Review: The Master

RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman. I have no words...but I’ve decided to bump up this review (written a few weeks ago, for full disclosure) as perhaps a tribute. He will be missed.

 

I don’t know how he does it, but writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia”, “Punch-Drunk Love”, “There Will Be Blood”) has yet to make a dud, and this strong, if unusual film from 2012 is no exception. Allegedly based on the early days of Dianetics (i.e. Scientology), it’s a shattering story of a disturbed WWII veteran and alcoholic drifter Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix- perfect casting) taken under the wing of a charismatic cult leader fantastically named Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). This Dodd is part PT Barnum, part author (sci-fi?), part would-be philosophical thinker, and a bunch of other things wrapped into one avuncular (maybe even paternal) whole. Dodd’s movement, The Cause, is still in its infancy, and before long, Freddie is like a son to Dodd, whose wife Peggy (Amy Adams) is fully involved in the movement too, and Freddie also becomes heavily involved. However, cracks slowly emerge in Dodd’s ‘Cause’, with a strong possibility that it is merely a whole lot of wishy-washy nonsense meant to manipulate the damaged and confused. Is Dodd, as is suggested at one point, just making all this up as he goes along? Certainly, the processes of ‘The Cause’ don’t look to have solved Freddie’s massive problems with alcohol or aggression, and Peggy suggests it might be better to have Freddie cast out of The Cause. Dodd, however, is insistent on ‘curing’ the troubled man.

 

Less a film about the specific inner workings of Scientology (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a PTA dartboard at the Scientology head office), and more a film about post-war aimlessness and psychological control/manipulation through hypnotic processes, I came out of this film rather overwhelmed. It’s actually a pretty frightening film, seeing someone who is already scarred being potentially psychologically manipulated relatively easily. **** POSSIBLE SPOILER **** And whilst the film suggests that such ‘Causes’ (be they Scientology or more ‘traditional’ forms of religion) and their leaders bring more harm than good, one is left eerily unsure about Freddie by the end of the film. Is his psyche beyond repair? I think he’s better off by the end, but perhaps not for long. **** END POSSIBLE SPOILER ****

 

The other thing that struck me about the film is that although it is a film from today set in the 1940s or 50s, it felt in terms of mood and the characters, something that would’ve been made in the 70s. Yes, P.T. Anderson’s implementation of 65mm cameras and so forth definitely captured the period remarkably well, to the point where it almost felt like technicolour. It’s a fascinating-looking film. But I was mostly thinking of Kurt Vonnegut (“Slaughterhouse-Five”) in terms of story, Robert Altman in terms of direction (not the first time Anderson and Altman have been mentioned in the same sentence, no doubt) and was imagining a film starring Jack Nicholson (Think “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”) or Bruce Dern (Think...well, Bruce Dern says it all, really) in the Freddie role, and John Huston, Burt Lancaster (and not just for name similarity) or Burl Ives in the Dodd role. I couldn’t shake it.

 

I also couldn’t (and still can’t) shake the haunting portrayal by Joaquin Phoenix, who after (allegedly) pretending to basically lose his mind in “I’m Not Here” gets to play psychologically damaged in a film that is actually not a boring, unfunny piece of crap that should be permanently erased. It’s without question the best performance of his career to date, and displays some Nicholson-esque ferocious aggression and profanity, with Jack’s charming and anarchic spirit replaced with a dose of Brando brooding. Phoenix (who looks rather weathered and worn here) was impressive as Johnny Cash in “Walk the Line”, but he’s another level entirely here. Your heart aches for him as you can see this broken man is potentially being broken down even further.

 

Hoffman is also brilliant (when isn’t he?) and powerful, rather intimidating even in a role that is arguably modelled on L. Ron Hubbard. He is certainly more commanding and believable than the bible-thumping fanatic Paul Dano played in Anderson’s otherwise rock-solid “There Will Be Blood”. Amy Adams, as was the case in “Doubt”, once again easily slips into a period setting, but her character is deceptively compliant. She’s actually the one who really wears the pants in the marriage (You can call her Lady Macbeth), as one rather shocking masturbatory scene shows. I’ve often felt Adams has a Teresa Wright sweetness about her, but I sure as hell don’t ever remember seeing Teresa Wright jerking a guy off.

 

Whether you take this film as a story of a broken and lost man trying to find himself (or some kind of inner peace), the psychological hold a cult leader can have over his followers, or witnessing the beginnings of a Scientology-like cult, this is clearly much more than a mere trashy expose of Scientology. It’s a really moving, unusual period drama with some very, very frightening themes. Meanwhile, Anderson once again chooses an oddball score, this time by Jonny Greenwood.

 

This film won’t be for everyone, but I found it fascinating, powerful, and moving. Being that my favourite film is “The Misfits”, it’s probably no surprise that I responded to this tale of a broken man looking for direction/meaning. Phoenix and Hoffman are incredible, Anderson is a helluva filmmaker, and I think this film will benefit from subsequent viewings. On first viewing, it’s pretty damn impressive.

 

Rating: B-