The Master Review
The Master
Written and Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams
I’ve been obsessed with cults ever since I fled to my car during a three-day Landmark Forum course and had twelve messages from them waiting on my answering machine by the time I got home. I read everything I could about cults and found that the weekend course I had just attended was started by a man who used to study under L. Ron Hubbard. Then I started reading everything I could about Scientology, years before it was in vogue to do so. The Master is probably the most anticipated film of the year for me. Paul Thomas Anderson can deny it all he wants, but we all know that this film is a thinly veiled peek into the early days of Scientology.
I’m sorry to say that I was a little disappointed by the film. It’s tremendously strong in some respects, but I don’t think it is worthy of all the praise being heaped upon it. It’s downright dull by the second half. Despite my normal pre-screening precautions (no carbs, no sugar, lots of coffee) I had to pinch myself repeatedly to stay awake during the last thirty minutes. I’ve got the tiny bruises to prove it.
Joaquin Phoenix is remarkable as Freddie Quell, a hot-tempered alcoholic with an unhealthy interest in sex. World War II has just ended, and Quell and his fellow navy sailors are having trouble acclimating back to the real world. During a classroom lecture, it is suggested that the men are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but I’d hazard a guess that Quell was damaged goods long before he joined the navy. He fails miserably at several jobs, and spends much of his time mixing rancid alcohol potions derived from paint thinner and other toxic delights. One night he stows away on a boat owned by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who takes an interest in Quell and allows him to stay on the boat, luring him into the shady world of “The Cause”, Dodd’s pseudo-scientific road to enlightenment. According to Dodd, we are all trying to revert back to the perfect being, but we are hindered by episodes from past lives or childhood. Dodd’s special method of interrogation (referred to as processing) is supposed to expunge those harmful memories.
Dodd is chilling whenever he “processes” a subject. He asks the same questions over and over until his subject breaks down, either physically or emotionally. His methods are based on the belief that you must break someone down in order to build them back up. What’s truly disturbing about his treatment of Quell is the absolute arrogance and sense of entitlement on Dodd’s part. He has no hint of guilt about in using Quell as a guinea pig. Dodd is a smart, highly educated man. He has to know that Quell is not mentally stable, but he doesn’t care. How crazy is it to try to break down a man who is already broken, knowing there might be dire consequences?
Dodd and Quell have a love-hate relationship throughout the film. It’s not really sexual, but they are very attracted to one another. If they were a man and a woman, their relationship would be volatile and emotionally abusive. Instead, the two partake in constant power struggles and infantile behavior. Quell pouts and says he is going to leave, Dodd convinces him otherwise. They go through the same cycle time and time again, and that is where I find the flaw with the story. It never moves forward, it is stuck in stagnant water. The story could have been so much more. What prompted Lancaster to start “the cause”? Why does he so quickly let Quell ascend to right hand man in the movement? Why does Quell immediately believe in this garbage? Dodd’s own son tells Quell that his father is making everything up as he goes along.
Before you castigate me, make no mistake that The Master boasts some of the best performances of the year, hands down. Hoffman and Phoenix will likely be shoo-ins come Oscar time. They are a marvel to watch, but if you take these two actors out of the film, it rings pretty hollow. They are the movie. Another duo wouldn’t have fared as well. Amy Adams has little screen time, but she plays Dodd’s icy wife well. She almost comes across like a witch, especially when she tries to convince her husband that the movement must preemptively attack its detractors. She is deadly serious.
Anderson’s film looks great, and different sequences are interspersed with views of the churning blue waters left in the boat’s wake. It’s a beautiful little respite from the all the ugliness on the ship. Anderson once again features a jarring score, complete with plinks and blaring music sure to unhinge you a bit. The performances are well worth a watch, but I think the film will be more enjoyable if you are expecting a character study, not a sweeping story. Anderson has directed a solid film, but it is far from being one of my favorites. – Shannon
Comments (15)
Films should have deep meanings.
Scott
Posted by Scott on September 21st, 2012http://Www.ReconditePictures.com
It would have been interesting if Shannon had teamed up with Sean on the last podcast. I haven´t seen The Master yet so I don´t even know who I will agree with but it´s always nice to have a lively discussion.
Posted by Eisensammler on September 22nd, 2012I’m not trying to be mean or be a girl who flames people on the internet, but why do you let Shannon write for this site? I mean seriously, she is always off base and usually clashes directly with the podcast yet you guys never acknowledge it. It would be one thing if she was one of your wives, but she just doesn’t seem to represent the film junk brand in any way.
Posted by anonymiss on September 22nd, 2012@ anonymiss
In what way is she off base?
This is a film review blog, she writes reviews based on her own opinions. It’s not necessary for you to agree with them.
Just like any other movie reviewer, I sometimes agree with their view and sometimes disagree. All I ask is that they can clearly explain their reasons and as far as I’m concerned, Shannon does that.
Posted by MovieViewer-Man on September 22nd, 2012I don’t think she’s really off base. There are 4 of us on the podcast and we certainly don’t always agree. Another opinion is always a good thing, and I think Shannon does a great job at expressing hers. She also sees a lot of movies we don’t see.
If it was up to me we’d have a lot of different people writing for the site, but it’s not easy to find good writers willing to write for a small site like this without compensation. I’m grateful for her contributions.
Posted by Sean on September 22nd, 2012@anonymiss and @Sean, I agree.
Honest opinion, giving reasons for your views, beats the hell out of agreeing with other peoples reviews so as not to be seen as different.
Go Shannon. I look forward to reading your reviews.
Posted by Gerry on September 22nd, 2012i like shannon’s reviews. if their is any problem in this situation it is people who are not held accountable for the comments (anonymiss)
Posted by mattressman on September 23rd, 2012Good review Shannon but I’m more interested in your landmark article. That’s fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Daemon on September 23rd, 2012Apology. I meant I agree with MovieViewer-man. It was anonymiss I was disagreeing with.
Sorry about that Shannon. My initial post must’ve been very confusing.
Posted by Gerry on September 23rd, 2012I also really appreciate Shannon’s reviews. I’ve discovered a lot of great indie films through her festival coverage. It’s an implausible expectation to find a reviewer who always feels the same way about a film as you do.
Posted by Nuno on September 23rd, 2012Thank you so much for the supportive comments. I love the Film Junk readers. We all do this because we love movies, and that is the common thread with the staff.
Posted by shannon on September 23rd, 2012The blog and the podcast are separate entitites. It would be pretty boring if I just parroted everything the guys think about a movie. I don’t listen to the podcast until after I write my reviews, just so I won’t be influenced. Sure it sucks when I’m the odd man out, but way back when I started doing this I knew I wanted to be honest when I write a review, even if it makes me look like an idiot. Better than being a sellout.
I would never think you are a sellout, seeing as I doubt this is a lucrative endeavor if it pays at all. I just get the feeling that you are the odd man out all the time, always sticking with the lighter fair and steering away or not appreciating the heavier/more obscure films that film junk tackles with open arms.
Posted by anonymiss on September 23rd, 2012isn’t the master a heavier film? i thought shannon’s blog post shared a lot of the same sentiment expressed by sean in the podcast. most importantly, it was a genuine review from an unbiased individual which, i thought, was why people read these things
Posted by mattressman on September 24th, 2012@ anonymiss
I get the impression that you think Shannon’s job is to review whatever movie is being reviewed on the podcast. If anything, Shannon reviews more obscure films than the guys on the podcast. The reviews on the podcast are mainly mainstream and/or blockbuster movies. Nothing wrong with either.
Posted by MovieViewer-Man on September 29th, 2012Interesting interview with P.T Anderson filmed in Melbourne.
Posted by Luke on November 14th, 2012https://vimeo.com/53236216#at=0
Leave a Reply