Paul Thomas Anderson is not a director for everyone. His films are long, viscous, monotonous, oversaturated with scenes, the need for which at first glance is very obvious. At the same time, it is impossible to deny him the ability to focus on performers, to achieve maximum return from them and demonstrate all his skills.
Joaquin Phoenix is the perfect actor for Anderson. One of the most powerful lyceums of our time, in The Master he is flawlessly organic in the role of an eternally drunk fanatic, as if trying to find the bottom of life. In every scene, in every shot, it feels like Joaquin knows what to do and knows he'll do it well. Doubly great when the partner comes across the caliber of Philip Seymour Hoffman, which is good in itself, and paired with Phoenix and absolutely irresistible.
And it is three times a shame that the Master is almost impossible to watch. The elements I mentioned in the second sentence of the review are fully present here. In order to see a really powerful scene (as, for example, when Hoffman “interviews” Phoenix on a ship), you literally have to wade through tens and tens of minutes of viscous, dubious and simply uninteresting episodes. It's like you're in a meeting where two bright, charismatic speakers speak convincingly and with fervor - but on topics you're not interested in at all. As a result, you lose the thread, start to be distracted and simply bored waiting for the end. Sometimes it seems to you that the speakers switch to something close to you, you are animated - but only in order to recline again in 5 minutes disappointedly on the back of the chair and stealthily look at the clock.
Paul Thomas Anderson made a film very similar to reality. From that point of view, he is certainly good. But reality, unfortunately, for the most part consists not of bright events, but of everyday life. And in an effort to make a film about the life of Anderson, alas, this very life to breathe into the film failed.
4 out of 10
The author’s drama by Paul Thomas Anderson is a vivid example of a segment of cinema that tries to tell rather than show, while it broadcasts far from universal language for the mass audience. For the entire two hours I tried to determine for myself whether I like this canvas or not, and eventually settled on that yes. There is something in this performance that I have not seen before, and that is good.
I used to watch Paul's "Lacric Pizza," which was cool. As for The Master, it is a more complex and profound work, talking about PTSD, faith and leadership qualities of the human race. I like what this movie is about: each person is a slave, and he needs a master, a guide and mentor, without whom he himself will not be able to decide what to do next. Not everyone is the leader, but everyone, one way or another, can be classified as a follower, and this is normal. Man is a collective being, which is influenced both by society as a whole and by individuals in particular.
By all means avoiding the tedious exposition, the movie throws you immediately into the thick of events, simultaneously proving that the script is very coolly written. Rhythmic and exciting that do not want to press the pause or even turn off. Something happens all the time, someone talks to someone regularly, and you listen to all the dialogues without exception. Not entirely satisfied with the open ending, but rather it expresses the rhetorical question Anderson asks in her work. A question that no one will ever answer.
Acting jobs are great. Phoenix, as usual, shines, although I can not agree with the thesis that this is his best reincarnation on the screen. I didn’t see the level of Joker and All Bo’s Fears. Hoffman, Adams, Malek, Plemons and Childers are my respect. It’s nice to see the characters of the second or third plans that are not “non-scripts” and really help move the plot forward.
Operator work and installation default. I can’t say that this movie is inventive. Simple and tasteful. Okay, so to speak. Post-production is excellent: quality is voiced in the studio, coupled with good sound design.
“The Master” is a film of the category “it is worth preparing to watch, not poking randomly on Play”. Cinema with a capital letter, but not the most spectator. It motivates to close the entire filmography of Anderson to be “in the material”, but the avid viewer is unlikely to be interested in seeing such a conversational film. But for me, the author's "speech" was quite successful. Enjoy your visit.
The film attracted the presence of such professional actors as H. Phoenix and F. S. Hofman and the title (you expect something mystical). A film about mysticism, which I like, but the main character is too repulsive with his selfish and generally unhealthy behavior.
The beginning is unusual - a man enters into sexual contact with a sand wife. Then he sees a dick in the pictures. I thought that in order to attract attention, and that over time the hero will improve (after all, he is after the war), but in the future there are the same illogical and unpleasant moments. It is not clear why the master called this mentally ill veteran the bravest person the cat has ever met. This is according to a survey about the life of a veteran. The master is more sane, but also murky. There is something addictive in the picture, but the action is boring. This also applies to joint hypnosis sessions or what they did there. To look at a subhuman without moral values for a long sane person I do not know how.
What was a little pleased was the fair average score on this resource below 7 points. It's just that people like to look at scumbags (high marks from the likes of Joker, 2019, and The Wolf of Wall Street, 2013), bandits.
If you have figured out how to live, not serving the master, any master, then let us know, okay? For you would be the first such man in world history. Lancaster Dodd
About post-traumatic disorders, about escape from mistakes and the birth of cults.
Paul Thomas Anderson, already a great modern classic, is known for his meticulous immersion in the context of eras: whether in the 70s as in Liquor Pizza, in the 60s as in Boogie Night or in the 50s as in this film. First of all, “Master” amazes with its meticulous recreation of the postwar years. Joaquin Phoenix, who played the role of retired sailor Freddie, coped brilliantly.
In the story, his hero tries to find his place in society. All attempts are in vain: the main character suffers from outbursts of anger and overwhelming sexual preoccupation. He tries to find himself roaming America until he stumbles upon the cruiser of a semi-religious, semi-mystical sect. Its leader is Lancaster, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The prototype of Lancaster was Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. Fate brings the characters together, and the synthesis of these two characters leads to benefits: Freddie has a mentor who heals his PTSD. Plus the nomadic life on the cruiser, so familiar to him. Lancaster, on the other hand, has a new realm of the unexplored in man, and he sees Freddie as a real chance to prove his, albeit dubious, theory. In the healing of the sailor, he sees his mission. However, Peggy, Lancaster’s wife, played by Amy Adams, sees only danger in such an alliance. She tries to destroy it in every possible way, influencing both her husband and his newfound protégé. The wife is a kind of teacher for Lancaster, a master for a master. Deftly manipulating it from the shadows, she convinces of the ineffectiveness of the treatment method. It is worth noting that of all the male characters, only Freddie, struggling with her wild preoccupation, does not succumb to female manipulation (and the symbolism of the female beginning runs from the first to the last scene of the film).
In the finale, Freddie leaves his master and tries to imitate the teacher himself, using his own methods on an unfamiliar girl in a bar. But this is not the same thing: in the case of the Master, we are dealing with a person whose ideas are aimed at a real desire to help. Freddie in this case only adopts the model of behavior, adopts, without delving into the essence. There are many pitfalls in the film, which are found only when viewed again. Like one of the methods of therapy where you need to repeat a painful memory several times to get rid of it forever. The recollection of the film (though it was not painful) also needs to be worked out.
After World War II, Freddie Quall (Phoenix) retired from the Navy and struggled to adjust to civilian life, becoming a drunken vagrant. A chance meeting with Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), the leader of a new sect, gives him an opportunity to change.
Review
This box office flop and little-understood film is like a good book, in the sense that if you like it, you can go back and review it, but contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to watch it twice to understand it. There are no hidden meanings here, except perhaps that there is no real master at all, there are just two people as two sides of one coin, each looking for answers from the other. For Freddie Quall, Lancaster Dodd literally "The Man" with his elegant costumes and sophistry. But for Lancaster Dodd, Freddie Quall is a creature of wild purity, a man with no purpose and no conscience who has nowhere to be but the here and now. And that's what drives the film, the tension between yin and yang, between ego and super-ego, a symbiosis that's pretty simplistically compared to the father-son relationship that goes through all the PTA movies (Magnolia, Oil).
8 out of 10
Racial alcoholic and just a good man named Freddy was discharged to shore after his service. Everything would be nothing, but only post traumatic syndrome, wooden toys, and dipsomania, no, no, and push our hero to various deviations. Freddie quickly loses his job at work until one day, as he should not throw himself on an Orthodox moonshine, he finds himself on a strange ship where the wise Master takes a woeful sailor under his wing. From this moment, Freddie becomes involved in the mystery of mystical psychology, and along with the "guru" wanders the expanses of the states, trying to understand - Who is he, and why?
Every time I get acquainted with Andersen’s new film, I am preliminarily horrified by the timing. Bad. The charming Phoenix/Hoffmann tandem, where Joaquin plays essentially an ordinary “man” with a narrow horizon, and Philip Seymour, who liberates his “full meter” creating the image of a “knowing” mystic from the branch of psychology.
The charm comes in the revelation: The fashionable trend of the time, all this near-occult tinsel, mixed with a totalitarian cult, the Guru with his teachings that received at the disposal of essentially a man-clay, susceptible to the influence of not the community, but primarily personal. And then it is time to reveal the tragedy, but no, this is a farce, because the hero of the Phoenix he seems to listen to the wise speeches of the Master, but still will remain with his opinion and desires. And the desires of a drinking sailor are simple: the smell of women and drink.
And while the Master climbs out of his skin to tame a new “animal”, losing respect, then going on the run, Freddie remains true to his “narrow outlook”, knowing that the charm of the Master is like it is, but he will not fit himself under it. Why?
Because human nature is unchanging. A dog is born to run, it does not need much.
Thanks to Paul Anderson, it’s an aesthetic in every shot. The Blessed Master Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the detached Joaquin, who sort of uncompromisingly creates a type of mental disorder, gave me a bit of time that got intoxicated and left a pleasant aftertaste. Let's move on.
You have a precious gift, the healing power of youth.
Freddie is a lost man. His image simultaneously causes pity and disgust. But everything in order.
1. Childhood.
A psychopathic mother, a drunken father contributed to a difficult emotional and material childhood. Then the war: bloody, terrible, unforgettable. And as a result, PTRS. As a result, we get a stuffed, unadapted person to life in society.
2. Alcohol.
A lost man seeks salvation in vices. And our hero chose alcohol. And he does it tastefully, turning the use of alcoholic beverages into art. Everything interferes: whiskey, pure alcohol, technical liquids. And he does it in such a way as not to turn poison into poison. But once again, he lets it slip.
3. Asociality.
Freddie, possessing poor diction and gangster manner of communication, is disgusted by many characters of the film and the viewer on the other side of the screen. It is difficult for him to communicate with people, call for sympathy, make new acquaintances. But still his appearance, his defects make others awaken a sense of compassion. Even we, in real life, seeing a psychopath, penetrate into him, feel a crushing feeling of pity inside, but at the same time we are afraid of him and try to avoid any contact.
4. Women.
Throughout the film, three images clearly emerge: mother, sixteen-year-old Doris and aunt Bertha. And if the aunt who seduced Freddie was an attempt at compensation, then mother and Doris were the cause. Sexual dissatisfaction permeates Freddie’s every act. His unmet needs are expressed in the sand woman appearing periodically in the film, in responses not to the Rorschach test. When Freddie joins the family, his sexual fervor subsides, but does not completely disappear. The family and its teachings control and suppress his animal instincts to some extent, but do not completely eliminate them. But maybe all Freddie needs to be happy is to feel the opposite sex.
Now briefly about the film as a whole. To me, the idea of the film was to show the life of the unfortunate man, his difficulties, his search for himself. The sect in The Master is not portrayed as something terrible and destructive. We see only a handful of people living together at the expense of rich people seeking unknown salvation. And in what real sect will people be kept who not only doubt, but are convinced that all their teachings are false and delusional?
Phoenix, as always, is unmatched. Playing psychopaths is his calling. They come out real, alive. His characters cause a storm of conflicting emotions. They attract and frighten at the same time.
The healing power of youth is a precious gift. Unfortunately, not everyone has that youth.
He wandered the internet looking for himself, almost like Joaquin Phoenix, and found the Master. Before viewing the load, according to the recommendations, I still looked at the documentary The Obsession (2015) and... did not take anything from the director’s message, except platitudes and pretentiousness. There you go!
In general, I encountered Hubbard’s personality and the topic of Scientology only in the format of these films and right now. It is not clear why the director, filming the drama, portrayed the characters and circumstances so caricatured? Even to me, an amateur in the field of influence psychology, it is obvious that manipulative techniques in such situations, well, are not so obviously aggressive. Did Mr. Anderson want to stress the grotesqueness of the situation? Then yes, no drama is a tragedy of humanity!
In addition to the recognisable parallels, there is another thick hint of subtle psychologicalism in the film: the emotional connection between the Master and the follower. Of course I noticed too! It was hard not to notice.
In general, as a result, the impression remained this, whether I watched not a genre psychological drama, but a primer in pictures for ordinary ordinary people, like Freddie, about how you can be used.
4 out of 10
No matter what Paul wanted to tell the audience, the film turned out not about the sect and its cunning guru, and not about the post-traumatic syndrome of a military sailor with poor genetics, who does not find himself in a peaceful life.
The film is about two real nuts who, meeting, saw something in each other, and it gave them the opportunity to overcome for a while their inner loneliness.
And although both characters, each in their own way, derive a certain “benefit” from their relationship, the basis of this tandem is mutual sincerity and good intentions.
There is no plot, but this is not a problem for those who know how to simply enjoy the brilliant acting of actors.
And it could very well be that Joaquin and Philip raised the emotional level of this film much higher than the script suggested.
“You say I’m a loser, an asshole, a womanizer and a mud ... to, but I know I’m a sanguine, a lion, a kinesthetic and an owl.”
My impression of the film can be divided into two distinct parts. The first is the unpleasant residue received from the characters, from their actions, from their words, from the events shown in the film in general. The main character of the story is a bad guy, a bulldy, a stupid person who stopped his development in adolescence, who is dangerous first of all to himself, and then to others, drinking everything that burns, rattling everything that moves and throwing his fists at everyone who looks obliquely. Personally, I do not understand how he lives, what he needs from life. The company in which he is drunk and in which he fits perfectly, is also a bunch. A collection of infantile, talk-loving and not responsible people, types who are completely unfit for the realities of the world. By the way, this is how I think of all societies of spiritualists, or as adherents of some obscure doctrine that we live many lives and are capable of remembering them, etc., etc. It has always been, is and will be that this attracts slackers, parasites and people lost in life.
The second side is a kind of sympathy for the actors and creators of the film. To create characters so disgusting that one could believe in them, so imbued with the nonsense expounded by the characters of the film and their prototypes is worthy of respect. The fact that all sorts of nuts are good at Joaquin Phoenix is no longer a secret, but in this film, other actors do not lag behind him in their madness - the incendiary Philip Seymour Hoffman, the restrained but fanatical Amy Adams, the uninitiative and wretched Rami Malek.
I think it was the first time I had such a diametrical attitude towards the film, almost from nausea to the desire to applaud.
In the city psychiatric hospital of my hometown there is a meeting room for patients with relatives, in which visitors are not recommended to be present for a long time, so as not to inductively adopt the habits of local guests. I felt like I was watching a picture in this room. A film-neurosis that drags under the veil of a mental disorder. With an allusion to Ron Hubbard. But it's beautiful. Very much.
Another Anderson. This time the work of Paul Thomas Anderson, who gave the main role not to Daniel Day-Lewis, but to his second favorite actor Joaquin Phoenix. And amazing acting is the most important part of the tape, because the main plot sags.
You can attribute the work to an art house, but Paul Thomas Anderson is not known for author films, but for festival films. What “Oil” and “Ghost thread” gave complex, but intriguing stories, behind which the changes of the characters were seen. And “Master” does not work on the hero, showing the main essence: a person remains what he was before, no matter what happened to him, no matter how they tried to change him.
Joaquin Phoenix's work deserves the highest award, and the touching appearance of Philip Seymour Hoffman caused a pinch of sadness. Eternal memory of the actor! Before us is a war hero, on whom she left an imprint. This is not a post-war syndrome, but a sexual preoccupation. The stunning opening scene allows you to consider the hero of Phoenix under the prism of war, the understanding that a possible injury can provoke dangerous concern. After the exhibition, Phoenix tries to live in a post-war country. He is in search of himself, in search of mental balance, but negative emotions prevent him from feeling a normal life.
The master in the film is not Phoenix, but Philip Seymour Hoffman, who involves the warrior in a cult based on the religion and philosophy of several lives. Joaquin is unpredictable, his mania of constant search for himself, erotic insanity and sudden outbursts of anger ensured constant wandering, but when he begins to occupy the founder of the clan, then you expect some separation from routine life, from exciting changes in mood and changes in locations.
Johnny Greenwood's slim and intense soundtrack heats up the atmosphere. Even in episodes where nothing happens, music can cause tension. Then we see the work on errors, the effect on a kind of patient, where Phoenix acts as a guinea pig. Reminiscent of David Cronenberg's "Dangerous Method", only unlike Jung and Freud's psychoanalysis, Paul Thomas Anderson beats religion and destiny.
It is interesting that we do not know the past of the main character. We know the events since the war, and the methods of the religious clan are based on past events. There seems to be some mystery in the air, as if something is known, but in group therapy sessions, Phoenix is aware of the past. What, then, should act as a conflict? Fighting madness? Finding the Right Way?
This is the catch that Joaquin’s character is not a lost traveler, but a patient who moved out during the war, who always stands his ground and does not try to develop, to look for a way out of his situation. It seems that we observe the trials, the analysis of actions, the assessment of Hoffman, but no matter how much we try to “sort”. Philip, from time to time Phoenix demonstrates initial insanity and animal instincts.
So, where's the development? Where are the changes in the hero or at least the recognition of minors in the reverse phase of therapy? I explain, the meaning of the Phoenix character is clear, his illness and insanity are clarified, his “ghosts of the past” have surfaced, but there is no component that will change the hero. Well, if the point of the tape is that the Master won't change a subject so much that Phoenix has his way, then I don't approve of this ending. Sorry, Paul Thomas Anderson, not this time!
In addition to Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman liked the participation of Amy Adams, only her screen time was not enough, she did not do special things, and she earned an Oscar nomination. An example of this is Laura Dern in Marriage Story, by the way, Durne also plays a secondary role with Anderson. It was nice to see Jesse Plemons and Rami Malek on the screen - surprised by the presence. In general, the film was disappointing, as it expected a completely different movie. But Phoenix impressed with the role, so I drew parallels between The Master and Joker – similar disorders, similar character plasticity, great acting.
' Master' received many prestigious awards, and a considerable share of them went to all three performers of the main roles. The film was enthusiastically met with criticism, some called it the second most important after Citizen Kane & #39;?, from others it got the fame of the best film of the year. And everyone assured that the immortality of the picture is guaranteed by the magnificent play of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who, I think, should not be represented. However, the picture failed at the box office. Perhaps at that moment, a serious film about the unexplored depths of the human soul was not honored by the mass audience of the Western Hemisphere.
For Joaquin Phoenix, this film became a prelude to the image of the Joker that made him famous. For Philip Seymour Hoffman, this is his last major film role. Alas, in 2014, the most talented 46-year-old actor was gone.
The beginning of the film reminded me of Terrence Malick’s philosophical films. The same calm meditativeness, prudence, beauty. But this, oddly enough, was shot by Paul Thomas Andersen, known as the creator of the kaleidoscopic and ingenious ·'Magnolia'?, where it is difficult at first to follow the episodes, so often they change, but even more famous for his *' Boogie Nights'? (although I do not too much sting).
After the Second World War, Freddy (Phoenix) is trying to establish civilian life. But breakdowns follow one another. He has no place among people. Fleeing from them, he gets on a ship, where the adherents of a new pseudo-religious sect are found. At its origins is Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman). Between the mad Freddie and the powerful teacher, the guru, the master (as it would be correct to translate the name) a spark slips. Not sexual, but the one that binds the hearts until death (the idea of rebirth is cultivated in the sect, so that in some sense it can be said that forever).
An enthusiastic and grateful Freddie puts his mind and soul in Dodd’s hands, ready to defend him like a dedicated barbos, even when he doesn’t need to. Dodd is flattered by the sincere admiration of his new admirer. He understands that he is crazy, but he tries to heal his mind as best he can, although he is certainly never a psychiatrist. No matter how long the friendship of such strange and different people lasts, no matter how their fate spreads, a subtle understanding will not disappear anywhere.
The film has a feature that in a few years will be repeated in Joker? – it seems that what happens in the film is unreal, as if in a dream or even in a hypnotic state. Reality and delusion are hard to distinguish. This emphasizes the essence of Scientology, the story of the creator of which formed the basis of the film.
The film left a controversial impression. On the one hand, the brilliant acting work of Philip Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, on the other hand, is not quite a clear plot. The story revolves around a former soldier who is trying to get back to normal after the war. In the course of the film, it becomes clear that it turns out not too successfully and by chance fate brings him to the charismatic founder of the sect, which opens the main character a completely different view of the world.
To begin with, the Phoenix character is Freddie, some kind of murky type. What drives him, why he is. He has pronounced psychological problems, he can not normally exist in society, he is aggressive, unbalanced, besides he has serious problems with alcohol. It is not clear whether the war aggravated his condition or whether he always was. Freddie himself does not know what he wants and what he is capable of, it is clear that he is a weak person and needs a spiritual mentor. As for the so-called mentor. Hoffman’s hero, Lancaster Dodd, created around himself a supposedly perfect society, a utopia, the essence of which I never fully understood. All these treatments that he used to treat Freddie to help him, a set of strange exercises, and his scholarly, philosophical theories are questioned. He can't even clearly back them up. Why these methods, what they give a person in the end, he himself believed that he so fervently propagandized or it was all the ravings of a madman. Personally, I'm not clear. What did Lancaster find so unusual about Freddie, why did he take him under his wing? After all, Freddie is a marginal, of which there are many, from the very first shots he does not cause pity or empathy, he pushes away, and there is no hope for his correction. He is more like a chain dog, without willpower and without a head, what you order, he will do. The same can be said of Lancaster, why Freddie joined him and his family because there was nowhere else to go, or perhaps because he was kind to him. Undoubtedly, mutual sympathy between the characters can be traced throughout the film, and largely thanks to the acting. After viewing, the question remains whether Freddie was fully assisted, whether he will be a full member of society. Maybe I wasn’t careful enough about the details or just didn’t get into the idea that Paul Anderson was trying to convey, but all this confusion on the screen seemed strange and leads to nothing.
You can only watch it because of the Hoffman/Phoenix tandem and the good dialogue, because it was really interesting. The other characters were not revealed at all. Even actors like Amy Adams and Rami Malek (whom she remembered) looked faded. What can be said about Hoffman, definitely, his character he penetrated completely. A very strong role. And Joaquin once again proved that any role he can. From an interesting man, he turned himself into a thin, slouchy drunk, but this does not prevent him from conveying the whole range of emotions. It's worth watching this movie for.
Looking for family. In search of lost love, a person can run into anything (sect, religion, alkaha, etc.). In search of the love of the father of a mother whom I have never known is hell, dear comrades. Here, imho, that's the movie. I read reviews of film critics: man, they say, and God and their relationship. I believe that this is so, but since I do not believe, I will take this as an allegory.
Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, the theme of lost, post-war life, allusion to the formation of one famous sect, which will later attract many famous stars of cinema. Interesting synopsis, isn't it? However, the director decided that they can be limited, and their heroes at the same time give the opportunity to fully trample in place, simultaneously throwing out on the viewer only emptiness.
Okay. Phoenix's hero, Freddie, went through World War II. An ordinary warrior, hundreds of thousands. She left her mark on him, breaking and turning him into a psychopath. Or just by adding to the psychopathic disorder he had before? The answer will be difficult to find, because Paul Anderson decided that a couple of paragraphs of the script would be enough for this, or more precisely, the scene 'psychoanalysis' Freddie, conducted by Lancaster Dodd (Seymour Hoffman). The director believes that this should be enough for us to understand what is going on in Freddie’s soul and why he behaves strangely, and at times unbalanced and aggressive.
The hero of Seymour Hoffman, on the contrary, is quite stable, prudent and balanced. Although a couple of times not inferior to Freddie in neuroticism. Maybe through the prison scene, the director wanted to show that they were so connected and that they had something in common. If so, then in the background of everything else, this connection looks far-fetched. As well as any of the characters in this movie.
It could be, dig Anderson better and, revealing the personalities of the characters and the topics raised, wider. But no, Freddie doesn't change from word to word throughout the film. He seemed frozen in place, as if he liked his unbridled psychiatrist character. In fact, it turns out that the character of the hero simply strives for cardboardness, saved from this fate only by the excellent acting of Joaquin Phoenix. Absolutely the same claims can be made to all the heroes of the film. Characters Amy Adams, Laura Dern and Rami Malek appear to bring idle talk, nothing more.
Due to the deep emptiness of the two main characters, it is not possible to sympathize with anyone. Including because the director focuses on one, then on the other. Due to the constant shift of emphasis, it is impossible to understand the essence of Freddie’s problems, nor to understand what Lancaster attracted so many supporters. The film does not reveal the theme of the destructive (or positive, director?) influence of the sect on the personality of a person. All those elements of criticism that we hear from the mouths of several characters are so timid and superficial, and, at the same time, are served as if in passing, that it does not force the viewer to critically comprehend what is happening. Paul Anderson seems afraid to dig deeper, because immediately after uncomfortable questions, he forces Freddie to shut the mouth of the characters who asked them.
By the way, what did Lancaster Dodd find in Freddie? What were all the treatments he applied to him? Where is any influence on Freddie’s personality? Someone might say, ' This helped him to understand what was happening, he was able to escape, driving over the horizon on a motorcycle.' But wait, what brought him down? In the previous scene, he still zealously cleans the face of a man who dared to criticize Lancaster. Although before that, Freddie sent Dodd to all the necessary letters and said that all his teachings are nonsense, realizing it because of just one line of Lancaster’s son, and after this remark, he still started a fight to go to prison, where it will happen ' illumination'. And all these perturbations that lead to the throwing of the hero, Paul Thomas Anderson decided to leave in the depths of his consciousness. That's the problem.
It also means that the movie just stops at nothing. Why did Lancaster invite Freddie to his place (and judging by the fact that he expected Freddie to hand him cigarettes, it was not a dream), telling him that he needed him, and then actually dumping him (after all, even under pressure from relatives, he did not give a choice, but simply continued to communicate with the hero of Phoenix)? What's the matter with the nonaim woman? The final scene on the beach could be a final chord filled with meaning only if there was not all that senseless emptiness before.
What did we get in the end? A film aimed at the problems of sectarianism, psychologically unstable people and their arrangement in life. Problems that the film cannot or does not want to solve in any way.
For the good acting of Phoenix, for a good camera work, sometimes not the most successful soundtrack and through the whole film emptiness assessment in
If you expect that this film, as a masseur, should make you feel good - it is better to pass by.
Along and across, a broken serviceman — apparently broken before the war — is unsuccessfully seeking work. Society does not accept him, and he hates this society. Not particularly smart, dysfunctional, of the former “gopnik”, he has no special purpose in life and drinks some cocktail, which itself interferes with the hand of alcohol and solvent. And then, for his happiness (or grief), he meets the leader of a certain religious-scientific movement, in which Ron Hubbard easily guesses. Yes, the one with Scientology and Dianetics, rippling, sweaty and unpleasant.
After the “Oil” from Anderson somehow did not expect an easy movie, but here he regrets the viewer even less than there.
The viewer is broken and slouched by the end of the film no worse than the main character - a terribly uncomfortable picture (an abundance of very close-up plans + deliberately close framing), uncomfortable scenes, viscous silence in numerous dialogues and a beautiful soundtrack (which Radiohead wrote, by the way).
This movie is not an easy food - it is such a mastodon from cinema, with multi-ton author's handwriting, it should be watched without interrupting. If you want to experience the amazing play of Joaquim Phoenix, amazing camera work or, at worst, just a great Russian dubbing (seriously, sometimes it seems that the film was originally shot in Russian), then forward, 2 hours and 40 minutes of a difficult story await you.
If you expect that this film, as a masseur, should make you feel good - it is better to pass by.
A film about sectarians and why Joaquin Phoenix had to play the Joker
People live, I don't blame them.
PTSD, World War II, crumbs of love, female nudity, the first newfangled sects and sectarianism itself - these and many other concepts are quite deeply revealed in this film. Cinema slowly leads the story on behalf of a person in whose place could be anyone under the confluence of the right circumstances. And the tape is distinguished by an abundance of monologues, not actions, as well as a good galaxy of actors who at the time of filming could still be not so famous or, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, played one of the last roles in life.
In fact, this movie is meaningless in its essence. I'm just enjoying the spectacle, not really understanding what's going on. What's the movie for? What did the authors mean? What is it?! The way of life of a man from which the sectarian is sculpted? Or a sect that is being destroyed or destroyed by an “infidel”? Or is it about a crowd of people who don’t understand why they’re here or what they’re doing? There are more and more questions with every minute, with every new line... you just get thrown with unanswered questions. And then you realize that the authors don't know the answers. They ask you questions in the hope that you will answer for them. What is it? Their own fear of revealing the answers to the main questions? What are they afraid of? The film is not stupid, so the authors intuitively know all the answers, but not a word about them.
Or the movie just pits people like planets floating in space. Here they come, close, close, close. They are intact, but contact begins, followed by destruction.
Or is it just a huge desire of the authors to glue together the slicing of all sorts of life fragments like how on the beach military sailors sculpt a bushy woman from the sand, to then do the same thing on her...
Or it's about my past. My master, perhaps? Because we all had it once. He lifted us up, but at some point we surpassed him, and he, like a crab in a pile that grabs someone higher than him, tries to pull us down. Read it. This phenomenon is called the crab mentality, as I read in Wikipedia.
Can the state be a sect? After all, in it we are taught to live from childhood, to accept what we disgust and what we mostly do not like. Or is it not?! Or is this movie just about crazy people, with even more crazy people? But who is really crazy, how do they really become? Is it possible to learn madness? Or is it a gift from someone?
Or am I already a sectarian and back in the past as the heroes of the film?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
What do you think?!
I don't like these pun headlines, but I couldn't help it. Watching Paul Thomas Anderson’s films has always been painful for me, like Zvyagintsev. You understand that you are dealing with an educated person with his view of the world, but at the same time his film product is poorly absorbed. In the case of the film 'Master' I think Anderson has fallen down the grace of luck, as there was a powerful chemical reaction between two amazing actors: Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. And the latter confirmed for me in this capacity after watching 'Master'. Honestly, I watched the whole film exactly the organics of these two actors, whose play cuts sparks and splashes lava, you can see how both actors get high from the game. Without it, the movie wouldn’t have happened.
But that's not all!
Voiceover, or rather, dubbing into Russian is just a gift, a discovery, an oasis in the sands of the Sahara. Inviting Timofey Tribuntsev to voice the main character was a great idea, albeit a bit risky in 2012, when his talent was not so obvious, and the textures of Phoenix and Tribuntsev clearly do not coincide. However, Tribuntsev did not repeat the voice and manners of Phoenix, he is not afraid of them for another pun, masterfully reworked and added to the image of the hero Phoenix additional strength and persuasiveness. Bravo, Timofey Tribuntsev and thank you for the excellent work!
The film as a whole for me was not a story about specific characters or time, it is an attempt to analyze one cult: who its creator, who its followers, who the workers and associates. Very curious, informative and recognizable.
What if you have nowhere to go after a hard war? You are just a drunken sailor who is left to his own fate.
Another, magnificent tape of Thomas Anderson tells about just such a guy.
The quality of the script is striking in its complexity, only proving once again the talent of Anderson himself. He struck me with a complex interweaving of character lines that, regardless of the difference, fit perfectly into each other’s common canons. It will not be difficult to track everyone’s motive, even if you missed something.
A few words about the character Phoenix. This role opened a new horizon for him, more multifaceted and deeper. He was able to show the peculiarity of a complex, impulsive alcoholic who worries about himself, but because of his spiritual drama - it could not be otherwise.
A few words about the director. He once again proved that he can make absolutely any movie, while opening something special for the viewer. Do you want a movie about a curtailed businessman? Choose Oil. Do you want an interesting, simple love movie? "Love knocking down" is your choice. Want a complex, original drama with a lot of characters? Choose Magnolia. This film took its place in the role of an ordinary post-war story, which deserves attention to the historical context, religious themes.
Scenes of dialogue related to the sailor and the ideologist of the organization deserve a separate force. They never better open their eyes to many details in a picture, showing the inner world of the protagonist.
I definitely recommend the film to watch, of course, if you are a fan of complex dramas and intricacies.
Paul Thomas Anderson is not looking for easy ways - the study of bonds of such a nature, which became the subject of consideration in "The Master", for cinema, if not a novelty, then in rarity. Analysis of the relationship, relationship and interdependence of the teacher-student, mentor-follower, patron-protégé, is not as common in cinema as relationships of love, friendship, family, companionship, sexual or simply dangerous. If such a discourse on the screen and arose, it certainly not from the same angle as the American. Ultimately, “The Master” is an attempt to study authoritarianism and cult from the inside through this kind of relationship, leaving the viewer to decide for himself who plays whom – the king of the jester, or the king’s jester.
On a substantive level, the film is similar to much (from the fact that on the surface – the eternal stories of Pygmalion and Galatea, Frankenstein and his monster, the theme of merging and dissolving personalities in each other in the Bergman “Persona”) and at the same time does not look like anyone, as it happened before with Anderson – he was compared with Wells (“Oil”), then with Altman (“Magnolia”), but he always remained himself.
More interestingly, the director had an unfortunate incident: the film was stolen for the first time in his career. He, a good storyteller, a subtle psychologist and a skillful director, perhaps the best American director of our time, perhaps for the first time in his career, had to play a modest role as a backing vocalist, because the unconditional frontman of everything that happened in two extra hours on the screen is Joaquin Phoenix incredibly convincing and textured, and what is there – just magnificent – as a crook Freddy Quayle. Even the great and terrible Day-Lewis with his charisma at one time could not beat the power, pressure and power of directing in “Oil”, although he played perhaps the best role in his great career. But Phoenix managed not only to overhype Anderson himself, but easily, on a blue eye, to "do" it. Seymour Hoffman, who plays like he lives.
And it is symptomatic that in the review of the film by Paul Thomas Anderson, most of the excitement about acting is occupied, and not the usual delights of him himself - the ideological inspirer, director, screenwriter, operator, in a word - master. Outwardly, everything is in place and everything is fine in “The Master”, but something elusive, some important ingredient of the Andersonian phenomenon in just a few years, through the thorns of “just strong films”, production dramas from the world of porn, Altman-Winterbott-Vancent plot mosaic weaves, from the status of “N1 draft” reached the title of “MVP”, disappeared. Drive? Passion? Onslaught? A little bit of everything.
I was pleased with the viewing. The tape is very unusual. I've never seen anything like this before. The plot turned out to be peculiar, developing in its direction, without going aside. During the viewing, it becomes noticeable that the picture reeks of a certain philosophy, this is a parable of life about the human abyss, where you can inevitably please if you do not manage to realize yourself. Freddie's a weirdo. Wherever he tries to find himself in work, he does not stay for long. And only an acquaintance with Dr. Dodd and his family sect, actively introducing psychotherapy, begins to change the handyman Freddy. The main difference is that the relationship between the two characters is a chance to prove to everyone that their relationship is not in vain. For Freddie, it’s an opportunity to start life from scratch by rethinking his mistakes. For Dodd, the realization of ideas, the treatment of people exposed to hopelessness on the example of Freddie.
Actors. Joaquin Phoenix played former sailor Freddie with oddities very well. One of his best roles on the screen. The main character looks alive, his strange inclinations towards women and unconventional behavior among everyone in the district, conveyed believably, he wants to empathize. Philip Seymour Hoffman also looks decent in the image of Dodd, there is nothing to complain about, his psychoanalysis and so-called workouts look spectacular. Amy Adams impresses with her heroine, because she skillfully manages to test the bad Freddie.
The Master is not an American drama of 2012. A film about the interweaving of fates with a special depth and clear meaning. It's a classic 50-60s noir in a modern shell. In this story there is something to think about and look at from the other side.
The film was doomed to fail in advance. Because it's a failed movie about a complete loser who can't find his place in life. The main reason is that the director deliberately chose the protagonist of the film walking cliché loser (former sailor Freddy Quall).
Plot. He's very tight and kind of clumsy. We see that the film constantly stalls on the turns of a simple, even primitive plot. It creates an unbearable feeling that the film is just endless, as if the plot is incredibly “heavy” like a carriage and constantly sags due to some internal absurdity. The characters of the film are gathered from different galaxies by the will of fate and play completely different games. Dissimilar characters are so artificially connected to each other, and there are so many stretched illogical and completely unnecessary scenes in the film that if you cut most of them, you could leave a maximum of 20-30 minutes from the entire tape. Everything else is not strong and gives a semantic load, it serves only as an empty “stuffing”.
Freddie Quall ( Joaquin Phoenix). The most important thing that throws in the main character is his ability to get into all sorts of stupid stories. What is it? Freddie is all about trouble, mostly for himself. We don’t know the reason for Freddie’s condition, it’s just a given. Perhaps he was so overwhelmed by the war he returned from at the beginning of the film. However, this should not justify his life as a civilian. Here and there he quietly creates trouble for himself and others. Joaquin Phoenix played a man who outwardly repulses, looks aggressively, walks slouching, “moans” instead of talking normally. In fact, this is a person who, with all his limitations and low IQ, protrudes his ego and seeks to prove his innocence, regardless of any circumstances. It is possible that he thus seeks to get out of the external care of other people. But it is not noticeable that he himself seeks to learn, read something, comprehend knowledge on his own. On the contrary, he always learns the opinions of others and blindly believes them. However, the stupid Neanderthal ego is still a pure brutal ego - without reservations and discounts. This is a “show mast gou it”, only with a minus sign.
Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Of course, one cannot but admit that the actor played this role quite appropriately, at about his level (and this was his last major role in his life). But again, due to the accented point of view of the director himself, the role of the Master is quite stereotyped, narrow, obliterated, and there is nothing special about it. This role is completely secondary and more like a caricature. A kind of grandfather Lenin, who teaches everyone how to live properly.
The only thing that is alarming is that the Master, for all his on-screen charisma and bombast, cannot coherently answer his opponents to sensitive, but not difficult questions for him, immediately turning to hysterical cries. Logically, if the Master knew what he had written there in his books, then he should have responded consistently in their spirit, in order to support his ideas, and not to stray into bare fending off criticism. It would be roughly the same as if GDP at a press conference shouted back at reporters like crazy. Public people don't allow that. But let's leave it to the director's vision.
Soundtrack. The music is quite confusing, you get tired of it quickly. From these stupid flutes and dudok I had the feeling that I had fallen into the rehearsal of some circus show or rural orchestra. I understand that the director tried to create a specific mood, but because of this, the music became too noticeable and too pretentious and annoying.
The director. The film turned out as if it was composed of separate episodes that constantly end with either some incomprehensibility and understatement, or a ridiculous and stupid situation. Freddie has one thing, then another, then the third. And there's no way out. Although the film itself should claim some kind of philosophical understanding of life. However, it seems that the director only admires his ability to show us the viciousness of people, their inner lies and propensity for sudden aggression. But the author himself does not give anything, does not express any point of view. And therefore, after the film, the viewer feels that the author stupidly laughed at him.
In general, the film turned out to be much lower than expected.
Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the most prominent representatives of independent cinema. The talented director shot only seven films during his career and each of them became an important event in world cinema. The complex author’s style of the director attracts dried viewers and fastidious critics. This picture failed at the box office and did not recoup the budget invested in the creation, but made a furor in the homeland of the director. She was included in all the lists of the best films of the year, critics praised her virtues. The hype around the picture was so strong that it was recorded in advance in the new American classics.
Paul Thomas Anderson conceived this project many years ago and wrote the script himself. There are many religious organizations and sects based on their own belief systems and practices. This is what was the basis of the film. In the center of the plot is a sailor who returned from World War II, an alcoholic vagrant with a disturbed psyche. Fate introduces him to the charismatic founder of the religious movement Lancaster Dodd. There is no point in describing it further, because it is difficult to do it in words. The image of the sailor was to some extent based on the biography of the actor Jason Robards. And the head of the sect is largely written off from the creator of Scientology Ronald Hubbard.
The picture is very complex and multilayered. After watching it, it’s hard to tell what I just saw. A large number of diverse topics are covered. Issues of religion and faith, morality and freedom are raised. How to adapt in society to a veteran with a severe psychological trauma, find your place in life. In search of these answers, the main character begins a long way. The whole film is a dialogue between man and God. The figure of the Master is symbolic, it is difficult to understand who he really is a charlatan or a prophet, but he is the guide for Freddy Quall. To understand the deep meaning of the film, you may have to watch it more than once. But even in this case, no one will give you a guarantee of understanding.
There are no technical complaints. Brilliantly recreated the atmosphere of America after the war. Very subtly and in the smallest detail conveyed the spirit of the 1940-1950s of the last century. The picture is shot on a large-format negative film, which creates a unique visual range. The virtuoso work of the operator, decorators and costume artists deserves the highest marks.
Joaquin Phoenix played the best role in his career. This work is the pinnacle of his acting skills. His character at first causes contempt and rejection, but gradually you begin to feel pity and sympathy for him. Well, how the character of the protagonist is conveyed, his feelings, emotions and experiences deserve respect. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, according to many critics, created the strongest image of his outstanding career. His character is a psychologist, philosopher, theorist, thinker, scientist and writer in one person. The image of a religious teacher he created will remain in memory for a long time. It turned out a unique screen duo of two crazy people. Well, in the background stands out beautiful Amy Adams.
Master is a very complex existential drama. Intellectual cinema with deep philosophical meaning. Affecting important issues of religion, faith, morality and the meaning of life. Author's invention on an ambiguous topic, which is not suitable for everyone. To watch or not? Everyone has to decide for themselves.
I rarely watch movies like that. And I come across them, roughly speaking, "by instruments." “Here’s a great cast, I have to look,” I thought. Without reading the reviews and descriptions, I looked...
In all my filmography, I have failed to see three films: American Beauty, Swiss Army Man, and Enemy. At least with the third everything is clear, but in what I did not “catch up” the message of the first, and about the recklessness of the second I generally remain silent. And after spending a little more than two hours watching, it would be worth adding to the list. Still, no. Don't be.
The picture with its strange dialogues and behaviors of the characters is initially disgusted. Sometimes I didn't know what I was talking about. I wanted to turn it off many times. I liked the work of the cameraman, hypnotized. The footage was picked up with "taste." Racing focused on the emotions of the characters during the dialogues. And landscapes... It remains to make a screen screen and put on the desktop in your computer. It is worth noting that I watched intermittently for almost a day. Fortunately, this is not another series, the last season of which you watch, but vaguely remembering what happened in the previous ones.
Not an unimportant plus – voiceover characters. It's very well selected. Especially the voice of the protagonist, just for the Russian audience, very different from the voice of the actor in the original. At first, it will not be perceived by ear, but gradually a non-sounding and slightly “drunken” voice becomes familiar. So, you can safely watch in dubbing. You won't. Thanks to this, you will feel the wonderful acting of the actors, and it is brilliant. I have never seen Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman play so vividly and expressively. Sometimes you will think that one of the actors overplays. Take it easy and enjoy it.
Speaking of viewing. More specifically, I recommend watching with friends. Provided that their age is about 22 years old and under 40 (depending on the age of the initiator inviting to his small cinema), but most importantly, all male. No, that's not sexism. Just (although at first glance there is nothing simple in this) in the cinema there is a lot of vulgarity in the form of vulgar and naked scenes. Oh. Are you interested? Don't rush things. That's not what you think. No, I'm not judging. In my opinion, there is no shame in being vulgar. However, the opposite side was shown, as the film itself ridicules this vice in the face of the main character and the people around him. That is why I focused on the male audience and precisely on such an age that it was possible to hold a film show of this “nudyatina” with humor and laughter. I know, on the other hand, this film is more suitable for viewers who understand a lot in life. In this case, we can talk about people of any age and gender. Only their number is very small, judging by the box office.
Well, the big question is on the agenda. What is this painting about? As a work of art, it is magnificent, beautiful. You can look at it for hours, as if it was written by Dalí, and understand nothing until Lancaster Dodd reveals “his cards” in the last meeting with the main character – Freddie. Up to this point, I am like the world history of mankind, which was in the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages, and this misunderstanding of what is happening has created a boredom (almost mortal), which I noted earlier. That's why I dropped two points. In addition, it is very difficult to describe the accompanying clots of my emotions that merged together.
I confess that I watched the film because the main character was very sympathetic to me. He reminds me of many, many other people I know. No, this is not a common feature (although it is a common feature). This is the inability to find your place in life, not seeing a good future and avoiding responsibility to the distant and at the same time native and bright past. Responsibility for uncommitted actions that can change life for the better, for ignorance of the goal in the future existence and for disappointment in front of relatives and friends. Perhaps my words will seem “water” as the words in the film itself, as well as the words in my future diploma, but this “water”, however strangely presented, gives meaning to the plot of the picture as well as the text of the diploma that I have not yet written.
In other words, if there is no desire and willingness (this is not the same) to see this work, then drop the idea for a while, for a couple of years. In order to have the necessary life experience in one of his ordinary days in a quiet evening after work, include the film, leaving all the fussy problems in the background, and watch it in one volley to the very end.
P.S. What is your life like?
I read a lot about this movie and I love movies with meaning.
Prepared to get aesthetic pleasure from acting and staging.
Of course, the style of the 50s in the film is beyond praise.
But the movie doesn't make any sense! Deprived of action, except for some glimpse of movement sudden outbursts of inadequacy of the main character. Because conversations are mostly just not interesting.
Two hours of observation of the personality of the main character, who is simply uninteresting and repulsive person. I don't know how he attracted the sectarian. The whole movie wondered: why did he give up? Can you imagine a heartfelt conversation, for example, a professor of philosophy with a homeless person who likes to eat lotion or coolant 3 times a day? And in this film, the characters before a heartfelt conversation whip “mysterious liquid”, made of solvent and mixed on orange juice. It is immediately clear that the director simply does not know what this shit is doing to the brain. After that, they would only groan and moan. And the head of the sect still has long conversations with this degenerate. But, again, the conversations are obviously interesting only to these characters who have snorted the solvent. The other characters in the film are not worth much attention. Although these characters, including the head of the sect, are just crumpled, confused and meaningless, like the whole film.
Friends, I watched a lot of different movies, saw different directorial approaches, film languages and acting. I like completely opposite movies. In each of them I found masterpieces. But what I saw in this movie today is a complete revolution in my understanding of how to build the psychology of movie characters, how to unfold the plot and how to embody characters. What Joaquin Phoenix did is beyond my understanding of acting. Actually, there was no Joaquin Phoenix, there was an alien, a person from another psychic dimension that awaits all of us on the other side of social existence. This person is from the universe of primitive humanity, which opens up in each of us, just take a few steps beyond the horizon. This hero is not a psycho, this is such a household “homunculus”, a universal person under the shell, who has not reached this shell of self-reflection, who seems to have not hatched yet, but has long existed, lives “by habit”, he is fine, everything is familiar. He doesn't know why he's lying, why he's telling the truth. And at the same time, he knows everything, for everything he has his subconscious answers. Is he incredible? Is he unpredictable? Yeah. And at the same time, he feels the brotherly loneliness that remains in each of us until we meet a similar character.
This is a film about loneliness, about a man, a wrinkle, hidden under the skin of patience and sorrow of loneliness. About the ancient, baked with salty stingy male sweat loneliness ...
One more fact: until I started watching this movie, I hadn’t heard anything about it. Miracles still exist. Hurry up to see...
For me, this film is probably the strongest film impression in the last few years.
If you watch this movie, you have a 98% chance of not knowing what it was. The film is absolutely surreal: the whole film is like a dream, but not the main character, and not even the viewer, but the behind-the-scenes nome, the director, probably.
In general, the whole film we follow the "movements" around the world of GG: Fredy. Freddie has obvious mental health problems: often uncontrollable bouts of aggression, teenage desire for sex, incoherent speech ... well, he is also an alcoholic who brews his “drink” from completely incompatible liquids. And one day, Fredy's stay in some farm fields interrupts the case: Fredin poisoned the old man who worked in these fields. Whether he died or not we do not know when the old man throws in fever the whole camp accuses Fredi, he in turn carries his feet, and they bring him to the water (sea), and here he meets him: Master. Whose personality is even stranger than Fredy. It makes no sense to describe the plot further: look for yourself.
What would you like about this movie? It's hard to explain. Maybe it's camera work: the picture is very juicy. Maybe it’s acting, especially Joaquin, an incredibly charismatic, somewhere crazy actor, with a devilish appearance (which consists of a scar on the lips, a very strange posture and eyebrows). The film is very controversial. On the one hand, this is the author’s thing, and on the other it is a splinter in your brain, which will be very difficult to pull out.
If you find a way to live without a teacher, any teacher, you can teach us, okay? After all, you will be the first such person in the whole world.
American film director, ex-dictor on television, Paul Thomas Anderson, who became famous due to the independent films “Boogie Nights” (1997), “Magnolia” (1999) and “Oil” (2007), continues to work hard in the canvas of dramatic detailed cinema, his work is distinguished by a powerful acting game, and this requirement is put not only to the primary actors, but even to those who have a replica in Anderson’s paintings one or two and a half. At the same time, the scripts of Paul Thomas Anderson, which he constantly creates alone, should excite the public, he seems to take on familiar truths, but shows from such a perspective that it allows you to call the films of the director and screenwriter nothing but intellectual. In the film “Boogie Nights”, Anderson competently provoked attention to him, touching on the topic of porn business, in the film “Master” of 2012, her plot is built around a man who appears in the form of a new “messiah” with another “religious doctrine”.
According to Anderson himself, many of the scenes were taken from the stories of actor Jason Robards, talking about his party while serving in the Navy. This mostly concerns the character of Joaquin Phoenix, who played a retired sailor and alcoholic Freddie Quall, who after another drink woke up on the ship of a Lancaster Dodd. Dodd is the “Master” (or “Teacher”), the creator of a new “religion.” Some of the moments shown in the film are taken from the biography of Ronald L. Hubbard, the leader of the “Scientologists” movement, which includes Tom Cruise. The image of Dodd was perfectly embodied by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and his on-screen wife, supporting her husband, was played by Amy Adams. I must say that Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and, accordingly, Amy Adams were nominated for “Oscar” in their categories, in addition, “Master” has collected many awards and other nominations at prestigious film festivals, including was one of the triumphants of the Venice Review.
I confess that even “Boogie Nights” seemed easier to me than “The Master”, which turned out to be quite unpleasant scenes. Especially they prevail at the beginning of the picture, but it is worth warning that in the future such scenes will almost disappear. From the moment Freddie wakes up on Dodd’s ship, his family and his supporters, the film focuses entirely on the relationship between The Teacher and his unexpected Apprentice. Impulsive Freddie, unwilling to deal with his stressful state, fueled by alcohol, turns out to be the most ardent, albeit expressive, ade of Lancaster Dodd's The Teachings. Many of his actions can be perceived as the actions of a clearly antisocial person, which, in principle, Freddie is, but did Dodd himself become an incentive for tough actions on the part of Freddie, what “Teachings” he carries, what he achieves? The film "Master" leaves a decent number of questions and this is the root cause of its box office failure. I will say for myself that I would be much more surprised if the finale, say, revealed the deceitful and greedy activities of the Dodd sect, but Paul Thomas Anderson always went around the bush.
However, if you shrug off the feeling of flawed script and their own whims about this, then in all its glory reveals what the “Master” can flaunt before every other film – and this is an acting game. I’m not a Joaquin Phoenix fan, I’ll tell you more – in some movies, he’s frankly annoying to me, and there wasn’t much love for his Freddie Quall when he showed up in front of me. But with each new scene, I was imbued with Freddie’s character, his violent temper, aggression, psychology. A complex, multi-layered role that Joaquin Phoenix performed brilliantly. Even his external ugliness demonstrates his character, correlating his physical mutilation with psychological. This influenced the diction of the hero Phoenix, which in our voiceover perfectly conveyed Timothy Tribuntsev. The opposite of Freddie was Dodd, who floridly but harmoniously expresses, with the brilliance of the texture of this man was given by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who reminded me of the juiciness of his character from the “Ids of March” (2011). And Amy Adams proved the validity of her claims to be considered a Hollywood star, when her Peggy Dodd in the image of little inferior to Phoenix and Hoffman.
After the furor caused by Paul Thomas Anderson’s previous film “Oil”, today a demanding audience wanted to see something that at least will not be lower in quality. The quality has remained in place and the detailed transmission of the atmosphere of the 60s of the last century brings aesthetic satisfaction. Acting, as already mentioned, is something fantastic and the performance of the three main actors of “The Master” can serve as an example and a model. But the plot of Paul Thomas Anderson this time lame - many can feel the understatement of the story, which also turned out to be somewhat prolonged at the end. But still Anderson was and remains one of the main flagships of American independent cinema.
7 out of 10
I'm going to start with a little bit of Paul Verlaine, because his "Nevermore" was a kind of push to write this text: "We walked together with her." Dreams captivated us. And with a ringing voice of heavenly purity, she asked suddenly, “When were you happy?” In the film about the strange, as standing next to laughter and sin, love-friendship of two men, I found it interesting to decipher standing (lying, sitting, absent) next to them women.
Each of them - both the master and the apprentice - is in the situation of "We walked together with her." Dreams have captured us.” Every one of them is a friend. The friend of the master is his wife Peggy, she is also a companion, almost Krupskaya. She, in fact, is not even a dream, but a human cast-a statue of that truth, that Aletheia (this is the name of the ship, if you remember), in a lifelong marriage with which he also consists: dry as sand (despite the coming from all sides of the waters of the ocean of life), cleaned of doubts and inaccuracies, straight, inflexible, life-leading functions, axioms, with a banal expression of the correct answer and boring infallibility on his face.
The apprentice's friend is Doris. It's actually made of sand, too. But this sand is not the sand of an ambitiously open, self-moulded truth, but dreams, dreams closed, become a memory, salty with the taste of regrets, drying up the soul like everything that has not come true (maybe that is why the hero is constantly thirsty?). He made it long ago from the sand of dreams. Someone has to be there to warm up. Even if this someone is your illusion, your fiction, your self-deception, your impossible.
Are you lying? Nope. Are you a liar? - Yes.
Both liars. How can you be a liar and not lie?
You can. If you're a dreamer. Especially if your dream is the truth.
Poor, poor Dodd. So who really is a slave? Your trap isn't just the sand woman Aletheia. Your trap is a multi-room sand castle, with thousands of sand followers, fans and subordinates built into it, with thousands of bars for all detractors and enemies. In the image of Dodd, like stuck and interfering grains of sand, you constantly catch fake notes. He always contradicts what seems to be a new opinion about him. This is because Dodd is a fantastic and allegorical creature, like anyone who has experienced this metamorphosis of becoming his Idea. The transformation of his personality in the final is impressive. With Freddie speaks no longer a friend, not an interested person, not even a teacher, but the same sandy Aletheia that is able to take the soul, once lushly green, and make it dry sand. In the end, it is simply indiscreet to shout in all ways: “Resurrection of the spirit, and the flesh sleep!” (this is even whispered indiscreetly). It is impossible to see the unearthly in the earth all the time in electric light. Sooner or later there will be a reckoning. Life will take its course. Both wild and tall. And leave...
Poor, poor Freddie. Why should I feel sorry for you? You did not become a statue of sand like your dream, you forgave and let it go in peace. And the difference between you and Dodd is the same as between a barefoot, a beggar and an open soul and a pretty but crafty soul, as between a statue and a living one. Antony Sourozhsky wrote: A statue may be more beautiful than any man, but it remains a tree or a stone. Man may not be despised, but something is shining in him with divine light.” In a nondescript, three-ditched Freddie, there is life! And this is especially evident in the finale, when through the efforts of an undisguised philosopher (that is, the director) there is a direct opposition of a living lady to a sand dream from the past.
The only chance to get rid of everything sandy, to fill the lifeless sand of illusions and deceptions with the ocean, that is, something alive, was for Dodd an incomprehensible love-friendship with Freddie. But his fictional dragon and unfictional friend chose to leave. After all, Dodd is constantly bifurcated between the desire to love and change, between the desire to save and conquer, as Gorky wrote, “to wrap ... and let the top around him” and around the “heavenly idea” that finally defeated him.
Freddie manages (what perseverance, what strength!) to remain himself, not rejected, but rejected, to survive, despite the holes in the soul and constant drafts. And the one who walled himself up in a beautiful, but impenetrable case of the idea, lost a person in himself without a trace. And lost a friend.
Beautiful chatter about the truth will remain chatter, words - in words, life - life, sand - sand. It is not always a human being.
P.S. Alexander Blok once wrote, knowing from his experience what he says: “An artist, to be an artist, kills a person in himself, a person, to live, renounces art.” Anyway, the film "Master" about something similar is filmed: the artist is a master, the person is a student, art is a complex Truth.