Started by polkablues, August 18, 2012, 01:41:45 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: ono on January 10, 2013, 07:19:30 PMNo.
Quote from: Freddie on January 10, 2013, 06:43:31 PMFuck 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.
Quote from: Neil on January 12, 2013, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: ono on January 10, 2013, 07:19:30 PMNo.your smugness just says so much.I too hate it when people think freely about ambiguities within great works of art. It deserves a ripe and intellectually motivated, "no."Thanks for your contribution toward someone sharing their ideas in an art forum. We need more of YOU in the art community at large. Well, that and more cute little fox-news-esque diagrams, like the one you shit out earlier in this thread. Feel free to p.m me the misspellings and grammatical errors found above, unless you enjoy being openly smug about grammar too. Because after all there's no way anyone can comprehend, pr has ever comprehended any sentence that has a few misspellings or grammatical errors in them. oh yeah, back on topic, what a great movie. i really like it.
Quote from: Derek on January 12, 2013, 09:11:39 PMQuote from: Neil on January 12, 2013, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: ono on January 10, 2013, 07:19:30 PMNo.your smugness just says so much.I too hate it when people think freely about ambiguities within great works of art. It deserves a ripe and intellectually motivated, "no."Thanks for your contribution toward someone sharing their ideas in an art forum. We need more of YOU in the art community at large. Well, that and more cute little fox-news-esque diagrams, like the one you shit out earlier in this thread. Feel free to p.m me the misspellings and grammatical errors found above, unless you enjoy being openly smug about grammar too. Because after all there's no way anyone can comprehend, pr has ever comprehended any sentence that has a few misspellings or grammatical errors in them. oh yeah, back on topic, what a great movie. i really like it.Except ono was right.I too hate it when people draw such reaching and strange interpretations of great art.Your sarcasm sucks. And maybe check your own grammar before calling out others.
Quote from: Derek on January 12, 2013, 10:57:55 PMI disagree with you on your four points.
Quote from: Derek on January 12, 2013, 10:57:55 PMA work of art can't have an incorrect interpretation? It's completely subjective?
Quote from: Derek on January 12, 2013, 10:57:55 PMEspecially don't understand point #4.
Quote from: Derek on January 12, 2013, 10:57:55 PMSome people are trying to read way too much subtext in the movie.
Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2013, 12:39:40 AMQuit. let's talk about something cool.
Quote(Please forgive the ridiculous length of what follows; but I thought this was the best time and place to finally think-things-through and offload these ideas, which hopefully won't prove to be too boring.)I think the above analysis of the "first processing scene" in "The Master" might have missed its true purpose; and that a different reading might unlock more of this film's rewarding mysteries. (SPOILERS, perhaps, below):I believe that Hoffman's character (who isn't "The Master" of the title, by the way; that's a shadowy throne that's actually inhabited by his wife) is able to intuit Joaquin's personality so perfectly –because he sees HIMSELF in the younger man; and each provocative question that he asks and hits right on the nose confirms their "link" more and more.First, he sees the younger man's "true uniqueness" in an ever-more-homogeneous Post-War America: he recognizes Joaquin's wild romantic recklessness and will to violence, along with his restless desire for escape (all things which Hoffman has had to deny himself, now that he's married and locked into his ever-tightening role as leader of a growing secular/psychological "spiritual" movement); and he also realizes their shared driving "need" to be intoxicated (which is the first thing that bonds these two together, their one-of-a-kind "secret drink," which Joaquin mixed from stolen ingredients, and which Hoffman "found" and finished while Joaquin was passed out on the borrowed yacht...and which evolves, with each new alcoholic invention whipped-up by Joaquin, into a special ritual between them, a relationship that Hoffman tries to keep hidden from his all-seeing wife –like his desires for infidelity and "freedom"). But where Hoffman has had to maintain a certain very strict public and familial sobriety, Joaquin has been able to indulge in all his crazy animal "honesty" (to destructive excess, it's clear, and driven by things he doesn't understand --to the point of letting an unrequited, disappointing "first crush" on a young girl haunt him, becoming a heart-sick neurosis that drives him to sullen alcoholic impotence). But the "interview/analysis" scene actually builds to the breakthrough moment of Hoffman "uncovering" Joaquin's deepest secret: That he's had sex with a family member –his aunt. That Joaquin is able to admit this (and all the rest, but that most especially) so unashamedly makes Hoffman gush that he's the "bravest boy he's ever seen." From his own repressed nature (combined with the fact that he's sought out a relationship with a woman whose dominant personality easily controls him –both mentally and sexually, with something as simple as an impersonal 20-second in-the-sink handjob) it's my supposition that Hoffman also had an incestuous relationship with an older ("stronger") member of his family in his past –a "dirty" relationship that he's never been able to "transcend" or admit aloud. (This may have been an older woman –but it might have even been a man, as...) --Furthermore, Hoffman's own son seems to be a victim of Hoffman's "control" –if not actually sexually, than certainly psychosexually...as he is also seen to be sullen and "bitch resentful" and unable to break free of his father's manipulation; until, at the end of the film, he is eventually seen, in England, to be a "broken and remade" (if utterly repressed) man, dressing exactly like his father, and acting completely differently, like a professional scion and "corporate lieutenant," resigned to his role in the hierarchy of his parent's "cult-like business."Anyway, this reading helps make it clearer that Hoffman is not an utter fraud –that his perceptiveness and prompting in fact cures Joaquin; so that by the end of the film, Joaquin is not only able to break free of Hoffman (who watches in joyous pride as he escapes on the motorcycle –something his own son would never have been able to do), but is able to finally confront his crippling past, as after so many terrified years he can at last "go home," hoping to face the girl whose "absent love" so possessed him; and by talking with her family and finding out that she was able to move on with her life, he's ultimately able to see this sad relationship for what it truly was –and in doing so, completely break its hold over him.This allows, by the movie's conclusion, the scene where Joaquin is able to again have a sexual relationship in England –without having to rely any more on the crutch of booze. (He's even learned how the "questioning game" he learned in that first "processing scene" --a version of which he plays with the girl on the bed-- is actually a gateway to intimacy and self-reflection.) Therefore: in the film's final image, he lays in peaceful sleep beside the "sand woman of his own creation" –meaning that he's not controlled any longer by hismistaken fantasies, and is finally free to love and be loved (while Hoffman is still under the thumb of his cruel Master(s) –his wife, and the role in life that he once authored, but which now has him straightjacketed).Again, sorry for taking up so much space; and thanks for considering this.
Quote from: malkovich on January 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PMthe amount of layers this thing has, intentional or not, is increasingly astounding.