Intoxicated Introversion Beset by Hubris, Masquerading as Humanism (‘The Master’ by Paul Thomas Anderson)

Well ‘The Master’ is a strange film.

And I say this, having watched and reviewed ‘The Lighthouse’ by Robert Eggers; a movie that takes the viewer through a kaleidoscopic set of events, open to copious amounts of interpretation and analysis.

I am often invigorated by art that tries to defy expectations instead of dwelling on age old concepts. This practise of subverting expectations was introduced to film through the French New Wave movement (La Nouvelle Vague) of the 1950s.

See below quote:

“Of the opinion that cinema had become dated and out of touch, a group of French filmmakers and critics – influenced by Italian Neorealism and directors like Hitchcock and Welles – proposed a new vision for the medium.

Through a series of essays, they laid out their manifesto in influential movie journal, Cahiers du Cinema.

The critics had four main points:

Cinema must be considered an important and significant artform.

Filmmakers should experiment, and develop new formal techniques.

Films must address themes and issues that relate to modern audiences: existentialism, memory, love, childhood and friendship – to name a few.

A film’s director had full control over all elements of the film, from script to cinematography and everything in between. This is known as auteur theory.”

[1] InflightDublin.com

Author Unknown – Feb 17th (2024)

The classic story structure (‘The Hero’s Journey’ Joseph Campbell)is a tried and true formula for constructing a story; yet, in response to modernity a plethora of writers seek to subvert expectations and tackle pieces that require a more observant eye to deconstruct what the film, book, or other media – actually means.

This is especially true of ‘The Master’ by Paul Thomas Anderson:

I’m sure there are more than a thousand ways to look at this picture, and that it steadfastly defies explanation is also a possibility. I doubt very much that my level of competency in visual analysis will suffice – a third year cinema & media studies major might have difficulty unpacking the events, motifs, and nuances of this semi-factual period piece that reimagines the life of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard — through the rose-tinted glasses of a man in constant crisis.

We open on cerulean ocean wake issuing forth from a ship somewhere offscreen, the image is brightly lit and accompanied by aggressive violin strings; the next shot is stationary, a handheld camera allows subtle drift/movement while capturing the top-half of Jaoquin Phoenix’s head as seen over a short metal wall. From the context it seems he is standing aboard a ship, on the deck. It’s a pushed in shot that accentuates the discomfort expressed by his furrowed brow, a military helmet atop his head informs the viewer that this is an enlisted man – eager to return home from whatever bloody conflict is taking place.

Here is our main character.

“The Panavision Millennium XL2 35mm cameras were used for scenes that required a more “dirtier” look, and the 65mm cameras were also used for handheld shots.” -ShotOnWhat.com

The focus is racked so much so to the foreground as to make everything in the background hazy, indiscernible and disconnected from the POV highlighting the character’s isolation and mental fugue.

In the next shot: our unnamed protagonist is seen climbing a coconut tree – shot from below, the man frantically shimmys his way up the trunk.

Jump-cut to a visual of the same man chopping and preparing coconuts; the shot is warped by the (curved) fish-eye lense utilized, this allows us to experience the comparatively warped perspective of the subject. This shot is only held on for 5 seconds (or 120 frames). It is a brief glimpse into the psyche of a man who is visibly suffering from PTSD – “Freddy” (Joaquin Phoenix), a World War 2 US Navy veteran that treats his internalized trauma with a mix of self-prescribed alcohol and household chemicals.

Further along in the narrative Freddy Quell makes the acquaintance of ‘The Master’, Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) an enigmatic man; mysterious, offering esoteric ponderings in exchange for loyalty. This character is a stand-in for the infamous founder of Scientology – the aforementioned L. Ron Hubbard – played exquisitely by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The actor really manages to capture the enthralling presence that the man assumedly commanded. Along with a sufficiently haunting soundtrack (by “Radiohead’s” Johnny Greenwood) that adds a layer of disorientation and suspense, the actor’s turn as the founder of one of the largest, most powerful religions to have spawned in the second half of the 20th century – is undeniably impactful. He wholly embodies the character and expertly explores the nuances of a highly debated historical figure.

This film does not act as an endorsing of Scientology’s beliefs and origins; rather it focuses on the negatives: many uncanny, some despicable, and all clearly borne from unchecked hubris of “The Master”.

The pacing, cinematography, dialogue, mise-en-scene, lighting, acting, and soundtrack all work in unison to create a feeling of melancholy that permeates the entirety of the piece. As seen through Freddy’s eyes – the world is morose and nearly uninhabitable. Yet his frequent sexual entanglements seem to bring moments of carnal respite. It’s shown early on that the man has a serious sex addiction, most likely a by-product of his PTSD; judging by a scene involving a rorschach test administered by a psychiatrist, during which Freddy (Phoenix) answers every question as being vaginal related.

“But revelation for Freddie does not lead to rehabilitation; his problems persist. He remains childishly obsessed with sex. He remains violent. He continues to drink his awful, war-era drinks of Lysol and gasoline and paint thinner. One such drink kills an old Filipino man in Salinas. That’s what Freddie’s running from when he stows away…”

[3] Erik Lundegaard – Review of ‘The Master’ Oct. 5th /2012

(Note: Do not attempt to emulate anything detailed in this review or occurring in the film itself.)

The lighting/framing exist as cohesive elements that showcase meticulous set-design, while also highlighting many breathtaking exterior shots.

An extended one-shot of Freddy drunkenly sneaking aboard the ship owned by Lancaster Dodd comes to mind as a particularly impressive feat of filmmaking. The camera holds until the ship disembarks and floats a ways down the canal, all with a large party taking place aboard. Freddy is seen sneaking aboard as he rides a bicycle up to the vessel and slips unseen onto the ship. This must have been really difficult to capture in one continuous shot, choreographing the dancers, launching the ship, timing Phoenix’ riding from foreground to background, and getting it all down without any cuts or edits – plus the natural twilight (the timing had to be just right) makes this quick moment a stand-out one – in the visual feast that is a Paul Thomas Anderson picture.

In my opinion, the director took a page out of Kubrick’s playbook; ‘Barry Lyndon’ utilized natural lighting exclusively.

‘The Master’ chooses when to implement natural lighting, and to great benefit.

Indeed the lighting in this film is excruciatingly crucial to the symbolism of character-moods; warmth signifies security that the characters chase and rarely obtain, the darker, dreary moments (like the jail that Freddy and Lancaster find themselves in) implement flat artificial lighting to signal the hopelessness and morosity of the situation.

This has been touched on by others, here’s Phillip Bagnall’s take:

“Anderson’s previous film, 2012’s The Master, is all about the lighting. In particular, it’s all about people looking for the light, being bathed in glows and beams, only to wind up darkened and despairing before another light source rejuvenates them anew. One might compare the characters to lizards, but it’s simply too cool a comparison. On a first watch, The Master can feel so intensely cerebral as to seem cold, but rewatches help break the ice “

[4] Opinion Piece, Scannain.com

Amy Adams holds her own as a co-star giving a less bombastic performance than Phoenix or Seymour: opting instead to deliver a contrast to their emotionally explosive energy. With a more reserved, contemplative take on the material.

Her portrayal of the dual-love interest is an age-old trope — more befitting of a classically structured story yet here it doesn’t detract; no, it actually enhances the story by providing some normalcy to combat the jarringly avant-garde stylization. She is married to Lancaster Dodd but certainly draws the eye of Freddie, and conversates with him regularly.

Honestly, Amy Adams’ character Peggy Dodd provides a wholesomeness that would be lacking otherwise, Jesse Plemons’ contributions also help in that department; his role as Val Dodd questioning son to Lancaster Dodd; one who commonly excoriates his father to others, creates moments of needed reprieve in between the dramatized narcissism espoused by Seymour Phillip Hoffman.

But does everything in this film make sense?

….

I’m afraid you’ll have to read Part II to find out — where I will attempt more of an interpretation of the meanings/themes of the material, and cover any negative comments I have on the film.

Also, if you want my rating for Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘ ‘The Master’.

___________

Sources:

[1]Feb 17th (2023-2024, year unlisted)

Author unlisted — In-flight Dublin (Totally In-flight Entertainment)