
The Master is the latest film from Paul Thomas Anderson, critically-beloved auteur of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood, a roman á clef about Scientology starring Joaquin Phoenix as a drifter named Freddy Quell that’s sure to be debated for years to come. For instance, is Quell more of a gas-huffing pussy lover or a pussy-loving gas huffer? It’s a rift that will tear apart families, pit brother against brother.
The Master is polarizing, because like Drive, it’s largely an atmospheric movie. There’s no real political or religious message that you’re supposed to take away from it, and it’s not a thrilling tale of plot-driven intrigue – you mean Xenu was really dead the whole time? Whoooaaaaoooaaa. There’s no scene where Phoenix’s character accidentally kills a townie and Philip Seymour Hoffman plugs him in the back of the head on a riverbank while telling him stories about all the tits and pussies on the planet Kolob – red ones and blue ones and green ones! – as an angry mob approaches. A writing teacher once told me that the heart of every story is people and place, and that’s what The Master is. It’s nothing so much as a meditative, rotating series of historical portraits – who are these people and what do they do? – mostly straightforward and matter of fact, without the fart-sniffing pop-psychology you get with most indie films. It’s more concerned with enjoying who Joaquin’s character is than trying to figure out what’s his problem. It’s beautiful to look at, and Joaquin’s snarl-lipped, sex-obsessed simpleton is endlessly entertaining. When I’m enjoying what I’m watching this much, BUT WHAT’S THE ARTIST TRYING TO SAY!??! never much enters the equation.
It’s bizarre to hear critics describe The Master as “somber,” when it’s arguably PTA’s funniest movie. Joaquin gets a lot of mileage out of that hump-backed, hands-on-hips, arms-cocked-forward, aw-shucks move Tom Hanks used to do in Forrest Gump (partly because Phoenix has an intriguingly terrible body). And in their first auditing session, Seymour Hoffman looks deep into Joaquin’s eyes, asking him “Are you unpredictable?” To which Joaquin responds with an equally somber pregnant pause before cutting a loud fart. Talk about a movie after my own heart. I knew it’d be pretty, but fart jokes?? *SWOON*

Freddie Quell is a directionless war veteran drunkenly drifting through life – he goes from sailor to Sears portrait photographer to cabbage picker, all while getting butthoused, nailing chicks and dreaming about poontang – until he crashes Philip Seymour Hoffman’s boat party one night and becomes the object of his fascination. Quell stays on the boat, which is going from California to New York “through the canal.” Quell just sort of drifts around without a plan, going along for whatever ride for as long as it makes him happy, and Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd is charmed by his blunt wit and almost total lack of guilt, shame, or reflection. Quell’s appeal to Dodd is the same as it is for us, and PTA moves us through the story the same way Quell moves through life, the romance of the wanderer. At one point, Joaquin wanders into a room on the ship where headphone-wearing women are hurriedly transcribing Dodd’s latest lecture. Joaquin quietly puts on a pair of headphones, grabs a pencil, and appears to join them in transcribing, before he holds up his paper to a transcription girl, and it says “DO YOU WANT TO F*CK?” :-)
The comedic timing is impeccable.
There are some hints at the dark side of Scientology, but the film isn’t about that, it’s more about the appeal of cults, a love story between these two dudes, both desperate to believe that life is connected. And who doesn’t want to watch a love story between two dudes? What are you, some kind of a homo? It’s about people trying to connect with each other. There’s one scene at the very end that borders on the silly, with Phil Seemo cooing J-Walks a lullaby while he cries, where they’re practically having a method actor pissing contest. But the general sense of whimsy that PTA has built saves it from turning into self-parody – it’s okay to think it’s all a bit silly, because it’s not self-serious.
Whether it’s an incredible rack focus tracking shot of Phoenix walking along the waterfront or one of the many naked sequences focused on incredible racks, it’s the most beautiful movie you’ll see in a long time. Whoa, are those long and medium shots?! Holy sh*t, I remember those! And in the era of dim 3D, The Master is so dazzlingly bright throughout that I could actually see the notes I was taking. The irony is that it was such a pleasant, enjoy-the-scenery and go-along-for-the-ride movie that I barely took any notes at all, and one of the few notes I did take was “gas-huffing pussy lover.”
At the very least, PTA has helped FilmDrunk become the number one Google result for “gas-huffing pussy lover,” and for that I’m grateful.
GRADE: A
—
I’m sure your general enjoyment of Paul Thomas Anderson movies will have a strong positive correlation with whether you like The Master, so in the interests of full disclosure, I’ve liked all of PTA’s movies except Magnolia, which, except for the Tom Cruise speeches and the frogs at the end, I hated. I’m not into sadness porn (see also: Requiem for a Dream, 21 Grams, the last half of Shame).



Magnolia was pretty good but yeah I could see what you mean about the sadness shit. It has one of the best introductions to a movie I have ever seen though. The only thing better is the clip montage at the beginning of a fresh porno.
Perhaps the finest wordplay I’ve read this week: “Whether it’s an incredible rack focus tracking shot of Phoenix walking along the waterfront or one of the many naked sequences focused on incredible racks,…”
Did you pull out the fancy phrase “roman a clef” as a very subtle way of making fun of Joaquin Phoenix’s hare lip?
Because, if so, slow clap.
Fuuuuuuuck I can’t believe I didn’t think of “roman a cleft.”
As soon as I saw that phrase I thought “hare-lip joke” and laughed. You should have just said “Yes, yes I did”. Now I’m not sure if I’m clever or stupid…
Woah, woah, woah – Magnolia is sadness porn? If you stop watching before the frogs so none of the characters find redemption sure, but if you turn off Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when his dad gets shot it’s a bummer too. Magnolia, to me, is an ultimately uplifting film.
For the record, Shame SUCKS, 21 Grams is meh (didn’t hit me) and Requiem is a masterpiece (but I will accept “sadness porn” as a description since the movie goes from bad to worse to worst to “God is fucking dead, man.”)
You mean Magnolia wasn’t sadness porn because it wasn’t sad for the last 10 minutes of a three-hour movie?
Point taken, that was a lousy analogy, but now I wish I could quantum leap into a disgruntled projectionist on opening night in the summer of ’89:
GUNSHOT! HENRY JONES CLUTCHES STERNUM. BLOOD SEEPS FROM WOUND. CUE SCORE – BUMP-BUDUMPA-BUMPBUDAH – ROLL CREDITS.
Unlike your other examples, Magnolia builds from depression to redemption (albeit very, very slowly) so when I watch Magnolia, I don’t feel mired in the hopelessness of the characters to the extent that the it’s the only reaction PT Anderson is trying to provoke. The “sadness porn” elements of it feel more like the foundation for a dynamic arc than, “how effing sad is this huh?”
The problem with Magnolia is that the “depression” part is so ridiculously over the top and bombastic that it’s just silly. And the acting responds in kind to the script. It’s like PTA whispered “go for the oscar!” before every scene and all the actors responded by hamming it up to 11.
It’s a flashily shot made for Lifetime movie with “fucks” and lots of blow. Either that, or “Precious” for white hipsters.
Can we throw ‘Closer’ in with the Sadness Porn? I feel its a good fit.
So far this kind of looks like his inspiration is a Bizarro-World version of Johnny Cash. And that’s not a complaint.
When you wrote, “Who are these people and what do they do”
I heard it in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s voice.
Loved Magnolia. Pacing/editing was brilliant. John C. Reilly great as always. Diverse and colourful characters, awesome performances, very well written. Sad? I guess. Kinda funny sad though. 21 Grams is just sad. Requiem, beyond sad. Nightmarish.
I think it’s 24 Grams. Or, wait, was it 25 Grams?
How messed up am I that of the four movies you listed, Boogie Nights (the one everyone sites from PTA) is the only one I haven’t seen.
Hell, I didn’t see “Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid”, Carpenter’s “The Thing”, and “Lawrence of Arabia” right around my 30th year of life, so we’ve all got gaps in the list. I’ve never been able to sit through more than 20 minutes of “Anchorman” either.
*until my 30th year of life (the year I got an HD projector.)
I would argue watching it in 20 minute chunks is probably the best way to experience Anchorman.
This review confuses me. I don’t understand any of it! I was led to believe this was a gritty reboot of the ’80s TV series about Lee Van Cleef the Master Ninja and Timothy Van Patten as his young protege.
Sure, I thought casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as an elderly ninja and Joaquin Phoenix as a young blonde surfer-type was edgy, but I was willing to give The Master a chance. Now I discover I’ve been misled, perhaps even…brainwashed.
Can I add Sin Nombre to your sadness porn collection? Cause f*ck man, that movie was the equivalent of crying in a shower for two days. (Not to say it wasn’t compelling as hell.)
I like sadness porn every now and then. Requiem for a Dream is a wonderful movie and is probably in my sad movie top 5 behind Legends of the Fall and The Wall.
I thought that lamp was growing out of his back when I scrolled through the review
Roman á clef? Someone is using that fancy Ivy League education I see….or you are secretly French….BURN HIM!!!!!!
Vince, I hope you didn’t spoil the best jokes in your review. *fart*
I’ve also liked every PTA movie except for Magnolia (which I hate with a passion). So it sounds like I’ll probably like this.
“A writing teacher once told me that the heart of every story is people and place…”
Please tell me you aren’t spending your life in debt for advice like that.
Vince, you mean: BUT WHAT’S THE [i]TEXT[/i] TRYING TO SAY!??!
“The controversial new movie, “The Master,” is described as a forbidden look into the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. Author Steve Hassan, of “Freedom of Mind,” spoke to the “CBS This Morning: Saturday” co-hosts about the movie and why it’s got Scientologists up in arms.”:
[www.cbsnews.com]
[live.huffingtonpost.com]
The Freedom of Mind information page on the Church of Scientology can be found here!
[freedomofmind.com]
Info on Steve’s new book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults and Beliefs, can be found here:
[freedomofmind.com]
hey. yourself: go fuck it
I saw this last night and it was just fascinating. I agree with Vince, in a weird way it was one of the funniest movies I’ve seen this year. I’m not sure it’s worth debating what the “point” of the movie is, because I believe it’s designed to mean a lot of things to different people and that’s okay. And boy was it pretty to look at.
Did anyone else read ‘pussy-huffing gas lover’? Just me?