently false here, just like he did in There Will Be Blood, but he also seems to understand it. The struggle Freddie feels trying to battle his lesser impulses is heart-felt, painful, and doesn’t really condemn anyone involved. This is not A Clockwork Orange, where forced goodness comes at the expense of freedom, nor is it Boudu Saved from Drowning, where attempts to “civilize the savage” are merely condescending exercises in superiority. The struggles in the film come not from a clash between the nature of Freddie and the nurturing of Dodd, but entirely within Freddie himself. As a lapsed Catholic, it’s certainly a story I related to.
There’s not enough hyperbole to throw at Joaquin’s performance. When I refer to Freddie as animalstic, it doesn’t really do it justice. Joaquin is a man possessed here, losing himself in the role so completely it’s honestly frightening at times. When Freddie gets angry and violent, you legitimately fear for his co-stars. It’s the kind of compelling central performance that you saw with Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood, but with none of the camp. Phoenix, along with the best cinematography of both Paul Thomas Anderson and DP Mihai Malaimare Jr.’s careers, are the strongest forces that carry you through this strange and often baffling film.
Which is good, because while the film has a raw-nerve charge every time Freddie’s onscreen, there’s a fair amount of it that is at best pleasantly surreal and at worst just plain tiring. I’ve given you the film’s basic premise and the themes I was able to draw out of it, but it’d be a bald-faced lie to say that I’m confident I understood it. The purpose and existence of numerous scenes baffled me and, much worse, bored me. It’s a dense film to be sure, and more than one viewing will likely be mandatory for most audiences. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that this is indeed a staggering work of genius, but right now I’m not convinced of it. It feels less like a carefully constructed presentation of ideas than a instinctually driven exploration of them. Which, of course, is not an inherently better or worse way to make a film, but it does leave many scenes later in the film, particularly those that focus on the inner workings of The Cause, that lack the natural compelling element of Joaquin’s performance, to flounder on their own.
But of course, like There Will Be Blood before it – I have never heard two people who have the exact same take on Daniel Plainview as a character– this is a film that everyone will walk away from with their own feelings and opinions. There are too many breathtaking scenes (one in particular, between Hoffman and Phoenix that will be a very strong contender for 2012′s “Best Scene” Skandie), too much beautiful photography, and too many chilling moments to leave anyone feeling indifferent. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a deeply affecting one that you will carry in your head for a long time.
Completely agree with the long-term strategy point. Now that J.J. has left the building and I hope all his...
Bang on in the sense that PT Anderson has left his Altman fetish behind and started a Kubrick one with There Will Be Blood (a film that plays shockingly similar to THE SHINING – a film about men, work and family going down in flames.)
I cannot wait to catch THE MASTER, particularly in the 70mm format.
Also extremely looking forward to this. Great review.
Special thanks to Erin Vogel for copy-editing this for me, turning my unintelligible rambling into something readable.
Interview with P.T. Anderson: http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/3698658/
Dude… this made $146,000 per screen on five screens this weekend. How is that even possible?
We went to see it yesterday at Arclight Hollywood (one of two theatres showing it in LA), and it was playing there basically every half hour, and every screening seemed to be largely sold out. We got there at 2:45 intending to see the 3:15 screening, but only front row seats were left; we ended up at the 3:45 screening, but still pretty close up; only a handful of seats were open. People next to us trying to get seats further back were ranging into the 5:00 hour, I think, and still being frustrated. All told, the thing screened every half hour from 9:15am to 12:15am (yes, after midnight) yesterday at that theatre – our screening room was pretty large, probably held a good 500 people. It was also screening in the Arclight Cinerama Dome, which probably holds two or three times that. Not sure if those were sold out or not.
Also, I don’t know about the theatres in New York, but the two theatres in LA where it was screening are premium theatres – our 3:45pm tickets were $13.50 each, and a primetime ticket is around $17 now. So that probably factors in some, too, but yeah. It’s still a hell of a lot.
The per-screen averages are really per-theatre averages, right? It was showing on at least four screens in Arclight.
um more importantly what did you think of the movie?
You didn’t like There Will Be Blood, I trust your opinion more than most.
I actually liked it quite a bit. Certainly much, much better than TWBB. There’s actually nuance in the characterization, and give and take between two far more equal characters (and actors) than DDL and what’s-his-face in TWBB. It has some of the same tone (in no small part to the similar score), but a good bit more humor, which helped a lot.
Structurally and execution it is very, very similar to TWBB, even if the characters are much much different. The performances of the two characters at odds with each other are not as unbalanced as DDL vs. Paul Dano. Here, Joaquin Pheonix and PSH are perfectly matched playing mirror imaged characters, each drowning in their own vices and id/ego.
How much Freudian crap is in this film?
The whole movie is Ego/Id, with ‘Scientology’ presented in the film essentially being psycho-analysis with Dodd’s personality interfering with the process.
so if you don’t like Freud you are likely going to hate this movie…
I happen to love it though. This was the movie that A DANGEROUS METHOD should have been. Cronenberg is in this case, kindergarten hour, compared to P.T. Anderson.
I was blown away by THE MASTER, it’s not a film that I can processes completely on a single viewing however…There is much to be considered and gleaned from the Quell/Dodd relationship, which is like a hyper-sexual yet onscreen-platonic spiral of addiction. It’s mesmerizing stuff.
I’m with you. It ended and I wanted to just sit there and watch it again. Phoenix, Hoffman, and Adams – their performances were astonishing. What is it about Anderson that gets these monster performances out of his actors?
Also, did anyone else notice how tiny Phoenix looked when next to, well… pretty much anyone in the movie?
It’s his weird, hands-on-hips body language.
Also, AMY ADAMS is Ginormous in this film. Not only in a fat-suit (for the single nudity scene), but really in how she carries herself as THE CAUSE true believer…
Agreed.
I also love how his hands-on-his-hip are inverted compared to, well, how 99.9% of the population for their hands on their hip. It was a nice, off-kilter touch.
The first sit down session between Quell/ Dodd is the best scene of the year (guessing this is the same Patrick hints at in review).
Even though there is a lot enigmatic in the film I nevet felt any of it boring or flat or without promise. I am fine admitting one viewing is not enough but I was able to see enough playing out particularly in the visual language of the film beckoning one to look deeper. Especially fond of the recurring cage imagery and the use of select focus on close-ups.
essential reading: http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/what-is-the-master-really-about-five-readings.html
leaning towards the Double interpretation, having seen it only once.
Good find, Rot. The first one was basically how I read it on first watch (search for family and stability), but I can easily see all the others as well. Most of the criticisms I’ve seen of the film have been either a) there isn’t a story or b) it’s unclear what PTA’s trying to say. Seems like both of these totally miss the point of a movie like this, which is to lay out characters and premises and elements and let you draw out the richness of them yourself.
Seems strange that all of these readings and other stuff I read seem to gloss over the Doris part of the story and it seems significant to me, even if I don’t quite know how. One of the most striking scenes is when he returns to find Doris and discovers she has moved on. You are seeing Freddie apparently outside of the reach of The Cause, and he is visibly changed, his mannerisms are different, his behavior is controlled. For me it was abrupt, it is the only time you see him this way. Is this just a mask he is wearing in this scene to hide his pride? We have never seen the character capable of anything remotely like a mask. Is it that he went sober, and being a part of The Cause is akin to his alcoholism?
Maybe it is just me, but I also think the Caspar line “The captain should never leave the ship” is significant, considering all the emphasis in the film on ships and seafaring culture (the Long Trip to China song, and the signature scene of A-Roving). I think Dodd makes a mention at one point that life was easier on the ship, the second they stepped off it the vultures come for them. So the safety of the ship, maybe the youthful, bawdy aspects of it, as a kind of refuge from all things maybe. Of having to defend yourself, having to grow up, having to live in the world, which also mirrors Freddie’s journey post-war, now landed and somewhat useless.