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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.