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

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.

also i agree we shouldn't get into this but WA's andersons movies seem more generous, they project _joy_ to me. and to put it simply i get a lot of joy out of them. i don't know that i'd say they're inexhaustible but they certainly rewarded repeat viewings.

PTA's films, to greater or lesser extents, seem kind of striving, desperate to project their own sigularity--i feel like PTA is sitting in the seat next to me, wild-eyed, slapping me on the back to keep me awake and focused on the wonders of his film. but i find them kind of arid and mostly joyless and they seem to get worse with each screening.

i'm being kind of extreme here, so add your own qualifying adjectives and adverbs.

I find Boogie Nights to be extremely joyful overall (although it obviously contains some sequences that are anything but), and Punch-Drunk Love is largely a journey to that same point.

i should probably not make generalizations about PTA's films since i haven't seen those two in 10 years.

but both of them definitely felt very high-strung and made me anxious.

Oh, see...I've known people who were made anxious by movies and I've had to totally rejigger my recommendations for them. Yes, that being the case, I completely understand why you might hate PTA's work, as he often seems to get a kick out of ratcheting tension.

no it's not the plotting. it's just that everything feels like it is trying to impress me!

i saw Magnolia in the theater and really enjoyed it as a visceral experience, because i was dragged to what i thought would be just a cheesy ensemble drama oscar bait thing, and then there were all those crazy weird surprises that were really exciting to the 17 year old shithead i was. but yeah once you get past that stuff, like amateurist says, i don't think that or TWBB or PDL can do anything but get worse on subsequent viewings. likewise i remember Hard Eight fondly but i only saw it once around the same age and probably thought the dude's pocket catching on fire was funny and cool.

it's just that everything feels like it is trying to impress me!

I get that from both these directors, but I prefer PTA's attempts to impress me. WA seems even more "I'm about to have the big scene where you feel something so be ready for that" - what you see as incoherence/inconsistency in PTA I see as a read on naturalism - his characters' motivations are inconsistent, as are: mine, those of most people I know, etc. Clean narrative is kind of a romantic need; most people, like Plainview, are motivated by whatever their needs are at the moment, imo.

I find Boogie Nights to be extremely joyful overall

Have said as much many times; the scene at the end where Reynolds glides around his house checking in on everyone is as joyous as anything I can think of.

So, Tom Cruise has seen this and he "has issues". They are trying to screen it for Travolta next. There's no better publicity than an incensed Scientologist, I suppose

Oh, come on, they are not really screening this for notable celebrity Scientologists, are they? That does not seem to be PTA's thing.

PTA and Cruise are friends, so it makes sense that he'd want to show it to the guy.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/tom-cruise-has-seen-paul-thomas-andersons-the-master-has-issues-with-it-20120522

Even so, what the fuck? So PTA would puss out his movie to please Tom Cruise? Why even make it, then?

I assume it was just a courtesy. I doubt he'd make any changes just cause Cruise didn't like it

i don't think this is going to be the blistering excoriation of hubbard / scientology that many folks are hoping for. it's likely to be a complicated character study of l. ron hubbard, and if scientologists have 'issues' with showing the flawed humanity of their dear leader, it's because they've been indoctrinated to believe the man infallible in his teachings.

the link saying the screenings are more about deciding whether to explicity mention/acknowledge Scientology in the marketing film, which makes sense. he probably also just wants Cruise to have a heads up, so he doesn't feel anxious or ambushed when the movie hits theaters.

iirc, one of the introductory passages of _dianetics_ says that if you don't understand any passages of the book, then it is YOUR FAULT as a reader, and that you must reread the passages until they make sense. any misunderstanding is in NO WAY because hubbard presents a confusing belief system via turgid, confusing jargon.

i can only imagine what sort of cyclopean, messianic asshole this thinking made hubbard irl, and i can see why followers might be uncomfortable with that.

we know, dude. scientology sucks. thread kinda doesn't need to be about that.

yea lets keep on topic of ranking ptas prior filmography, gosh

jeez i'm just saying elmo kinda went off apropos of nothing

yeah woah, totally off topic, speculating about the possible movie and how its controversial subject might be received, gosh i'm sorry bout that

tom-cruise-has-seen-paul-thomas-andersons-the-master-has-issues-with-it

Joke's gonna be on all of us when this turns out to be a MANOS prequel.

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/manos/notapproved.jpg

it was more the way you did a mini-rant, then i posted something, then you went in for another rant that seemed even madder and unrelated to the previous posts. i mean go ahead, rage it up, i just thought maybe you could pump your brakes.

glad weve gotten the thread back on topic

I don't know a ton about Hubbard & Co, but I will be pleased if Anderson has made his first wholly successful film since Hard Eight.

btw i thought it pretty clear that my point wasn't "scientology's bad" but "hubbard was probably a jerk" but *shrugs*

I don't know a ton about Hubbard & Co, but I will be pleased if Anderson has made his first wholly successful film since Hard Eight.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 23 May 2012 15:31 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^^^
The Master

who knows, maybe we'll see a softer, cuddlier side of hubbard in this film! which would be something much more interesting than "here's a crazy cultist huckster, who was bad"

Whoa whoa whoa. Rein it in a bit there, elmo, you utter maniac.

I don't know a ton about Hubbard & Co, but I will be pleased if Anderson has made his first wholly successful film since Hard Eight.

Morbs, just so I can keep tally when this comes out, what percentage of each of his films would you deem wholly successful?

Also, please list other wholly successful films, thanks.

(BTW, Morbs, you would totally love Hubbard!)

The reviews for TWBB were more unhinged and crazed than the movie itself.

My ranking:

Hard Eight
Boogie Nights
bits of TWBB

not doing the Someone Who Shouldn't Be a Respected Auteur's Career Recap in yet another thread.

gutted

Morbs, I want numbers! Show me the numbers!

i actually think PTA would be trolling harder if this film actually portrayed LRH in a sympathetic light than if it were a merciless debunking of all things scientology. that's not to say that trolling is the best or noblest thing he could do with this film.

i think it's legit and fascinating to wonder about how l ron hubbard understood himself and related to others. i can only imagine that being surrounded by a bunch of people who believe steadfastly in your quasi-divinity and made-up mumbo-jumbo might actually cause you to be contemptuous of people in general. but i can't really see a way to tell the LRH story without the ultimate verdict being pretty damning, because you know....

If Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character is supposed to be an LRH stand-in, does anyone know Phoenix's character's historical analogue?

tom cruise

Heinlein

amateurist OTM. i'm guessing the phoenix character might be the first person 'LRH' actually 'helps,' and who, from the trailer, actually seems in need of help? cultism aside, a lot of scientologists credit the system for liberating them from long histories of substance abuse, which i think most people would agree is a noble cause. so is he helping the helpless, or exploiting the weak, or both? this is the stuff i'm hoping the movie addresses, i'll probably be happy with whatever tho.

A drifter (Phoenix) becomes his right-hand man but as the faith begins to gain a fervent following, the drifter finds himself questioning the belief system and his mentor.

The drifter becomes the drifted.

if this turns out to be a "debunking" of scientology i'll eat my shoe

well he already debunked porn, oil and frogs, it was just a matter of time before he found the next target of his michael moore-style takedowns