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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

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.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…