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

xpost

except that the characters of TWBB have (for me anyway) almost no recognizable psychology and the "historical context" is sketchy at best, by the end almost completely abstracted. obviously it has Big Themes on its mind but to the extent that those came through (and since anderson changes the tone and his characters' motivations every few scenes it's difficult for any themes other than the directors self-glorification to come through clearly) they were basically among the least interesting statements of a very very familiar notion.

to me the film basically throws out these signifiers of allegorical meaning without really backing them up with anything--and in fact just kind of going in its own idiosyncratic direction which kind of makes hash of any coherent allegory beyond the must thunderously obvious ("capitalism is evil, capitalists are psychopaths"). that's what i mean by anderson's "visionary airs"--there's this kind of bombastic put-on that seems to promise Important Things but it just kind of peters out into a series of quasi-disconnected, selfconsciously weird scenes.

i mean his films are so literally "off beat"--they seem to anticipate where you'd expect them to go and go somewhere else. except that this comes to feel, for me anyway, extremely programmatic and basically precludes the films having almost anything else on their minds.

this, coupled with his tendency to place these big, strident climaxes every 15 minutes or so (admittedly TWBB is more restrained than his other films in this regard) makes me kind of allergic to them.

i've written more about this in the TWBB thread i think.

is he making a boob out of sand?

This question has been ignored for far too long.

p sure he's making two boobs out of sand

Just so we're clear: I think he has finished making one sand boob and is in the process of making a second. Just so no one mistakenly thinks he's making two sand boobs at once. Which would be preposterous.

two boobs out of sand

working title IIRC

Two if by boob, one if by... hang on.

all I can say is I'm way more excited about this than the other anderson's new one \Oo/

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:03 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

oh yeah. definitely

::sad face::

i just feel like WA has no ability to surprise me anymore. not that novelty is everything, but with PTA im always really curious what he has up his sleeve next. like every single moment of the supposedly magical and enchanting mr. fox was super predictable to me. i dunno, i just think hes a weak writer without owen wilson propping him up

:-(

i guess there's no accounting for taste.

am you're otm about PTA but plz don't shift your focus to how much better you think WA is

except that the characters of TWBB have (for me anyway) almost no recognizable psychology and the "historical context" is sketchy at best, by the end almost completely abstracted.

^^^ my complaint in 2007. The movie boasts a ruthless ahistoricity. The characters' motivations make no sense. Also, it's weird that a movie this long feels both foreshortened and attenuated: it's shorter than it needs to be yet drags like hell thanks to superfluous scenes.

and "capitalism = evil" -- screwball comedies were saying this in the thirties!

except that the characters of TWBB have (for me anyway) almost no recognizable psychology and the "historical context" is sketchy at best, by the end almost completely abstracted.

I liked this about TWBB, but barely tolerated it in Magnolia/PDL. I find the (sketchy) mystery/morality play aspect of PTA's movies v. interesting. I respect the way he doesn't care to 'soften' the characters, or pin them to explicit real-life analogues, and how he seems to be learning not to hew the conventional emotional closure as the narrative completes itself. It'd be jarring, if it weren' so ubiquitous.

IOW I like that nobody is likeable, and that PTA is a good storyteller who write a good finale that provides no catharsis.

I don't think it's as simple/reductive as "capitalist=evil." I think the movie is saying that capitalists are the ultimate evil, akin to Satan, not always motivated logically. Also, what makes "Blood" different from so many films of even a similar bent is that its villain is its protagonist. He's not just some interloper. It'd be like "Chinatown" from the perspective of John Huston's character. It's all the literally "off-beat" elements such as this that add to the film's unease and make it unique, imo. Not least the ending, which I really appreciate. DDL's power is his own cancerous reward, and he wields it by (symbolically) beating God to death and casting out his son. I think it's much more than "capitalism=bad." It's something more powerful and pervasive than that.

It's not a perfect movie, but TWBB is best viewed as a character study and not some grand statement about history or capitalism or what have you.

The movie is filtered through the mind of a rather rapacious, misanthropic (albeit shrewd) man who doesn't seem to even understand his own motivations, much less those of the people in his life. He's unknowable to both the audience and himself, which gives him the movie a kind of disconnect from itself. It might be off-putting, but I think that distance works to the movie's favor.

http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/4/40/20051027141736-kent-my-two-cents-jpg.jpg

My Two Sand Boobs.

original title for my two dads

Phoenix looks like he's aged 40 years and had a stroke in that.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 21 May 2012 21:30 (Yesterday) Bookmark

made me think of willem dafoe's frownsmile face, which is kinda strokey now you mention it

He's close enough to 40.

a little rugged wear looks good on his face imho

joaquin, lightly distressed

this is p obvious but there's a big beau travail vibe in that trailer

no, it's more like sonatine.

It'd be like "Chinatown" from the perspective of John Huston's character.

Polanski and Towne's film pays attention to class and ethnicity in ways that TWBB elides. PTA adapted a Sinclair novel for pete's sake!

i just feel like WA has no ability to surprise me anymore. not that novelty is everything, but with PTA im always really curious what he has up his sleeve next. like every single moment of the supposedly magical and enchanting mr. fox was super predictable to me. i dunno, i just think hes a weak writer without owen wilson propping him up

― Hungry4Ass, Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:02 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes yes and yes. I miss when his movies were actually funny

mega amped for this film

miss when his movies were actually funny

absolutely. i laughed all the way through Rushmore, not much since.

this looks and sounds amazing

well it's been a sad fifteen years, it's true

xp

anyway we can take that to the WA thread, lets talk more about how capitalism is evil

amateurist otm about there will be blood. i can see why people like that movie, but pta is invested in all the opposite things that i am. it really bugged me, the utter lack of historical specificity in that movie.

i only ever saw about twenty minutes of punch drunk love but it seemed like the worst.

definitely this thread is the worst if were ranking

when i left PDL i had to confirm with a friend whether certain things had actually happened or if i'd invented them out of boredom.

I didn't really care about historic specificity or what TWBB said about ~america~, I loved it for spectacle and DDL and brahms

It's not a perfect movie, but TWBB is best viewed as a character study and not some grand statement about history or capitalism or what have you.

This. And also, to the extent that a consistent allegorical thread fails to cohere or that the film seems to fly in the face of historical accuracy, one might consider whether these particular critical approaches are, perhaps, flawed. I think people who criticize PTA's films for being insufficiently deep are always going to be disappointed because I think maybe depth is among the least of his concerns.

i h8 u all perfectly

Can you separate history from a character study? Serious question. I can't. It's my problem with a lot of Amerindie films.

lord knows I've tried alfred. lord knows I've tried.

I left halfway through Rushmore back in 1998, but thought the badger movie was pretty fun.

there it is, the perfect post

I thought the badger movie was pretty fun.

^^ this

WA directed smokin' aces?

Are you guys really complaining about some lack of historical accuracy in "There Will Be Blood?" And that's really what hinders your enjoyment? I'm impressed.

Anyway, I don't see it as a character study, I see it as a mood piece, a la (which is obvious) "2001," albeit more malevolent.

And it definitely addresses class, albeit obliquely and cynically. DDL's power allows him to more or less manipulate an entire town with the promise of money. And the one guy he has no power over, the preacher, is the guy who has his own manipulative power over the penniless rubes, who have nothing else going for them. Not to mention that Planview is considered gauche and low-class by the other oil people, which is why he rubs it in their faces when he wins. In the movie's world, cash rules everything around me, but I don't see it simply as a cautionary anti-capitalist tale. I think Plainview is far more nefarious than that. He is corruption. He is the cancer. He wants to be corrupted and corrosive and he takes joy and pride in bringing everyone down with him. Hence the surreal irony of the film's conclusion: an absolutely lost, damned man (from our perspective) reveling smug and content in his corrosive victory.

no, it's more like sonatine.

this did not occur to me but whoah yes v v otm

as a character study TWBB (i keep wanting to write FWWM, now there's a character study) makes no sense to me. the way the interactions between DDL and other folks is depicted and managed seldom makes any sense or is given any kind of clarifying context (e.g. when the guy discovers DDL has just killed somebody. does he care? if not, why not?). which i guess could be defended but it seems difficult to me to both defend that absence of context/clarity _and_ suggest that the film is meaningfully "about" class, capitalism, america, etc.

the lead character's motivations, such that they can be discerned, seem to shift without warning every scene, and his behavior from scene to scene is entirely inconsistent. not just his behavior, his whole disposition. you cannot reconcile the character of the final scene with that of most of the rest of the movie without doing some painful contortions. and yet (again, for me) PTA doesn't present these contradictions or lacunae in such a way that they make me retroactively rethink the film in ways that increase my engagement or appreciation, much less want to revisit the film.

again, TWBB seems so intently oddball and off-beat, even down to the way he uses classical music in TWBB, where he just keeps playing the same melodically unresolved passage over and over. again, all of these motifs and tactics i can see working well in a different movie that built to something haunting and sturdier, but this film just seems to be nothing but, as i said on another thread, a series of contrarian riffs on some vestigial, more classical narrative. none of this would matter, i suppose, if the film really engaged me on a stylistic level. and there are some bravura scenes in here, but after awhile the long takes etc. seem to kind of peter out in terms of inventiveness and you're left with just empty bombast.

obvs i kind of hate this movie, despite some obvious merits, and a lot of you really like it.