The Master (2012)

Jun 21

Might as well read a novel instead.

Presentation:

The film utilizes gorgeous Kodak 2838, warm and almost nurturing for this drama between two men. The film takes place after WWII where men have trouble readjusting back to society. Phoenix's character Freddie is one of them, erratic, aggressive and damaged. The film has mostly dialogue motivated cinematography with the exception of a few beautiful shots, particularly in the desert and atop the Navy boat. But like most Paul Thomas Anderson films, the focus isn't on cinematography but rather interpretive performance and dialogue. The sea ends up being a recurring metaphor, even sung about by the master. The film clearly appears to be reference to Scientology, but it's actually deeper than this.

Analysis:

The film's premise is about a cult's inner workings and the drama along the way. What the film really is, is a character study of two men. Their relationship is tied together, explicitly stated by the master, portrayed by Hoffman. Phoenix and Hoffman's characters are opposites, yet the same person beneath. They are drawn to alcohol, aggressive, though the master hides this fact with the exception of a few outbursts. Freddie represents chaos and freedom, the id of freudian psychology. He does whatever he wants, rejects authority, aggressively attacks anyone that rubs him the wrong way. Hoffman is a man of self-control, order and family, the ego. He is so invested in Freddie because he needs him. Deep down, Hoffman wants the same freedom as Freddie shown in his motorcycle game. He envies Freddie who does not need to pay rent, can travel the seas, doesn't have to answer to a master, whom is clearly his wife toward the end of the film. Yet Freddie is a carefree spirit that in some ways also wants to be Hoffman. He is constantly asked what he wants, when in reality he doesn't really know. Freddie works based on impulse, but what we can confirm is he seeks love and affection, which has been distorted, which we know through a revelation of his sexual trauma with his aunt. He is psychologically damaged by the war as well and the master believes he can fix him. He must, because Freddie is his own reflection and by helping him he can figuratively and redemptively fix himself. But Freddie is arguably past help, making this relationship a stalemate, framed in the prison with both men being incarcerated and separated by their cells. Symbolically, one wants to make sense of the world, the other doesn't care and just wants comforts from his demons. And yet they both want something the other has. As a whole, the two characters represent man, as stated by the speech during the announcement of the second book. The duality of man, wanting to be free but not shackled, to be an animal but belong in society, to have sexual entanglements but also be faithful to the wife. But we are ultimately imprisoned by our own doings, unable to reach our other self, yelling with incivility like animals, symbolically expressed in the prison scene. The delusions we devise to lie to ourselves is ultimately the self concocted poison, explicitly referenced several times. One side of us creates ridiculous explanations, the other engages in delinquent behaviors, and yet toward the end both characters demonstrate moving slightly closer to each other. Perhaps the master started the same way as him, that's why Hoffman states they met in a past lifetime and why Freddie is so "familiar". At the end, Freddie implements the same informal processing, suggesting that he turns into the master at the end. Both represent the battles that humans constantly struggle within themselves through what the cult says, spans past and future generations. But the core of this film is still an unanswered question: who is truly the master here?

Conclusion:

This film likely does require 2 viewings. On first watch it's a story of a brainwashing cult, but it's thematically deeper when you analyze it further. It's well done on par with some literature, but it's very mature and might not make you care to watch again. It's a bit too subtle and intricate with not a particularly rewarding vessel to the portray the symbolism due to the lack of visual composition to elevate the film's themes. It's still well written in the style of American literature, just raw dialogue where you'll have to read between the lines to understand what Anderson wants to say. But if you're not going to take advantage of the visual medium, why bother? Just write a novel that book clubs can engage with, it's certainly dense enough, but Anderson squanders cinematography opportunities in order to capture the style of American literature. Thematically the ideas may resonate more with older audiences, but is still a tier below films like Burning.

more rotten chilis