The Master

[Yoda]

Just saw this.

I'd give anyone 50-50 odds that Joaquin Phoenix wins the Best Actor Oscar, right now, pre-nominations, without having seen most of the other potential contenders. Seriously.

Might try to bang out a review this week. Mixed feelings about the film as a whole, which I almost invariably feel towards Anderson's films. But like all of them it features some stunning performances.

[HitchFan97]

I guess this is as good as any place to post my thoughts, so I'll give it a go.

http://timeentertainment.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/movies_themaster.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1

Let me first say that The Master is easily the best movie of 2012 so far, and I'll be very surprised if I find something better. Not that I was expecting anything less from PTA. The performances are fantastic - Joaquin Phoenix in particular delivers some of the best acting I've ever seen - and it's Anderson's most visually stunning film yet.

It's also PTA's vaguest and most opaque film yet. It avoids the dramatic intensity and grandeur of his previous films for a much more restrained approach, but what struck me as I left the theater was that I had no idea what the film was about. Not in terms of plot, but thematically. You could argue that The Master is merely an indictment of organized religion, or a subtle portrayal of a power struggle between two uniquely deranged individuals, but I don't buy that. After some discussion, I agreed that what the film is really saying is that following a group, belief, or person can never replace the fulfillment of true human love and communication.

I can't remember the last time I've been so challenged by a film. The question is, where do I rank this in PTA's filmography? I still haven't gotten a chance to see The Master for a second time, but when I do, hopefully I'll know- and I'm sure other secrets of this mysterious masterpiece will reveal themselves to me.

[Miss Vicky]

I posted my thoughts already in the Movie Tab thread, but basically I had mixed feelings. Performances were excellent. Phoenix, of course, was stunning, but Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams were excellent as well.

The movie is very long and slowly paced, not a whole lot actually happens and it's not entertaining in the usual sense, but there's an almost tangible intensity to each scene. So it's riveting in that way. I too am not really certain what the movie is truly about and to figure that out will likely require a rewatch.

[Skepsis93]

UK release pushed back to Nov 16th... I truly hate you people right now.

[ManOf1000Faces]

I have not had the time to see it but I hope it turns out fantastic.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's really his to lose at this point.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Just got back from it. Easily my least favourite PTA film.

Stunning performances from both Phoenix and Hoffman is what kept me in this film, which is an otherwise slow story that goes nowhere. Anderson is a master of his craft and it shows here, he knows exactly what to shoot, but for me the film left me not only bored, but empty. I can look back and his previous films and pick out at least a dozen scenes that stand out. While some scenes in The Master are intense, nothing comes to mind as memorable. It's one sequence of random "tests" to the next for our character.

I also couldn't get Popeye out of my head while watching Phoenix. Possible inspiration? Hahaha, maybe a stretch, but that is what was going through my mind, not what was happening on the screen. As I sit here, I think to myself, why does this scene exist? What does it add to the story/film/experience?

There is a line that the son says in this film..."He's making it up as he goes along". I think maybe Anderson took this to heart.

2.5

[Brodinski]

This doesn't get released in Belgium until January 2013. Permission to say: oh c0ck

[TheUsualSuspect]

You forgot long winded, boring and pointless.

[rauldc14]

You forgot long winded, boring and pointless.

Agree 100%.

This may not be the worst movie I've seen (though I still reckon it's close), but by far one of my least favorite movies I've ever seen. I give it a 1/10.

We have seen better from Phoenix, I was completely underwhelmed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams had no reason to be an oscar nominee.

My biggest problem with the film is PTA himself, who as TUS stated, seems like he intended the movie to be long winded boring and pointless. Practically nothing substantial happened in this movie, no action, no character development. Just a man touching a wall and a window for 5 minutes, a F*** you rant for one minute, The Master getting jacked off in a bathroom, and other completely random and pointless things. This movie was awful.

[Skepsis93]

Well, after bemoaning the late release, I somehow, idiotically, missed it in cinemas. So here's my thoughts after a long wait, from the Movie Tab:

Poetic, impenetrable, enveloping in its intense, deeply nuanced and mystical look at an unconventional, fascinating relationship. A film that you allow to wash over you; appreciate the marvelous cinematography and score, superb direction and two performances among the best of the decade, nay, the millennium so far: Joaquin Phoenix's enigmatic, violent, desperate Freddie Quell, played with a level of commitment in its animalistic rage you see very rarely; and Philip Seymour Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd, aka "The Master", an enigmatic, mysterious leader. The two have palpable but troubled chemistry, perfect for a relationship in which Quell becomes a hint of his former self at the feet of Dodd, resembling, at the apex of Dodd's dominance, a child or even a pet, such is the power of cult and charisma.

Where an emotional punch is lacking, I was instead affected by a tension and a suspense the source of which I couldn't quite explain. I know I have made my love for Paul Thomas Anderson abundantly clear, but this is another gargantuan effort from one of the most exciting auteurs currently in the business.

4.5

[HitchFan97]

I couldn't agree more :)

[rauldc14]

I couldn't agree more :)

I knew you'd agree with me.

[Skepsis93]

Just thought I'd add that I loved how PTA handled Amy Adams' character. He very smartly hints at but never truly reveals just how much she is in control of her husband, I don't think she's quite the brains behind the operation but there's subtle but significant signs that she is running the show, the masturbation scene being the most obvious example but also a sequence in which I took her to be dictating to Lancaster, who is typing. Almost as if she's the one writing the book, with Dodd as the delivery system.

She's a great character, handled superbly by PTA in his writing and direction and of course by Adams herself.

[Skepsis93]

And just in response to those bemoaning the lack of plot and character development, if I may - I feel like those are stock criticisms for films of this type. The people in it are meant to be enigmatic and difficult to penetrate. It makes them mysterious and interesting and unpredictable. It's a meditation on a set of themes and ideas, not a story-driven film. Did 2001 have a meaty plot? Nope. Did we get to know those characters? I think most people agree that we didn't. Yet...

[TheUsualSuspect]

And just in response to those bemoaning the lack of plot and character development, if I may - I feel like those are stock criticisms for films of this type. The people in it are meant to be enigmatic and difficult to penetrate. It makes them mysterious and interesting and unpredictable. It's a meditation on a set of themes and ideas, not a story-driven film. Did 2001 have a meaty plot? Nope. Did we get to know those characters? I think most people agree that we didn't. Yet...

...yet, I still hate 2001.

I agree with you on Adams character being in charge, just look at the last scene when Phoenix wants to come back. She wears the pants, but Hoffman is the face.

Yet I felt so detached from EVERYTHING. Like I said, the most interesting scenes are when it is just Hoffman and Phoenix, but that is not enough.

[Gabrielle947]

I finally got to see it and like some of you,I also have mixed thoughts about it.
I don't think anyone can argue with the acting and the craftsmanship(I think that's the best thing about this film) but the movie itself made me feel nothing.I also felt that I could turn it off anytime since I didn't care how it would end.
However,I think The Master might be a film which grows on you but for now,I didn't connect with characters and since it is a character-driven film,I was bored at times.

[deepwater]

A movie filled with great performances, especially Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams but I feel like the story wander off at the end. Other than that, I really enjoy the amazing camera work, 70mm works wonders for this film.

[Harry Lime]

pointless.

Agree 100%.
Just because you two missed the point doesn't mean there isn't one.

[wintertriangles]

Just because you two missed the point doesn't mean there isn't one.And yet it's so often the case :shrug:

This usually means I'll like it, guess I'm just one of the pretentiously insightful bastards

[TheUsualSuspect]

Missed the point? To me the film WAS pointless, whether there was one or not.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Missed the point? To me the film WAS pointless, whether there was one or not.

Says the guy with a "Michael" icon.

[Mingusings]

I don't understand why people are calling the film pointless. What kind of "point" were you looking for? To me, the film was a fantastic character study. That first shot of Joaquin wearing the white helmet alone says so much about the character. This film was masterfully made with the intent of forcing the viewer to develop their own ideas about the characters instead of spoon feeding them to you. I thought it was far from boring. I was constantly trying to predict what Freddie or what the master would do/say in each situation. I was mesmerized by the characters and was sucked into their world.

[Yoda]

Okay, I liked The Master reasonably well, but can we do away with the idea that wanting movies to land somewhere is asking to be "spoon fed"? Thinking that stories are better when they cohere around some sort of theme or message is a perfectly valid way to approach them. There is nothing inherently superior about ambiguity, or about character studies as opposed to narratives.

Like most of the film's fans, I found the performances fascinating enough to still enjoy the movie. But I'd be lying if I said Anderson's penchant for just sort of hovering around interesting personalities for a couple of hours wasn't a little disappointing. He gets away with it because he draws such incredible performances from his actors, but I've come away from most of his films (you might be able to guess the two exceptions) feeling a little let down.

[Mingusings]

Okay, maybe spoon-fed was the wrong word. I'm just saying that I really enjoy movies like the Master that are ambiguous because they are so against the typical Hollywood film. Don't get me wrong, I still love some movies that are perfectly straightforward. But the Master seems to take a more realistic approach in its story. Most drama films build up to some really emotional moment in the story. I didn't think that the Master had much of a climax. But what story in real life really does have a climax? That is what I loved about the Master. PTA didn't try to dramatize the story and make it more accessible. He simply presented the characters and their stories and let the viewer come to their own conclusions.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Says the guy with a "Michael" icon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glz1OfXbc_0

[ScarletLion]

If I cared about the Oscars I'd be annoyed that Phoenix didn't win. This performance was quite extraordinary. I agree with other reviews here though. The entire movie is awkward and laborious and only really saved by the lead and co star. A 6/10 movie with 10/10 acting.

[twisted_state]

Is it me or Joaquin looks old, like... too old

[Mckeever]

Agree 100%.

This may not be the worst movie I've seen (though I still reckon it's close), but by far one of my least favorite movies I've ever seen. I give it a 1/10.

We have seen better from Phoenix, I was completely underwhelmed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams had no reason to be an oscar nominee.

My biggest problem with the film is PTA himself, who as TUS stated, seems like he intended the movie to be long winded boring and pointless. Practically nothing substantial happened in this movie, no action, no character development. Just a man touching a wall and a window for 5 minutes, a F*** you rant for one minute, The Master getting jacked off in a bathroom, and other completely random and pointless things. This movie was awful.

I can't stand it when people say "such a film is pointless". Explain how this film was pointless please. Just because you didn't understand the point of the film, doesn't mean that the film was pointless.

I thought that this was easily the best film of 2012 and one of the most thought provoking and mysterious films of recent times. I loved the enigma of the two main characters and was fully invested into the religious/cult themes throughout the film.

Fantastic.

PS - How do I leave those popcorn ratings?

[mark f]

3.5 without the * = 3.5
3 without the * = 3
for all numbers from 0 to 5 by .5s

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's also PTA's vaguest and most opaque film yet. It avoids the dramatic intensity and grandeur of his previous films for a much more restrained approach, but what struck me as I left the theater was that I had no idea what the film was about. Not in terms of plot, but thematically. You could argue that The Master is merely an indictment of organized religion, or a subtle portrayal of a power struggle between two uniquely deranged individuals, but I don't buy that. After some discussion, I agreed that what the film is really saying is that following a group, belief, or person can never replace the fulfillment of true human love and communication.

Maybe, but I kind of disagree with that being the message. If communication is so important, why did Joaquin's character refuse to write a letter to his old girlfriend after he found out she got married?

I actually think the movie is - and I need to watch it again to be sure, but this is what I initially thought - POSITIVE towards the idea of following something, be it a group, belief, person, etc. That may be why Paul Thomas Anderson screened the film for Tom Cruise and he isn't going crazy.

I don't see the ending as something sentimental and saying something like, "Oh, Joaquin just needs a woman. He just needs love. He needs compassion and caring, etc."

He needs domination. He needs sex. He needs women. He needs freedom. He needs himself.

They are alike -- Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Philip's religion preached that men were not animals, that they should rise above their instincts. That they don't need sex and sin and so forth. But Philip's character was nothing but a sinner. He enjoyed the company of naked women surrounding him, booze, etc. Meanwhile, he tried to instill guilt in his followers for enjoying the same.

Joaquin could not be tamed. He was as crazy as The Master was. When he took off on that motorcycle, he wasn't trying to escape from the cult -- he just felt the freedom it gave him and he liked it. It overpowered him. He got in a mood and decided to leave because it was fun. There's never a big dramatic twist in the film where Joaquin realizes everyone is crazy and he needs to get away from them -- they are like his family to him. The Master is obviously a surrogate father figure since we know Joaquin's dad is dead.

Joaquin wanted his own independence. He was friends with the cult, but the cult could not have him because he could not be tamed. In the end, we see him enjoying the company of a naked woman on top of him during sex, and he plays the mind game with her as if he's The Master himself. He enjoys being like The Master.

But ultimately, I do feel that there's one thing that does dominate Joaquin and master him, and that's women. And maybe not any certain woman - yet, at least - but women in general. That's why he builds the naked women sand sculptures. That's why he masturbates to them. That's why he picks up women to f**k, etc. Women dominate Joaquin's psyche -- they propel him to take risks and change his life. When he wakes up on that boat before he meets The Master, it is a woman who stirs him awake and leads him to his future. But nothing could ever really strap Joaquin down for good. Even if he someday takes a wife, you can bet that he would not be faithful to her. It is not his nature. He dominates more than he is dominated.

And it's certainly not easy for him to commit. That's why he left the girl he loved in his hometown. She went off and got married without him because he ditched her, just as he ditched The Cause when he took off on that motorcycle. Joaquin's character is a rebel, a wanderer, a lust driven creature. The movie is not about how all you need is human love and communication. In fact, the movie is more about how some people DON'T need human love and communication. Some people are more happy with just themselves -- Philip Seymour Hoffman's Master character is probably the same way. I think those characters are more into themselves than anybody else. They are alike. The Master's mind is dominated by women and booze, too. He is surrounded by his cult members and followers, but ultimately he is alone. Ultimately his most prized possession is himself. Look at how he boasts about all of the different occupations he has when he speaks to Joaquin's character. The man is a sociopath. He likes to control. Life is a game. People are game pieces. What matters is that he always wins. There are real people like this in the world. The Master is a view into such a twisted way of living. A deadly warning to everyone about such characters. True human love and communication is better than fake love and vain communication, yes, so WATCH WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH.

[Miss Vicky]

They are alike -- Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Philip's religion preached that men were not animals, that they should rise above their instincts. That they don't need sex and sin and so forth. But Philip's character was nothing but a sinner. He enjoyed the company of naked women surrounding him, booze, etc. Meanwhile, he tried to instill guilt in his followers for enjoying the same.



Did I miss something?

The only scene I can recall where Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) is surrounded by naked women was actually Freddie Quell's (Phoenix) fantasy as he watched Dodd sing and dance with his followers, who were actually all fully clothed.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Did I miss something?

The only scene I can recall where Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) is surrounded by naked women was actually Freddie Quell's (Phoenix) fantasy as he watched Dodd sing and dance with his followers, who were actually all fully clothed.

That was a fantasy?

I need to rewatch it. Well, okay, look, I still believe what I say even if it is. Amy Adams masturbating Lancaster Dodd wasn't a fantasy, too, was it? (probably not - why would Joaquin Phoenix fantasize about Philip Seymour Hoffman being masturbated?) That probably reflected Lancaster being overstimulated by all of those women himself after the party. I say those two guys are alike! Freddie's fantasy was also Lancaster's fantasy.

How did I miss that being a fantasy?

[Miss Vicky]

That was a fantasy?

I need to rewatch it. Well, okay, look, I still believe what I say even if it is. Amy Adams masturbating Lancaster Dodd wasn't a fantasy, too, was it? (probably not - why would Joaquin Phoenix fantasize about Philip Seymour Hoffman being masturbated?) That probably reflected Lancaster being overstimulated by all of those women himself after the party. I say those two guys are alike! Freddie's fantasy was also Lancaster's fantasy.

How did I miss that being a fantasy?

I'm not saying that the gist of what you were getting at was wrong, just that I don't think that one particular scene was what you thought it was. And no, Lancaster Dodd being masturbated by his wife was not a fantasy. However, that scene to me was reflective of the dominance Peggy Dodd had over her husband.

[Sexy Celebrity]

And no, Lancaster Dodd being masturbated by his wife was not a fantasy. However, that scene to me was reflective of the dominance Peggy Dodd had over her husband.

True, but it's such a weak sex act between the two of them. Like he's not enjoying it because of her. That's why I say he's probably thinking of the other women (or something else.) Peggy Dodd is merely the hand that's in control of whatever he's thinking.

I just found out that the telephone call in the movie theater was apparently a fantasy, too? Wikipedia says so, at least. How did I miss whatever it was that taught us that he was having these fantasies....

[Mckeever]

3.5 without the * = 3.5
3 without the * = 3
for all numbers from 0 to 5 by .5s

Thanks! I rate this post:

5

[Miss Vicky]

I just found out that the telephone call in the movie theater was apparently a fantasy, too? Wikipedia says so, at least. How did I miss whatever it was that taught us that he was having these fantasies....

I missed the bit about the phone call the first time around, too, and didn't find out until reading some things about it later. I haven't finished rewatching it yet, so I haven't had a chance to look for clues that would tell you.

As for the nude scene, when Lancaster and his followers start singing, all are fully clothed. Then the camera flashes to Freddie, who is silently watching them. Then it goes back to the others and suddenly all of the women in the room are naked - which ties into Freddie's obsession with sex and women.

[Sexy Celebrity]

As for the nude scene, when Lancaster and his followers start singing, all are fully clothed. Then the camera flashes to Freddie, who is silently watching them. Then it goes back to the others and suddenly all of the women in the room are naked - which ties into Freddie's obsession with sex and women.

I was wondering why all those women were naked, but I figured it was for the reasons I said. This movie was a little boring, so sometimes my mind wandered. I reviewed it here, yesterday (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=882002) -- I give it 3.

I really don't understand why Joaquin Phoenix was absolutely amazing in this and deserved the Oscar nomination. To me, he seemed kinda like how he played himself in I'm Still Here. I don't mean to sound too negative about you, Joaquin, if you're reading -- I love you -- though not as much as Miss Vicky. I won't steal you from her (well, maybe I will when she's not looking.)

[Daniel M]

Seeing as my Movie Tab post ending up mainly being me rambling about this film, I figure I should post in here seeing as there's been some interesting discussion and clash of opinions so far.

The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012) 5

I have held off posting this in the Movie Tab for quite a bit now, I have now seen it twice, so why did I hold off initially posting? If you have seen the film (many have), then you will problem have an idea why, The Master is one of the most bizarre and mysterious films that I have ever seen, I could not stop thinking about it after first seeing it and simply had to give it another viewing.

My five star rating might be met with some controversy judging my member's opinions on it so far, I was initially going to go with a 4.5 rating but thought why should I hold back on one of the most memorable film watching experiences in recent time for me? When I first posted in this thread about watching Boogie Nights I recall awarding it a 4.5 rating, but since then it has become apparent that it's a 5 star film for me.

So what makes The Master deserving of such a high rating? Lets start with Joaquin Pheonix who gives a fantastic performance, even better than Daniel Day-Lewis for me, as the eccentric and lost Freddie Quell. In There Will Be Blood, Daniel Day-Lewis gave us a chilling performance of a man who was much more easier to comprehend, it was a film that was very formal in its approach and extremely cinematic, it had a beginning, a middle and the end and truly showed the transformation of one man in a haunting manner.

*Slight spoilers ahead*

The Master is almost the opposite, the film opens with Freddie talking about getting rid of crabs, and ****ing women made out of sand on a beach. This is then followed by Freddie's attempts to fit into a normal life, partaking in jobs such as photography. But by the end of the film you won't feel as if the character of Freddie has changed at all, the piece of story telling is not complete. The final scene in which Freddie is sleeping with another girl, is brilliant, and hilarious at the same time, almost mocking viewers that expecting a conventional story of a man who was going to be changed by the cause.

Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a performance we have come to expect from him, truly great as a man whose character seems like PTA is once again mocking Scientology and cult practises. But this man, who attempts to be a master, is far from it in this film, whilst he controls Freddie to a certain degree, Freddie is ultimately unpredictable, extremely volatile and at times even understandable. He is constantly haunted by his own failures and his sexual instincts, he is a man obsessed by sex, take the scene where he imagines everyone naked as an example of this. Freddie wants to exert control over others, he beats up others for the cause, he shares a number of tense scenes with a young member of the cause during the middle part of the film, and he eventually abandons those who have tried to help him, before imagining himself receiving a phone call from Lancaster Dodd who he believes is expecting him, he wants to be the dominant male and this is reflected throughout.

I have heard a lot of complaints about the wall and the window scene, I had no problem with it the first time, and I loved it the second time. The film really allows us to get in to the mind of Freddie, in fact the whole narrative structure acts a metaphor for his frustrating and unfulfilled life, this scene in particular feels painful and without reward, just how Freddie feels.

Right now, that's some ramblings and attempt at justifying why I thought this truly was a modern day masterpiece from Paul Thomas Anderson, possibly my favourite director right now (cue, you're being bias! comments). I will definitely right up a thorough and better written/structured review in the future.

Just remembered to make a comment on the score of this film from Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood. Once again contrasting with the formal, cinematic style of the music in There Will Be Blood where it is very much used to dramatise particular scenes, the music here is used very differently, playing naturally as the film goes from one scene to another, you can here a mysterious ticking, fitting for Freddie's character as he attempts to find something, moving from one place to another in his life with little result.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Why is it whenever someone says a certain scene or a film was pointless, the immediate response is...you didn't get the point then.

[cinemaafficionado]

The elemental question is can you save someone that doesn't want to be saved?
Loosely based on L. Ron Howard and his Church Of Scientology, The Master's two central characters are about control and freedom, brilliantly portrayed by Phillip Seymor Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix.
How Joaquin didn't get the nod for an Oscar is a mistery to me.
His character portrayal was raw intensity, recklessness, vulnerability and impulsive abandon - total freedom.
Find me a man that has no master and I will show him to be the first such in human history, so says the Master, who believes that we are all geneticaly incoded and programmed through eons.
So he introduces a cure, first through memory realization and then revises it, making it possible through imagination.
The movie ends on a note that suggests that no amount of deprogramming can be totaly successfull and that people in their essence can not be changed.
The free man choses freedom over love, rather than become a slave to love and ultimately he remains primal, reveling in pure sexuality.

[ScarletLion]

How Joaquin didn't get nominated for an Oscar is a mistery to me.
.

He was.

But he should have won.

[donniedarko]

I really can't write up much for this film based on my viewing, but I can say I was underwhelmed. While the acting was good it never really pushed anything. The jailhouse scene was great but I don't recall any other memorable moments TBH. It felt under accomplished to me, and seems to have no mission other than looking fancy. It Definently requires another view, but right now I'd give it a 2.5.

Also this:

There is a line that the son says in this film..."He's making it up as he goes along". I think maybe Anderson took this to heart.

[mastermetal777]

He was.

But he should have won.


I have to disagree, since Daniel-Day Lewis pulled off an amazing performance as Lincoln.

Back to the movie, I felt it was well-acted, but the story felt really muddled. As a character study, it's a fantastic look at how one can be redeemed from self-destruction, and a look into how a self-made belief system can corrupt. Look at this film as a character study instead of an actual story in order to appreciate it. In that view, 3 out of 4 stars. As a method of storytelling, however, I'd drop it to a 2 out of 4.

[Nausicaä]

But he should have won.

I'm with you on that, would have loved to have seen him win it for his role in The Master.

[Lucas]

This film is brilliant, so glad I saw it. Is it just a fantastic character-study of two individuals ? Is it about a false prophet and him making people believe his lies ? Or is it simply a study of a man unable to change his ways? Not sure, but I love The Master.