by Allan Fish
(USA 2012 144mm)
To the poison
p Megan Ellison, Daniel Lupi, Paul Thomas Anderson, JoAnne Sellar d/w Paul Thomas Anderson ph Mihai Malaimare Jnr ed Leslie Jones, Peter McNulty m Jonny Greenwood art David Crank, Jack Fisk, Amy Wells cos Mark Bridges
Joaquin Phoenix (Freddie Quell), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Lancaster Dodd), Amy Adams (Peggy Dodd (Jesse Clemons (Val Dodd), Laura Dern (Helen Sullivan), Lena Endre (Mrs Solstad), Madison Beaty (Doris Salstad), Ambys Childers (Elizabeth Dodd), Patty McCormack (Mildred Drummond), Amy Ferguson (Martha), W.Earl Brown,
When I first heard of The Master, long before it even went into pre-production, it had already become somewhat mythic. It was supposed to be the film that looked at the sinister heart of cult beliefs and religions, a thinly disguised attack on Scientologists that to many potential viewers may have seemed long overdue. But bear in mind the hotshots for whom L.Ron Hubbard’s dubious philosophy is part of their bloodstream, in particular the same Thomas Cruise Mapother IV who gave his greatest performance, and in money terms his seal of approval, in Magnolia by the self-same Paul Thomas Anderson. There was a danger that modern cinema’s greatest potential master was out to blow himself up, like the naïve genius of Citizen Kane all over again.
When the finished film finally arrived, however, it turned out to be anything but that we might have expected or, for him at least, feared. Indeed it’s hard at times to believe that it’s an original film at all. You look at this mixed-up, anti-social, psychotic, almost impenetrable protagonists Freddie Quell and he feels like the antihero to one of the great American novels; that’s the genius, PTA has made the first great cine-novel. It may be accentuated by the period (it’s set in the decade after World War II), but there are aspects of Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, Kerouac, even Ayn Rand.
It’s little wonder then that it was too much for many commentators. Here was an unconventional narrative which, for the most part, progresses linearly, but whose gaps, whose enigmas of narrative so that some aspects remain deliberately ambiguous, go against every school of traditional Hollywood filmmaking. There Will be Blood was an operatic piece, a great American dream turned nightmare. The Master is likewise set in the past, around half a century later, not coincidentally the period when L.Ron Hubbard was at the height of his dubious success. Yet this is also a recognisable past, a time of great disillusionment among not just Americans but the worldwide populace, and he captures this malaise with the uncanny brilliance of what could only be seen as a master.
Technically The Master is beyond brilliant, shot in 70mm and looking an absolute picture. Not just the photography and typically exquisite camerawork and editing, but those interior and exterior designs. Veteran and regular collaborator with Lynch and Malick, Jack Fisk continues his superb work with Anderson on Blood, arguably even outdoing it. Not to mention the pitch perfect costumes, right down to the choice of suits for Hoffman’s false messiah and Freddie’s shirts.
It’s in the characterisation that it really goes that extra mile, however, as in the end the whole Scientology parallel is pretty much backstory, merely the setting for the real drama taking place. The Master is really about the friendship, at some primordial intrinsic level, between Phoenix’s Quell and Hoffman’s Dodd. Though Quell is distinctly unlikeable and we know Dodd’s a charlatan, their relationship is real and achieves tragic dimensions so that their tears break you down and leave you floored, devastated even, at what has unfolded. It captures perfectly the sense of pain of someone who is beyond help of any kind. Hoffman is magnificent as Dodd, as one has come to expect from him, and Adams is chillingly loyal as his wife, but this is Phoenix’s show. So powerful is he, and so at odds with both the world and himself, one could almost come to see his recent sabbatical and, to be kind, strangeness, as method acting beyond the pale, in preparation for playing Freddie. Either way, it’s an astonishing accomplishment.
Allan, I’d even include Norman Mailer in as an influence, though less as a novelist than as a personality and, in fact, a filmmaker. Think of The Master as Boudu wandering onto the set of Maidstone and you might be onto something, though neither Anderson nor Phoenix, thankfully, philosophizes with a hammer.
I can see an influence from most of the novelists listed, and even a kinship of quality with some (I reel at the idea of Rand as a great novelist, or even a decent human being, though I don’t doubt there’s some of her cult of personality in Dodd). I’m also reminded a bit of Salinger, both in the lost boy of Quell (who seems akin to Holden, and even reminds of an apocryphal story Salinger wrote of a Caulfield missing in war, suspected AWOL for psychological reasons) and the Glass family stories (all that mystical stuff from “Franny & Zooey”).
A technical question– what were the conditions you saw this under? Though the film was shot in 70mm, it’s received a lot of digital projections in art-house theaters, and probably a few 35mm prints. Even some of the 70mm prints over here have been shown in rather terrible venues, with screens not nearly large enough to accommodate the extra volumes of visual information (sad to think that a major art-film like this can get squeezed into pathetic shoebox theaters like the Angelika, while mainstream stuff like “The Dark Knight Rises” hog up the IMAX screens just to showcase the 70mm set-pieces).
I was lucky enough to see the film on the large screen of the Ziegfeld in Manhattan, where I’ve seen a number of great 35mm films in the past (the final cut version of “Blade Runner” played there, for example), and as such you can clearly tell a difference in the sharpness of image that 70mm affords. I count “The Master” as a flawed but worthy film as well, but I’ll freely admit here that my experience was vastly improved by being able to see it in true 70mm and not a compromised presentation. I wonder how many of the film’s critics have seen it in true 70mm, themselves.
I don’t think it matters how you see The Master Bob. You don’t need perfect 70mm presentation to get at the gist of what this movie is about. The first time I saw it at the Angelika I was already certain the film was a masterpiece. Yeah I agree that the Angelika is absolutely sub-optimal for seeing even the most low budget of mumblecore, but I can’t imagine critics were swayed either way simply by the visual presentation or lack thereof of The Master. Like Allan alludes to in his piece, most reservations were based on the narrative that some found confounding. It’s basically the same argument that The Tree Of Life endured… having an American film that does not go from point A to point B without total explanation and tidy resolution gets criticized by those that need their cinematic Hollywood formula adhered to vigorously. On top of that The Master is even more measured in it’s emotional denouement and thus upsets those looking for a happy ending or some superficial Hollywood-ish moment to grab onto (though Quell’s escape is certainly meant as a happy positive conclusion as far as I’m concerned).
“Though Quell is distinctly unlikeable and we know Dodd’s a charlatan, their relationship is real and achieves tragic dimensions so that their tears break you down and leave you floored, devastated even, at what has unfolded.”
I agree with this but I also think that Anderson is saying that Quell NEEDS to leave. He is not meant to have a master or be caged in by rules and religion. Like the waves he is always juxtaposed with, he must travel on… away from conformity and superficial customs set up by a dishonest society.
Yup, that’s fair enough.
Maurizio….yeah but with The Tree of Life, I found a clear interpretation in my own mind as to what the point was. IMO, the point of that film was to portray the moment of awareness of an individual who has come to grips with his own mortality and his own smallness and it is an attempt to show his search for salvation. I might be wrong, but at least I have an interpretation. With The Master, I have no interpretation that makes any sense. I’ve heard one say that the whole film attempts to show man’s evolution from instinctual being to higher calling and social awareness. I also think there is a great deal here to say about Men and their need for validation. There’s also something here about buried Homosexuality, about fraud, about religion in general….etc. But none of these themes seem to come to the fore to add up to anything greater than the performances themselves. I would really love to understand how you are viewing this film. As I stated below….I do like the film and labeled it just shy of masterpiece. It’s great in many sections though.
You’re so right on, Maurizio!
I’ve made my views on The Master clear a number of times including some tidbits on this thread. I think during Sam’s MMD I elaborated for a couple of paragraphs as well. For me, The Master makes as much sense as The Tree Of Life except that it doesn’t offer an overwhelmingly tangible emotional response for some viewers (much more subtle in it’s denouement). Some take this overt denial as a form of cerebral murkiness or enigmatic confusion, but for me the message was quite clear.
Two people have forged separate paths after the trauma of the war period into an uncertain post war period. Both deal with their collective despair in opposite spectrums. One is asking others to love and follow him, while the other is looking to relinquish his love to others. An unlikely friendship ensues where they both give and take from each other but ultimately are incompatible. For me Dodd represents the need for rigid structure after chaos. Peel back freedom and follow a “master” who will make things alright, without you needing to do it for yourself. Quell represents the ID or total freedom in the opposite direction by shunning such superficial rules and broken authority figures and do whatever makes you feel right. Don’t let someone else make you conform your true nature for some false predetermined set of (in this case arbitrary) rules. The fact that Quell ultimately leaves makes me think that Anderson is saying we must all shed such unnatural traps and follow a more instinctual path (or that both roads are perhaps mutually exclusive). Religion, cults, societal expectations, etc are just unnatural measures of containment that deaden and hurt individuality and instinctual well being. We are meant to be ourselves and not what others want us to be. This is how I remember it 2 1/2 months after last seeing the film. A haste explanation but it’ll do.
Thanks Maurizio. Appreciate the response. Nice summary.
I saw it in 70mm, at the Lincoln Center AMC while I was attending the NY Film Festival. Though I was surprised by the ration the film was projected in, I was astounded by its clear visuals. If this was the last film I was meant to see projected on film, then it was a just one. I completely agree with Allan, by the way. Only Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN ANATOLIA bests Anderson’s THE MASTER as the finest picture of this year, as far as I’ve seen.
And that’s 2011, Dean. :-) The print I saw at the Cornerhouse Manchester was extremely sharp, but maybe not quite as sharp as I was expecting from 70mm. The ratio was surprising, too.
Too wide or too tall? 70mm is usually thought of as this super widescreen format thanks to how films shot in it are letterboxed for television, but when it’s done with a full, open frame as Anderson did the ratio’s not far removed from 1.85, isn’t it? That raises another question with theatrical exibition, if they’re showing it full or masking it just a little. How big was the screen itself?
The ratio was rather more square than rectangular, which was a distracting surprise to me initially, but I grew to love it. By the way, is there anything better in photography this year than those moments where we see Freddie’s well-lit images? I really felt transported into another world with those scenes. Freddie is an artist, and has something valuable to offer.
Wow, you saw it at the NYFF Dean? Nice!!!
Well, it wasn’t part of the NYFF, but after a day of three movies, I went across the street to see HOPE SPRINGS (which I liked quite a bit more than I expected to) and then the 70mm THE MASTER. I was exhausted at the end of that day (in which I saw BARBARA, PASSION, and HYDE PARK ON HUDSON), but THE MASTER made me miraculously feel as if I had been reborn.
I’d definitely be most interested in hearing what you thought of HYDE PARK ON THE HUDSON Dean!
HYDE PARK ON HUDSON was a big disappointment. While I like much of the cast, the film feels featherweight and disjointed, with two competing storylines that never quite come together successfully. It had some fleeting pleasures, like Murray’s grinning performance (never seen the actor smile as much as he does here), some mild laughs, beautiful art direction, and yet another portrayal of the stuttering King George II (a pretty brave thing to do, considering Firth’s performance is so fresh in our minds). However, the screenplay and direction were run-of-the-mill all the way.
Ah Dean, I was fearing this. I must have seen the trailer over a dozen times now before screenings, but based on that evidence alone, I couldn’t see the relatively severe problems that you now confirm. But Maurizio also had said it heard the film was a clunker. I’ll still see it for Murray and because it’s about an honored figure, FDR, but I fully suspect now your findings will be corroborrated. Thanks very much my friend!
George II? I think VI…; ;-)
I HAVE TO SEE THIS FILM!
Although I was quite impressed by Phoenix’s raw performance (I loved I’m Still Here, for the most part), I have to say that Hoffman’s combination of technique and real emotional depth was most impressive here.
Pierre, it is indeed tough to set these two extraordinary performances apart, I quite agree.
Not surprised by Phoenix performance, if you had seen his James Gray films. Though his supporting turns in Gladiator, Signs and Quills might what most people seem to remember him for. And Oscar noms. The opening montage of “I’m still here” mocked both, and Phoenix considers his acting career a successful fraud. But he pulled out one of the performances of the decade in that very film.
Definitely. I LOVE Phoenix’s work on Grey’s films. TWO LOVERS and WE OWN THE NIGHT are amazing.
In my opinion, Paul Thomas Anderson, along with Bill Morrison, is the most consistently original American filmmaker working today. The Master may not have gathered the same type attention and acclaim as his other films, but I don’t believe anyone can deny the artistry and audacity of the film; two things that I feel is hard to find in Hollywood films today.
But what excited me most about the film is seeing Anderson’s continuing maturation as a filmmaker and storyteller. Unlike many of the young talents of his generation, as well as the one after, who have either chose to go more conventional (David O Russell, Steven Soderbergh), get stuck familiar territory (Kevin Smith, Darren Aronofsky, and in some sense Tarantino) or just digress all together (Robert Rodriguez and David Gordon Green), Anderson continues to go in more exciting directions.
For sure. When one takes risks like PTA does, not every effort will be a home run.
I can’t agree with you more Pierre.
So true. PTA seems to be venturing out on his own in a major way.
Technically The Master is beyond brilliant, shot in 70mm and looking an absolute picture.
On this I have no issue at all, and this is a beautifully-written essay on the latest film by a director I have always greatly admired. However for me this film is hugely problematic, as I have discussed on past threads. Nuff said.
I personally believe an audacious failure is better than an uninteresting success. I can appreciate films like Michael Clayton, The Artist, and Argo for their craft and entertainment value and come to the conclusion that they are successful films; the problem is that I’m not sure I would personally invest in multiple viewings. However I can watch films like Orson Welles’ Mr. Arakdin, Dennis Hopper’s The Last Movie, Jonathan Glazer’s Birth and Jim Jarmusch’s Limits of Control multiple times. They may not be perfect films (Limits of Control was hated by almost every critic who saw it), but they just appeal a little bit more to me ( a lot of times it’s the very flaws themselves that I’m attracted to). While I believe the Master is far from flawless, I believe it’s a film that can fall in that category. I can’t say it’s as well rounded a film as one of your favorite films this year, Lincoln, but I know I will be more eager to re-watch Anderson’s film.
Anu, I am completely in enthusiastic accord with you when you opine: “an audacious failure is better than an uninteresting success.” And this for me would be applicable to THE MASTER, though I know so many, yourself included feel it’s a lot more than that. Fair enough. You make some excellent reference points to with those other challenging works, consummately supporting your argument. I am thrilled at your high regard for LINCOLN too!
I think Lincoln was a well crafted film which also reminded me just how good of an image maker Steven Spielberg is. However there was one major problem I had with the film and that problem will be the subject of my next blog post (which will be up this week).
Anu, I am excited to hear about this upcoming post on LINCOLN, and I will be keeping my eyes open for it!
I can’t say I see any flaws in The Master. I do not know how much of that is due to reading Ezra Pound and TS Eliot this fall, but I think they are definitely relevant. Certainly the subject matter – the aftermath of a war – is congruent with poems like the Wasteland and Hugh Selwyn Mauberly – I also think the structure of the film is closer to the structure of a narrative poem than to that of a film, nor novel, or play. It is as spare as a poem – the story is there, but all the connective tissue is stripped out, the episodes are left isolated; individually dense, full of detail, precision (though often precision of the decor, the shots, the way people move or speak, more than precision of the story), but presented by themselves, with no explicit connection to the other episodes.
That and the more or less explicit gloss on the Odyssey – the man coming home from war, a sailor fallen from grace with the sea… given a parodic twist, I suppose, ironic, anyway. Maybe add in something about his being about the end of WWII – a man wrecked by the war, but coming back to a country that won the war, where his devastation doesn’t quite fit the mood. “I was on a ship that won 13 battle stars and won the war; what have you done, dummy?”
I think you’re right Allan to praise the actors in your final paragraph as when all is said and done, THAT is what I remember about this film. The acting. Like it or not, there isn’t anything here that stands out more than the acting. Phoenix is a completely unhinged being and his performance is legendary. There are scenes in this film that are so intense, so right, that you cannot take your eyes off of it. Many moments here are as terrific as anything I’ve seen in some time.
However, the acting alone wasn’t quite enough for me to label it at the highest level. I gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars. I sum it up this way: it appeared that Anderson’s ambitions for this story (film) outweighed his ability to TELL the story. Meaning that I think there is something more here, but I don’t believe that Anderson conveys it well enough. Just because something is obtuse, or enigmatic doesn’t make something great or a masterpiece or anything in particular. I mean, anyone can make a film incoherent, confusing etc. This cannot be used as a basis for praise by anyone (and I’m not saying you are) There was a lot of potential here that wasn’t fully explored. Perhaps first and foremost is the buried homosexual overtones between these men. Even Amy Adams’s character alludes to this in the bathroom scene, when she tells Dodd he can do whatever he wants, just don’t let her know about it. This doesn’t get fleshed out though. Anderson wants to allude to everything, without committing to anything.
Ultimately, I just don’t know what to make of it. It’s supremely put together, acted with veracity, but it doesn’t all come together. There might be something I’m missing….but until I find it, I’m labeling it just shy of masterpiece status, even if it’s one of the most memorable films of the year.
Phoenix is so good in this movie that it seems impossible for me to imagine an informed movie lover watching this movie and not recognizing that they’re seeing history in the making. It’s on the par with Brando, Dean, and Clift. His work is REALLY that good. And so is Hoffman’s. The movie is a banquet of riches.
Dean I actually think Phoenix’s performance is the stuff of legend as well. It is so memorable. That’s almost a guarantee he won’t win the Oscar, because Oscar only knows how to give out awards to people who imitate a historical figure.
Indeed. And sometimes to the wrong historical figure as in 2005. Hoffman’s Capote was excellent, but he was physically all wrong for it. Should have gone to Strathairn .
I forgot about praising Strathairn in Lincoln. He does a wonderful job as well. A great actor that deserves more roles to showcase his craft.
The criticism that THE MASTER is somewhat imcomprehensible is a tired one. What is mysterious here? Quell is a guy who has a passion for women, because his former love has been distanced from him. It’s what he wants out of life–intimacy. I think THE MASTER is very clear about this, and it’s also very clear that this is not what he’s gonna get (at least, from a woman) from his involvement with Hoffman. Once he realizes this, Quell is off, but still remains appreciative for what Lancaster has afforded him. But he cannot give him his soul. The film’s final scene is a triumph of emotion and flesh. What’s not to get?
No it’s not incomprehensible. My feeling is Quell is looking for something to validate his existence, to find meaning, to find direction…..Dodd is looking for the same thing but is on the other end of it…..needs someone to follow him. That’s how I saw it. However, the emphasis at times on the fraudulent cult doesn’t go anywhere or do anything for me. It’s sort of a means to an end that’s all. Quell has a passion for women? Doesn’t seem any more passionate than any man would be. His former love is like a “Rosebud”. It’s a symbol of a more innocent period, even though his love for her is more based on his emotional projection than anything “real” about it.
Don’t get me wrong…..there’s a lot here to chew on and think about.
Buried homosexual overtones? They must have been buried deep because I don’t recall them.
Maybe that’s my interpretation……I felt like Amy Adams’s character is referring to her husband’s potential interest in Quell. There is a connection between the two men that is hard to categorize.
I’m with Pierre in that I didn’t notice homosexual overtones at all in The Master.
Who’s she referring to in that scene? Not another woman…I didn’t see Dodd interested at all in any other woman. I thought it was implied that she was questioning Dodd in that aspect toward Quell.