P.T. Anderson has come a long way since Hard Eight (1996) and Boogie Nights (1997). With The Master, he demonstrates a maturity in style that goes beyond quick dolly-ins and long, sweeping camera movements, shifting the attention away from his direction and towards the players who make his unconventional story come alive. Without a doubt The Master is a performer's piece, and quite a perplexing one at that. Remaining vague as to character motivation (greed, insanity, lust, love?), Anderson is a master himself at creating expectant tension out of what could easily be considered very boring and non-eventful situations, an achievement mainly made possible by his ability to bring out the best in his actors (and letting the camera roll). The 'processing' scenes pitting Joaquin Phoenix's deeply troubled WWII veteran against Philip Seymour Hoffman's Welles-like cult leader are powerful and satisfyingly disturbing. Phoenix is especially captivating in his hunched-over instability, delivering here what could possibly be his strongest performance to date (although I haven't seen Two Lovers yet). The seeming simplicity of the film's story-line masks a deep complexity that is embodied through its ambivalent, hard-to-sympathize-with characters. This complexity eventually gets transposed to the evolution of the narrative itself, culminating in events that seem to happen out of the blue and with questionable roots as to cause and effect (most notable is the phone in the movie theater scene). By raising more questions than answers (which might be why I've read so many negative comments from viewers), Anderson once again explores the intangible fabric of human nature by stretching the conventional limits of cinematic expectations. While The Master may not appeal to viewers in search of full-on entertainment, it is worth watching for the haunting performances alone (and just when you thought Philip Seymour Hoffman couldn't get any better).
Friday, November 16, 2012
The Master (USA; Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012)
P.T. Anderson has come a long way since Hard Eight (1996) and Boogie Nights (1997). With The Master, he demonstrates a maturity in style that goes beyond quick dolly-ins and long, sweeping camera movements, shifting the attention away from his direction and towards the players who make his unconventional story come alive. Without a doubt The Master is a performer's piece, and quite a perplexing one at that. Remaining vague as to character motivation (greed, insanity, lust, love?), Anderson is a master himself at creating expectant tension out of what could easily be considered very boring and non-eventful situations, an achievement mainly made possible by his ability to bring out the best in his actors (and letting the camera roll). The 'processing' scenes pitting Joaquin Phoenix's deeply troubled WWII veteran against Philip Seymour Hoffman's Welles-like cult leader are powerful and satisfyingly disturbing. Phoenix is especially captivating in his hunched-over instability, delivering here what could possibly be his strongest performance to date (although I haven't seen Two Lovers yet). The seeming simplicity of the film's story-line masks a deep complexity that is embodied through its ambivalent, hard-to-sympathize-with characters. This complexity eventually gets transposed to the evolution of the narrative itself, culminating in events that seem to happen out of the blue and with questionable roots as to cause and effect (most notable is the phone in the movie theater scene). By raising more questions than answers (which might be why I've read so many negative comments from viewers), Anderson once again explores the intangible fabric of human nature by stretching the conventional limits of cinematic expectations. While The Master may not appeal to viewers in search of full-on entertainment, it is worth watching for the haunting performances alone (and just when you thought Philip Seymour Hoffman couldn't get any better).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a great review! I recently saw it for the first time myself and wrote a bit about the visual motifs, but any real worthwhile analysis of story eluded me (and eludes me still) for the reasons you've listed. I agree entirely that the performances were out of this world.
ReplyDelete