Film Review: The Master (15), (U.S.A. 2012) (Director: Paul Thomas Anderson), Monday 19.11.2012 18:00, The Cameo, Screen One, Edinburgh
I was not sure of going to see this one, and am aware that part of the reason for my going to see this was due to the staggering positivity that has greeted it from critics.
It is an interesting film, though don't feel it really has much to say beyond 'be wary of the charismatic as is all to easy to be seduced by them'. + 'Falling for the charms of the charismatic, leads to allowing expressions of theirs to be filled with rubbish, without challenge.'
The 'Master' played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is well portrayed as a rouge who has learnt to behave in a way to encourage others to see him as more able and important than he is. He displays the same psychopathology of G.W. Bush, of seeing people as being with or against, discouraging questions - allowing only false acceptance or rejection, though never understanding and therefore actual acceptance. The tactics of the bully only interested in power and hollow gestures. This is also clearly based on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the horse-shit that is Scientology. The film makers have in more recent times come to state this as a more loose connection, though using terms/activities such as 'processing' which clearly is another name for 'auditing', one of the base activities for those starting in this weird domain, doesn't help with this distancing.
The vulnerable character portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix, who is abused and manipulated by the 'Master's' methods, who is trying to reintegrate into society from the navy at the start of the film, is the only one I could understand holding sympathy for. It is shown that he increasingly has cause to question the crap he is being told by the so-called master, and does take action to move away from, then is drawn back on a distorted statement from the master, only to move away again, showing not all have to be suckered by such a parasitic and vacuous charlatan.
Even after the final breaking away from, the victim's behaviour is shown to be inflected by the nonsense he was under, though as not a complete puppet there is enough that is real there for other's to pick up on and put up with, allowing a base to tackle the artificial aspects and help rebuild. He had enough strength within himself to pull away from, not all are as able in relation to such characters.
Sadly I feel the film is more one to be admired than enjoyed. I felt the film to be rather cold. Both of these comments I feel could also be applied to the director's last film 'There will be blood'. With that film, due to the dazzling performance of Daniel Day Lewis, on the first viewing I feel it was hard to pick up on how cold and unenjoyable it was. I feel the director recently concentrates on destructive characters. I find these sorts of films more difficult to be drawn to. The film was an interesting one-off watch, I would have no inclination to return to it.
On a damming finale, I have noted something which I feel is manipulative of the audience and unacceptable. There is footage in trailers for this film, which is not then part of the film. This is a very clear way of the film being marketed in a false and distorted way. I had noted a similar thing with the film 'Holy Motors'. I did not mention it in it's review as had hoped it was a one off with art-house film (I expect a bit of this sort of naughtiness from Hollywood blockbuster fluff) and had already been damming enough of that film, it would have felt like I was kicking it when it was down. It distorted imagery in a way that is not in the film. I hope this is not a trend here to stay for any length of time.
Rating: 07/10.
It is an interesting film, though don't feel it really has much to say beyond 'be wary of the charismatic as is all to easy to be seduced by them'. + 'Falling for the charms of the charismatic, leads to allowing expressions of theirs to be filled with rubbish, without challenge.'
The 'Master' played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is well portrayed as a rouge who has learnt to behave in a way to encourage others to see him as more able and important than he is. He displays the same psychopathology of G.W. Bush, of seeing people as being with or against, discouraging questions - allowing only false acceptance or rejection, though never understanding and therefore actual acceptance. The tactics of the bully only interested in power and hollow gestures. This is also clearly based on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the horse-shit that is Scientology. The film makers have in more recent times come to state this as a more loose connection, though using terms/activities such as 'processing' which clearly is another name for 'auditing', one of the base activities for those starting in this weird domain, doesn't help with this distancing.
The vulnerable character portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix, who is abused and manipulated by the 'Master's' methods, who is trying to reintegrate into society from the navy at the start of the film, is the only one I could understand holding sympathy for. It is shown that he increasingly has cause to question the crap he is being told by the so-called master, and does take action to move away from, then is drawn back on a distorted statement from the master, only to move away again, showing not all have to be suckered by such a parasitic and vacuous charlatan.
Even after the final breaking away from, the victim's behaviour is shown to be inflected by the nonsense he was under, though as not a complete puppet there is enough that is real there for other's to pick up on and put up with, allowing a base to tackle the artificial aspects and help rebuild. He had enough strength within himself to pull away from, not all are as able in relation to such characters.
Sadly I feel the film is more one to be admired than enjoyed. I felt the film to be rather cold. Both of these comments I feel could also be applied to the director's last film 'There will be blood'. With that film, due to the dazzling performance of Daniel Day Lewis, on the first viewing I feel it was hard to pick up on how cold and unenjoyable it was. I feel the director recently concentrates on destructive characters. I find these sorts of films more difficult to be drawn to. The film was an interesting one-off watch, I would have no inclination to return to it.
On a damming finale, I have noted something which I feel is manipulative of the audience and unacceptable. There is footage in trailers for this film, which is not then part of the film. This is a very clear way of the film being marketed in a false and distorted way. I had noted a similar thing with the film 'Holy Motors'. I did not mention it in it's review as had hoped it was a one off with art-house film (I expect a bit of this sort of naughtiness from Hollywood blockbuster fluff) and had already been damming enough of that film, it would have felt like I was kicking it when it was down. It distorted imagery in a way that is not in the film. I hope this is not a trend here to stay for any length of time.
Rating: 07/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment