In the turbulent sea of human life, you are lucky to meet a Master who also becomes your Master. And this is where Life usually prepares tests for both sides: whether you are ready to become a wizard's apprentice, and whether the Master is ready to remain a teacher and not become your Master. It was well noticed in the film club about the duality of translation.
This is a film about mutual influence: to succumb to the temptation of manipulation and power over people, on the one hand; to surrender to the charm of the individual and change under its influence, on the other. The teacher - to last in the students or to conduct a cold-blooded experiment: these methods somehow affect, allow you to achieve complete control and submission. And the answer is not only in methodology but also in terminology. The hero of F. Hoffman defines for himself the audience of influence by the word “dragon” (read – the creation of evil), which unequivocally speaks of violent methods of influence (Master – master), training and, ultimately, submission to oneself. In the student, the Master finds a beautiful copy for testing his teaching: Freddie is a lonely, sick soul, lost in life person. Such people give the teacher the illusion of fruitful ground for the development and use of methods. They give themselves completely, become the most ardent adepts. And, nurturing his self-esteem, the teacher can only direct the negligent student with light “father slaps”. "Ah, what a bad boy!"
And the student at the same time, overcoming himself, stepping on his throat, selflessly performs lesson after lesson, rushes into battle for the Father, nerves to exposure. A good illustration - all who follow the Master, regardless of age, are nakedly naive in the fullness of their teaching.
Does Lancaster see the depth of what is happening, does he understand the full responsibility of the teacher? It is very difficult to stay on the verge of changing people, changing the world and still being a human being, rather than being a god. Lancaster very often breaks off the pedestal: with a lack of arguments in defense of his teachings, he goes to shout, rushing into attack. As an educator, it was very interesting to see a complete analogy with an inept teacher or an inexperienced parent. When you lack the ability to instantly identify a situation and find a way out of it, the best way is to yell. And everyone who asked will shut up. What they think and feel doesn’t matter. At this point, a base philistine instinct emerges: he is a fool, if you do not understand. Bad teachers have no right to ask questions. Question means a person who can think. It is forbidden to be a Person, you can be a Submissive (children must be obedient). There is only one person who can think, a teacher who knows the truth.
First, he will create a doctrine (religion): it is so beautiful when someone reveals a secret to you, raises you in his own eyes: “You are not an animal, you are above these creatures.” It will help you to penetrate into the deep secrets of yourself, to look at yourself from the outside. And you, who are grateful for the vast world open to you, in you, will listen to every word, repeating: Yes, yes, I have already been convinced more than once, everything that the Master says is true, I myself saw, felt, understood.
After the teaching, he will create a school (church) where you will educate Our followers together with the teacher.
Then he will say to you, either you are with me or go away. As Lancaster would fatherly appreciate a motorcycle ride: a good boy, learned to ride fast. And before that will not allow you to choose where to go, will indicate the exact direction. And when the student allows himself to escape and choose the path on his own, he will make every effort to find it and return it. "Dragon" must precisely execute the command "To me!" Sit down!
And when the believer in the Master returns to show, Look, I have become a little like you, it is necessary to remind again that you cannot even dare to imitate the Master if you cannot remain in submission.
This is where the Apprentice may learn that it is better to be alone than a shadow.
“You cannot live in this life without a teacher. If you can, teach me how.” You can, but it's as difficult as thinking for yourself, deciding for yourself, being yourself.
Being a student is as difficult as being a master.
Who is the Master: the one who tore away from the game in the sandbox, taught to overcome the desert of loneliness and ignorance.
...or someone who promised to show the world in exchange for obedience, and then got rid of it by returning it to the sandbox, saying, "You can't do anything without me."
And who is the Disciple: the one who, thanks to the teacher, found his way?
Or the one who obeys the will of the teacher and cannot go beyond the path indicated by the teacher?
Agnyara and Valery Golovatyuk.
Lancaster Dodd: If you can figure out how to live life without serving any master, share with the world: you will be the first in the history of mankind.
"You're gonna have to serve someone, yes indeed" Gotta Serve Somebody by Bob Dylan
More than ambiguous, difficult to view, at times puzzling and even infuriating the viewer, the last film of P. T. Andersen “The Master” is long, non-linear and not obvious. It masterfully doesn’t explain or comment on what’s going on on screen, why and when, or even whether it’s actually happening or in a hot, inflamed imagination. And how to perceive a film in which the main characters are unpleasant, even repulsive people? It's all true. But “The Master” is the work of a master director, strikingly beautifully and majesticly shot in a rather rare to date wide 65mm format using a Panavision System 65 camera, and I couldn’t get away from the screen, often against my will. The long scenes between the two main characters, rushing through life like a rolling field, Freddie Quall (a stunning Joaquin Phoenix) and the founder of the popular religious movement “Origins”, the strong and attractive Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman is an actor who fills the screen space with his talent), without exaggeration, are fascinating. You know, if two wonderful and talented actors are so immersed in their characters, so recklessly believe their director/writer and the material they work with, that the result is scenes of amazing magnetic force, during which you are afraid to blink, not to miss even a moment, for me it is a sign of greatness.
Unfortunately, these days, and the more, the more originality, unconventional choice of topics, refusal to follow the paved mainstream path in the creation of films, become rare in the American film industry. We, the audience to the dump are stuffed with rattling, roaring, dazzling-stupid-stupid remakes of sequels and sequels of remakes. While CGI is God and Michael Bay his prophet, and the movies are mostly escapist (which is not a bad thing in itself, but Action is not one...), P. T. Anderson goes his own way from the beginning and does not turn one iota off it, although this path does not always lead to clogged halls and bank accounts. His films, for which he writes the scripts, speak for themselves: Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), Falling Love (2002), Oil (2007) and Master (2012).
The themes to which he returns again and again are the relationships between people and their cruel painful break, loneliness, restlessness, the search for yourself and the place in the world that belongs only to you and to which you belong with your whole being. The characters whose fates he traces are often sullen, unsociable loners, far from the movie-hero standard, obsessed with soul-destroying passions or ambitions, and these passions and their motives are of interest to Anderson in his films that capture American reality. But the themes that Anderson addresses in his films go beyond purely American, they are more human. So in The Master, on the one hand, Anderson looks at cynics - manipulators, creators of cults, able to make crowds gladly worship them. On the other hand, in restless souls who believe cynics without looking back, but suddenly begin to think. And those like Peggy Dodd, Dodd’s wife and loyal associate (Amy Adams, whose role is less spectacular at first glance, but the game is more than convincing and effective) believe with a calm, iron and intimidating obsession. Paul Thomas Anderson sees the story of Freddie and Dodd as the meeting of two people who needed each other, complemented each other, found in each other father and son, mentor and apprentice, not the master and his servant. These relations are rapidly developing, they are far from ideal, lead to a break, and these are topics that have always interested Anderson.
The title of the film is associated with its creator. He is a master, and in his work he does not imitate anyone, does not serve, does not condescend to the level of the crowd, but does not hover in the exorbitant heights of pseudo art house, often veiling a formal complexity emptiness and unreasonable arrogance to any audience. Anderson goes his own way in art, creating smart, strong and passionate films for thinking audiences.
I can’t say that I’m totally in love with The Master or that it’s revealed all its secrets to me, but I know what a work of art is when I come across it and The Master is a work of cinema. It will never win the competition for the most popular film of the year, which everyone likes, but without a doubt it is the most unique film of last year.
9 out of 10
It's hard to be with God. It is difficult on both sides. It may be the relationship of Master and Disciple, or Master and Creation, or Master and Animal—in all combinations the process is two-way, oddly enough. And it turns out that the molded creation is made of clay or sand, but it is impossible to revive aggression, even if symbolically initiated. It also turns out that having tamed the animal, of course, you can make it a faithful dog, and it is easier and more reliable for the Master, but it will only be a dog, and it will not ask uncomfortable questions, but also convenient ones, it will lick hands and bite enemies, but remain a dog. Option? Maybe. It is a simultaneous choice of both sides. Do you want a dialogue on an equal footing, not blind faith? But then there is a risk that one day the dog or creature will feel really free and on the offer to choose a goal, choose not “tea or tea”, but, say, coffee, or go to Doris.
Do we want this freedom, or is it impossible to live without a Master, or perhaps without a Master? Does the Master or Master want us to be equal? Are both parties ready for this?
Well, the innate expectation of God, as old Jung seems to have said, sits in us whether we like it or not, and perhaps without Master we really cannot, however much we wish it to be. But what is it like playing chess with yourself when all the moves are known in advance? Freedom must be given, but freedom cannot be given, it can only be taken. And so over and over again, the Creator creates the Creation, which one day discovers that it wants to be free—an ever-repeating story. It seems that the Creator is failing, and what he created leaves him, but it is impossible in any other way, because the unfree at best can only become a dog on a leash, at worst - a clay or sandy lifeless image. It is symbolic that freedom, not magic spells, then help the Creation itself to revive one woman sculpted from the sand, and to forgive, let go of another.
The great super-task of the director is supported by the fantastic play of Phoenix and Hoffman, wonderful music and camera work.
In his previous film, Oil, Paul Thomas Anderson immersed himself in the concept of the all-consuming power of capital. In his new epic painting The Master, the idea develops in the direction of spiritual power. This is not a documentary, but an extremely convincing story about the formation in the 1950s in the United States of a new messiah, the prototype of which was the writer Ron Hubbard (the creator of Dianetics and Scientology), and the acquaintance with him of an unstable sailor who lost his purpose in life after the end of the war. The magnificently shot film strikes primarily with acting works. They make a strong impression. You might not think that actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, who played an enterprising charlatan professor, along with his wife (Amy Adams) promoting his own Teachings, is engaged in mind-cleaning sessions between filming. But it is easy to imagine how Joaquin Phoenix, exactly his socially dangerous movie hero, and in life no, no and cheer up with a cocktail of machine fuel.
He who becomes a beast will get rid of the pain of being.
The Master is Paul Thomas Anderson’s most complex film to date. Touching on themes of being, faith and nihilism, the film is not easy even for the most avid moviegoer. Like all the paintings of this wonderful director, it touches on the theme of human existence and personality analysis. To understand this movie, first of all, it is necessary to pass it through yourself, as they say to let into the soul. If you don’t, the movie will be empty.
Freddie is a man with no past, who lives by animal instincts, trying to find leads in life, but all in vain. The battered generation is in the midst of its existence and it is part of it.
Black and white. Marginal and virtue. A student and a teacher. A man who does not know the truth and a man who has found it.
Maybe I'll see a purpose in life and drive to it at high speed. I will never turn away if I am lucky.
9 out of 10
I wonder why it so happened that the films of both Andersons – and Paul Thomas and Wes – look for American cinema a little “foreign body” in the manner of expressing thoughts, especially noticeable in the complete originality of the work of the second. However, the first one is the owner of an amazing ability to shoot “big” in all respects, but at the same time amazingly honest, unconventional cinema, full of stunning acting roles, underlying dynamics (which is surprising for such a length) and psychological depth. How, for example, one can underestimate the filigree skill of the author in the slippery theme, corners and conventions of “Boogie Nights”. What are we waiting for today?
The present, in the face of the “Master” is also unusual: even the disturbing music of Johnny Greenwood sets at first in the old way, returns the viewer to the frenetic rhythm of the predecessor, “Oil”, from the general (the world after the world war) to the private – to fate, human defilement and impressive canvases of Theodore Dreiser or Upton Sinclair. But, still, a little in a different vein, here the music does not look so much like the pulse of what is happening on the screen, not so heavy. In its sequel, Anderson’s actors (however, like one of his teachers – another brilliant director, Altman’s classic) were always strikingly convincing even in episodic roles, “The Master”, of course, was no exception. Of the remarkable talents of Philip Seymour Hoffman, most are already well aware ("Capote" and "Happiness" are definitely vivid examples), he once again confidently proves this. But attractive in this film and the fact that his opponent – Joaquin Phoenix goes to a new, amazing level – from maturity to a real virility. His Freddie Quall, a character with half-mad facial expressions, despite seeming superficial primitiveness, became such a tangle of contradictions and impulsivity largely because of the performer himself. To be sure, the younger Phoenix's role was eerily detailed. I don’t doubt that he clearly had a bright job in Gladiator, but he clearly didn’t get to such heights of acting as here. Let's just say the scene of the camera pogrom is wonderful. In the end, before my eyes passed a strange (in a good way) film work, talentedly stylized with a taste for detail and variety. In many ways, this is the merit of the operator - although Robert Elsweet was not able to participate in the shooting, but it is safe to say that he was perfectly replaced.
If we talk about the nested sense, it is difficult to sum up a specific result or some psychological basis. Still, the topic of teaching about too many things speaks with riddles about cognition, comprehension and gives a verbal fog. Perhaps the Master's ideas belong to some degree to the Scientology platform, yes. But this is not the main thing - it is important that there is no ideological sum formed from rough plot cubes, as is customary in sweet Hollywood cinema. However, there is the author’s keenness of gaze, mastery of performance and powerful acting work. So the interpretation remains with the viewer.
Lancaster is the head of some dubious cult living in America. Freddie is a socially unadjusted man with no family, clearly claiming to be a psychopath, thanks to his outbursts of anger. Somehow these two personalities converge and find understanding in each other’s souls.
In the paintings of Paul Thomas Anderson there is always a place for long silent shots, heavy pauses between phrases in dialogue, it looks organic. This movie is the same story.
But still, either the film is designed for a more intellectually sophisticated viewer, or the director made an unsuccessful attempt to complicate everything. It's understandable that Freddie is disappointed in Lancaster's religion, but why stretch the film's timeline so much? Why long displays of sect rituals, which are only inducing sleep?
Playing actors on a level, but the lack of meaning in the tape makes it absolutely nothing. And the search for the second bottom of the film is unlikely to lead to anything - it is not there.
Only because of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s love for the game (and he plays great even here).
7 out of 10
Starting to watch this film, you need to understand that it will contain anything but what was promised in the announcement. No questions were asked of our vagrant, and no secrets were revealed. Neither the aggressive character of the “war hero” nor the grimace of disgust on his face will change during the course of history, despite the lengthy “workouts”. Joaquin Phoenix is raging, literally staring at the screen. The trouble is that he brilliantly manages to elicit an emotion of persistent disgust. Which I fought, out of sheer curiosity, wanted to know how much real Ron Hubbard would be in the movie. It wasn't much. In conclusion, I gloated that the tape did not pay off at the rental. I admit, it is a sin to rejoice when people fail to return the money invested in production. Creating a movie is a cross between a game of roulette and a military feat. Especially since much dumber movies pay off. But, unlike critics, the viewer does not like ugly characters and indistinct plots. And when two such factors are combined, the result is natural.
Verdict - the film should be watched only by fans of Dianetics, in advance resigned to the fact that nothing particularly interesting will not see. No wonder the official representatives of the Church of Scientology pretend that the film does not exist.
The rhetorical question is, what is the movie about?
"Boogie Nights", "Magnolia", "Oil", and now "Master" - all that unites these pictures is the name of the director Paul Thomas Anderson. And his work is from the category of unique, which has almost nothing to compare. And no matter what impression the viewer will be rewarded by viewing one of his works, you will not be able to dig and find something similar in your memory.
“Master” is a parable of life, it is a story about the abyss of which every person stands in his life and at any moment can fall there. It is this abyss in front of his nose that the main character sees Freddy, a former sailor with oddities, sculpting sandy women in front of his colleagues, and who knows how to twist an incredibly strong screwdriver.
With the work of a photographer, he is fired, it was not possible to collect vegetables on the plantation, he runs like a homeless dog both from himself and from a life that someone was happy, and he got what he is. But one evening, he joins the family of Dr. Dodd, who practice a kind of “treatment” of people with a similar fate, balancing his practice with religious cult and psychotherapy.
The relationship between the main character Freddy and Dr. Dodd is a huge chance for each of them to do something truly great in their lives. The first is the opportunity to start to really live, and the second is to prove that his idea has the right to life if you manage to save a person like Freddy.
There is only one thing we can say about acting - powerfully, truly. If critics approved a kind of return to the big movie of actor Mickey Rourke four years ago, what will they say today about Joaquin Phoenix’s phenomenal return? The best role of an actor today, for the sake of such a performance, I believe, you can leave the cinema for ten years, but then to give such a game.
A complex, rich, deep picture turned out for the director, however, like all his previous works, it differs from previous works with its localized idea, the number of characters. The film is not just a story from the lives of two people, it is also a brief excursion into post-war America, which everyone knows as a window into a decent life, but no one knows how many lives it lost.
9 out of 10