The Master

→ in
Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Missed the point? To me the film WAS pointless, whether there was one or not.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Smells mystical, doesn't it?
Missed the point? To me the film WAS pointless, whether there was one or not.
Says the guy with a "Michael" icon.
__________________
Let's talk some jive.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
[rating*]3.5[/rating] without the * =

[rating*]3[/rating] without the * =

for all numbers from 0 to 5 by .5s
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



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.



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.



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?



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.



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....



[rating*]3.5[/rating] without the * =

[rating*]3[/rating] without the * =

for all numbers from 0 to 5 by .5s
Thanks! I rate this post:




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.



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 -- I give it
.

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.)



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)


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.
__________________