Skip to main content

We need to remember where we met. It’s been nagging at me.


The Master
(2012)


No doubt there are legions of Paul Thomas Anderson fans out there who think he leapt from the womb a fully-formed genius. Or, at least, he’d become one by the time he made Boogie Nights.  I’’ readily admit I didn’t much care for that broad-canvas take on the porn industry. His follow-up, the vignette-structured Magnolia received even more accolades, if anything. I found it an interminable trial, the colourful Tom Cruise scene aside. But I enjoyed There Will Be Blood, even if its advocates went slightly overboard (it has some serious third act problems). The Master seems to have received a decidedly mixed response. It resisted Oscar attention outside of the performance categories, and generally appears to have been perceived as more difficult and less approachable than much of his previous work (I think Punchdrunk Love remains elusive to most people, not least Adam Sandler fans). So maybe it’s fitting that I could recommend it as his best film by a wide margin; the charges of inaccessibility are to some extent justified, but it seems appropriate to the subject matter.

Perhaps part of the reason I liked the film so much is that PTA has reined in his tendency to over-indulge (instances of which include the Paul Dano character’s increasingly Looney Tunes’ demeanour in There Will Be Blood, or the bloated running time and Marmite moment sing-song in Magnolia). Maybe it’s just that he has become more focused on his subject matter and characters in his last few films.

The Master seems less concerned with being an interrogation of, or an attack on, (a thinly-veiled version of) Scientology, than with exploring the platonically passionate love story between Philip Seymour Hoffman's charismatic Master, Lancaster Dodd, and Joaquin Phoenix's alcoholic drifter (Freddie Quell). They both mirror and exert a magnetic pull on each other, one animalistic (to use Dodd’s word) the other apparently refined. Freddie appears to find something to believe in when he hitches aboard Dodd’s yacht. Dodd is attracted to Freddie’s uncontrolled appetites (and his ominous homebrew) while Freddie is initially bemused and then, following his first processing session with Dodd, bewitched. Anderson makes this scene as intense and riveting as anything he’s filmed, but also exciting. The thrill Freddie feels at this awakening of something within him (even if it is just someone showing an interest) is palpable.

There's much here that is ambiguous, both in terms of the characters and Anderson’s resistance to establishing a viewpoint on Dodd's movement (“The Cause”). Then, where would the nuance be found in making Dodd an outright charlatan? And the goal isn’t to set up The Cause as a cult that requires investigation in order to expose the truth (as in the recent Sound of my Voice). We're clearly supposed to shift our perspective with Freddie (the shallow focus that accompanies his point of view is striking), so the first half of the film is frequently as beguiling as it is engrossing. As Freddie becomes less sure of his Master, so the pace slackens and the PTA's narrative becomes less driven and slightly listless. At least, I suspect that's the intent; the effect can't help but ensure that the second half is less overtly arresting.

If we see the film through Freddie's eyes, I don't think we're really encouraged to identify with him. The first indication of doubts over the movement come to him through Dodd’s son (Jesse Plemons); “He’s making all this up as he goes along”. Which seems to trigger a recognition within Freddie; soon after, when he and Dodd are incarcerated, he unleashes a torrent of abuse, declaiming Dodd (who in turn exhibits most unmasterly rage). His encounters with those decrying the movement invariably result in violence, most likely an expression of his own doubts. Then, the challenging of Dodd directly elicits only a veneer of politeness (“If you already know the answers to the questions then why ask, pigfuck!” he exclaims, finally losing it with a cynic).  

There are walls between both PTA's characters and the audience; we're never privy to whether Dodd really holds conviction over the message of the Cause (we see his ire, and we see others express concerns, but he remains elusive). He loses it with disciple Laura Dern when she is impelled to call him on his inconsistencies (“This is the new work!”). Wife Peggy (Amy Adams), recognising the pull towards insobriety and excess exerted by Freddie, masturbates her husband into submission while laying down the law in no uncertain terms. And his last meeting with Freddie indicates in no uncertain terms the dark impulses of a cult leader spurned. But character flaws are no barrier to self-denial, or even genuine delusion.

Even when we are granted access to his inner life, Freddie remains enigmatic. The only thing we can be certain of is the bond between him and Dodd; it is surely the reason that he returns to see the Master in England, not because of any faith (indeed, for all his flaws, it is this lack of self-deception that sets Freddie apart from Dodd and The Cause. Dodd may well be impressed by Freddie’s relative freedom; he asks him to “let the rest of us know” when Freddie is no longer serving a master, which raises the question of who Dodd’s master is. Amy Adams hovers at her husband’s shoulder, and we don't know if she is just the strict principal keeping her husband on the straight-and-narrow, and according discipline to the movement, or the fully-fledged puppet master (there is a suggestive scene in which she appears to be dictating while Dodd is hunched in the background, typing away).

PTA won’t be drawn into a party line on this cult; it is what it is. The infighting and manipulation, the brainwashing and impropriety, are all on display. But, to an extent, this seems like window-dressing. It’s the main relationship that is the key (whether this is, as some have suggested, a representation of L Ron Hubbard’s friendship with Errol Flynn, or a Fight Club-style personification of the two different sides of Hubbard’s nature – the one he was in his formative years and the one he became).

However limited, Freddie’s encounter with Dodd has changed him. Sure, we don’t know that the slightly more functional sex-obsessed alcoholic we see at the end isn’t headed for exactly the same place (PTA includes an explicit visual reference to his first scene in the film, so maybe he thinks he hasn’t changed at all). But Freddie at least seems more aware of what he is and is not. And, if there is a change, it has come not through the mechanics of the cult but through a meaningful relationship (given his predilections, Freddie really ought to have become a disciple and advocate of Wilhelm Reich!)

The cinematography from Mihai Malaimaire Jr is exquisite; the lack of even an Oscar nomination shows that the Academy has its head up its arse. Likewise, the playful, quizzical score from Johnny Greenwood. Phoenix and Hoffman are both outstanding while Adams makes a strong impression with relatively limited screen time (at least they all received nominations).

PTA could be back on the screen before long with an adaptation of Inherent Vice (a much shorter gap between projects this time, then). I have a feeling that The Master may be retrospectively seen as his most rewarding and resonant work. Of his films to date it is certainly the most opaque.

**** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.