Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

I can see how you'd like this if you hated Magnolia.
Personally I am not a fan of character study over actual story. They should go hand in hand not one at the expense of the other.

 

[TravisR]

I saw it on Friday afternoon and I still can't figure out if I liked it. Going in, I hadn't even seen a trailer so other than knowing that Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were in it and that it was about Scientology (as it turns out, very loosely), I really had no clue what the movie was about. I'm going to have to check it out again because I think knowing what to expect will help me enjoy what the movie is. The performances are amazing (I can't imagine anyone giving a better performance than Phoenix this year), the score is wonderful (I'm assuming it's the same composer as There Will Be Blood), Anderson is at the top of his game and it's easily the most interesting movie I've seen in a long time but I want to see it again to really decide what I thought of it.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I can see how you'd like this if you hated Magnolia.
Personally I am not a fan of character study over actual story. They should go hand in hand not one at the expense of the other.

To suggest that MAGNOLIA was story, not character study and THE MASTER is character study and not a story just really doesn't make any sense to me. There was certainly a story going on here, it just wasn't jammed down our throats like in previous films from this director. Was there a point to the story? Did it need to be told? I don't know if any story needs to be told but looking around it's clear that die-hard fans of the director seem disappointed that this isn't the same type of film once again. A character study has to be told through a story so I'm not sure how there could be one without the other. It's certainly not being told through narration here.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

To suggest that MAGNOLIA was story, not character study and THE MASTER is character study and not a story just really doesn't make any sense to me. There was certainly a story going on here, it just wasn't jammed down our throats like in previous films from this director. Was there a point to the story? Did it need to be told? I don't know if any story needs to be told but looking around it's clear that die-hard fans of the director seem disappointed that this isn't the same type of film once again. A character study has to be told through a story so I'm not sure how there could be one without the other. It's certainly not being told through narration here.

My point is that the makers are more concerned with showing randomish vignettes that show the characters here rather than a more direct and traditional story.
This is not inherently bad, just not what I prefer in a film. The way that we had both vivid characters AND a story that unfolded dramatically and with pace in Boogie Nights and Magnolia are much more to my taste.
As I said in my first comment, our tastes seem quite different and that's fine. Personally, it's just hard for me when someone who I consider a professional inspiration and my favorite director makes something so disappointing as this film. It has some wonderful things in it, yet it doesn't for me hang together as a complete work. More like sketches of a story.
Of course, as someone who claims to loathe Magnolia is glad he would make something very different, but as that is my favorite film, you can understand why I respectfully disagree...

 

[Bryan^H]

I like all PT Anderson films(absolute favorite being Punch Drunk Love), and I'm still waiting for The Master to open near me so I can see it.
EDIT: Just checked my local theater's "coming soon" section, and it isn't even on the radar. Whatever, guess I will wait for the Blu-Ray.

 

[mattCR]

I watched it last night at the Alamo here in KC and thought it was brilliant. Absolutely, phenomenally brilliant (and as always, if you came 30 minutes early, the Alamo's pre-show, which was about busting medicine men and hucksters was an AWESOME piece of cinema to pair with it).
But the entire movie I thought was far more then a character study. Yes, it was about how a person can ensnare someone else and bamboozle/brainwash them with the right means and sheer force of will. Hoffman's performance was phenomenal.. when he reacted in Arizona to "didn't that question change? Doesn't that change everything" by exploding I realized exactly how much he had taken over that character.

I was completely blown away by the film, I know references will be made to scientology (especially with the man on the boat, travelling cult, etc.) but I was just blown away by the absolute show of having two people spinning so wildly out of control in two completely different directions.. it was like watching spinning tops bang against each other repeatedly.

One other thing.. and I can't think of anytime I've ever said this about any film- but the lovemaking sequence at the very end, where Phoenix talked ot the girl and tried to see if there was any truth at all to asking the question of who we are... I found that entire scene mesmorizing. In part because these weren't super-hot models/etc. but also because so many films use sex just for titilation and to drive the audience. In that scene of less then 30 seconds, we realized that (a) He wondered about the viability of what he was taught (b) he managed to get her out of the situation and whether or not he entranced her the same way his master did, he had changed the dynamic between two characters, and (c) it was made clear that just this pretty simple "jedi mind trick" of sorts was enough to completely change the impression of a character we just met.
That's all.

 

[zoetmb]

Saw this in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC today where it's been playing for a week. I have mixed feelings about the film itself - I wasn't really taken in by the story and I don't feel either of the main characters actually changed in any way from beginning to end. I have a feeling this very long film was probably a few hours longer and was cut down. But the performances were absolutely incredible. And the 65mm photography was frequently quite beautiful. There was even a scene or two that was reminiscent in a small way of the kind of widescreen vistas we used to see in 70mm movies, although this 70mm film was 1.85, not the usual 2.2. I don't know why they did that. You'd think someone shooting in 65mm wouldn't care about filling the screen of a home TV.
The only problem was that this print was filled with positive dirt - black specks - from beginning to end. I can't believe that a print that was only 7 days old was this dirty. I don't know whether this was a lab problem, whether the film fell off the platter and they had to pick it up off of the floor or whether the projection booth is incredibly dirty, but there was definitely a problem. And now I don't know whether projected film was always this way, but we just forgot about it when digital came along or whether the industry simply doesn't know how to deal with prints anymore. I don't know why the plattered the film because it looks to me like the Ziegfeld still has two film projectors, so it wasn't necessary. If this was released on blu-ray this way, people would complain that the film needed to be restored. How does a 2012 movie need to be restored?

 

[TravisR]

The only problem was that this print was filled with positive dirt - black specks - from beginning to end. I can't believe that a print that was only 7 days old was this dirty.

And that is why I tend to prefer digital projection to film when it comes to the real world. The Master is being treated as something of an event at select theaters that are playing it in 70mm and if those places can't show it properly, what hope is there at my local theater where the kid selling popcorn is the projectionist? In a perfect world, every theater could correctly project film but it ain't a perfect world and since the theaters around me switched to digital, I have noted alot less problems with presentation.

 

[Sky Captain]

Saw this in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC today where it's been playing for a week. I have mixed feelings about the film itself - I wasn't really taken in by the story and I don't feel either of the main characters actually changed in any way from beginning to end. I have a feeling this very long film was probably a few hours longer and was cut down. But the performances were absolutely incredible. And the 65mm photography was frequently quite beautiful. There was even a scene or two that was reminiscent in a small way of the kind of widescreen vistas we used to see in 70mm movies, although this 70mm film was 1.85, not the usual 2.2. I don't know why they did that. You'd think someone shooting in 65mm wouldn't care about filling the screen of a home TV. The only problem was that this print was filled with positive dirt - black specks - from beginning to end. I can't believe that a print that was only 7 days old was this dirty. I don't know whether this was a lab problem, whether the film fell off the platter and they had to pick it up off of the floor or whether the projection booth is incredibly dirty, but there was definitely a problem. And now I don't know whether projected film was always this way, but we just forgot about it when digital came along or whether the industry simply doesn't know how to deal with prints anymore. I don't know why the plattered the film because it looks to me like the Ziegfeld still has two film projectors, so it wasn't necessary. If this was released on blu-ray this way, people would complain that the film needed to be restored. How does a 2012 movie need to be restored?

And yet, people want to destroy the new DCP tech because it doesn't have the 'purity' of film, thus proving the reviewer from The New York Post's point-this seems to be a gimmick dedicated to getting most of the neo-Luddites who hate DCP all riled up more than being an artistic statement.

And that is why I tend to prefer digital projection to film when it comes to the real world. The Master is being treated as something of an event at select theaters that are playing it in 70mm and if those places can't show it properly, what hope is there at my local theater where the kid selling popcorn is the projectionist? In a perfect world, every theater could correctly project film but it ain't a perfect world and since the theaters around me switched to digital, I have noted alot less problems with presentation.

Me too. In fact, as I've said above, the only people who hate DCP are silly hipster neo-Luddites who believe in the 'purity' of film vs. DCP (and who are also those who love using film when taking pictures.) I've not been for movies shown on film for a while after seeing Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan in a s***y print at the sadly now-closed Toronto Underground Cinema in October of 2011 and after another showing of The Fifth Element this past April at the same place. The local (in my native Toronto) Cineplex chain's got a ongoing The Classic Film Series that shows classic films (movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood) in this format (as well as an annual Digital Film Fest that shows films from 10-20 years ago, and the movies (all shown in DCP) look better then when shown as films. Don't get me wrong-I still love to shoot film with film cameras, and I don't really have anything against movies on film, but as you said, the world isn't perfect, and people expect the showing of new (and old) movies to be pristine and problem free.