Author Topic: The Master - SPOILERS!  (Read 71684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4228
  • ...
  • Respect: +203
Re: IF YOU'VE SEEN THE MASTER TALK ABOUT IT HERE - SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
« Reply #240 on: December 30, 2012, 06:10:52 PM »
+1
The comparisons to Kubrick (and 2001, no less) continue, as The Master is named best of 2012 by Sight and Sound.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-kaplan/beyond-category-2001-and-_b_2337733.html

Frederico Fellini

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Respect: +172
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #241 on: January 02, 2013, 06:47:45 PM »
0
PERSONAL COMMENTARY: This is quite an interesting article. After seeing "THE MASTER" for the first time, I had a very similar theory, that Freddie is a metaphor for the audience and the Master is a metaphor for PTA. I wrote it on IMDB and a lot of people didn't buy it. But if you look at the movie from that perspective, it makes a lot of fucking sense. Also, if anyone's got the balls and the talent to do something like that, breaking the 4th wall like that.. is PTA. The film is about CULTS, yes. About pop-CULTure, about fan-boyism, about an artist and his audience. Think about it. It adds a whole 'nother layer to the film. Can't wait for that fucking blu-ray to come out and analyze that shit.



THE MASTER: REMASTERED

By MATT SINGER


Near the midpoint of Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master," the title character faces the first serious test of his newly coined belief system. He's in New York City for a demonstration of his "processing" method; The Master, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), asks a subject a series of questions designed to break down their mental defenses and reveal buried memories of the past, or perhaps even of past lives. As Dodd processes one woman at the party, a man skeptically watches in the corner, then hurls a series of insults and accusations. The skeptic all but calls Dodd a fraud; scoffs at his ideas, dismisses his evidence, and compares his followers to the members of a cult. In response, Dodd produces a counter example: a river with a bend in it. When we sail beyond the bend and look back, we can't see the origin of the river -- but that doesn't mean it's not still there.
The skeptic wants hard, evidential truth. The Master refuses to indulge him. So many people I've spoken to who've seen "The Master" want the same thing -- some grand explanation, some revelation of greater meaning -- but the film remains as cagey as Dodd. Sure, they say, the performances are great, and yes the 70mm cinematography is stunning. But what is it all about? What does it all mean? Why are the protagonists drawn to one another? Where's the truth?

In a sense, a flummoxed reaction to "The Master" is a correct one -- the film is very much about the way in which the search for answers in the universe leads to frustration rather than fulfillment. It follows a man who falls under the thrall of Lancaster Dodd, a mentally unbalanced World War II veteran named Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix). Lonely, drunk, and violent, Quell finds a welcoming community and a sense of purpose amongst Dodd's followers. But he never finds peace -- or any answers.

Those looking for similar enlightenment from "The Master" were barking up the wrong tree. Like the best of the film's posters, like the psychological exam Quell endures before his discharge from the Navy, "The Master" is one enormous Rorschach test: a near-abstract combination of images, ideas, and themes presented for individual interpretation. Is it a movie about the origins of Scientology? Or the shifting face of American masculinity in the 1940s and '50s? Could it be a sad character study? One enormous dream in the mind of a diseased brain? Or perhaps an unrequited homosexual love story? As the Naval psychologist says to Quell when he shows him the first inkblot, "there's no wrong answer." This is Anderson's cue to the audience: "The Master"'s meaning lies not in the film, but in each and every viewer.

The first time I saw "The Master," I was mostly consumed with Phoenix and Hoffman's remarkable performances and their attack dog/trainer relationship. Having watched it two more times in recent weeks, I've become enamored with a reading of the film that has less to do with Quell and Dodd, or even with Dodd's connection to L. Ron Hubbard and The Cause's to Scientology. Maybe because I've had so many conversations about "The Master" with slightly flustered or greatly disappointed viewers, I've begun to read it as a film about exactly that: how an artist grapples with a cynical, skeptical audience.

After all, The Master is more than a religious leader; he's also an author. In fact, when he introduces himself to Quell at their initial meeting, the first title he gives himself -- before he lists doctor, nuclear physicist, and theoretical philosopher -- is that of a writer. And I think it's as a writer -- and therefore as an artist -- that Anderson sees Dodd as a sympathetic (or possibly even tragic) figure.

A large portion of "The Master" is set on Dodd's borrowed yacht, as he and The Cause travel through the Panama Canal from San Francisco to New York. When Dodd isn't processing Quell or sampling some of his mysterious homemade liquor, he is writing an unnamed "Book Two" -- the long-awaited follow-up to his highly regarded first book, "The Cause." Dodd's wife, Peggy (Amy Adams), tells Quell that their meeting (and his peculiar homebrew) has inspired The Master. "When we're at home, on land," she tells Quell over breakfast, "there's too much pulling him in each direction."

Dodd's comfort on the open ocean is one of his strongest connections to Quell -- and it's important to note how much water imagery dominates the "The Master." The film opens with the sound and then the sight of an azure sea churning in the wake of a massive Naval ship (fortunately, there's no bend in the ocean). Back on land after the war, Quell also finds himself pulled in each direction -- he snaps at a customer while working as the photographer at a department store and accidentally poisons a man with his bathtub booze while harvesting cabbage. Lost and miserable, he finally finds a home with Dodd -- when he returns to the water by stowing away on his boat to New York City.

There are many more references, visually and sonically, to water in "The Master," which marks it as a significant departure from Anderson's last movie, "There Will Be Blood." In fact, the two films go together like oil and water -- literally; "Blood" was all about petroleum, and the way in which it transforms an enterprising young businessman into a tycoon. "The Master" is, in so many ways, the opposite story: an aimless drifter with absolutely no ambition, driven only by his basest urges. In "There Will Be Blood," Daniel Plainview's (Daniel Day-Lewis) greatest enemy is religion, in the form of a fiery preacher and land owner who repeatedly stymies his attempts to monopolize an oil-rich area of California. In "The Master," religion is Quell's only ally.

In other words; these are two very different films, a fact that's bothered many viewers -- "It's good, but not as good as 'There Will Be Blood,'" I've heard on countless occasions. Which brings us back to Dodd, working on his hotly anticipated follow-up to "The Cause." When it arrives -- in the form of "The Split Saber" -- it is received in much the same way "The Master" was received: as a disappointment in the context of the author's body of work.

We've already mentioned the scene at the party between Dodd and the skeptic. Later, after "The Split Saber" is released at a Cause convention in Phoenix, there are more negative reactions. A member of The Cause from New York City tells Quell he thinks the new book is garbage, with insights unworthy of even a pamplet, much less a full volume. Helen (Laura Dern), Dodd's patron in Philadelphia, claims to love it, but also takes issue with a small but significant change in Dodd's description of processing. When she brings the matter to his attention, he explodes at her. "WHAT DO YOU WANT?" he rages.

It's a profound question from an author to his audience, one I suspect Anderson has asked time and again as he's watched his own flock react tentatively to each new twist in his career -- following up the exuberant "Boogie Nights" with ambiguous, frog-plagued "Magnolia;" following up the ambitious "Magnolia" with the smaller "Punch-Drunk Love." With "The Master" it happened again. Imagine how that must make Anderson feel. Imagine how it makes Dodd feel.

So why, after all of his poor behavior, in spite of his closest advisors' warnings, does Dodd repeatedly accept Quell? This, I suspect, is the reason. Quell, for all his flaws, is the audience Dodd wants. He may not fully understand processing, The Cause, or "The Split Saber" -- but he accepts that Dodd understands it, and he trusts him. Except for one notable argument in a jail cell, he never questions his language, and he doesn't moan that the new book isn't as good as the old one. He likes whatever Dodd does. And when someone disagrees, he goes on the attack. Quell's loyal to The Master, not to The Cause; he values the artist over any specific work. For someone looking to start a religion -- or to continue a long and varied film career -- a fan who supports you with that kind of devotion must be a comfort and a reassurance.
We fought against the day and we won... WE WON.

Cinema is something you do for a billion years... or not at all.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4228
  • ...
  • Respect: +203
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #242 on: January 02, 2013, 07:11:25 PM »
0
PERSONAL COMMENTARY: This is quite an interesting article. After seeing "THE MASTER" for the first time, I had a very similar theory, that Freddie is a metaphor for the audience and the Master is a metaphor for PTA. I wrote it on IMDB and a lot of people didn't buy it. But if you look at the movie from that perspective, it makes a lot of fucking sense. Also, if anyone's got the balls and the talent to do something like that, breaking the 4th wall like that.. is PTA. The film is about CULTS, yes. About pop-CULTure, about fan-boyism, about an artist and his audience. Think about it. It adds a whole 'nother layer to the film. Can't wait for that fucking blu-ray to come out and analyze that shit.
OMG, bullshit.  There was another post I read elsewhere (not here) about how The Master is an antifilm.  Whatever the hell that means.  That it's supposed to be a bad film and that's why it's so good.  Whenever someone tries to put these meanings to a film it only shows how little they understand them.

We live in a new era.  Observe:



Good artists simply don't do that bullshit anymore.  PTA is way too sophisticated, and way too respectable a filmmaker to do that.  He has no conscious intentions, and it reeks of pretention for anyone to ascribe them to him.  He simply oozes art from all of his pores, and that's why, subconsciously, he tells the same story over and over again.  His canon is his story.  Your interpretations are a reflection of you, and that's fine.  But don't attribute them to him, because they're weak and they do the quality of his work so much injustice.

Drenk

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
  • Respect: +495
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #243 on: January 02, 2013, 09:36:17 PM »
0
Anderson is not meta at all. He doesn't write, thinking: "God, my character is the audience. Fuck. Come on, Paul. Write your thoughts in your head. Paul goes to the bathroom and then he masturbates. Fuck, Paul. My thoughts are a script ! My head is a movie theater. Great."

He's one of the few writers who doesn't think he's more clever than the characters or superior to them.
I'm so many people.

matt35mm

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3239
  • Bony old behind.
  • Respect: +487
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #244 on: January 02, 2013, 10:59:21 PM »
+5
 :?

Not that I think the article is all that mind-blowing, but it doesn't matter whether or not PTA intends to be meta, because "meta" simply refers to a way of reading/thinking about things. All things can be read in this way, because the meta-nature of things is a foundational reality in all things that exist. It's just a matter of the layers we want to work with in our thinking. Metaphysics is an attempt to understand the behind-the-scenes of physics, or at least a deconstruction of the modes of thinking that we use to understand physical laws. In this sense, it can be thought of as "beyond physics," in that it is thinking beyond physics itself, as a means to better understand or contextualize physics. But this can be done with our understanding of anything.

Films, in particular, are a very rich field to mine because all films exist simultaneously as the story it's telling (these are characters saying words and doing things), as a filmed documentation of actors saying words that were written, as a documentation of the day it was filmed and all the things that influenced it. The writing and pretty much all of the choices made in the direction of a film involve a mix of conscious intention and subconscious influences, because films are made by human beings.

If you're watching, say, Freddie and Lancaster during the processing scene, you're simultaneously watching Freddie and Lancaster, Phoenix and Hoffman on the day that they filmed that scene, you're hearing PTA's written words and you're seeing his directorial choices, you're seeing yourself seeing the scene, and how that scene enters your brain is affected by your mood, your attitude toward this film up until that point, and the ways that you understand everything. The 4th wall is always there, even if you don't break it (and all that really means is that you're choosing to ignore its presence). Even the best and most serious movies are really just a bunch of dorks playing pretend in front of a camera.

All of that, and more, can be used legitimately to generate new ideas to talk about. To map the content of a film to where a filmmaker is in his/her life is not a ridiculous thing, and lots of people do that all the time. It's just another way to generate meaning and the generation of meaning is how anything becomes interesting.

Yeah we can all laugh about Bela Tarr responding to the question "What does all that rain mean?" with "It means it's fucking raining!" To the filmmaker, it may just be because it was raining that day and he liked it, or maybe he didn't like it but had to shoot the scene anyway. But to the viewer, the rain is there and it affects the way the film is understood, and that's legit. If it wasn't legit, we couldn't really start to understand anything about a film until we learn of all the boring practical reasons of why a scene turned out the way it did. Was this scene handheld because it was planned that way, or was it because the sun was going down and they had 15 minutes to grab three shots? You'd have to find out before you could decide whether or not the handheld was meaningful for you as a viewer.

Filmmakers often don't know entirely why they're doing what they're doing; sometimes they're going with their gut, sometimes they're responding to the elements, sometimes they're ripping off a shot from another movie, sometimes it actually is the scene as they had imagined it, but a lot of times it's not, and so they had to figure it out in editing. Sometimes it just plays well, and no one knows why it plays well, but it just does.

All we can do is guess. Or, not bother guessing as to what the filmmaker's intentions were, because, as with all things, intention is but the tiniest of facets as to why things turn out the way they do.

PTA himself has pretty much responded to any ways of understanding the film with, "Yeah, sure, okay, that works," and he seems to be sincere in saying that.

matt35mm

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3239
  • Bony old behind.
  • Respect: +487
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #245 on: January 03, 2013, 11:43:44 AM »
+2
Oh, also, in regard to PTA and meta, I just remembered that this is the guy who wrote the line, "This is the scene of the movie where you help me out," and had a trailer where the main characters looked at the audience and introduced themselves: "I'm Jimmy Gator; I'm Claudia Wilson Gator; I'm Frank T. J. Mackey, etc." Also, the characters all stop and sing along to the voice that's been playing throughout the movie (Aimee Mann's).

The cleverness is more than backed up by emotional sincerity, which is a big part of why we luv that man.

Just Withnail

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1643
  • Respect: +473
    • Truls Krane Meby's website
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #246 on: January 04, 2013, 02:31:29 AM »
+2
Yeah we can all laugh about Bela Tarr responding to the question "What does all that rain mean?" with "It means it's fucking raining!" To the filmmaker, it may just be because it was raining that day and he liked it, or maybe he didn't like it but had to shoot the scene anyway. But to the viewer, the rain is there and it affects the way the film is understood, and that's legit. If it wasn't legit, we couldn't really start to understand anything about a film until we learn of all the boring practical reasons of why a scene turned out the way it did. Was this scene handheld because it was planned that way, or was it because the sun was going down and they had 15 minutes to grab three shots? You'd have to find out before you could decide whether or not the handheld was meaningful for you as a viewer.

I think that's a one-sided take on that quote. I think the response has got as much to do with the guy asking the question wanting to know the director's meaning, as it has to do with finding meaning at all. Like you say:

Filmmakers often don't know entirely why they're doing what they're doing; sometimes they're going with their gut

I don't think Tarr is against people finding meaning in his films, or in the rain, but agains people wanting him to provide the answers.

It's like that interviewer questioning PTA about the water, and him responding "ah, those shot's are just nice", except Tarr is obviously much more snide. It's not necessarily an aversion to finding meaning in their films, but maybe against clear answers, and their answers. When given an interpretation PTA usually answers, like you say

"Yeah, sure, okay, that works,"

And there are obviously meta-aspects to all of his films. What is it Laura Dern's character is saying to the crowd when Dodd's daughter is touching Freddie's leg? Something about recreating the feel of a lost era, memories, quality of light, certain faces (or something). She seemed to be talking about exactly what the film is doing with the 50s.
My short WORLD WIDE WOVEN BODIES is now online:

Watch it here!

Frederico Fellini

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Respect: +172
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #247 on: January 05, 2013, 01:08:24 AM »
+1
3 more Italian clips from the movie... Love re-watching these. Really wish they were english.



"Do you want to fuck?"  LOL






THE WEDDING:






THE JAIL SCENE:






Man, that toilet got fucked up.

We fought against the day and we won... WE WON.

Cinema is something you do for a billion years... or not at all.

Just Withnail

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1643
  • Respect: +473
    • Truls Krane Meby's website
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #248 on: January 05, 2013, 04:13:07 PM »
0
recreating the feel of a lost era, memories, quality of light, certain faces (or something). She seemed to be talking about exactly what the film is doing with the 50s.

I just realized how silly this sounds. This is of course what every film ever does. But still, it sounds like she's talking about the film itself at that moment.
My short WORLD WIDE WOVEN BODIES is now online:

Watch it here!

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10779
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #249 on: January 09, 2013, 12:43:35 PM »
+5
From Script To Screen: Your Guide To All The Deleted/Missing Scenes In 'The Master'
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/from-script-to-screen-your-guide-to-all-the-deleted-missing-scenes-in-the-master-20130109



This took a long time to write. Please read/share/RT. And let me know of any glaring errors/omissions/probable typos!
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

velociraptor

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • Respect: +59
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #250 on: January 10, 2013, 09:34:47 AM »
0
From Script To Screen: Your Guide To All The Deleted/Missing Scenes In 'The Master'
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/from-script-to-screen-your-guide-to-all-the-deleted-missing-scenes-in-the-master-20130109



This took a long time to write. Please read/share/RT. And let me know of any glaring errors/omissions/probable typos!
This was a fantastic read. I had no idea about the cut scene from the script involving the saber decapitating the Master- I love that.

By the way, the lack of nominations for cinematography, directing, writing, and editing at the Oscars sure is bizarre.. Snubbing on the directing/writing part is one thing, but to skip out on editing and cinematography for The Master is stunning to me.

Sleepless

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • I told you I would eat you
  • Respect: +350
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #251 on: January 10, 2013, 11:55:14 AM »
+2
Notebook (apparently the digital magazine associated with Mubi) asked contributors to pick a film from 2012 and pair it with an older movie for a "fantasy double bill."

Duncan Grey picked The Master...



NEW: The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, USA)
OLD: Island of Lost Souls (Erle C. Kenton, 1932)

WHY: It's odd the links that spring up in a year of cinephilia, because here, on the same cultural buffet table, we have two movies from the opposite ends of the respectability scale. The Master is a film that declares its aspirations from the mountaintop, while the chief attractions of Island of Lost Souls, a horrific gem of pre-Code Hollywood, are Bela Lugosi in an animal mask, Charles Laughton with a whip, and a slinky temptress listed in the opening credits only as "the Panther Woman." To go further, The Master marks the sixth film of Paul Thomas Anderson, who, whether you're with him or not, is undeniably one of the most ambitious, well-regarded, and auteur-ish auteurs of his generation. Lost Souls was directed by Erle C. Kenton, an obscure studio man who churned out about three films a year and who, outside of Lost Souls, is probably best known for a handful of esoteric Dracula, Frankenstein, and Abbott & Costello sequels in the 40s.

So it may seem strange that throughout the formal experiments and psychosexual struggles of The Master, I thought of a pre-Code horror movie I'd seen many months before. But the similarities are inescapable. After all, aren't both about portly, sinister, dubiously-accredited "doctors" who promise to purge the characters of their animal tendencies? Wouldn't Lancaster Dodd's insistence that "man is not an animal" sound at home coming from Laughton's Dr. Moreau? And so we can see two approaches to the same thematic territory: a battle between an untrustworthy ego and a raging id, with a pointed emphasis on sex. Taken together, they provide a comparison between "high-brow" and "low-brow" film (or "auteur" and "genre" cinema) that ultimately makes a compelling case study on how useless those labels can be. Of course, the two films arrive at different conclusions. In The Master, the id (a volatile Joaquin Phoenix) is sublimated and made fit for life among the civilized; in Lost Souls, which doesn't intellectualize its battle, the animal tendencies rebel with frightening, cathartic joy. So while The Master is one of my favorites of the year—a wondrously crafted film that I'll defend against its detractors—there's an argument to be made that a film like Island of Lost Souls, knowingly tawdry and scarcely longer than an episode of The Wire, is slier and more subversive.  Lessons of cinema.

Frederico Fellini

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Respect: +172
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #252 on: January 10, 2013, 06:43:31 PM »
+2
Fuck it. I have to say this... The more and more I think about the master being about AN ARTIST AND HIS AUDIENCE (PTA and his audience, to be more exact) The more sense it all makes. I've been thinking about this shit all day. I dont give a fuck if you like what I'm gonna say or not or whether you think it's right or wrong. I just gotta get it outta my chest.

Freddie represents the audience. Every aspect of the audience. From The "Joe popcorn" type to the "Cinematic snob/I'm better than thou" type.  He can't keep a job, he's sexually obsessed, he's aggressive, his life is empty, he would love to fuck something or somebody but it seems like everytime he tries, he fails. He falls asleep, etc. Probably can't even get it up. He is looking for SOMETHING or SOMEONE that will come and make sense of all this. He wants something to make his life worthwile. This could be a perfect description of the life of any basement-dwelling fanboy.

He works as a photographer, trying to make pictures. But uses the photo-chemicals to get drunk and fucks up his life even more.  Then he has that altercation with the fat dude with the mustache, the dude looks just like Hoffman, this is NOT a coincidence. Freddie (the fanboy) is trying to make his own pictures/movies but he fails, he “wants to get the lightning right”, but he fails. This failure fills him up with so much rage, he tries to choke the "hoffman looking" figure. This failure prompts him to starts looking for someone who IS making the things he wants to do… And that’s where THE MASTER comes into the picture.

Freddie asks THE MASTER,  "what do you do?" Well, Master tells him he’s a WRITER (PTA writes his own movies), a DOCTOR (his movies are like medicine to us. I personally can tell you they are MY medicine for sure! Magnolia!), a nuclear physicist (talking about the photochemical process of film?), a philosopher (PTA certainly is that, whether he strives for that or not. His movies make you think and ask yourself questions about your own life), But PTA ends it by telling the fanboy: “But at the end of the day, I’m a man, JUST LIKE YOU!”. Fanboy Freddie laughs, he loves that.

PTA chose this movie to do this because of the obvious parallels between a guy who is a writer and director of movies in Hollywood and a guy who writes his own books and preaches his own religion.  Everytime he puts a movie out he has to defend it and explain it, for what?  “This is where we’re at? To have to explain ourselves? For what? FOR WHAT WE DO, we have to grovel?” .

I think the best and most revealing line in the whole movie is:  “He’s making all this up as he goes along.. YOU DON’T SEE THAT?”. Notice how Val is almost looking into the Camera when he says that.

PTA/THE MASTER says to the audience: “If you leave here, I don’t ever wanna see you again”.. The funniest part about that line is that in one of my viewings, about 3 people walked out almost at that exact line, heh. It’s crazy now thinking back on it.  PTA is telling his audience, “if you walk out of this theater, I don’t want you as a fan”.   (Notice the lyrics that repeat from the “get thee behind me satan” song:  “STAY WHERE YOU ARE, IT’S TOO LATE…”).

The Master says he has unlocked the secret to all this.  What's Master's secret? Secret is LAUGHTER! Well, isn’t the master PTA’s funniest movie? It seems to me it is. It has a more comedic tone than anything else he's ever done, including boogie nights. This movie is a dark comedy through and through. You can tell just from the opening line. PTA is telling you that that’s the key to this movie. But FANBOY FREDDIE still doesn’t get it.

Freddie is a fanboy that attacks anybody who dares detract the master. Anybody said something about PTA?  Shit.. You’ve even seen it right here in xixax, how everyone always gets so defensive about him. It's not only PTA fans though. It's fans in general. This CULT that gets created around things or people. The movie is about a CULT alright.. About pop CULTture. All those fucking zombies.

FREDDIE AND THE MASTER IN THE JAIL CELL:

-   FAN: You lied to me PTA! You showed me stuff in the trailers that isn’t in this movie! You said the movie was about scientology and it’s not about that at all! What the fuck is this? You make all this stupid shit up!
-   PTA: FUCK YOU! I never promised you shit.. You made up your own expectations! I never told you the movie was about that! I never said what was in the trailers was gonna be in the movie!
-   FAN: Fuck you!
-   PTA: No, fuck you! Dude, I’m the only one that likes you. You cant keep a job, you cant fuck anyone. You’re a fucking mess. But I still like you, You’re my audience. Without YOU, I’m nothing.

And what does PTA/THE MASTER say about the detractors/people who don’t like this movie?
He says: “They’re necessary. For without negatives, we would be all positives. Therefore zero charge”. it’s fucking brilliant.

Another thing that suggests that Freddie is the audience:  Notice how Freddie laughs at literally EVERY joke in the movie. Whether the joke’s said by him or someone else. That’s one of the first things I noticed in my first viewing, is that it seemed like everytime I laughed, Freddie was laughing too. You could hear his laugh coming from the speakers, blending in with the laugh of the audience.
Not too mention Freddie is constantly seen as an audience member. Not only when the master is giving his speeches, but there’s a scene where he’s actually  SITTING IN A THEATER, looking at US. We never see the cinema screen he’s watching, he’s looking directly at US. Same with the shots of him looking at the master giving speeches, he's always facing directly at the Camera, almost like he’s a mirror of US as we watch the movie.

The story of the dragon is the key to all this.. "This is where we're at with it. I say "stay" dragon stays. I say "sit", dragon sits. Now I got him on a leash, and HE STAYS ON MY COMMAND. That's where we're at with now! It stays on my command". This story of the dragon, is not only a metaphor for FREDDIE and THE MASTER , but a metaphor for PTA and his audience. That's where his at with it now. We're staying on his command. It's too easy for him, that's why he's trynna take it to the next level by making a movie as complex and enigmatic as this, and having he movie break the 4th wall as brilliantly as this.

Some things From the script:

 MASTER:  (giving his speech about “the secret is laughter”)  “Funny enough, The source of all is… YOU

Which relates to when Amy Adams says earlier:  “He(PTA) has been WRITING all night, YOU seem to INSPIRE something in him.”  OF COURSE, because FREDDIE is THE AUDIENCE, and the movie is about PTA and his audience. So of course, WE are the source of his inspiration. Literally.

In one part of the script, a Girl sings:  “The APA and AMA will have to kiss our asses!”… AMA stands for AMERICAN MEDICINAL ASSOCIATION and APA stands for AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION… But this could also be PTA’s clever way of saying the “MPAA will have to kiss our asses!”.. MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. Those are the guys that rate movies.


I don’t got anything else, and I don’t really know how to express myself very well, so this comes off as very rough (English is my 3rd language). But you get the point of my theory. The movie is about PTA and the AUDIENCE. THE MASTER is PTA, FREDDIE is THE AUDIENCE. THE MASTER is PTA’S “2001”. The monolith was THE CINEMA SCREEN and Kubrick was commenting on the power it had.. PTA is breaking the 4th wall in that exact way. PTA is brilliantly making a commentary on US, as an audience. By DELIBERATELY writing The Master as an insubstantial, pretentious story for the purpose of COMMENTING ON insubstantial, pretentious stories and the way people respond to them!

But then again, I could be wrong. I don’t know.  I don’t care. I still stand by my theory though.

I love this movie. I love all the layers it has and all the meanings you can give to it. Even if you think I'm dead wrong. Gotta admit it makes for a pretty interesting conversation.
We fought against the day and we won... WE WON.

Cinema is something you do for a billion years... or not at all.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4228
  • ...
  • Respect: +203
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #253 on: January 10, 2013, 07:19:30 PM »
+8
No.

malkovich

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Respect: +21
    • meetmeinmalkovich
Re: The Master - SPOILERS!
« Reply #254 on: January 10, 2013, 08:09:00 PM »
+2
Yeah, no.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy