Anderson created an exceptionally wonderful movie, and sometimes quite dry, deliberately perfect. At the same time, most viewers still liked his paintings, and film critics did not bypass them. After the predictable triumph of “Oil”, the director was already doomed to join the ranks of geniuses and masters of the 21st century.
Personally to me, his handwriting resembles Kubrick’s work – cold, accurate, verified and neat in everything, starting with writing the script and directing, attitude to the filming process itself. The beginning of the "Master", just proves it completely. Especially striking are the opening minutes, framed by the music of Johnny Greenwood, overlooking the vast ocean of the past.
It is worth saying, Anderson, constantly gravitates to the topic of “fathers and children”, like Turgenev. You won’t have any trouble after looking at his entire filmography. In each of them, of course, except for the romantic “Love knocking down”, and the detective “Congenital Vice”, and two more films of which I have not yet seen, his interest in this issue is very palpable.
So under the cover of the story of a destitute sailor who fell under the influence of the cult, in the characters of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Hofman, there is an exact association on the theme of father and son, god and prodigal son. The religious background was good, Anderson ridicules a number of details of the religion itself, sobering. In doing so, providing the tragedy of a man "without a king in his head," suffering from loneliness and loss of love. Such an image of a pure “Idiot” according to Dostoevsky, for which one involuntarily not only feels sympathy, but also a small rejection, seeing in it one’s own personal reflection, because no one is immune from such a fate.
Summarizing all of the above, I want to say that the film is definitely worth watching, the sediment left by it, is able to act positively on a conscious level. And I know for sure, he is able to heal the soul, with his beauty and with that kind of zest that I personally feel. This is really live poetry, I am completely sure, not everyone will have his teeth, but after watching it, the head will remain shots and individual scenes, and most importantly, the very similarity of the human soul.
In my humble opinion, a truly unique movie filled with psychology! It’s like a heavy folio of wisdom, having difficult places, but after reading it you get wisdom! Anderson, as a great Danish storyteller wrote the necessary fairy tale, in which there is no lie itself, but there is the same lesson for good young people.
Before writing a review (or review) of The Master, I read other people's reviews - short, long, all sorts of things. Some people praise the film, some don’t. Someone is expressing thoughts close to me. I, in turn, distinguish two aspects:
1. The film is well made. Play actors, characters, plans, views, sound and everything else worked out qualitatively, believe this. Running looking eyes "gurus", the calm fanaticism of his wife, "veneration" by the followers - well, well played, what to say. Did the film make an impression on me? As a work of cinema, yes. But I understand it completely and the first time, I would not revise it.
2. "Secret" meaning. To see and perceive the plot should be “from the opposite”. That is, from the point of view of “how not to do”. I have long since made dots with sects, commercial/psycho-cults, “gurus” _ “trainings” _ “growth” and other heresy. This biz is quite understandable, and is based on the emotions of such lost, unsupported (and even ground underfoot), powerless and developed critical thinking people as the hero of Phoenix. (Nothing new, though). Subtlely shown the moment when his skepticism melts, the hero is imbued with what is happening and begins to applaud. Play becomes life. The Master’s son says that all his maxims are blundering and fuflo (but the money does its job); an accidental witness enters into open opposition to the “teachings”, and even one of the adepts expresses criticism. The main character reacts aggressively to this – the “guru” is the straw that keeps him afloat. The aggression of the Master’s wife towards the hero is also understandable – either with us or against us. And the morals inside the community are rotten.
In fact, the hero has not changed, still looking for himself/herself/answers, achieves nothing and tries to return missed opportunities. In general, the fact that “inside” the picture, the strong – do not need, the weak – will not help. And the movie itself is worth watching to imagine how “it” happens, and not to be like it.
After his triumph, Paul decides to shoot about the military lost in life. The film recalls the stories of the “lost generation”. It is filled with philosophical and dramatic semantic load, which I have not seen in any film. It’s also about being alone in the world, it’s about loving people, it’s a very sad story because I’m really worried about Freddie. It is incredible how Paul reacted to the development of the script, the heroes, the rebirth of the main character.
Freddy Quall, a lost former World War II military man, meets Lancaster Dodd, a self-described Master who has created his own religious movement. It is the Master who helps Freddie find a place in civilian life. He feels a special parental bond with him. Between them, the love of a father and son arises, but yet Freddie gives himself to his heart and seeks to correct the past where he had a love he once missed.
Perhaps this work is the best in Joaquin’s career, which he can see with great difficulty, because his character is very complex, and it was difficult to convey all the feelings of his hero.
I would say this is the most unusual movie I've ever seen. The scene where Freddie runs away from people on a wide field, perhaps the most skillful way to show the lost character, as if he is trying to escape from his former life, but does not know where. And you need to revisit this film several times to get a sense of its beauty and the essence that the author wanted to convey.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson in his film "The Master" seriously talked about two eternal themes - love and freedom. For this purpose, he built a panopticum of heroes with all sorts of intricacies of likes and dislikes and gave us the opportunity to observe them for several years of their lives, packed in 144 minutes of tape.
In the spotlight is a restless vagrant, prone to psychedelic alcoholic revelations, a retired sailor Freddy Quayle (Joaquin Phoenix), who after World War II cannot fit into peaceful life. Whether because he initially with nerves trouble, or because of chronic alcoholism, or because of not wanting to shut up in an empty head echo of war.
Once beyond the threshold of a “decent” society, he tries to find work, and stumbles upon a charlatan fascinated by the sounds of his own voice, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the head of a cult based on stupid quasi-scientific theories that find a grateful response from gullible fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, Freddy falls under the influence of the Master, becoming one of his devoted adepts. All that we will see on the screen is the convulsive throwing of Freddy between the memories of great love for the best girl in the world Doris (Madison Betty) and unsuccessful attempts to resist the civilizational pressure of the environment Lancaster Dodd. In the musty world of enthusiastic fans, Freddy is doomed to reforging, and his escape is only a matter of time.
Anderson so filigree builds his system of images that he unwittingly turns abstraction into life. The direction is excellent and, what is especially pleasing, the selected actors correspond to its level. The whole film is based on a bright game Joaquin Phoenix. The acting work of Philip Seymour Hofman only shades the episodes of the life of the main character. And, although in life Lancaster Dodd pulls the role of a charismatic leader, in the film serves for Freddy something between a drive belt and a straitjacket.
The texture of the depicted seems to touch the finest aesthetic springs of our soul, making us tremble from the unbearable depth of the ocean, the brilliance of women’s jewelry, the laid-back crumbling of clothes, the geometric lines of the landscape. All this makes Anderson’s film quite a cunning canvas, not allowing you to take your eyes off, being under the hypnosis of invisible abstract figures.
"The Master" is an absolutely mundane film, carefully and gracefully shot according to all the rules of exemplary directing and, obviously, conceived for a more universal reading. Like the blue sea and the sky, the yellow sun and the desert, not even heroes, but elements collide in it. With each of its manifestations, the Master hints: we are not just a story about how a person met a person, no, it is an analysis of the human race, a fundamental statement about the collision of man and the higher spheres and the ineradicable misunderstanding that arises during this contact.
Anderson’s film is perfect, perfect only because most scenes cannot exist without history; dialogue crumbles, everything becomes unnecessary, but together, a wild screen magnetism is formed, subject only to real manipulators. But one thing cannot be agreed – a person cannot be changed, because when he returns to the starting point, the individual regresses to the primary state.
P.S. “Master” is an epochal drama, the movie is excellent, but not at all mass. It strikes with a chiseled picture and sometimes shows signs of sweeping retro drama, it is a rather sullen art house with a non-standard narrative. In terms of directorial implementation and acting, the film is great. The virtuoso work of the operator, put on a mind-blowing soundtrack, is sometimes fascinating.
Very subtle philosophical morality, sewn into the plot. Everything in the course of the film is turned upside down, when the essence of the characters is revealed to the viewer, we understand that they are not all who may seem at first glance. Repulsive by its external and internal ugliness, the main character turns out to be just a lost person, with very clear and correct moral foundations. It is because of the conflict of morality and low self-esteem that the drama that draws this poor fellow to the bottom is played out. Like a shipwreck, he by chance is selected on board the ship, which is refueled by the master.
A small, nasty, slouchy drunkard with a speech defect, he will not paradoxically turn out to be the best man among this motley masquerade. And even though all these respectable people around are empty or rubbish, they still heal a broken soul. Let everything be a lie, even it can save you. This is the main idea of the film.
Just as a patient needs a healer, a healer needs a patient. In the real healing of the human soul, the master feels the true value of his work. Therefore, despite any objections, he continues to endow the hero with his love. He loves him as the son he created.
I was very impressed with Phoenix’s performance, he was brilliant. I am very surprised that he was not awarded an Oscar for this role.
I would also like to note the cool work of the man voicing Phoenix in Russian voice acting. He did his job perfectly!
A demobilized sailor with a mysterious past cannot find a place in post-war America. He changes one work after another, until he accidentally meets the charismatic creator of a religious cult, a famous writer and philosopher. To the surprise of the followers of fashionable teachings, their guru makes the aggressive marginal his closest assistant. As the new faith wins fans, the former tramp begins to wonder what he believes and who his mentor really is. But some secrets are better to remain unsolved.
The essence of the film is a joke told by Lancaster at the beginning of the film: Here he comes, a huge dragon, blood is dripping from his teeth, eyes are burning, and what am I? Lasso! I slap him, throw him around his neck and fight, throw him to the ground, stand up, say. Sit down, dragon! the dragon sits down. I say "Hold on," the dragon is standing. Now he's on a leash, I take him for a walk. So far, we've settled on that. He knows how to stand and sit, in the queue of the team to twist and die.
Here's the point. Freddie Kuel (the main character) has a violent character, commits bad deeds, and he is a vulgar person. So Freddie is a dragon. After Freddie gets on the ship of Lancaster - the leader of the cult, some time passes and Lancaster understands what Freddy has become and decides to "tame the dragon", that is, subjugate Freddie and rid him of violent character, vulgarity and other shortcomings. Thanks to this, we see the development of the personality of Freddy Kuel. That's a plus for the movie. The film "Master" well reveals the themes of cults.
The film also has excellent direction. Thanks to the places of unusual staffing, camera work and soundtrack, an excellent style is obtained.
Acting is on top. Joaquin Phoenix played the role of Freddy Kuel perfectly. He perfectly got used to the role of an interesting, albeit ambiguous character. The other one I liked was Philip Seymour Hoffman. He brilliantly played Lancaster, a wise and charismatic cult leader. The other players played well too.
“The Master” is a deep and multifaceted film with excellent directing and great acting.
10 out of 10
Free yourself from the wounds of the past. Take control of your life.
Freddie Quall has a neurosis. Most people, I can’t say about all of them, although I admit that they are neurotic to some degree. A person who has escaped from reality is sick. Assigning importance to the black cat running across the road, there are signs of neurosis. Adherents of sects, adherents of various religions, neurotics. A person who believes that some part of his life depends on external forces, and he is only a toy in the hands of fate, has signs of neurosis. Circumstances, of course, affect life, but are not systematic in nature, and if you look closely, a person is often the creator of these situations.
One comforting thing is that neurosis, unlike other mental illnesses, is reversible. But treating neurological disorders is a long and difficult process. In state medical institutions, treatment is put on stream, all under the same comb, treated mainly with psychotropic drugs, which in this case are useless, because it is necessary to eliminate the causes of the disease, and each person has their own, so the approach should be individual. It's perfectly shown in the movie. Therefore, people are forced to turn for help to all sorts of dubious sects that have become especially popular in postwar America. Demand, as you know, creates supply.
Freddie's got the whole thing. Father is an alcoholic, mother is in a madhouse. In his youth he participated in the war. The service is not somewhere, but on a submarine. Freddie suffers from an inferiority complex, hates himself, considers himself a jerk and a loser. He has obvious difficulties with communication, he does not get along well with people. Particular problems arise when dealing with women. Disturbed sexual function.
Realizing his condition, he does not want to spoil the life of his beloved girl Doris. He wants a family, a home, a normal life. Fearfully envious of people who have all this, but doomed to live like rolling a field, poisoning himself with cocktails, which include acetone, kerosene and other liquids that are not intended for ingestion. In order to drown the soul-rending anxiety, ordinary alcohol is not enough.
Another round of fate throws him an acquaintance with Lancaster Dodd. This person is associated with the Church of Scientologists, but I think he could be from any religious background.
Dodd, he truly believes what he preaches, what you can't say about his entourage. His wife, a grey cardinal, treats it like a trade. It's a good feeder for kids. Freddie becomes an incentive for creativity. These two men have sincere mutual sympathy. Freddie is loyal to Dodd, and he, in turn, goes against his family, helps Freddie get rid of his problems. Only deep interest, sympathy, trust help to accomplish this titanic work. These people are important to each other.
During the next session of psychotherapy, Dodd suggests that Freddie designate a point and race to it on a motorcycle. For Freddie, that point was Doris, that's where he went.
At some point, doubt struck Freddie’s soul and although Dodd offered the homeless Freddie a comfortable life in exchange for freedom, Freddie refused the tempting offer and went his own way.
There are films, the essence of which cannot be grasped, because the creator, for sure, did not invest anything concrete in the picture, relying on the viewer, who, due to his inner world and taste, will find his own meaning in it. Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Master” is a different kind of movie, each of his scenes seems to hint at the deep meaning of what is happening, which is why you involuntarily feel like a fool who only has to guess whether the idea is very deeply hidden, or dangles on the surface, trying not to attract attention to himself. Therefore, analyzing the picture, it is easiest to simply describe what you saw from your point of view.
Point of view 1
Freddie, a master in mixing strong cocktails, a retired sailor, a good photographer and just a cocky guy, whose main hobbies are booze fights and women, after a particularly strong drink, wakes up on a yacht, among a group of sectarians, led by a good-natured and walrus-like man named Lancaster Dodd. Between Freddie and Dodd establishes a strange kind of relationship, which is based on strong drinks from engine oil and other improvised chemicals. Freddie’s beastly nature captivates Dodd, and he takes on the role of Professor Preobrazhensky, turning a yard dog into Sharikov. The result of this experiment would envy Bulgakov. In the finale, Sharikov finds harmony, returning to his animal essence, he touchingly, dog-like, retells the philosophy of his former owner, Lancaster Dodd, to a woman he finds in a beer store.
Point of view 2
A retired sailor named Freddie, who has a weakness for alcoholic women and a rampant lifestyle, having no special purpose in life, after a strong drunkenness, finds himself on a yacht with a group of sectarians. The leader of the sect, Lancaster Dodd, a large good-natured but hot-tempered man, decides to try out his theory on Freddie, expanding consciousness, thus elevating his spirit and requisitioning animal nature. For Freddy, Dodd becomes something like God, and Freddie is something like Dodd. It soon becomes clear, just as the creation cannot exist apart from the creator, so the creator is in the power of his creation. In the end, everyone comes to spiritual harmony, God with a song releases his creation into the world. Freddie no longer copulates with sand women, but shares a newfound philosophy during intercourse with the real one.
Point of view 3
Freddie, a retired sailor, photographer and alchemist, is actually a victim of his time. He is the one whose psyche was least spared by war and environment. Without seeing or seeking meaning in life, he leads a beastly existence. Fate, incidentally, brings him to a group of sectarians, the leader of which, Lancaster Dodd, an imperious but not evil man, is also crippled by war, but, unlike Freddie, tries to find some sense of existence. It is Dodd’s restlessness and loss that makes him preach and teach people like him who are trying to find harmony. An incomprehensible friendship connects Freddie and Dodd, it seems as if each sees in the other a brother of misfortune, as indicated by the ending, in which Dodd tells Freddie about their past reincarnations. There was a war there too, and they, two friends, stood up to the troubled times together. But it's time to let go of the past. Life goes on and needs to exist further in this conquered world, building a new one. Complementing each other in a particularly difficult period for both, each chooses his own further life path.
The latest version looks touching and heartwarming, but, unfortunately, other interpretations weigh too much on it. In addition, the serious meaning of each supposed interpretation does not allow you to combine them into one, which, in general, creates a sense of emptiness, incompleteness and slight cheating, as if, showing the story, the director says behind the scenes: “I am still the smartest and no one will understand me, even if they try.”
If you figure a way to live without serving a master, let the rest of us know.
The feature film “The Master” by the smartest director and creator Paul Thomas Anderson belongs to the galaxy of works of art that challenge the viewer. We require the maximum possible involvement in the process, the presence of at least some knowledge behind our shoulders, as well as, if necessary, consent to return to work after some time.
In the center of the plot is the story of two people: Freddy Quall - a demobilized sailor who has passed the Second World War and is looking for a place in life, and Lancaster Dodd - a famous philosopher, writer and founder of a religious cult, the idea of which is that every person lives for trillions of years and is able in the current "phase" to become absolutely perfect.
The meeting of the main characters happens at the best time point for both - Freddie is hopelessly trying to get out of the primitive state and find a purpose in life, and Lancaster needs an "unusual" student who can be guided on the right path; a beast that can be curbed through the use of his own methods and mental exercises.
The film is shot and performed so beautifully and naturally that at some point you cease to understand that it is an art picture - in front of you like a documentary. Extraordinary acting work by Joaquin Phoenix (Freddie Quall) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Lancaster Dodd) further emphasizes the reality of what is happening. I love Daniel Day-Lewis so much and he was really amazing at Lincoln, but the Oscars in 2013 were supposed to go to Phoenix. It's one of the best acting jobs I've ever seen.
If you do not understand the film after the first viewing, do not worry and try to evaluate it. The Master is almost impossible to fully digest at once. Paul Thomas Anderson spoke here both as the writer of the script, and it is not in his rules to chew the answers to the questions posed. The picture is multi-layered and covers almost all the problems that a person faces. The problem of realization, the eternal dilemma of faith and facts, questions of friendship, devotion, mentorship, love and many others.
“The Master” is a nirvana for a sinophile, an absolutely perfect work, after watching which there is no doubt that cinema, despite the dominance of superheroes, sequels and remakes, is still able to be art in the highest sense of the word.
Hard work. A masterpiece. I recommend wearing a hat just in case, because in two hours you will most likely want to take it off.
P.S. We don't know each other, but let's pretend for a second that we're best friends. For my sake and for the sake of everyone involved in this work, watch a movie with an English soundtrack (or don’t watch at all). Even the best actors of domestic dubbing have no chance to reproduce the full range of emotions transmitted in the original.
From the beginning, the film is puzzling, you don’t understand what’s going on. After 40 minutes from the movie, you start slowing down. But the whole movie was missing something. Everything is somehow faded, the theme, scenes and meaning are not sufficiently developed. In some scenes, everything is so played and gone that the cured teeth begin to whine. It's a strange thing, because the brilliant and great, without exaggeration, Joaquin Phoenix, saved the film, thanks only to his amazing performance. If it weren’t for him, the movie would have failed. I never cease to be amazed at this person, with his disgusting and disgusting appearance, he performs a miracle in every film, his sincerity, his eyes, his facial expression, you start to fall in love with him, no matter how creepy he looks. In this film he is an alcoholic, an aggressive dog, a mad military man, a dissatisfied man, throughout the film you throw up, you shudder with horror when you see his face, you vomit at him like bird droppings. But at the same time, you love him, he's cute, moreover, he seems beautiful. It's such a strange feeling, and I'm going to be leaning into Joaquin's legs for the rest of my life for the way he plays and the emotions he can excite. And that's in every movie without exception. In general, the director won, taking Phoenix for the main role, but with the disclosure of the semantic load, he jumped. You look and feel something behind it, something in it, but what, and exactly where to look for unknown. Maybe that’s the idea, but if Paul wanted the audience to dig in, you had to give a hint, and without it everything lost meaning in this film.
The mysterious and mystical ideology into which the main character falls is a little scary. And the most interesting idea of the Master is obedience and obedience to him. Something must push people to listen not to themselves, not to what they think and want, but to what someone else wants and thinks. All this was instilled in people, people who are weak before external circumstances, who have long considered themselves people lost, unnecessary and superfluous. The teacher knows how to manage such, instruct, give strength and give cheerfulness of spirit. Strange thing (how strange things there are, but I don’t like it), he and his followers struggle with aggression, animal instincts, and selfishness. But everyone thinks only about himself, everyone is interested in what benefit this business will bring to him personally. Here everyone is covered by reason, and their unlimited spiritual possibilities, but in fact, just like all ordinary people, copulate, drink and swear. Moreover, none of them is capable of civilized contact, discussion and discussion. They want to be listened to, listened to, and unconditionally agreed, all of which they show in their behavior. No respect is given to the interlocutors or people with a different opinion, their thoughts and personality are suppressed, and by various methods. All the members of the mission try to change Fredy, and they succeed, but for a short time. Still, he shows his former aggression, and it seems as if in this society it has become larger, increased and acquired a more persistent character. But despite everything, this ideology finds its listeners, if I may say so, it expands, grows, and in the end we see a first-class school that knows its methodology from and to, its features, advantages and disadvantages.
At the end of the film, the question is “How will you live without a teacher?” Then share this experience with us, because everyone in the world has a teacher, and the natural question arises: What kind of teacher then has the founder of this mission? Isn't that an idea at all? Why do these two people sit and smile at each other like old buddies? Why do they almost cry, why? The life of both is the same. The same as it was and is unlikely to change.
Everyone will find happiness in what they are destined to find. Someone in glory and honor, and someone in women and sex. It's not bad, it's normal and even good. Don’t worry, you have hundreds of lives ahead of you.
I am ready to watch this movie endlessly. I think Paul Thomas Anderson makes movies about people and the times they live in. “Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia”, “Oil” are those films that tell us about people, their morals, problems. Anderson also has sympathy for his heroes. This brings him closer to Dostoevsky. By the way, some people call Anderson Dostoevsky American cinema. Let's move on to the movie.
Freddie Quall, so competently played by Joaquin Phoenix, the character is simply unhappy. Drunk, tramp, sexually preoccupied with everything. What do you think is positive about him? But let's not be so categorical. A difficult childhood, an incident of incest with his aunt and other bad things that happened to him led him to such a life. And then something happens. He meets a certain Lancaster Dodd, played by the equally cool late Philip Seymour Hoffman, strikingly similar to the founder of Scientology Ron Hubbard.
And here begins the story of these different people. The director asks us what they have in common. Why Freddy Dodd? Everyone decides this issue in their own way. In Freddie, Dodd sees his alter ego, his dark side. That's first. Second, Freddie to Dodd, like a doll that the latter waves like a bragging little kid. Like, look, I'm going to make a new Buddha. But Dodd is wrong. Freddie can't be, and he's not the new Buddha. In the end, the main characters diverge in different directions.
And finally, in this film you can understand what America lived in the postwar years. The atmosphere of the late 40s - early 50s was transferred by Anderson to 5 plus.
Our entire existence on a universal scale is transcendental, and our knowledge of it is relative. Absolutely any human life can be interpreted in completely different ways, and, due to the variation of such interpretations, its very essence always eludes us, forcing us to be content with innumerable quantities of various variations. Many, seeing a vagrant walking aimlessly down the street in an unknown direction, will call him a deprived, resentful life, worthless person, and only a few will say that this person is free, that he is not bound by the chains of everyday, routine duties, that he chooses his own direction, and not conformist society does it for him. For some, loneliness is solitude, for others. Someone sees isolation, and someone sees restraint. Genius is madness. Passiveness - prudence; Love is love; Good and Evil can continue indefinitely. We live in a world of contradictions, in a world of opposites and the finest facets that are based on the dichotomy of existentialism. Having broken, the world plunges into uncontrollable, endless chaos of mind and thought.
It was on such thoughts that I was inspired by this film, which, due to its philosophical heavyness, remained not understood by the mass audience, as it happens, alas, with intellectual cinema today. Almost everyone could not comprehend this movie, some managed to reach a superficial analysis, and only very few truly appreciated this unconditional masterpiece.
Paul Thomas-Anderson a brilliant director who created a brilliant film with immensely brilliant actors: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour-Hoffman, who, alas, is no longer with us, which is an immeasurable and irreplaceable loss for cinema, and Amy Adams. Each of them, in particular Joaquin Phoenix, gave something completely unique in his acting career. Each of them deserved the ill-fated, gilded statuette, but the American Film Academy decided, unfortunately, in a different way. But for me personally, their acting, and I can’t help but highlight once again the inimitable, fundamental and brilliant Joaquin Phoenix, has become something extraordinary, exceptional and fantastic. This film made a lasting impression on me, crashing into my mind, perhaps even changing it. And I wouldn’t be disingenuous to say that this movie really influenced me as a person.
Among other things, this film abounds in wonderful and memorable music, which for a long time will sound in the halls of your mind, and excellent camera work finally frames this philosophical diamond of cinema.
Before us is an exploding, anxious, base man in the person of Freddy Quall. His deviant behavior can frighten any sane person. People like him should be isolated from society. This is what we see with our own eyes, but the unforgivable mistake of the majority was that they did not find the strength to look deeper. All these throwing, neuroses and pathologies come from a huge number of deepest wounds, such lost and missed love, in the empty squandered years of the war, which simply knocked Freddie out of modern society, numerous dissatisfactions that provoked the strongest, animal instincts that covered the last glimpses of reason. This man was once a unit of society, was the most ordinary citizen, which means that it is quite possible for him to find a panacea, for which the founder of the post-war cult of Loncaster Dodd takes up. I don't think it's worth saying for the hundredth time that this is a readable allusion to Scientology founder Ron Hubbard, because that's the only thing that got the majority of the audience. Loncaster Dodd (albeit a three-and-four-time alternative to Ron Hubbard) takes on Freddie, drawing invaluable insights from this for his new book, while at the same time bringing Freddie back to social life. Inevitably, I recall the words of Loncaster Freddie: "You have become an eternal inspiration for me." He teaches Freddie to exist in a group, retrains him to interact with society and control his sexual impulses. Together with his wife, he nurtures in him concentration, the ability to think abstractly, seeing in front of him not just a transparent glass, but the vast world that lies behind him. But most importantly, it curbs its explosion.
"Now he's on a leash ... it's left to teach him to pretend to be dead."
At the same time, Freddie never took part in the scholastic sessions of Loncaster Dodd, but, nevertheless, fully believing in their truth and effectiveness.
The only way to defend is to attack.
The master does not even try to agitate Freddie to share his solipsism, which objectively rejects any possibility of proselytism. If Loncaster wanted to make him his next follower, he would undoubtedly have accomplished the task with ease.
But after some time Freddie begins to doubt the righteousness of the Master, boldly calling him a sophist who just invented it all. Freddie learned the most important lesson from the Master. No matter what you say, we don’t react.
Freddie's reborn. We see his metamorphosis from the follower to the lead, from the student to the teacher, from the antisocial scoundrel to the full man ... and immediately recall the words of Loncaster Dodd: "I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist, a theoretical philosopher, but most importantly - I am a man."
The end of the film, a scene involving a girl in a bar, reveals that Freddie has finally satisfied his last need for sex. And a little later, we clearly realize that Freddie himself became a Master, became the one who just recently dutifully walked.
Having made his long and difficult journey, joining and then separating from Loncaster Dodd, Freddie returns there, where it all began. He returned to his starting point as a completely different person. He reached his catharsis and ataraxia where he had lost them. Now he can again calmly lie down on the beach splash near the sea, seething veil.
This movie makes you think and debate. If you consider yourself a truly thinking person, then you just have to look at him.
10 out of 10
Bravo!
"You go where you want... so go." Go to your vast breadth and good luck. If you find a way to live without serving your master or any master, then tell us how... for you will be the first man in the history of the world.
The Master is an unusual, partly bizarre, original, powerful film by Paul Thomas Anderson. This picture is impressive. It is subtly saturated with the necessary musical accompaniment. Its action takes place in the 40-50s of the XX century, but is also relevant today.
The main character was perfectly played by the talented and mysterious actor of our time Joaquin Phoenix, known for his roles in the films “She”, “Gladiator”, “Mysterious Forest”.
Its center character, Freddy Quall, is a sailor who is looking for himself in this world, aggressive, past the war, uncommunicative, abusing alcohol.
He becomes the closest assistant to Lancaster Dodd, the creator of a religious cult. He is called the Master, although more precisely he is the Master, the Master.
This role was played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who, unfortunately, has passed away.
The image of Lancaster is guessed by Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, a sect, a controversial religious trend.
The characters of Freddie and Lancaster are similar. Freddie is a clear psychopath, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, selfish, but also a lonely person, lost. Lancaster is a hidden psychopath, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is kind to the public, confident in appearance, charismatic. It teaches people to gain inner freedom, but it reveals an aggressive, painful personality, dissatisfied with life. All these qualities were brilliantly shown by Phoenix and Hoffman.
A vivid scene in the film: Freddie races at full speed on a motorcycle to his target. Lancaster himself tells Freddie, “Freddy, our sea wolf, the eternal tramp, ready to go anywhere.”
It's a movie for a thinking audience. It is about help and devotion, about false prophets and false goals, about loneliness and cruel fate, about pseudo-salvation, about an outcast society, about a lost generation. I would recommend it to watch.
Strong movie. I've seen it for the second time. The first time I didn’t know what he was talking about, but today I thought about him in the subject of conversation and decided to look again. And I get it.
Of course, everyone will understand it in their own way, my thoughts do not pretend to be objective.
The main characters are the Master and the sailor. The master is kind of a very altruistic kind person, but essentially an authoritarian tough psychopath with megalomania. The fact that the sailor is a psychopath is clear immediately, he has everything bright, undisguised - attacks of aggression and the desire to suppress someone else's will, the craving for self-destruction. But what is hidden under this, what is in the soul is unclear. He is lost, first throws himself at people for no apparent reason, then finds an excuse for this - loyalty to the teacher. He loves the girl, but does not want to return to her and does not know why.
The teacher finds his student, he is interested in him. The sailor does not mind, he also becomes interested in finding answers to the questions that the teacher asks him. And why did the master want to take care of him? I personally had a question. I suppose he felt an identity with the sailor. They look the opposite. But they're basically the same. Both are aggressive, both self-centered, want to dominate and manipulate (if you don’t agree, remember how a sailor forbade his girlfriend to go to Norway, see relatives), both do not know how to curb their dark sides. In fact, they're both psychopaths. Only one looks down on the other, as a teacher, and the other seems to be in a subordinate, but in fact more advantageous position - because he has a chance to look at himself from the outside. Because the teacher from the height of his pride and megalomania is no longer able to notice anything.
What's this movie about? How I feel about support. The sailor was so important and needed, he met first of all a friend who was ready to accept him as he was, to encourage, praise and encourage him, and no matter what further purpose or what from a psychopath. He was the only person who could give it to him. As the sailor became calmer, his face smoothed, the crooked grin disappeared, an even open look appeared. This is an amazing transformation.
This film is about the inner strength that gives you that support. At the beginning of the film, a sailor made a request. He said he wanted to take the girl he had abandoned with him to a desert island, but he didn’t know why he couldn’t go back. As a result, he found himself, was ready to return, but even when he became convinced that this was no longer possible, he was ready for a new relationship.
This, it seems to me, suggests that no matter in what context and who supports us and helps us in our path, our own inner intention is important.
The film itself is very beautiful, stylish, mysterious, everything as I love.
10 out of 10
I love and respect Paul Thomas Anderson. To be honest, it was hard for me to imagine how the career of this director would develop after his great film called Oil. And here is a new creation of modern genius.
"Master" is a film that gives pleasure. Anderson took a very serious theme for the film. Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix) is a sailor with a very complex and dark past who returns to the ordinary world after his service. He can't find a job, Freddie can't even get a job, he gets fired everywhere. It is all about the very not simple character of this man. One day he meets a man named Lancaster Dodd. This man considers himself a righteous and a teacher; he may be said to have created a new religion. Lancaster really likes Freddie and he wants to help him understand himself.
Joaquin Phoenix is a very strange and lost man. The war changed him, it is difficult for him to become an ordinary person and find his recognition in the world. I have never been able to determine whether he is a good person or not, because he does many different things and often they do not attract sympathy. I think Joaquin Phoenix very accurately conveyed the complex image of the main character, and he is very strange and sometimes uncontrollable, but something in him catches, as if you find a part of yourself in this character. Did Phoenix deserve an Oscar? My answer is yes. The role of the performer is great, in the career of Joaquin Phoenix, certainly one of the best works. He has repeatedly said that he is restarting his career. Let’s hope he continues to play such roles. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who played a philosopher and writer named Lancaster Dodd, coped with his roles by one hundred percent. His peronation causes a whole storm of emotions, ranging from admiration to laughter. I think everyone will conclude that he is really a master and teacher or is he a liar and a false visionary? It's up to you. Amy Adams plays Lancaster's wife Dodd. Many critics praised her performance. To be honest, she didn’t sympathize with me, I think it is connected with a very strong men’s game of Phoenix and Hoffman, they overshadowed Adams’ game, but overall, it looked decent.
In the end, I can say that The Master is a great film from one of the best directors of our time. Very strong work with excellent acting, deep meaning and subtext.
The film captures some hypnotic force of the frame. Almost every scene is verified to the last detail. Heroes can be silent and just look at each other, but the viewer will still listen with bated breath, as if listening to an interesting dialogue and afraid to miss at least one word. At least that was the feeling I had when I watched. The main character is not too talkative, but nevertheless Joaquin Phoenix played him so strikingly that every emotion, every stingy line expresses the intense pain of an infinitely lonely person. Hoffman's (Master) performance is equally commendable. Despite all the insularity of the main character, the Master continues to break through this wall, built by the mind around the heart. It is a pity that Philip Hoffman himself has recently passed away.
Music. The music in the film is great. The composition of Changing Partners performed by Helen Forrest, in my opinion, reflects the languor that is impregnated with the film. The rest of the music is also good, but for some reason I remember this one, which was played in the last scene of the film.
In my opinion, The Master is one of the most underrated films of our time. Perhaps many simply did not catch the mood of the film and therefore it seemed to them protracted and boring. For me, those 2 and a half hours flew like forty minutes. And there is that feeling when you are wildly happy with the film, but there is a painful feeling of nostalgia for it in your heart, even though you watched it only 10 minutes ago.
I apologize for this embarrassing attempt to describe my feelings.
Scientology is one of the most controversial and incomprehensible religious movements, which has become especially widespread in the United States of America. The world community considers this sect destructive, provoking suicide and other unpleasant things. But, nevertheless, a huge number of people still turn to representatives of this trend for help. What exactly does this assistance mean? A peculiar answer to this question is given by the psychedelic drama of the cult director Paul Thomas Anderson “The Master”.
Synopsis Former sailor Freddie returns from World War II, but can’t get used to the ordinary, uncut wartime world. He constantly experiences an irresistible sense of lust for all women, combined with fierce anger that forces him to reckless and dangerous actions. But fate brings him to a group of a new religious movement whose leader is the only one who sees Freddie as a man. He helps Freddie understand the cause of the animal instincts of the protagonist and realizes that they lie in the deep past.
Game of actors Since the picture itself is very psychedelic, then this psychedelic was to be reflected in the acting. So Joaquin Phoenix, who played Freddie, presented on the screen the embodiment of all, I emphasize, animal instincts that can be in a person. Aggression, polygamy, self-harm, alcoholism - all these are components of the main character. Of course, the strongest impression was made by Philip Seymour Hofmann, who played the leader of the Scientologists movement Lancaster Dodd, who, well aware of Freddie’s antisociality, still remains true to his principles and tries to help Freddie cope with his problems. Finally, it is worth saying a few words about Emmy Adams, who played the role of Pega, the wife of Lancaster, who everything and everything supports her husband, and in some cases becomes his support or even protector.
Directorship I note that I called Paul Thomas Anderson a cult director for a reason, since all his paintings have a special style that introduces the viewer into a kind of trance. The same thing happens in The Master, when you watch it, you really feel like you are in a state of hypnosis. I especially liked that the director did not seek to inspire us with an interest or aversion to Scientology as such, but he went into simplicity and showed us how the members of this sect live, what they breathe, as they say, and whether they can really help the main character.
Scenario The plot of the picture, of course, may seem incomprehensible and generally meaningless. Yes, the film lacks some clichés, unexpected plot twists, twists, but the plot of the film is distinguished by unusual dialogues with a peculiar mystical content, hypnotic scenes, such as a scene with an exercise in the power of restraint, when the main character had to remain steadfast, despite insults and threats in his direction. In general, in the course of the development of the plot, we will notice how much the main character changes: if at the beginning of the film he appeared as a real animal, but at the end he acquires a human appearance and tries to create something in his life.
Operation of the operator In order for The Master to convey its psychedelic essence to the viewer, the creators had to saturate not only the artistic but also the technical aspects of the film with hypnotic properties. So the cameraman Mihai Malaimer Jr. shot the picture at right angles, thereby the viewer was able to plunge into the power of Scientology and feel its influence. For example, I was impressed by two scenes. The first scene was an episode with a window and a wall, when the main character had to walk from wall to window and back and describe his feelings, while the camera followed them and as if rocked the viewer, thereby conveying his thoughts and feelings. I also liked the scenes in which the camera was frontally located in relation to the faces of the characters, thereby creating the impression that you are right in front of them.
Soundtrack Of course, it is impossible not to mention the hypnotic music of Johnny Greenwood, who wrote a wonderful soundtrack for the film. The reason for the success of the musical accompaniment of the picture is the incompatibility of the film genre and the music genre. The fact is that the style of musical accompaniment from Greenwood is more suitable for horror films or thrillers because of the sharp violin tone, but in this case the music only increased the tension in the film, turning it into something super real.
Still, “The Master” is one of the most vivid, memorable and powerful paintings of 2012. Undoubtedly, the film will be included in the list of classics of world cinema, for unusual artistic and technical components that will drag the viewer into a trance.
9 out of 10
To be honest, I only beat this movie for the second time. And on the first viewing of the film seemed to me incredibly boring, gray and unideal. Probably because I was constantly distracted. Recently I thought about it, remembered some fragments and wanted to review it. I did not want to leave the “Master” without attention and evaluation.
First of all, there is an idea in this film. It's very dark, it's very violent, but damn it, it's an extraordinary story. A completely banal biography of a soldier who by chance falls into a certain sect. And that's where the fun starts. Martin will have to completely reconsider his views on love, others and even on his teacher, who seemed the most unshakable authority.
The film is about finding your way, about determination, trying to find your place in a cruel and rapidly changing world. And the thoughts and views of the main character change throughout the picture. It is very interesting to watch and empathize with him.
I will note the brilliant acting of Joaquin Phoenix. In my opinion, this is his best role. It was a great performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
I recommend watching this film for those who love dark but interesting stories about life in all its manifestations, about people who are thrown by fate in the most unforeseen circumstances and in whom an individual completely changes his fate.
6 out of 10
A dialogue with the viewer or a monologue with oneself?
Sufficiently awarded, acting, apathetic film. Here’s what you can say about the movie “Master” in the middle of viewing. And after the end of the viewing, the perception of this movie can gradually change. There you can find the paraphrase of Kubrick’s Clockwork Orange, and the theme of the search for oneself, and the illusion of our ideas about the world. In short, there seems to be enough reason for reflection. But it is then that doubt creeps in, how great the merit of cinema in the emergence of these reflections in the mind of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer provoked himself to such a reaction.
To be clear, I will give an example, also related to the working power of art. The same audience sits at a music concert or theater. And there are two variants of "manipulation": one sincere, the other artificial. In the first case, he involuntarily, without forcing himself and without thinking about the causes of the reaction, is covered with goosebumps and may even begin to clap loudly, piercing the dense atmosphere of Eutherpa, Thalia and Melpomen. In another case, the viewer hears, sees, but weakly feels; he thinks, comes to sensations no longer from what is happening in the hall, where art triumphs, but from his own thoughts, whether caused by this music or theater or not. So he turns himself on, and now he runs goosebump, the first, second, third, applause.
It seems that the film “Master” is able to inspire some emotions and even set up a certain course of thought, but all this will be an artificial, self-sustained reflection of the viewer, able to find even in the most incompetent compilation deep ideas, but not because the presented “masterpiece” was so deep (maybe the “artist” who painted “Gioconda” thought about a delicious dinner and did not try to express anything about which later theorists in glasses will write their thick Talmuds), but because the inner world of the viewer turned out to be deep.
You can scold the director of the film, Paul Anderson, for being boring, but I think the progress is obvious. The length of the film Magnolia, which he shot in 2000, was 3 hours and 9 minutes, the film Oil in 2007 lasted only 2 hours and 38 minutes, and the subject of today’s discussion The Master is only some pathetic 2 hours and 17 minutes. If this continues, Paul risks slipping into the format of short films, from which he began his career as a director.
I did not write the title of the film in English. Actually, so did the distributors, leaving the name virtually without translation, since the word "Master" has a different meaning in English than in Russian. The nearest meaning would be the word “master” or even more precisely “teacher.” The Bible says, “Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.” Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.
Paul Anderson never points directly to a particular religion or the Church of Scientology, though there are plenty of hints. Obviously, the main idea of the picture is the relationship between man and God. All the characters in the film are easily recognizable. Freddie Quall is, of course, a Man, and I must say that in the performance of Joaquin Phoenix, man turned out to be a creature, to put it mildly, very unattractive. But there's nothing you can do about it, man is what he is, and Paul Anderson here is just disgustingly truthful. Lancaster Dodd is, of course, the Lord God himself, not Ron Hubbard, who would seem to indicate the events in the film. Well, the Dodd family, especially his wife Peggy, is nothing more than a church that requires unquestioning submission from a person.
Paul Anderson’s film is another attempt to answer the age-old question that man has been asking himself for thousands of years: “Do I need God?” And God is probably asking himself, “Do I need a man?” However, for the director, the answer to the second question is obvious - God in the form of Lancaster Dodd can not live without Freddie. But Freddie is not sure if he needs a Master and will probably return to God again and again.
In the role of the Master (or, if you like, the Master) is the handsome, charismatic middle-aged gentleman Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the creator of a dubious, faith-based cult that sprouted in America in the early 1950s. His Apprentice is a demobilized sailor, Freddy Quall (Joaquin Phoenix), who developed a mental disorder after a difficult childhood, excessive alcohol use and fighting in Japan during World War II. Since the war ended with the victory of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, Freddie has been trying in vain to find himself in a peaceful life, working either in a photo studio or in a cabbage field. Teacher Dodd is the only one who shows sympathy for the lost sailor, and later takes him into the ranks of his mission.
Reminiscent of Dianetics, Lancaster Dodd’s teaching is based on the fact that in the mind of each person there are memories of his past lives. If you mentally go back to painful moments from the past and go through them again, then in the present you can reduce the impact of the existing psychosomatic disease. In addition, the head of the mission from time to time writes books that reveal the mystery of existence and generally give answers to all questions. Despite the fact that in science, Dodd is a complete profane, having a vague idea of the age of the Earth. However, Freddie needs someone like Master who understands and sympathizes with him. But more than that, Master needs a Disciple like Freddie, unstable, rabid, uncouth, vulgar. Behaving like an animal. Having cured him, Dodd will finally prove to himself and the skeptical public that his method works, and his intentions are serious and unworthy of ridicule.
Freddie becomes both a guinea pig and a watchdog who is ready to beat up any opponent of the teaching. “Master” Paul Thomas Anderson confidently continues his cycle of films dedicated to the origin between the characters of the relationship “father-son”, whose images embodied on the screen Philip Baker Hall and John C. Riley in “Fatal Eight”, Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg in “Boogie Nights”, Jason Robards and Tom Cruise in “Magnolia”, Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano in “Oil”. The meeting of the heroes of “Master” is also not accidental, and the ties that bind them are just as strong. Teacher Dodd tries to remember where he saw Freddie before, most likely in a past life. Pay attention, however, to the scene in the photo studio, in which the protagonist, furious with his well-being, makes a fight with a client, suspiciously similar, if you look closely, to Lancaster Dodd. Although Freddie hasn't met him yet.
Another link between the characters is a problematic relationship with the opposite sex. Like any recently demobilized soldier, Freddie is obsessed with sex: he makes love to a sand woman, sees female genitals in the Rorschach spots shown to him, and at a party introduces a drunken Master singing and dancing, surrounded by absolutely naked girls (the men in this scene, characteristically, are dressed). What he can’t stand is a long relationship with a woman. In turn, Master Dodd, despite his inherent power, is dependent on his wife Peggy (Amy Adams), who dominates him in both sexual and professional life. Two strong, but somewhat inferior men complement each other perfectly, being, in fact, halves of a single whole. Some even see their male union as erotic undertones.
There is an opinion that the “Master” is Anderson’s attack on Scientologists, and the prototype of the Teacher was the founder of Scientology Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. In fact, there are certain parallels. In the United States, for example, Scientology originated in 1954, at the time of the film. Master's son Val Dodd (Jesse Plemons) criticizes his father's teachings. Hubbard’s real son did the same in a 1983 interview with Penthouse. Dodd’s Lancaster technique, Primary Processing, is remarkably similar to Scientology’s auditing, in which the Apprentice, alone with the Master, answers questions asked in strict order. According to Anderson, the script also used sketches of “Oil”, the story of actor Jason Robards about how much he drank during the war, and the biography of John Steinbeck.
The high level of acting in the “Master” can be guessed, given the fact that the performers of key roles were all nominated for an Oscar. The credit of Amy Adams, apparently, is that she managed not to get lost against the background of two spectacular actors. Attention, however, is attracted by them – Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. Both play tragic images. The former convinced himself (not without the help of family members) that his questionable teachings could indeed help traumatized people. He turned into a sweet-talking orator, a human actor who got confused himself and confused others. The second, not finding solace in traditional psychiatry, began to look for unknown ways of reconciliation with the world. In the process of watching the film more than once you can see how the sloppy Phoenix character keeps his hands on his hips. Maybe something happened. Maybe it's just convenient. Or maybe his goose posture is an extension of what happens to him inside.
Among other things, it is striking how carefully each frame is built - often telling something more than you can see at first. The symbolic scene of the “Master” was the view of the endless ocean, opening from the back deck of the ship. The vast and incomprehensible ocean of the past in which all human existence rests. Swinging on the waves, we swim along it forward and leave behind only ripples, which immediately dissolve in the general flow. There are no pre-trodden routes, but there are an infinite number of paths. And each of us chooses our own. Also notable is the scene in which the main character runs across the treated field, fleeing from angry farmers. At some point, the pursuers disappear from the frame and only Freddie running remains. Again, if you look closely, you can see that the hero is like a squirrel in a wheel - he is running not from someone, but from himself, pursued by invisible but tormenting spirits.
Memorable music for the film was written by Radiohead member Johnny Greenwood, who has already worked with Anderson on the set of “Oil”. However, if in the previous work of the director, the music sharply dissonated with the video, then in The Master, the soundtrack corresponds to the outlandish story that unfolds on the screen. This film once again reminded that Paul Thomas Anderson is not by chance one of the most gifted directors of the generation, whose author's tapes are not open to everyone and not immediately, but if you pick up the key to them, then you can not break away from what is happening.
What can you take away from someone who has nothing?
Yesterday was the birthday of one of my favorite actors, Joaquin Phoenix, and on this occasion I decided to watch another film with his participation. The choice fell on the sensational picture P. T. Anderson "Master", which I have long wanted to see, and here just presented such a wonderful occasion. Lately, I have been hooked on films with Phoenix in the lead roles, and with each of his works I am more convinced of how handsome, talented, sincere and unbanal he is. And although in the “Master” Phoenix was not recognized – the actor has aged, aged and, in general, his character is not the most pleasant person, with a tragic fate and a full set of external and internal complexes – his play, like the entire cast, is perhaps the main advantage of this film.
Impressions from the picture are clearly contradictory. On the one hand, this film is great food for thought. I love blockbusters that are not multi-million dollar, where the characters and plot are flat and transparent, like a piece of rice paper, but a deep, life-emotional movie that leaves behind an aftertaste (though not always pleasant) and throws up a couple of interesting thoughts to think about. On the other hand, after watching there was a feeling of some understatement, it seems that for two and a half hours (2.15, to be exact) the director did not have time to tell the whole story and convey the idea that he wanted to convey to the viewer. What happens in the film is taken out of context, as if the film still has a beginning and an end, and we were shown only the middle. Given how much footage does not fall into the final version of the film, perhaps here it created such an effect.
The saddest thing for me is that Joaquin Phoenix's character, who plays so beautifully that moments bring tears in his eyes, is not fully revealed. His hero is a military sailor who returned from the fleet after the end of World War II. Man is unpleasant and creates a repulsive impression both externally and by his behavior. He was either concussed in the war or disabled in life, and given the amount of ethanol and solvent he consumes during the film, the second option is much more likely. After the war he could not return to normal life. He has no place in the world, he flees from the past, changes one job after another, until one day he falls into a sect headed by the same master who is able to give him a purpose in life. As the former sailor will later be convinced, the whole teaching of the master is one continuous lie that will not help him find himself and deal with his problems.
Like I said, the acting is on top here. It's delightful when there's an ordinary story invented and written by the author, but that only comes to life thanks to beautiful gifted actors. In this case, the shortcomings of the picture in the production, but not in the execution. Many questions remained unsolved: why did the sect devote so much time to the former military, in fact, a beggar, if there was nothing to take from him? Maybe they wanted him to work for them and promote the teachings to the masses, or maybe the master of truth became attached to him - this remains a mystery and is left to the mercy of the viewer, inviting him to participate in the film, having invented the story himself.
There are some interesting thoughts in the picture that I took for myself. First, it is that any activity is controlled by a person not on the throne, but behind it. And secondly, only a person who has something to lose can get into a sect. Our hero had nothing, and this evil could not approach him, he was with them at his own will and at his own will and left them.
I don’t think ‘The Master’ is outstanding or particularly successful. It is hard to watch, but deep and making you think about the world around you, about your own life. In my opinion, such films are called works of art.
As for the rating: acting, especially Joaquin Phoenix, for which I watched this film - 10, and the film - 6. Given that the rating is still put for the film, then ...
6 out of 10
The film is about the fact that only those with whom they work can be fooled.
Freddie Quall is a real animal. The son of a psychopath and an alcoholic, he lives on the principle "It is good to be a pussy, good dog ...", does not restrain his unsophisticated desires and satisfies them immediately upon occurrence, in the fastest and most accessible way.
Navy discipline, multiplied by wartime, more or less keeps it within the framework, but demobilization reveals its complete unfitness for life and communication in human society. Perhaps, if he fell into the hands of a good psychologist, he could be made a normal person, but he falls to Lancaster Dodd, the Master, the leader of the esoteric sect “Mission”.
The master needs two types of people: rich simpletons from whom to draw money, and poor simpletons from whom to recruit loyal followers, whose number and strength of loyalty directly depends on the success of rich simpletons.
Undeservedly bypassed at the Oscar ceremony, "The Master" is a subtle and superbly played game of two characters, each of which is a void, and each seeks to fill it at the expense of the other.
The main characters of the film need each other, but speak completely different languages. The master manipulates his pupil, but he is not affected, because his brain simply does not have the buttons that the manipulator is trying to press. Freddie, in turn, is devoted to his master on an animal level, he is ready to kill for him. Without understanding a word from the teachings of the Master, Freddie perceives Lancaster Dodd as a junior member of the pack - leader, he is ready hundreds of times to undergo any experiments and behave as his master expects him to be closer to him.
The film is good precisely for its psychologism, in it the task of revealing characters is elevated to the absolute, since the action itself looks like a set of poorly related scenes. The only thing that gives them meaning is from which side they shed light on the personalities of the two main characters. And in that respect, he's excellent. At the same time, the controlling idea of the film is read only at the end, in a few accurate shots that set the last pieces of the mosaic in place, and leave the viewer alone with his thoughts. If there are, of course.
After reading a lot of reviews, I realized that in principle all the main things have already been said. Yes, the film is clearly extraordinary, sometimes seems protracted, sometimes vulgar and pretentious. I was waiting for something similar in the storyline, but alas.
It would be brave to bet 5-6 points, if not for one but..Joaquin Phoenix!
What he did to himself for this image is just unimaginable. Skinny, hunched, with a sluggish and nervous gait, a sailor, hungry for either deep spiritual truths, or just good sex. Those eyes, I don't know who could play better! In each film, he always felt an inner strength, but here she threw a contrast against the background of a weak body and general position in society. You empathize with him and judge him, he is disgusting and at the same time you fall in love with him more and more. This actor deserves an Oscar for his other roles, but if he doesn’t, he’ll be right to consider all these awards and ceremonies tinsel!
Although in the film the proud title of “master” belongs to the hero of Lancaster, I would bravely give it to Joaquin.
Philosophical parable of genius with a capital letter
A genius with a capital letter. Part one.
This is the movie I was most looking forward to in 2012. I was so lucky to see him half a year before he came out. This film was a real revelation for me and, in my humble opinion, it was he who was supposed to become the best film of the year, and the great Paul Thomas Anderson, a man who for only 6 films I already consider a director of the level of Kubrick, Scorsese, etc., should rightfully be called “Best Director”. The triumph in Venice once again showed that Anderson is able to shoot a real movie, alas, which is now removed extremely rarely.
You are a dirty animal!
It’s hard to tell a story because it’s not ordinary.
The action begins with the fact that retired sailor Freddy meets the founder of the Scientology sect Lancaster Ddod. And this meeting is an important stage in Freddie’s life, since during this time he realizes a lot of things.
But in general, the whole plot is built on dialogues and it is in them that the very essence that is contained in the film lies. But Anderson was very cunning and left many questions for us to think about.
So what's the movie about? There's no way to say that. There are quite a lot of topics covered here. But the main themes are the search for oneself and the animal nature of man.
In our main character, all these problems are harmoniously combined. After the first scene on the beach, it is safe to say that he is not quite all right with his head. But is that true? Or maybe he served too long in the Marines, and many people know it's very hard. He was “starving” for a woman. Or is it his animal nature that makes itself felt? Most likely both, because before meeting Lancaster, Freddie was a lost animal in this complex and cruel world.
After serving, he tries to return to the company of ordinary people, but because of his character he can not do it. First, he has a conflict on the basis of his own addiction to alcohol and he deliberately starts a drag, in the next scene through his fault poison the farmer who tried his cocktail. Well, in the next scene, as if fate had ordered, he gets drunk on the ship, where he already meets Lancaster. Throughout the plot, the beast side of Freddie will constantly show itself.
But the question is, why did he become so? One of the most important scenes in the film is the psychological test. He explains a lot in this film.
The film has many different themes, problems that you want to explore and understand. All of the above is not a spoiler, it's just my guess, my thoughts. Everyone can have an opinion on all this when watching, and this is an important plus of this film.
The design is simply gorgeous, especially for art house. Anderson achieved incredible beauty, although he shot with a 70mm camera. It's -- it's something beyond reality.
Operatorship is beyond praise. It's been a long time.
But the film's greatest strength is acting. My favorites Philip Seymour Hofman and Amy Adams have done amazingly well. To give Anderson credit, whatever actors he’s working with, whether it’s Daniel Day Lewis or Adam Sandler, he’s always good at getting things done. And here he achieved the desired: his characters turned out to be bright, colorful and unforgettable, but most importantly - worked out, without any falsehood. This, you know, is extremely rare.
But I want to dedicate some lines to Joaquin Phoenix. I wasn't particularly interested in this actor. I saw his good role in Gladiator and his great role in Crossing the Line, but it was his return that turned things around. His Freddie is something. Joaquin is perfectly used to the role: look at his gait, the way he keeps his hands on his back, his hunched-up, his empty look, his snide beastly look, his laughter, and most importantly, his voice. If you want to see it all, watch the movie in the original. This is something incomparable.
This film involuntarily wants to compare with the "Mirror" Tarkovsky. It, like Andrei Arsenyevich’s film, is multifaceted. It has a lot of ideas, it has a lot of meaning, it has a lot of issues, a lot of issues, and a lot of topics. Like The Mirror, everyone in this movie will see something special, something personal. Something that cannot be described in words. It has to be understood, it has to be understood.
Low bow to Paul Thomas Anderson
10 out of 10
PS:
As I wrote at the very beginning, I watched this film ~ half a year before the Russian hire. Me and my brother (he is a journalist) managed to attend the preview. There were a lot of journalists. And after the film ended, these journalists got up and started clapping! It's not a movie festival, it's just a preview. People who were supposed to know about movies got up and started clapping. I've seen the audience clap, but let the journalists! This is really amazing.
“Life is an indefatigable thirst for fulfillment, and the world is an arena where all those who pursue each other, hunt each other, eat each other, collide in pursuit of fulfillment; an arena where blood flows, where cruelty, blind chance and chaos reign without beginning or end.” White Fang by Jack London
Paul Thomas Anderson has never made a mass film for the general public. But at the same time, most viewers still liked his paintings, and film critics did not bypass them. Magnolia won a golden lion, and Oil won 8 Oscar nominations, including an ode film nomination, and two silver bears. His latest film at the moment, “The Master”, also did not remain without awards, received a silver lion, 3 nominations for “Oscar” and the award for best male roles. Of all his work, this is definitely one of the most controversial.
First of all, "Masters" is worth watching because of the acting. Joaquin Phoenix, who I did not like as an actor before, was able to surprise me. To play such a convincingly difficult, in my opinion, role, not everyone could. The award in Venice was not given to him for his beautiful eyes. Also, Philip Seymour Hoffman deserved his award, although I never doubted that he can play, and here he once again proves his talent. As for Amy Adams, I had never heard of her before this film, and for me she became a new face. And she played decently and convincingly, although the role is not too large and large movements are not required for her.
The second reason why "The Masters" is worth seeing is the way it's shot. And it's gorgeous. The cameraman, although not particularly distinguished himself, worked perfectly in this case, making the film really beautiful and atmospheric. The soundtrack, in my opinion, turned out very good and this is not surprising - Johnny Greenwood in 2008 received a golden bear for outstanding artistic contribution to the development of cinema, while working on "Oil".
And the third reason to watch is the story that caused the most controversy. Some people say that this movie is empty and there is nothing in it. But in my opinion, everything is fine with the plot here, although not ideal. Yes, it flows slowly and itself a little vague, but it is not stupid and not banal. At least I wouldn’t call the movie a dummy. Here we show the struggle of two completely different people: the struggle of rationalism, logic and meaning with savagery, madness and chaos.
I personally liked the “Master”, although he does not pull on the masterpiece. All Anderson fans are required to watch, but as for other viewers, I don’t even know – decide for yourself. Maybe you like it, maybe even become loved, or maybe you are already halfway decide to look at something more interesting, in your opinion.
8 out of 10
The war is over and a hardened sailor named Freddie returns home, where no one wants to see him. No one needs a veteran, and because of this, his mental disorders become even worse. While working as a family photographer, a deranged ex-warrior nearly killed one of his clients. This most violent character and intemperance lead Freddie to change not only his job, but also his place of residence. Everything changes from the moment of meeting the famous philosopher Lancaster Dodd, building on his beliefs something similar to a new religion. Listening to his eloquent judgments, the hero gradually begins to find himself and, with the help of a new friend, acquires the semblance of a family. The general state of things begins to become more or less natural, though, until the cult of Lancaster pours out abundant criticism. Too scrupulous and overly active critics, Freddie tries to teach a lesson in the good old way and becomes a personal "mad dog" for his patron. This completely confuses a drunken war veteran and further increases the confusion in his inner world.
Paul Thomas Anderson has long established himself as the creator of very atypical, psychologically subtle and technically verified films, to watch the development of which is sometimes more interesting than the famously twisted detectives. “Master” is no exception to this rule. From this tape came something very personal, deep and multifaceted, because each viewer will single out for himself absolutely different main idea. It is very difficult to understand the film after the first viewing, but in these veiled psychological levels lies the main beauty of this creation. The unprepared viewer, who expects to see something straightforward and simple, "Master" is unlikely to like and most likely will seem something between the delirium of the always drunk Freddie and the arrogant statements of Lancaster. By the way, the disclosure of their images is devoted to the main amount of screen time, during which you can safely form a personal opinion about both personalities, slightly strange, but insanely charismatic.
Despite its unusualness and complexity, this picture made a strong impression on me and left me in some pleasant bewilderment from what I saw. In addition to the stunning dialogues, instantly captivating the audience’s attention and from which various kinds of energy beats the key, there is a stylish and vivid picture describing post-war America as one of the most cheerful and happy places on the planet. Recreating the retro atmosphere of the time, Anderson tried his best and his bright America contrasted very strongly with the confused protagonist. As for the characters, the most memorable, personally for me, is the “playing the truth” scene, when Freddie had to tell the truth without blinking, answering the most candid questions of his new mentor. At the mention of this most powerful scene, I have goosebumps running down my back and immediately the weeping look of the main character pops up in memory, from which sincere confessions on not the most pleasant topics are literally drawn.
The actions of Freddie, beaten by fate, are extremely exciting to watch, because you do not know what he will throw away at any time. Forgotten by life, a person can show both unreasonable aggression and humbly obey the advice of people nearby. Against the background of such a confused person, an impregnable “teacher” seems even more confident in himself and in his words, who is ready to defend his positions until the very end. His speech really inspires confidence and you just start to believe him. So the conversational scenes between these so different characters became one of the highlights of the whole film. There was a place here and provocative episodes, which can safely include sex with a sand girl and the moment with the presentation of all adherents of the new religion absolutely naked. If this is not a provocation, it is a challenge to something like this. Those who struck the most were the actors who went to work with their heads.
Just amazing, fantastic and unusually great played Joaquin Phoenix, enchanting returned after the scandalous statement about leaving cinema for music. He is so deeply immersed in his image that his twisted sailor with obvious mental problems magically allows for a few hours to forget that he is actually a non-existent person. The grand performance of Joaquin, who definitely deserved more for his fundamental efforts than a simple Oscar nomination. No less magnificent was Philip Seymour Hoffman, who perfectly fit into such a difficult role of an unshakable philosopher in his views, ready to do anything to preach his ideas to other people. Together, these two beautiful actors created one of the best screen duets of last year and showed a real master class, watching which is breathtaking. Very well played Amy Adams, here appeared unusually serious and complex nature. Her character paled a little against the background of such monumental works by Phoenix and Hoffman, but despite this, Adams’ play left only purely positive impressions, as well as the film itself.
As a result, such an unusual and profound film is one of the most notable projects of the past year. In “The Master” there is not only a strong and deep story, but also high-quality directing, a beautiful picture and stunning acting work. Just for the sake of the last point, this tape is worthy of viewer attention. From me, this multi-level parable gets the maximum score, because such projects are created extremely rarely.
10 out of 10
I decided to watch this movie to find out what Ron Hubbard and the like are. Unfortunately, there were no revelations here. A master trying to teach people something and making up sermons on the go and a lost former sailor. That’s all, no further meaning. Paul Anderson is trying to make an author’s movie that should make you think about something, but in my opinion, he does not succeed. This movie is as bad as Oil. Everything is blurry and absolutely not catchy. Losing two hours of life watching this movie.
2 out of 10
In 2011, David Cronenberg shot the aesthetic and pretentious “Dangerous Method”, which in fact turned out to be a “big puff”, a low-content and boring sketch from the lives of great people in the field of psychology.
In 2012, Paul Thomas Andreson took on a similar task. Only instead of talking about the conflict between Freud and Jung, he prepared his own fictional script, which of course was inspired by the personality of Ron Hubbard.
Of course, the film promised to be interesting. However, in fact, everything turned out to be much easier. I didn’t see any highly social script or dynamic, stylish directing. An ordinary biopic about the interweaving of the fates of several main characters, smoothly developing and focusing on several key episodes.
The main advantage of the picture is the acting work. Joaquin Phoenix plays the main role. In my opinion, he did nothing special - the Oscar nomination seems completely undeserved. Another thing is that Phoenix has grown up. He became a mature and intelligent, intellectual actor. It is felt and his participation strengthens the picture.
I liked Amy Adams and I. She had a small role, but the actress showed that she has great acting potential. I am sure that she was also helped by such a master of working with actors as Paul Thomas Anderson.
But all the vistas should go to Philip Seymour Hoffman, of course. The artist just perfectly played the collective image of the leader of the sect. Watching this picture, I saw a real guru of acting. The actor is technical and confident in his abilities. I hope Hoffman continues in the same way.
To date, its potential is significantly higher than the level of many stars (for example, Kevin Spacey and Dustin Hoffman). So, his role deserves a nomination for the best supporting role of the year (and maybe a prize).
In the end, Paul Thomas Anderson was not surprised. Perhaps he gave priority to style over interest, but the picture lacks dynamics.
And the key episodes could be more seriously worked out.
Judging by the serious faces of two, perhaps even three dozen spectators gathered for the session, it immediately became clear that the people came to the meeting with grand art, and not with some art house.
A U.S. Navy sailor hits the baklushis in anticipation of the end of World War II and suffers greatly from a lack of female attention. In part, he compensates for this with experiments with alcoholic beverages, mixing them from all available liquids - from technical alcohol to coconut juice. This is Freddie Quall, a ragged and nervous animal stuck in a border zone on his way to clinical psychosis. Dembilizing at the end of the service, he passes a medical examination and during the test Rorschach sees in all the pictures proposed by the psychiatrist with abstract ink spots only penises and vaginas.
But instead of finding a woman and calming the itching, Freddie changes jobs one by one and continues his not always safe drinking experiences. This lasts until one day he finds himself on a luxury yacht, where he conducts an outbound retreat of the “sect” of self-proclaimed guru Lancaster Dodd. The new-born messiah, through hypnosis, sends his faithful adepts on therapeutic journeys through their past lives. It does not matter what Dodd professes – Scientology or some ersatz of other religious teachings. His Dianetics may be unscientific, but for some it is therapeutic. This is a sufficient basis for the existence of his mission.
Joaquin Phoenix enthusiastically, if not selflessly, plays Freddie's mental disorder with total dedication, offering mainly a set of the most primitive instincts. He tries very hard, carefully preserving the image found to the trouble of a stooped sailor who does not think to change throughout the film. And the specific voice of Timothy Tribuntsev, dubbed Phoenix into Russian, further aggravates the already unpleasant impression, turning Quall into a completely finished Gopnik, from whom you want to stay as far as possible. Such a bright and convex character could not but get into the Oscar nominations, but the lack of obvious development of the image did not guarantee victory.
And if Phoenix depicts mainly physiological manifestations, then Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dodd plays a manipulator of human souls. Cynical or sincere, it remains a mystery to me. But such a “trifle” as the lack of a clear author’s position makes the whole movie too streamlined and contradictory, which, it would seem, should not happen to such a master as Anderson. Scenario uncertainty, as well as the frozen relationship between the two main characters, equally claiming leadership in the film, give the entire plot design a somewhat far-fetched character. And Anderson as a writer here noticeably loses to the director.
It seems that he has not completely decided who is the main character here, whether charismatic Dodd, or sociopath Quayll. Given the scale of Anderson’s talent, he should have been more interested in Dodd’s messianic ambitions than in the mundane interests of the declassed fringe Freddie. Only Oscar casuistry distributed everyone in their places, and even though the film is called “The Master”, the role of Phoenix was considered the main, and Hoffman – secondary. It turns out that suffering from a mental disorder (and fixated on the primary instincts - to drink and fuck), Freddie becomes the main character in the story of the spiritual swindling of the post-war generation, clichéd and prophets.
Some too simplified set for one of the main characters of American epic cinema, on account of which “Nights of Boogie”, “Magnolia” and “Oil”. There is a scene in the film where one of Dodd’s former adepts, who came to the presentation of his new book, says that it is empty, and everything that is written in it could be summarized in 2-3 pages. After that, although he receives a snout from the helpful and as usual unrestrained Freddie, but Anderson’s message to the incomprehensible viewer seems to convey. The irony is that the director is somewhat like his master. For Freddie, the path to happiness and harmony could have been much shorter if Anderson had really been thinking about him, rather than trying to deal with the endlessly moving subject of false prophets. But ultimately, Freddie finds a woman as malleable and docile as the sandy figure on the beach he liked to lean into during the war.
And yet "The Master" doesn't stop Anderson from being a great director. This is evidenced by each individually taken frame or episode, which, by and large, did not develop into a masterpiece. It’s just that this time there wasn’t an Upton Sinclair-level screenwriter for Anderson who wrote Oil. In addition, as it turned out from an interview with Newsweek magazine, he set out to solve too many side problems that hardly fully worked on the plot and the specific relationship of the two main characters. In particular, he included scenes not included in his previous film, just because he liked them. But having built a new house for the cute “orphans”, he was never able to breathe life into it.