The New Classics: The Master
Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 1:00PM 
The Master refuses to elevate the audience above Freddie Quell. In the simplistic version of the film Joaquin Phoenix’s wastrel Freddie Quell would be The Sucker and Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd would be The Fraud and there would be little ambiguity about it. No doubt this version was what many expected when they bought a ticket for Paul Thomas Anderson’s kaleidoscopic spiritual and psychological odyssey. A dynamic that would allow for them to lean back and smugly cluck that they wouldn’t be so easily taken in by such madness.
What Anderson's fictionalized take on the founding of Scientology delivered was something altogether more twisted and obscure. At no point can we be entirely sure what any of the main characters truly believe...
Dodd and Quell are not so much predator and prey but two celestial objects caught in an irregular orbit around each other, alternately drawn in and repelled by the other’s gravity.
Certainly this is what the divisive film’s vocal detractors point to as proof of the film’s emptiness. To them Anderson is merely slapping a hypnotic Jonny Greenwood score on half-formed material in the hope that audiences will attribute deep meaning to its opacity. Jesse Plemons’ Val Dodd might as well be talking about the auteur himself when he wearily remarks of his father, "You know he’s just making this up as he goes along.”
Personally, I believe PTA is a most un-Dodd-like figure in that The Master’s design stands up to and rewards scrutiny. For me, the distance between the audience and the characters is the key to its power and why it lingers in the mind long after the easily digestible version of the story would have dissipated. We’re right in there with Freddie trying to make sense of this world.
The scene that clinches it for me, the one that proves Anderson has total control over the material, arrives 52 minutes into the film.
Scene: Dodd is challenged or "The Ballad of Pig Fuck"
At this point in The Master we might have missed how thoroughly ensconced in a bubble the film has become. It's easy to focus on the positive aspects of Dodd’s leadership out at sea where he is never, ever challenged. It’s not that we’re ever taken in by Dodd. We may be impressed by the charisma with which he delivers his bullshit, but it is always, plainly, bullshit. What’s not so plain is to what degree he believes his own patter. If he knew it to be 100% snake oil could he deliver it with such fevered conviction? And so what about Dodd's bizarre metaphysical claims if his philosophy manages to quiet Freddie’s restless mind? Who but a genuine holy man could muster affection for a creature as wretched as Freddie? A messiah requires a disciple but it's a rare leader to see value in a Freddie Quell.
That bubble bursts in spectacular fashion back on land when John Moore (the late, great Christopher Evan Welch) enters the picture.
The film is approaching the halfway mark by the time a voice from the corner interrupts Dodd’s live "processing" demonstration and gives us everything the film has been withholding up to that point. Moore doesn’t merely scoff at Dodd’s preposterous hyperbole (he has apparently claimed his methods could cure leukemia) but shockingly he drops the word “Cult” a term we might have expected the film to tiptoe around, like the way The Godfather avoided “mafia”. After Dodd's bluster gets him nowhere his jovial mask slips revealing the petulant demagogue beneath and Hoffman gets to fire off one of the most glorious expletives in the annals of cinematic profanity.
With this quick taste of that low-hanging fruit, Anderson shows he could easily write the direct assault on Scientology many anticipated. But Anderson has no intention of making it so easy for us. The questions persist. To what degree does Dodd buy into his own scam? And what of that flash of murder in Amy Adams’ eyes. Is that the look of a ruthless con artist or the enraged zealot? Can both coexist? Whatever profiteering the Dodds engage in is kept offscreen.
Most interesting during the confrontation scene is Freddie. It’s alarming for Freddie to see Dodd sink to his level of vulgarity because he needs Dodd to be the real deal. Yet prior to Moore’s interruption, Freddie couldn't have looked more bored with Dodd’s endless bloviating performance. When he reacts violently against Moore it’s because he’s reflecting Freddie’s own doubts back at him. Freddie might be feral but he’s not stupid.
Follow Michael on Twitter and Letterboxd. More episodes of The New Classics.
Reader Comments (19)
Great analysis,this scene made me really sit up,Adams who recieved flack is actually better than I remembered on a rewatch,PSH what a loss.
I struggle with this movie so hard.
On the one hand, it features some of the best acting of the past twenty years in American cinema.
On the other, I can’t make heads or tails of its kaleidoscopic narrative. I’m a fan of PTA’s work (particularly Magnolia, There Will Be Blood and Phantom Thread) but this film still feels out of reach for me. Every opportunity it begins to offer me as a way in, it suddenly does an about face and I’m left on the outside, marveling at the craftsmanship but cold to the rest.
I will say, to its credit, there’s nothing else like it.
This film is basically perfect in almost every aspect, and it isn't even close to being my favorite PTA film. I'm a huge "PTA stan" obvs. Just watched it again recently, and of course it holds up stronger with each viewing. (fun fact--much of the film was shot around Vallejo CA where I was living at the time....tho missed any and all PTA/PSH/JP/AA/Dern sightings)
This movie definitely lingers in the mind. I really love it. Hoffman and Phoenix are absolutely brilliant and play off each other perfectly. I know Phoenix never stood a chance against the juggernaut that was Day-Lewis that year but he totally deserved the Oscar win imo. Hoffman too.
I don't love this film but Phoenix is amazing in it and it's blow-your-mind beautiful to look at.
I love this movie and I think it contains Joaquin Phoenix's greatest performance. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are no slouches either, providing excellent support. The whole thing is shot beautifully too!
Jesse Plemons looks like PHS natural born child
Great post!
Just going to leave this spoof of the processing scene with Alfred the lion over here...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=QSayQiVlOZQ
Agree. Amy is better on rewatch. A way more interesing wife than let's say Sally Field.
Joaquin should have won for this movie. DDL is overrated.
This cries out for a rewatch ! I remember being absolutely mesmerised by Phoenix & Hoffmans chess like masterstrokes and routed for both on Oscar night. I enjoyed Phoenix interesting take more then Day-Lewis (undeniable wonderful). And if I compare Hoffmans tremendous fine-tuned work with Waltz 2nd win for literally a pretty similar performance he gave in his former Tarantino win... leaves me simply baffled ...WHY did that happen - probably because all supporters had an Oscar already ??? Adams was pretty bland in my recollection - so these comments made me curious !
Although I'm not completely idiotic and also acknowledge that Field would also be superior to the winner that year.
This should’ve been Joaquin’s Oscar, not Joker
This is a beautifully written piece, great work. The best compliment I can give, though, it is that it made me want to revisit The Master as soon as I can. The film left me cold originally, but your writing is beckoning me to re-examine my feelings about the feature.
Mark - Thanks!
Peggy Sue - Agree about Amy growing on rewatch, although I kind of get why she's so divisive. Even in such a withholding film, it's the most withholding element. Adams isn't giving away a thing. Gutsy as hell, that performance.
Martin - Waltz's win remains completely inexplicable to me, and I'm actually a bigger fan of the performance than most. My vote would go Hoffman, but since that was never in the cards, Jones would have been the obvious choice.
Claudio - Thank you, sir. I find it cold at times too, but something about the place it chooses to leave Freddie in the end retroactively lends the whole movie warmth.
Michael, great writing as always. I am a huge fan of yours. But respectfully I have to digress on The Master. When Jesse Plemons says that line, he's not talking about Dodd. He's talking about Anderson. The script, structure and story of the movie screams of a flagrant randomness at every turn that just cannot be ignored. Anderson is trying desperately to impart some meaning to this mess, but it just does not happen. There is a depressing hollowness at the center of The Master that no amount of deep hopeful searching can ever eradicate.
Sincere thanks, brookesboy. Both for the compliment and for the articulate comment.
I am so fascinated by this film, I just love the discussion of it, no matter what the opinion. I think I'd watch a documentary about it in the Room 237 mold with people just trying to understand it, even if they reach the conclusion, like you did, that there's no there there.
Thank you, Michael, for your lovely reply. I love your idea of a documentary about the varied response to the movie. It's fascinating how strongly folks differ on the film. Netflix needs to get on that project LOL.
"The Master" is top-tier PTA. Absolutely loved it! Would have been perfectly content with its three actors winning Oscars over DDL (loved "Lincoln," but wouldn't this have been preferable to "Joker" for Phoenix"? At least DDL least already had two wins), Hathaway (give Adams the win already!), and Waltz (who was at best fourth). This one REALLY makes you miss PSH. RIP LEGEND.