Review: ‘The Master’ Proves A Brave, Sensual Yet Detached Triumph For Paul Thomas Anderson

Reviews

by Charlie Schmidlin
August 17, 2012 7:32 AM
25 Comments

Even amongst its most wrenching scenes of unfettered anger and broken loyalty, a volatile sensuality nonetheless invades every frame of Paul Thomas Anderson’s arresting “The Master.” Populated by characters certain in their sexual and loving instincts yet stubborn in claiming responsibility for them, the film holds an unseen, persuasive force just off-screen to keep each on edge, never fully comfortable in their own skin. However, while the film’s narrative may point to faith as a cause and cure, the end result focuses instead on the reverberating pain in one’s past, and the oblique, often-maddening ways it manifests in the present through incredible performances and direction.

For Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix, a truly unnerving revelation), both his faith and pain lie with women, and every smell, image, and suggestion that’s to do with them. When we’re first introduced to him, posted on WWII naval duty along a beachfront, he alternates between graphically discussing STD treatment tips, fashioning an anatomically correct woman in the sand, and masturbating into the ocean in plain view of his shipmates. As he returns home to California, apprehensively released by his superiors to 1950s California, the film carries this obsession as well, poring over every female body and word with the gaze heaped upon them. Aside from chasing women and picking up odd labor jobs, he is also an amateur alchemist, stealing paint thinner along with a variety of other substances to craft a bevy of homemade liquor. After an experiment during a Salinas work shift leaves a man poisoned, Freddie is run out of town by the other workers, and after a day’s drunken journey onto a luxury ship boasting a glamorous party, he finds himself in the company of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), known to his community of secretive followers as “The Master.” As Freddie listens to Lancaster deem himself a nuclear physicist and theoretical philosopher, but above all an inquisitive man, he laughs, but Freddie notes within the exaggerated claims the conviction he so desperately lacks. “Come join us,” Lancaster beckons, ushering him aboard to meet his wife (Amy Adams) and son (Jesse Plemons), “but your memories aren’t invited.” And with that, the ship doors are closed, the men grow closer, and Freddie finds slow solace in Lancaster’s words that have gathered many already.

Memory indeed plays an integral part of Anderson’s narrative, as Freddie seeks to run from his tortured past (his father died from alcoholism, while his mother was institutionalized) while also wanting to repair it, but the emphasis is placed not so much on the events that the characters remember, but the charged emotions behind them. Of course, it’s inevitable that comparisons to “There Will Be Blood” will be made, since both films focus on entrepreneurial men seen from simultaneously a detached and intensely personal point of view, but those claims only go so far here. Jonny Greenwood’s score remains the most analogous aspect, with its wood-based, off-kilter compositions, but as a whole, “The Master” plays instead like the heart-stopping strings at the opening of 'TWBB,' only settled into a simmering pattern waiting for their next leap. With his incredible DoP, Mihai Malaimare Jr., and production design team of David Crank and Jack Fisk, Anderson absolutely nails every period detail he’s going for, from costumes down to the impeccably crafted visual style. Speaking of which, if there was any doubt Anderson had about shooting in 70mm, the opening shot of crystal-clear, vibrant blue sea should dismiss those thoughts entirely. There is an immediate and immersive quality to the image here, and combined with the film’s sustained atmosphere of dread, it is altogether an experience at which to marvel.

However, while those looking for a scathing indictment of any well-publicized religion are certain to find similarities, in some cases even direct parallels, Anderson never creates an atmosphere of outright derision. Instead, he crafts an enthralling attempt to track a personal guiding direction behind such a following, using Freddie’s relationship with Lancaster (as well as Adams’ nicely-handled ancillary menace) to drive home the conflict within the subject. In fact, it is in the rare scenes closest to direct analysis – such as when Hoffman displays his barely-veiled contempt of a dinner party skeptic – that feel reaching, providing on-the-nose dialogue that prove inferior to other sublime examples elsewhere. An early scene, in which Lancaster interviews Freddie about his past using a series of test questions, is unequivocally the film’s centerpiece, as both players raise each other’s game with every line and glance to ensure everyone that yes, these actors are capable of truly amazing things.

It is in these scenes where Greenwood’s score, along with the superb editing of Leslie Jones and Peter McNulty, shine the most, as Lancaster takes Freddie through “applications” in the homes-turned-treatment-centers of his followers. These sections fall into a fractured rhythm, as scenes fall off into flashbacks and flash-forwards, only to pick back up again twenty minutes later, and it is a credit to Hoffman and Phoenix’s performances that their emotional through-line never feels disjointed. However, it is in Freddie’s trials that the film begins to sag slightly. In Freddie Quell, Anderson has written an immensely passive character to center the film around, and while in its initial reels the sense of meandering spontaneity feels exciting and dangerous, in the latter half it simply feels listless. It is a sprawling film as well, jumping from California to Philadelphia, Phoenix to England, and combined with Phoenix’s wandering journey, the film’s 2+ hour runtime becomes increasingly felt. Combine that with an ending fit for many interpretations, and it adds up to an aggressively layered, distanced finish to a seemingly unresolved narrative.

As Freddie approaches Dodd’s ship in the film’s beginning, he notices on the side the name “Alethia,” the Greek word loosely translated as “truth.” Every character in the film is looking for such a goal, but ultimately, as exampled by Dodd’s exercises for his followers to “return to the womb,” nothing in these people’s lives since their conception will ever satisfy them fully. The world has battered them down, and while Anderson has hinted before at a pessimistic worldview, “The Master” may be his most subtle example of such, while leaving viewers to decide within his brilliant, disorienting latest whether he actually means it in the end. [B+]

Here's a take on the film from our colleague Anne Thompson.

Reviews

More: The Master, Review, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman

25 Comments

| Reply
gabe | September 7, 2012 12:54 AMReply

i don't like the way he is wearing his cover..it pisses me off
Bob Dookieson | August 27, 2012 6:29 PMReply

The Master-BAITER LOL lmfao amirite? Can I get an Amen?
Buzz Gunderson | August 19, 2012 3:01 PMReply

Sounds like another movie that critics will discuss endlessly but which everyone else won't give a rat's ass about.
cattttt | August 20, 2012 2:16 AM

Critics discussed endlessely about There Will Be Blood. It was also PT Anderson's biggest success at the box office.
Thom | August 19, 2012 8:45 PM

If the movies everyone else gives a rat's ass about is stuff like Madagascar 3, Hunger Games and Twilight, I'll side with the critics on this one.
d | August 19, 2012 5:41 PM

"Everyone else" meaning people who don't give a rat's ass about interesting movies?
Neil | August 18, 2012 11:02 PMReply

A masterpiece, unequivocally.
C.K. Dexter Haven | August 18, 2012 5:52 PMReply

Joaquin is great, but I fear for PTA that all the advance "Oscar!" hype by the Weinsteins is going to turn into backlash. Film isn't for everyone and not, in my opinion, necessarily Academy pleasing. Just my thoughts.
Nues | August 18, 2012 12:33 PMReply

To me this feels slightly harsh a predict a masterpiece.
I think it's a film that needs to be absorbed and then reviewed rather than instantly critiqued.
You'll probably change your mind later on.
But it will be too late...
Ok? | August 17, 2012 6:18 PMReply

Uhmm ok. This sounds a little like the Guru but worse. I'll pass. Next.
hank | August 17, 2012 3:01 PMReply

Thanks for giving your honest opinion upon first viewing. in all honesty I had the same conclusions when I reached the end of the script way back when it was floating around. I have no idea how close the final film is to that early draft, though.
Felini'sTherapist | August 17, 2012 2:54 PMReply

As great, emotionally-laden actor Joaquin Phoenix is (especially after deciding to fall of the planet coming out "Walk The Line"), that picture above of him a sailor's uniform has me thinking he just did a scene with Spanky and Leo Gorcy from the "Our Gang" or "Dead End Kids" serials, respectively. I'm still not sure to make of reading this glowing review and another on the Web whether this flick is "Leaving Las Vegas," "The Village" and "Raging Bull" set at sea??!! Or was it something Tom Cruise originally murmured from a nightmare and decided to pitch to the studios (and failed)??!!

I guess I'll have to read more of the moviegoers' Tweets of who went to that Chicago sneak screening the other night -- I'm utterly confused if there is a clear storyline and discernible character development on this flick!
William-2 | August 19, 2012 4:08 PM

If you can't make 'em, critique 'em. If you have made 'em and failed, critique the critic. I say this to remind us of our stations in life--let's not get ahead of ourselves now.
Sachin Dharwadker | August 17, 2012 1:37 PMReply

I think that B+ would become an A if you would have sit on it a little longer.
Boof | August 17, 2012 11:59 AMReply

The film nearly defies an immediate review. And Anderson spent nearly 5 years on it. Yet here you are, trying pathetically to beat others to the punch instead instead of giving the film even 24 hours to settle. Shame.
Tsien | August 19, 2012 9:33 PM

Yet BOOF makes a good point, RYAN
Ryan | August 18, 2012 5:12 PM

...but your name is Boof.
PF | August 18, 2012 12:49 AM

BOOF is spot on. +1 to BOOF
LOL | August 17, 2012 11:36 PM

That's such BS. You are opinions about film are stupid Boof.
PF | August 17, 2012 9:06 PM

+1 why is anyone even 'reviewing' it at this point? are there actually people out there that want to vet the film via review before going to see it?
Tom Cruise | August 17, 2012 11:43 AMReply

yeah, I give this film an F.
Nues | August 18, 2012 12:32 PM

Hahahahaha
tristan eldritch | August 17, 2012 8:15 AMReply

"However, while those looking for a scathing indictment of any well-publicized religion are certain to find parallels, in some cases even direct in their similarities, Anderson never creates an atmosphere of outright derision."

I find that encouraging because I think its never really that interesting for films to tell you things you already know - I'm hoping for a slightly more ambiguous and subtle treatment in this.
dudeabides | August 17, 2012 7:49 AMReply

must...resist...reading...review! and detached seems like a word that isn't in PTA's vocabulary :P
Frank | August 17, 2012 10:36 AM

From various reports on twitter, it sure sounds like it is now.