An intelligent work, minus the soul.
It must be difficult being Paul Thomas Anderson. On the one hand, the man is blessed with originality and has a penchant for making great films, and on the other there's so much expected of his work that it must be a nightmare to stay balanced on the tightrope between confidence and shear smarminess. The Master exists somewhere in the world between these two concepts, and thus, as a result, it's a very conflicted affair for a film that has very little in terms of traditional plot.
The Master follows Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a US sailor who has managed to survive World War Two and make his way back to America. But he hasn't returned in pristine condition for a human being; he's psychotic, dysfunctional, sex-addicted and has a penchant for drinking more than would be needed to fell a wild boar without batting an eye. After a series of mishaps during which we come to realise that Freddie isn't exactly cut out for the post-war world, by shear cosmic accident he stumbles onto the ship of polymath Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). A charismatic leader, - he being the titular 'master' - Dodd is also the head of a post-war start-up religion named 'The Cause', which bears more than a few similarities to Scientology. Quell becomes a follower of The Cause under Dodd's care, and heavy internal conflict ensues.
Joaquin Phoneix's portrayal of protagonist Freddie Quell is, undeniably, the standout aspect of the film. Phoenix is known for becoming deeply invested in his characters, and Quell is no exception. This is a character that doesn't falter in the slightest throughout the film, especially in terms of his erratic behaviour; there's a genuinity to Quell, and he's a very much believable character in the films wider scope. Contrasting Quell, the character of Lancaster Dodd is effortlessly portrayed by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who pulls off the subtly domineering character in the most natural of ways. Hoffman seems to have a reputation amongst casual film fans as 'that guy from that movie', which can refer to anything in his range of work, but nevertheless he gives a wholeheartedly bold performance alongside the character of Quell. In the sidelines, Amy Adams gives a stellar performance as Dodd's similarly strong-willed wife, who holds her own in the shadow of Quell and Dodd as an influential character all in her own right.
Anderson's films have always maintained a strange relationship with structure; they tend to present us with characters and then bombard them with a series of events until everything breaks down. This may sound like traditional script structure, specifically in the sense of moving towards a resolution of conflict but, without giving too much away, The Master doesn't follow that code. Aside from the films Scientology-mocking undertones, this is also a film about loyalty and independence; it brilliantly depicts the idea of post-war directionless and disillusionment, as Freddie struggles through modern life until he stumbles upon something that can give him meaning, and something that he can dedicate his life to. In a way, Quell and the film itself epitomise Anderson's trademark stamp of including several scenes in each of his films where characters do innanely stupid things, effectively as an offbeat celebration of humanity. Freddie is overwhelmingly dysfunctional, as can be seen in him smashing a toilet to pieces, hitting his back against a bunk bed, running from a variety of people, rubbing his face up against a window and beginning a fight with a customer in one of his early jobs. There aren't particurlarly any spoilers that can be given; in the end he hasn't changed in the slightest, and his personal conflict will likely never be resolved. Nevertheless it's the act of watching him struggle and fight and run from the modern world that proves to be the most captivating experience
Of course, Anderson's mark of quality is laden across every shot in the film. His clean and careful directorial style is unmistakeable, and it singles The Master out as a work of high-quality cinematic craftsmanship; this is film presented as an art form rather than as an entertainment form, which is admirable on Anderson's behalf for being so bold with his creation. At the same time there's also a sense that Anderson is pushing himself too deep into his own style. In a sizeable way, he seems to have skipped over many important story-telling aspects, specifically in giving the film more direction and insight as to what is actually going on; it's not so much like watching a film as it is being presented with a series of events that vaguely relate to the previous ones we've seen. There's a almost a sense of complacency about the whole film, although this could just be Anderson finally letting himself do films the way he wants to make them, with a mindset of self-conscious intelligence that doesn't go overboard on itself.
This is a film for viewers who are knowledgable about Anderson's previous work and who have a decent knowledge of cinema itself. Personally speaking, I doubt that I would be able to view it a second time, because it's something of a demanding watch. There are some truly mesmerising and astonishingly brilliant scenes scattered throughout the film, especially those that singularly follow Quell and Dodd, that unquestionably prove Anderson's genius, and these deserve to be rewatched, but as a whole the film has an essence of soullessness about it, and it damages the impression given by the conclusion.
3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment