They say that it’s impolite to talk about religion in mixed
company. Despite the fact that we have
accepted multiculturalism, we follow this social protocol because people hold
these views very personally. However, while one group of people can only see
the value and truth in their own beliefs, another group of people will find
those same points of views to be misguided or in some cases completely
insane. The nature of belief is a tricky
thing to even discuss because those who follow a specific faith are usually slaves
to absolutes and can only see any contrasting doctrines as wrong. Director Paul
Thomas Anderson tries to take on this very subject with his sixth film “The
Master”, a challenging and subtly discordant drama about a destructive
relationship amongst the birth of new religion.
Coming
out of his short, publicity-driven hiatus, actor Joaquin Phoenix comes back
with fists literally swinging in his portrayal as Freddy Quell, a mentally
stunted, emotionally bruised and erratically violent WW2 vet, who is desperately
looking for answers. While drunkenly passing from one odd-job to another,
looking for easy cash and easy women, he stumbles onto a ferryboat where he
meets Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic scientist and philosopher, played by Philip
Seymour Hoffman. After agreeing to temporarily work for Dodd as a seaman, whilst
traveling as a stowaway, he discovers a small community of likeminded followers
of Dodd’s writings. All around him he witnesses lectures and workshops focused around
esoteric ramblings of past lives, embedded emotions, and miracle healings. What
began for Quell as a curiosity to learn more about this mysterious teacher
becomes an intense journey into a new system of thinking and a violent battle
between the wants of the flesh and search for enlightenment.
Though
the character of Lancaster Dodd seems to be inspired by L. Ron Hubbard, and the
details of his religion, known as “The Cause”, is reminiscent of Scientology,
the movie is not particularly interested in recounting recent historical fact.
Rather, it only uses these suggestions as a platform for an in depth character
study of a complicated male relationship; a relationship between a leader and
follower, a lost soul and greedy charlatan, and the genuine affections of two
men who are not understood quite as well by anyone else.
After
P.T. Anderson unleashed his dark opus with 2007’s “There Will be Blood”, fans
and film-buffs have been eagerly waiting for what he would release next. As
with all of his movies, he took his time with this production and the execution
displays the patience and detail he puts in his craft. Like “There Will be Blood”, the cinematography
is beautiful and picturesque, thoughtfully mixing precise shots of deliberate
framing as well as moments of handheld intimacy. This, as well an eclectic sound
design, including another scronky Johnny Greenwood (of Radiohead fame) score,
as well as a selection of jazzy standards from the 40’s and 50’s, brings
together an eerie, otherworldly tone that works to underline the tensions
brewing just below the surface of every scene.
Though
every detail is meticulously handled, the take away achievement of this film is
obviously the powerhouse performances from Phoenix and Hoffman. Like watching a
two skilled tennis players bouncing the ball back and forth, and never letting
it drop, you wonder how their next scene together will live up to their last,
and astonishingly it does. Nominations
will surely be granted to the both of them and they are equally deserved. Amy Adams, as the manipulative wife of
Lancaster Dodd, also enjoys her moments where she gracefully commands the
screen.
As increasingly
realized in much of Anderson’s later work, “The Master” is an evocative and
ambiguous film that seems to relish in its interiorities. The characters actions and behaviors are
never explicitly explained, their goals are never clear, and by the end of the
film they don’t really overcome their obstacles. While this may be frustrating
for some, I found the movie’s observational approach to be radically progressive—if
not a bit overlong and indulgent at times. While I tend to doubt that this film
will instantly become a favorite amongst the majority of Anderson’s fan base—in
the same way “Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia or “There Will be Blood” did—I do think
that its rewards will be earned in repeat viewings, where you will unveil new
meanings, unpack new insights, and decode new arguments every time you watch
it.
Originally published in The Basic Alternative/Oct-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment