THE MASTER (2012) P.T. Anderson's film on the origions of Scientology (sort of), Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and Laura Dern

its really a lot of fun just watching joaquim though. i love the way his face is photographed, all these deep pools of shadow in his crags

― Hungry4Ass, Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:26 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this was basically all I paid attention to

also sometimes psh's facial hair

I think my only problem with it is they the central conflict seemed a bit slight and even programmatic to build a whole film around. But I look forward to further viewings which may reveal further complexities and subtleties. There is definitely some understated weirdness to it that I haven't been able to tease out.

so who wants to explain the naked party scene

joaquin is bored & thinks abt sex a lot

idk I think there's more going on

loved this, best new movie i've seen in a long while.

it's "about" lots of different things, but it seemed like a big theme was religion (though the cause isn't really framed as a religion within the movie, more as a philosophy but same diff) as a failed attempt to "civilize" man by getting rid of animal urges. freddy is essentially an animal, all sexual/violent urges and instinct. dodd thinks of himself as civilized but his animal urges seep through ("PIG FUCK!") so it's not like he's going to be able to cure freddy ultimately.

amy adams was fantastic in this, i was very intrigued by her character. odd that laura dern was fourth in the credits given she's in the movie for five minutes and has like six lines.

Her last scene was pretty important, and well acted too I thought.

the scene where amy adams jerks PSH off into the sink - what was going on there? seemed to be an implication she thought he might try to validate polygamy/free love through the cause - i don't remember the exact line but that was the impression i got

part of an imo weird thrust of the movie suggesting she wields the real muscle in the outfit

thrust

muscle

movie didn't deliver
lots of good ideas that dont develop
i'm disappointed

sort of obvious but it's still kinda interesting how this movie seems to frame a very similar relationship to the one in There Will Be Blood--namely a thematic point that seems to revolve around how "civilizing" frameworks are masked and redirected forms of the same animalistic urges to dominance, hedonism, etc. failures of sublimation and that kind of thing.

it's "about" lots of different things, but it seemed like a big theme was religion (though the cause isn't really framed as a religion within the movie, more as a philosophy but same diff) as a failed attempt to "civilize" man by getting rid of animal urges. freddy is essentially an animal, all sexual/violent urges and instinct. dodd thinks of himself as civilized but his animal urges seep through ("PIG FUCK!") so it's not like he's going to be able to cure freddy ultimately.

if a lot of people (including many whose job is to watch films and dissect their themes) leave a film wondering "what was it all ABOUT", I gotta think it wasn't very successful at expressing its themes

I didn't have trouble with what it was ABOUT but I couldn't understand why anyone would want to make this film. it was so strange. the out-of-focus shots got on my nerves really quickly.

the scene where amy adams jerks PSH off into the sink - what was going on there? seemed to be an implication she thought he might try to validate polygamy/free love through the cause - i don't remember the exact line but that was the impression i got

― congratulations (n/a), Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:11 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

part of an imo weird thrust of the movie suggesting she wields the real muscle in the outfit

― Inconceivable (to the entire world) (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:15 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

tell me if u can find a life without a master = shes his master

i dont remember any out of focus shots. maybe it was your projector?

does someone actually yell "pig fuck!" in this movie?

is it philip seymour hoffman? if so then that's a much bigger entry in the pro column than any number of people going 'i didn't understand what this movie was about' is in the negative

yes and yes

there were many many shots where the foreground is clear and everything just a bit behind is quite out of focus. obviously a deliberate choice by the director but it was done so much that it just got on my nerves. no one else noticed this? idk - I just don't care for PTA's style, personally - the tracking shots with out-of-focus objects moving through the foreground also kind of bothered me.

I was wondering for a while why they never developed the story of how PSH's character got to be the leader of this weird organization, how it was formed and from where his ideas came, but maybe that's the point - there's just no way his ideas are all that interesting, except to messed up/gradually brainwashed people which is what I thought the film was really about - who gets swept up into creepy, cult like organizations and the process of it

i dont remember any out of focus shots. maybe it was your projector?

― Hungry4Ass, Monday, September 24, 2012 5:18 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

when he's walking on the dock towards the yacht

I guess I didn't wonder what the movie was "about," it's all laid out pretty methodically. The urge for transcendence, flesh vs. spirit, freedom vs. servitude (anyone else think of Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody"?), and all the ways we're bound to the past -- our own past, and collective pasts. And then secondarily the ways those urges and needs can be tapped into and/or exploited in the name of some higher cause (conveniently labeled the Cause in the film).

I don't think the film has any particular revelations on any of those points, but it dramatizes some of them well. Just didn't for me add up to a whole lot.

Comparing it to TWBB, I enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis's feral/needful shtick more than Joaquin Phoenix's, because it had more dimensions. He was able to tame himself enough to prosper, using the animal edge to his advantage (at least until the end), which made him less predictable and scarier. Joaquin Phoenix's character is much more at the mercy of his instincts and desires, which ultimately gets kind of tedious.

don't think the criticism is literally "i don't get what this is about" but rather "i don't think this is saying anything insightful about its chosen topics, and it's kind of scattershot in focus"

i liked the focus switching + tracking shot when he approaches the boat!

joaquim and psh were great, but i really didn't give 2 fucks about either of their characters

I'm sure the film was intending for you to do so

Was the scene where he gets the phone call in the movie theater supposed to be a dream?

a film that doesn't intend for the viewer to care for or at least be interested in the fates of its central characters is pretty flawed

I loved this movie and was interested in the fates of its characters.

xp re: phone call in theater - that seems to be what people are saying, that it's a dream - I mean, my read on Phoenix's character is that he's pretty gravely mentally ill (and drinking homemade rotgut presumably all through his navy stint & beyond would aggravate that some) so it could also be "he got an idea while he was watching a movie and told himself that the idea came from England via telephone"

I will say that PTA's willingness to go totally ambiguous on stuff like that is for me his best & most interesting quality

the part that annoyed me about the scene where he approaches the yacht was how long the film score blended with the Cuban music, so i probably missed whatever was going on w/ the focus.

receptionists near the entrance didn't know who he was even after he told them his name, amy adams asked "what are you doing here?" or something didn't she?, when he gave PSH the Kools he was didn't really react...

movie theater was definitely a dream. he tells psh "i dreamt you remembered where you met me"

Somebody weighs in.

thought that something was fishy once a phone was brought all the way out to movie seats in 1950

I don't think it was all a dream.

this movie had a lot of female nudity in it

it is very clearly a dream

But we don't even know what his totem is

o right, but dream or not it definitely isn't reality

i wish i was paying more attention to the dialogue from the Casper the friendly ghost cartoon playing in that scene.

Yeah I see it more like Taxi Driver, where the film is at least a little skewed from reality by the protagonist's perspective.

"The film takes you out of your comfort zone and drinks your milkshake as it were (to borrow a phrase from There Will Be Blood)."

oh god you dumb goober

i wish i was paying more attention to the dialogue from the Casper the friendly ghost cartoon playing in that scene.

Can't remember the exact dialogue but it was definitely relevant.

it was just casper saying "this is all a dream" over and over again

it is definitely a sign of failure when people start arguing about whether a scene was a dream sequence or not

no, c'mon. that scene was obviously a dream. if it wasn't clearly a dream during the scene, it became clear when they discussed it in the very next scene and call it a dream! if ppl missed that it was bc it was very late in the movie and they were probably exhausted and not paying good attention.

this movie had a lot of female nudity in it

It's America, only male nudity is discouraged.