Now and Then: 'The Master' and Paul Thomas Anderson's American Quadrilogy

5 Comments

• | Reply

• Darryl Ayo | October 14, 2012 1:59 PMReply

  It isn't a "quadrilogy."
  
  Have you entirely forgotten "Punch Drunk Love?"
  
  You are confusing the idea of authorial themes with the idea of a series or sustained metanarrative. Most authors, especially good ones, will carry over themes and echos between their works. That doesn't make things "series" by nature; it only means that the works were conceived by a singular, coherent perspective.
  
  And by the way, the frog shower in Magnolia isn't "infamous." It's "famous." Those words do not mean the same thing.

• Matt Brennan | October 14, 2012 4:13 PM

  Darryl, thanks for your comment!
  
  Your point about the difference between thematic echoes and meta-narrative is well taken. The reason I focused on the theme of "mastery" alongside the meta-narrative of American history since 1898, however, is because I see them as being in conversation with each other. The history of the U.S. in the 20th century, from Woodrow Wilson promising to "save the world for democracy" to Reagan taking on the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, is at some level a quest for American mastery on the world stage. The four films I discuss here, to me at least, use different characters across the period to question whether said mastery was ever achieved, as has been assumed in many quarters about early imperialism ("There Will Be Blood") and the post-WWII era ("The Master"), and then to suggest the kind of cultural decay and human chaos that emerges from an unending desire for mastery ("Boogie Nights," "Magnolia").
  
  I didn't include "Punch-Drunk Love" because it seems to me an entirely different project, so different in aesthetics, tone, historical engagement, and especially scope from the other four. One could argue, as Spassky does below, that it represents the technological ennui of contemporary America, and makes the quadrilogy a "quintrilogy." But just because it was produced in the midst of Anderson's other output doesn't necessarily mean that it should be taken together with the other much larger, more sprawling films. Size, in films as in novels, is often linked to the very idea of taking on "big questions" and long historical periods, for good or for ill.
  
  On the use of the word "infamous," which I can in fact distinguish from "famous": as I recall, many of the early reviews panned the frogs pretty harshly, and for Anderson's detractors I think it remains (along with "I drink your milkshake!" and the bowling alley), a potent emblem of his tendency to the overwrought. Thus, "infamous," "having an extremely bad reputation."

• Jeremy | September 26, 2012 5:16 PMReply

  Great article, Matt. Excellent overview of Wes Anderson's filmography. I always thought that there was a disconnect between phase one of Anderson, those films being Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and phase two, There Will be Blood and The Master. But there are many thematic strings that connect the two together and I think you've tapped into them wonderfully here.
  
  I think that one could also chart the evolution of women in Wes Anderson's worlds through his filmography. If you approach them chronologically you can see that their prominence becomes even more integral to the story.

• Geoff | November 19, 2012 12:13 AM

  Not Wes Anderson.

• spassky | September 25, 2012 10:25 PMReply

  I was thinking about this the other day:
  
  There Will Be Blood represents the turn of the centuries through the 20's
  The Master the 40's and 50's
  Boogie Nights represents the 70's, 80's
  Magnolia the 90's
  And I feel that Punch Drunk Love is largely a metaphor for the disconnect of the aughts
  
  Anyway, I'm very much waiting for 'Inherent Vice' with baited breath -- as I'm hoping it will be a great representation of the 60's, and perhaps will form a thematic and (more) stylistic connection to the 70's of Boogie Nights.