Who’s Afraid Of The Big Good Master?
It’s been the oddest thing. Lots of critics have now seen The Master, yet there seems to be almost no deep conversation about it. And the couple of pieces I have found have been written with such flowery, non-specific language (regarding intent, not the story) that it feels very, very safe.
So tonight, I saw it… the way it should be seen. In 70mm, yes, but more so, in a big theater, full of people.They were literally wrapped around the block for this sold-out engagement.
And now, I feel like I understand the near-silence.
What is The Master?
Well, there is lights out acting, beautiful images, and raw, undeniable emotions.
But what is all of this in service of… what’s the point?
I think people are a little afraid to stick their noses out and find out In a few weeks that they were “wrong” or don’t match the inevitable consensus. I know that I am looking to a second screening for greater clarity.
But with one look, this is what I think. It’s Fight Club.
I know this doesn’t make logical sense. This isn’t Momento, leaving you to try to rebuild the narrative in your head. It’s poetic. And Freddie Quells is Lancaster Dodd’s youth/id… the man he was before he met his Lady MacHubburd-ian wife… all the things that Dodd has created an entire quasi-religion to – ahem – master.
To not put too fine a point on it, this is, I think, a story of a man becoming master of his own domain… if he doesn’t want to acknowledge that it’s really his wife who is driving the train to something greater.
Dodd lets his inner Quells out more than once in the film. They share affinities for naked women and moonshine-like alcoholic concoctions. And Freddie seems to want to be “better,” but he doesn’t have an Amy Adams and his youthful love is long gone.
There are a LOT of scenes that are all Lancaster & Freddie… even when others are around. Dodd loves Freddie in a way that is both deep and immediate. Who doesn’t love their inner scamp… especially when it’s being held in check.
I don’t want to spoil the movie in any way. You should all have your own experiences of it. But that is my first take. I can’t really come up with anything else that makes sense. Is it just a slice of life? I guess it could be. But PTA is a million times smarter than that.
P.S. This movie has almost nothing to do with Scientology in a literal or even metaphoric way. The film does have a leader who is coming up with ideas to help clean/ease/manipulate the minds of others. And we watch him shift and adjust and rewrite those notions. But that is truly just a backdrop. None of the central Scientology things – aside from opening with a personality test – are in the story. Non-issue.
in the intro to Dianetics LRH states that it’s a second rate mystic who can’t leave their body at will … that being said, that’s what people were into new age wave in the ’50s, the perfect counterpoint to space age lounge music that was the cocktail generation
^ LOL (sorry but that’s my first laugh of the day)
It demands a lot. I agree that people are a bit afraid to stick their necks out.
I like your reading, but I think this is pretty profoundly Freddie’s story, not Dodd’s. Dodd tries to tame Freddie, cage him, contain him (“We are not part of the animal kingdom”), and he can’t quite. But he does change him, civilize him a little, calm him down. Maybe that’s the function of human belief systems, even if they’re not true.
I noticed that the “Say something that’s true!” part of the prison scene from the trailer got cut out.
My thing is… Freddie IS Dodd.
I hope that the conversation has only begun and that for some viewers, first notices were only throat-clearing for pieces to come.
Good ghad…I just looked at the wiki page and couldn’t believe Uni passed on an expenditure of $35M with an established director, but $170M for a guy who never made anything bigger than a commercial? No problem! Board-game movie? No problem! Art? Screw you!
The question is: Is it as accessible as ‘The Tree of Life?’ In Venezuela ‘The Tree of Life’ wasn’t screened at all, even after it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. Will ‘The Master’ be masterpiece that shall only be seen in a few countries? Will the 70 mm version be regarded as “the masterpiece version” and the regular 35 mm version will be considered an inferior product?
So is this spoiler free or spoilers included?
BUT WHAT DOES TRAVOLTA THINK OF IT?!
what keil said
is Amy Adams getting a dp/30 ? its been a while and she seems nice in the other interviews
Let’s hope she’s not getting a DP. Her innocence is a big part of her charm.
It seems to me that Anderson is pulling a kind of Howard Hawks: telling the same tale over and over again with different set-ups. All of his films to date feature, if not outright center upon, a charismatic older man and his love/hate relationship with a younger man, often an acolyte or protege. Hoffman/Phoenix at times so closely resemble Day-Lewis/Dano (and Hall/Reilly, for that matter) that I half-expected Hoffman to pull out a bowling pin and club Phoenix to death with it. It may be that we’re looking for subtext that just isn’t there.
As I’ve said here and Elsewhere (pun intended), it feels unfinished, like there are key scenes sitting in a trim bin somewhere. The answers, if there are any, might be in them.
Cadavra: Perhaps I’m just unable to recall, but there’s no old-young relationship in “Punch-Drunk Love,” right?
Don’t many directors frequently return to specific themes? That doesn’t diminish the quality of PTA’s work. Nor have I ever felt like he’s telling the same story over and over again.
Nick: Right. For some reason, I completely forgot about PDL. So while I wipe the egg off my face, let’s make it “most of his films.” :-\
Paul: Correct, but I was making more of an observation, not a criticism. After all, there are few greater admirers of Hawks than yours truly.
No egg-wiping necessary. I was just wondering if there was a brief moment about which I’d forgotten.