The film, which is set in 1950's America, centers around the relationship between the troubled WWII vet Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix's return to film) and Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic philosopher/writer/religion-founder played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Lancaster Dodd, the character being inspired by Scientologies L. Ron Hubbard, is the leader of a growing sect known as "The Cause." The effects that Quell, Dodd and the Cause have on each other is the focus of this vague, ambiguous, kooky masterpiece.
The craft of the film is unquestionably fantastic, with Anderson showing once again what a poet he is with a camera. The cinematography is beautiful, admittedly more at certain times than others, but moments of sheer breath-taking cinematic beauty are not uncommon. Some shots just had me shaking my head in awe, and made me never want to try making a movie ever again. Really every aspect of the films craft is flawlessly executed: the editing is effective and rhythmic, the production design is perfect in the way it creates the settings and period of the film without ever drawing focus away from the film itself, and Jonny Greenwood turns in another terrific score. Although his music for "There Will Be Blood" had more punch and was more impacting, the music featured in "The Master" is just as unsettling and shows notable maturation in Greenwood as a composer.
I was not expecting the film that "The Master" is. It is bizarre, silly at times (not in a bad way), far reaching and yet static. It contains 200% more fart jokes than I expected, but I loved them both. I walked out of the film a little dissatisfied, even though I knew I loved it. I initially used the term "underwhelmed" but I think dissatisfied is more appropriate. I couldn't place why I felt that way, but when I did I was able to come to terms with the film and I appreciate it more now. The aforementioned relationship that forms the crux of the film does not progress in any way from beginning to end. Although some will probably challenge me on this: I felt the relationship between Dodd and Quell is essentially the same in the first scene they meet as it is in the last scene they interact in, even though it churns and manifests itself differently. I don't count that against the film, I just needed to realize that's how it was in order to view the film as a whole in a way I felt satisfied with. In this lens the film is in a way about everything and nothing. It encompasses everything about life, and relationships, and belief, and hope and so on, and yet it never grasps any of these topics or makes any of them concrete, or brings us any closer to answers. And it doesn't need to. Most of the time that's how life is. There is a shot in the film that re-occurs as a sort of motif in which the stirred water in the wake of a ship takes up the entire screen. The presence of the wake implies forward progress, but you can't see or feel any. There is movement but it is just unsettled, swirling. That is the way the entire film operates
.
Probably what will get the most attention about the film is the acting. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix turn in powerhouse performances. Both actors have a history of powerful performances, and both turn in what may be the best in their careers. When you think about the implications of that statement it really carries a lot of weight. Joaquin Phoenix's physical commitment to his character are unmatched by anything I have seen before. His posture, movement and face are not his own for the entire duration of the film. He is physical, and chaotic, and bestial in everything he does. One of his best scenes is when he and Dodd are locked in adjacent jail cells. While Dodd stands, poised, leaning on the cells cot, Quell thrashes about violently for several minutes. Phoenix said his motivation for that scene came from watching the way caged animals behave: they thrash about desperately, not aware even that they are hurting themselves. In the midst of thrashing about he smashes a porcelain toilet with his foot, which wasn't planned. It wasn't a prop toilet. It wasn't supposed to break. It was a real toilet, and he really smashed it. Also I found Phillip Seymour Hoffman's nuanced performance of Dodd to be just as compelling and powerful, if not more. Hoffman may well be the best actor currently in films, and this performance is not only further proof of this, but is now the definitive proof of it.
There is more to be said about the film, because it can be viewed in so many ways, but I'll begin the conclusion of the review now. "The Master" is not a film everybody will love, but if I have developed a readership at all based on the other things I've written about, than if you are reading this you probably will love "The Master," and you've probably already seen it. Paul Thomas Anderson has once again established himself as the greatest living film maker with what is undoubtedly an artistic masterpiece. It is not his magnum opus, as I expected it to be, but it is refreshingly unique. It reminded me he has a sense of humor, it further developed his unique style as a director and it pushed into new narrative and stylistic territory where his films have never before gone. Every aspect of the film is perfect in its own form.
More will be said about this film by me, people around me, critics and scholars in the coming months and years. This film will get oscar attention, but probably not as much as it should, as is usually the way of things.
I'd like to keep this one open for discussion. Please feel encouraged to post responses and thoughts in the comments section below.
