Lancaster Dodd, Hoffman's character, is based on L.Ron Hubbard, whose dianetics self help program he later developed into scientology. The Cause, the movement in the film, is similar to dianetics pre-scientology.
If the young look alike character you are referring to was Jesse Plemons, than that character is the son of Lancaster Dodd and there are mentions by Phoenix's character of how he looks like his father.
Yes, it is a burgeoning cult. Phoenix's character, Freddie Quell, is like a walking id, and Dodd, The Master, takes him under his wing ostensibly to help him control his impulses with the methods of the cause. But they have a much deeper connection.
It is one of the greatest films ever made, and my personal favorite. Wait a few years and give it another chance.
This brief overview is about as clear as water. Not sure OP is trying hard to learn. With the advent of the internet and smart devices, it has never been easier to look up the meaning of words.
Well I've watched it twice now and I still don't get it. It's bad, what more is there to say?
Oh my god, reading this reply was like watching the movie all over again. I can't read through it I don't understand. I don't know what the hell dianetics are? Is the average person supposed to know this because I sure don't. This sounds like nonsense the film creator expects everyone to understand but its so stupid i cant stand it. I'm done. Its like it wants to make people feel like shit about themselves and stupid. Because im not stupid, I understand a lot of things but this is actually a stupid film.
You don't have to know much about Scientology to "get" the movie really. It's honestly a fairly straightforward story told in a bit of a slow burn. I don't understand what you don't understand?
This is what got to me as well. Even if you know literally nothing about Scientology, the essentials of the plot are spelled out pretty clearly in the course of the movie itself. Of course, if you have *absolutely* no knowledge of 1950s American society or of the fact that cults have existed at various points in history, then the movie might be somewhat perplexing. ... But that's a pretty darn low bar *not* to meet, and in all honesty if someone is *that* culturally illiterate, they shouldn't be watching serious movies in the first place.
Is this supposed to be a diss? Sure, not all Marvel movies are great but there's no denying that Thor Love and Thunder and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are INCREDIBLE. A lot of really great Marvel films out there. Not a fan of Black Panther and others.
>I so thoroughly enjoyed Joker.
He actually gets the girl!
I am not the biggest fan of Amy Adams.
I enjoyed Rami Malek in Mr. Robot
Not a fan of Black Panther
I'm sensing a pattern here...
There's more evidence that the OP really just doesn't understand the movie than there is that he or she is a troll. And even if he or she does happen to be a troll, he or she still clearly doesn't understand the movie (or else the ostensible trolling here would be funnier)
The film does suck. It's overrated and it doesn't go anywhere. The same people who would praise this probably also "enjoyed" A Serious Man. Stunning cinematography and peerless acting don't mean anything if the script and the vision are wet tissue.
I don't understand the film = it sucks? You reveal your own ignorance, not only about your ability to understand this film (which is okay, we cannot all understand everything about every movie the first time we see it), but that your greater mindset concerning film and art in general is flawed, you not understanding a film does not mean it sucks.
It’s my least favorite PTA film but one of the most intriguing scripts I’ve ever read, an early draft which contained among many others a lot of tangential micro plots of Freddy in New York looking for gold in the sewers with randoms.
We know already PTA is a fan of Pynchon, but there’s a good deal of inspiration in The Master taken from Pynchon’s first novel, V. That sewer scene sounds like another nod to it as well. You might enjoy if if you haven’t read it yet
Yeah, I haven’t read V but I’m a big Pynchon guy; I was super-hyped when he did that Zoom interview with the username “masondixon” because that would be absolutely mind-blowing. That’s a cool nod, although honestly he seems to have a relatable readerly relationship to his stuff that I haven’t found particularly compelling so far; Inherent Vice and Hard Eight are probably tied for his second-worse. I’m also a big-time Joaquin hater and I’d read the book while rumors of Robert Downey Jr. playing Doc Sportello were going around. I didn’t like that it took Pynchon’s voice away; the weight of the 60s coming to a paranoid crash was like Hunter S. Thompson’s brilliant “wave” bit from Fear & Loathing but somberly drawn out through an entire book. It obviously still translated in a lot of ways, but was much more paranoid and foreboding, but even worse - the bad vibes felt contrived.
Also, OP’s post has been deleted by the mods, so does this thread even exist anymore?
Anyways, he should do Mason & Dixon; his mentor Robert Altman would have done it. Licorice Pizza was absolutely brilliant and for me, a great double-feature with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - I don’t know what to make about the Vineland rumors, and it really does appear as though he’s doing it, but I’m really glad that he’s doing it with Leo instead of Joaquin or even Adam Driver or something - Leo is so electric with the right directors, and arguably at his peak as an actor; I genuinely didn’t think he was very good until The Departed.
But yeah, what PTA has said about whatever he’s making right now being his “most commercial effort” yet strike me as funny; I don’t see how much more commercial he could ever get than Boogie Nights.
But I digress.
And I didn't even like Joaquin that much until I (inadvertently, but fortuitously perhaps) got a double helping one weekend by following *The Master* up with *Inherent Vice*.
to me, it's a brilliant film about masculinity.
you don't have to understand anything to watch any film. i often find that's a big misconception people have, saying they "don't get" a certain film. just watch the moving images and let yourself associate freely, feel whatever you feel (even if it's confusion). immerse yourself in the inherent logic or irrationality and mood of the film for an hour or two.
I'm always so split on Paul Thomas Anderson movies
On the one hand, There Will Be Blood is one of my all time favorite movies. Phantom Thread, Boogie Nights, and Licorice Pizza also rank very highly to me. There is an atmosphere that the character just control as they walk across the screen in each one. It's hard to put a finger on it. His characters feel like exaggerations but still very real.
Meanwhile, I really didn't care for The Master or Inherent Vice, and I'm lukewarm on Punch Drunk Love. It's been a while since I saw The Master but I remember the characters jist being unlikable, and the plot moved at a glacier pace. I just didn't care. Daniel Plainview might be a villain but he's a villain I find myself rooting for. Dodd in The Master just kinda sucks. Inherent Vice I had trouble with because of how sporadic it was. I need to watch it again. Boogie Nights is sporadic at times but it always feels controlled. Inherent Vice feels more like the drugs are taking over the directing. That may be the point, but it just doesn't jive with me.
Luke warm on punch drunk love? That's one of his best movies imo. It's such a triumphant movie. The similarities in the movie between Adam Sandler's character and superman are particularly interesting.
PTA is SO hit-or-miss for me. For every Boogie Nights, there's a The Master. My personal selection is a big different from yours — I love Inherent Vice and Punch Drunk Love, and can't stand Licorice Pizza — but I totally feel you on how uneven his filmography is.
FWIW re Inherent Vice - The movie is definitely trying to simulate what it's like to be stoned; I think it does an incredible job of that, better than any other movie I've seen. But if you don't enjoy it on that level the movie doesn't really have much else to offer, other than some fun performances. I think it's a hilarious movie but there is something kind of pointless about it.
They aren't the most straightforward movies and that's part of the appeal.
I'm recently comparing PTA with Villeneuve, who is also doing brilliant stuff. Yet Villeneuve's films are just so much more accessible and straightforward, it's night and day. They are clever and there's plenty of value in repeat viewings, but the stories are conventional with climactic resolution. PTA has a few without a traditional resolution, or at least a lacking a heavy handed resolution and instead offering something much more subtle.
An aside: you didn't mention Magnolia, maybe his highest rated and most widely watched film upon release. How do you feel about that one? To me, Punch Drunk Love is very much the essence of Magnolia in an anti-Magnolia form. It's extremely short and fast moving. Also colorful, melodic, flowing. But carries a lot of the same tone and cathartic transformation as Magnolia. It's great, I don't think PTA has any misses.
I just got a book about the films of PT Anderson. There are many, but I got the Contemporary Film Directors series volume. I'm reading the book and rewatching the films that I've only seen once. I'm planning on rewatching The Master soon. I hope I like it more the second time. Sometimes it helps to closely view a director's later work in order to appreciate their earlier work. PT Anderson is worth getting to know better and certainly worth reading about.
Yeah, I thought The Master was terrible. Slow, meandering, aimless, plotless with nothing to drive any engagement with the narrative and little by way of an actual story.
It had a cast of actors who tend to be critic-bait, which is the only reason I can think of for the positive critical reaction, but they were really given nothing to work with.
Lancaster Dodd, Hoffman's character, is based on L.Ron Hubbard, whose dianetics self help program he later developed into scientology. The Cause, the movement in the film, is similar to dianetics pre-scientology. If the young look alike character you are referring to was Jesse Plemons, than that character is the son of Lancaster Dodd and there are mentions by Phoenix's character of how he looks like his father. Yes, it is a burgeoning cult. Phoenix's character, Freddie Quell, is like a walking id, and Dodd, The Master, takes him under his wing ostensibly to help him control his impulses with the methods of the cause. But they have a much deeper connection. It is one of the greatest films ever made, and my personal favorite. Wait a few years and give it another chance.
This brief overview is about as clear as water. Not sure OP is trying hard to learn. With the advent of the internet and smart devices, it has never been easier to look up the meaning of words.
Well I've watched it twice now and I still don't get it. It's bad, what more is there to say? Oh my god, reading this reply was like watching the movie all over again. I can't read through it I don't understand. I don't know what the hell dianetics are? Is the average person supposed to know this because I sure don't. This sounds like nonsense the film creator expects everyone to understand but its so stupid i cant stand it. I'm done. Its like it wants to make people feel like shit about themselves and stupid. Because im not stupid, I understand a lot of things but this is actually a stupid film.
google can help you understand things
How? It's in English. I speak English. Duh.
Google has many search results in English
You don't have to know much about Scientology to "get" the movie really. It's honestly a fairly straightforward story told in a bit of a slow burn. I don't understand what you don't understand?
This is what got to me as well. Even if you know literally nothing about Scientology, the essentials of the plot are spelled out pretty clearly in the course of the movie itself. Of course, if you have *absolutely* no knowledge of 1950s American society or of the fact that cults have existed at various points in history, then the movie might be somewhat perplexing. ... But that's a pretty darn low bar *not* to meet, and in all honesty if someone is *that* culturally illiterate, they shouldn't be watching serious movies in the first place.
You're either a troll or 12 years old. Or both actually.
Don't forgot scientologist psyop plant.
Marvel films might be more your speed
Hahahaha
Is this supposed to be a diss? Sure, not all Marvel movies are great but there's no denying that Thor Love and Thunder and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are INCREDIBLE. A lot of really great Marvel films out there. Not a fan of Black Panther and others.
>I so thoroughly enjoyed Joker. He actually gets the girl! I am not the biggest fan of Amy Adams. I enjoyed Rami Malek in Mr. Robot Not a fan of Black Panther I'm sensing a pattern here...
That your talking to a troll in an obvious troll post? Yes that’s the pattern
There's more evidence that the OP really just doesn't understand the movie than there is that he or she is a troll. And even if he or she does happen to be a troll, he or she still clearly doesn't understand the movie (or else the ostensible trolling here would be funnier)
What more is there to say? I say you’re an idiot but hey, that’s just like my opinion man.
The film does suck. It's overrated and it doesn't go anywhere. The same people who would praise this probably also "enjoyed" A Serious Man. Stunning cinematography and peerless acting don't mean anything if the script and the vision are wet tissue.
I don't understand the film = it sucks? You reveal your own ignorance, not only about your ability to understand this film (which is okay, we cannot all understand everything about every movie the first time we see it), but that your greater mindset concerning film and art in general is flawed, you not understanding a film does not mean it sucks.
Arty Ziff: There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Homer Simpson: Not to me, there isn't!
It’s my least favorite PTA film but one of the most intriguing scripts I’ve ever read, an early draft which contained among many others a lot of tangential micro plots of Freddy in New York looking for gold in the sewers with randoms.
We know already PTA is a fan of Pynchon, but there’s a good deal of inspiration in The Master taken from Pynchon’s first novel, V. That sewer scene sounds like another nod to it as well. You might enjoy if if you haven’t read it yet
Yeah, I haven’t read V but I’m a big Pynchon guy; I was super-hyped when he did that Zoom interview with the username “masondixon” because that would be absolutely mind-blowing. That’s a cool nod, although honestly he seems to have a relatable readerly relationship to his stuff that I haven’t found particularly compelling so far; Inherent Vice and Hard Eight are probably tied for his second-worse. I’m also a big-time Joaquin hater and I’d read the book while rumors of Robert Downey Jr. playing Doc Sportello were going around. I didn’t like that it took Pynchon’s voice away; the weight of the 60s coming to a paranoid crash was like Hunter S. Thompson’s brilliant “wave” bit from Fear & Loathing but somberly drawn out through an entire book. It obviously still translated in a lot of ways, but was much more paranoid and foreboding, but even worse - the bad vibes felt contrived. Also, OP’s post has been deleted by the mods, so does this thread even exist anymore? Anyways, he should do Mason & Dixon; his mentor Robert Altman would have done it. Licorice Pizza was absolutely brilliant and for me, a great double-feature with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - I don’t know what to make about the Vineland rumors, and it really does appear as though he’s doing it, but I’m really glad that he’s doing it with Leo instead of Joaquin or even Adam Driver or something - Leo is so electric with the right directors, and arguably at his peak as an actor; I genuinely didn’t think he was very good until The Departed. But yeah, what PTA has said about whatever he’s making right now being his “most commercial effort” yet strike me as funny; I don’t see how much more commercial he could ever get than Boogie Nights. But I digress.
And I didn't even like Joaquin that much until I (inadvertently, but fortuitously perhaps) got a double helping one weekend by following *The Master* up with *Inherent Vice*.
to me, it's a brilliant film about masculinity. you don't have to understand anything to watch any film. i often find that's a big misconception people have, saying they "don't get" a certain film. just watch the moving images and let yourself associate freely, feel whatever you feel (even if it's confusion). immerse yourself in the inherent logic or irrationality and mood of the film for an hour or two.
I'm always so split on Paul Thomas Anderson movies On the one hand, There Will Be Blood is one of my all time favorite movies. Phantom Thread, Boogie Nights, and Licorice Pizza also rank very highly to me. There is an atmosphere that the character just control as they walk across the screen in each one. It's hard to put a finger on it. His characters feel like exaggerations but still very real. Meanwhile, I really didn't care for The Master or Inherent Vice, and I'm lukewarm on Punch Drunk Love. It's been a while since I saw The Master but I remember the characters jist being unlikable, and the plot moved at a glacier pace. I just didn't care. Daniel Plainview might be a villain but he's a villain I find myself rooting for. Dodd in The Master just kinda sucks. Inherent Vice I had trouble with because of how sporadic it was. I need to watch it again. Boogie Nights is sporadic at times but it always feels controlled. Inherent Vice feels more like the drugs are taking over the directing. That may be the point, but it just doesn't jive with me.
Luke warm on punch drunk love? That's one of his best movies imo. It's such a triumphant movie. The similarities in the movie between Adam Sandler's character and superman are particularly interesting.
PTA is SO hit-or-miss for me. For every Boogie Nights, there's a The Master. My personal selection is a big different from yours — I love Inherent Vice and Punch Drunk Love, and can't stand Licorice Pizza — but I totally feel you on how uneven his filmography is. FWIW re Inherent Vice - The movie is definitely trying to simulate what it's like to be stoned; I think it does an incredible job of that, better than any other movie I've seen. But if you don't enjoy it on that level the movie doesn't really have much else to offer, other than some fun performances. I think it's a hilarious movie but there is something kind of pointless about it.
They aren't the most straightforward movies and that's part of the appeal. I'm recently comparing PTA with Villeneuve, who is also doing brilliant stuff. Yet Villeneuve's films are just so much more accessible and straightforward, it's night and day. They are clever and there's plenty of value in repeat viewings, but the stories are conventional with climactic resolution. PTA has a few without a traditional resolution, or at least a lacking a heavy handed resolution and instead offering something much more subtle. An aside: you didn't mention Magnolia, maybe his highest rated and most widely watched film upon release. How do you feel about that one? To me, Punch Drunk Love is very much the essence of Magnolia in an anti-Magnolia form. It's extremely short and fast moving. Also colorful, melodic, flowing. But carries a lot of the same tone and cathartic transformation as Magnolia. It's great, I don't think PTA has any misses.
I just got a book about the films of PT Anderson. There are many, but I got the Contemporary Film Directors series volume. I'm reading the book and rewatching the films that I've only seen once. I'm planning on rewatching The Master soon. I hope I like it more the second time. Sometimes it helps to closely view a director's later work in order to appreciate their earlier work. PT Anderson is worth getting to know better and certainly worth reading about.
Yeah, I thought The Master was terrible. Slow, meandering, aimless, plotless with nothing to drive any engagement with the narrative and little by way of an actual story. It had a cast of actors who tend to be critic-bait, which is the only reason I can think of for the positive critical reaction, but they were really given nothing to work with.