Roundup: Are we getting too precious about 'The Master?'
Plus: Parsing the Bat's Oscar hopes, and 'Won't Back Down' pushback
Joaquin Phoenix in 'The Master.'
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
As with most works of high-reaching ambition that critics can't quite agree on -- even those that like it -- "The Master" continues to inspire some of the knottiest film writing of the year. For her part, Stephanie Zacharek admires the film, but suggests a lot of her colleagues feel it's entitled to more thought and attention than it really is. She spins that into an observation of lofty, anti-mainstream festival titles in general: "There’s a danger in erecting false walls around different corners of the culture, of claiming some movies deserve our respect by virtue of who made them and of how they’re made, regardless of whether they arouse any passion in us." [The AV Club]
R. Kurt Osenland examines the Oscar prospects for the fast-cooling "The Dark Knight Rises," a concludes that it's only assured of two technical nods. [Slant]
Anne Thompson talks to "Looper" star Emily Blunt about her busy year. (I see Anne's predicting a Supporting Actress nod for Blunt on Gold Derby. First time I've heard that mentioned. [Thompson on Hollywood]
Dave Itzkoff talks to Tim Burton about "Frankenweenie" -- and, generally, what it's like to live in that head. [New York Times]
Speaking of which, "Frankenweenie" writer John August highlights his brief but hilarious musical contribution to the film. [John August]
Quentin Tarantino has given himself a cameo role in "Django Unchained." (Please let the record state that we just mentioned "Django Unchained.") [The Guardian]
Costume designer Tess Schofield talks about getting the period detail just right in the Weinsteins' Down Under Motown musical "The Sapphires." [Sydney Morning Herald]
The would-be inspirational education drama "Won't Back Down" has indeed inspired parents' groups and the American Federation of Teachers... to protest. [THR]
"The Avengers" director Joss Whedon offers six nuggets of wisdom for aspiring filmmakers. [Film School Rejects]
Ahead of "The Sessions"'s UK premiere at the London Film Festival, an in-depth look at the real-life work of sex surrogates. [The Telegraph]
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Matthias Schoenaerts the ensemble standout in overlong period thrillerFriday, May 24, 2013
-
This one looks poised for an awards runThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Amusing moments outweighed by sour notes in minor-key family dramaThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Patricia Highsmith adaptation marks the director's return to the big screenWednesday, May 22, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupDylanS
September 27, 2012 at 9:05AM EST Reply to CommentI've really been bothered by the critical reaction. So many critics discussing as this vague, unintelligible movie that must be so much smarter than all of us, and it's making the critical community look awfully silly and quite thick in the head. The movie isn't all that vague, I think it's actually relatively straightforward thematically, but because Anderson isn't one to underline his points and the film doesn't adhere to a strict structure they act like it's working on levels beyond our comprehension. It's equally frustrating that in spite of the fact they act like the film is so beyond comprehension but still treat it with endless acclaim. If they felt like they didn't understand any of it, why are they showering it with praise. Admiration alone shouldn't take a film that far. If a filmmaker can't properly explain his themes and ideas in a way that a smart, prepared audience can't grasp (I don't think that's actually the case with "Master", but others have acted like it), then he isn't really doing his job properly. Oh, the frustration, it seems like all these critics are just winging it.
Iadge
September 27, 2012 at 9:16AM EST Reply to CommentPlease let the record state that we just mentioned "Django Unchained."
Duly noted, lol.
HoustonRufus
September 27, 2012 at 11:19AM EST Reply to CommentI agree with Zacherek to a degree, though I think she could have argued her point much more effectively. I have not seen The Master yet, so I can't speak to it directly. There have certainly been critically praised films that left me a cold. I expect we've all had that experience. No film, no matter how Great, is universally adored.
Where I do sort of disagree with Zacherek is the suggestion that an ambiguous film fails on some measure. It can mean that. And true, it's a tricky thing for a critic to praise a film that he or she found vague or ambiguous. But ambiguity is a quality in and of itself that can be effective and appropriate, given the context and themes presented. At least for me. There are many different types of films and styles of story-telling. I don't believe every movie has to go down as easy as Premium Rush to be effective. And if I'm still pondering a movie days, weeks, months later, I don't think that means the movie is inherently flawed. I think of all the times I was left puzzled but fascinated by Bergman's films. Part of the fun, for me anyway, was sorting through my thoughts and responses to those films. Was my sometimes confusion because Bergman was a genius and was leading me on some philosophical scavenger hunt? Maybe. Was it because he sometimes was trapped in his own head and failed to deliver his themes with enough clarity? Maybe that, too. Maybe both?
I guess at the end of the day any experience with art is a very personal exercise. So the one point on which I definitely will agree with Zacharek is that as much as I love reading reviews and even enjoy the praise heaped on Anderson's movie, my personal viewing experience will ultimately determine whether or not the movie is successful for me. Ambiguity will be a factor in how I respond, I'm sure, but I can enjoy and even love a movie even if I don't fully understand the director's vision.
DylanS It's a complex issue, no doubt, and I certainly agree that not all films should be so easily digestible. But at the same time, there are clear cut cases where a director is sitting so high and mighty above his audience, treating them like there stupid by going out of his way to create complexity where theres no advantage to doing so, and often the critics will eat that shit up like it's something that should be admired. And their reviews of such films end up feeling like a rabbit hole of meandering, incoherent and contradictory ideas about what the film means. When ambiguity works, the speculation about what it all means has evidence embedded within the film, where in so many cases, the ambiguity and complexity is shallow window-dressing for vacant ideas.
September 27, 2012 at 12:38PM ESTHoustonRufus Well, I look forward to seeing The Master, so I can I can see whether or not I agree that it's the sort of film you present here. :)
September 27, 2012 at 2:30PM ESTweed4504
September 27, 2012 at 1:53PM EST Reply to CommentI don't really get the way certain critics have reacted to The Master. I'm the first to admit that I'm an obsessive Paul Thomas Anderson fan and am one of those guys who thinks of him as the greatest filmmaker of his generation; so many I'm biased.
I certainly don't understand the argument that all films are created equal. They're not. And while I respect the article written by Ms. Zacharek, I just don't see the argument. Certain artists develop a reputation over time and receive a huge amount of acclaim. They've made legitimately great films several times over, often complex and not easily digested. Anderson has become one of those directors. Nearly every film of his has had a number of detractors when the film came out that simply didn't like it or thought certain elements just didn't work (i.e. frogs). Yet over time pretty much every film he's made is now referred to as a modern classic.
So should I go into his films expecting more than I should from, say, Premium Rush? Yes. I should. He's set that standard himself and clearly he's aiming to keep it with The Master. Anderson's next film is a "stoner comedy" based on Thomas Pynchon's novel "Inherent Vice", so maybe that will give us a chance to see how Anderson handle's somewhat lighter material. Part of me thinks he doesn't have it in him to make a straight-up comedy (look at Punch Drunk Love) and the film will be more on the "The Long Goodbye" end of the spectrum rather than "The Big Lebowski."
If we look at our major film artists, people like Bergman or Kubrick, we'll often find that some of their greatest works were misunderstood upon release and only with time developed a new following. Maybe critics who didn't "get" The Master are simply trying to hedge their bets, suspicious that this is a film to be remembered and simply not wanting to be on the wrong side of history. I don't know.
But then I look at the reviews of the film and I just don't see where they are getting their arguments from. I've seen the film twice now and after a first viewing felt like I had a pretty good grasp on everything Anderson was trying to say. I wanted clarification and wanted to see certain things again, so I went back, but the second viewing only enhanced my initial feelings on the deeper meanings of the movie. I've talked to several friends who have seen it as well and we all walked away with roughly the same interpretation. The film isn't really that vague at all, at least to me. It is certainly open to a lot of ways of looking at the central relationship between Dodd and Freddie but the overall themes of the movie seem to be up-front by the end.
I look at someone like Roger Ebert's review, which is basically "It's incredibly well made and the performances are amazing, but I didn't get what it was trying to say." The film does leave a few things open to interpretation, but to knock a film for allowing itself to be a personal Rorschach test for the audience seems strange to me. I don't think there is enough of that in today's cinema and I think we should be encouraging it. These are the same critics who will lambast the lack of creativity and bravery in today's filmmaking, but then when presented with something that isn't always easy to pin down, they reject it.
And I certainly don't understand the argument that it's a "cold" and "distancing" film. I think Freddie and Dodd are two of the more sympathetic characters Anderson has put on screen. They're complex, to be sure, but by the end I am heartbroken by their final group of scenes. They brought me into their world and I walked away feeling like Anderson had a great deal of affection for them as well. They're definitely more sympathetic than Daniel Plainview or Eli Sunday.
I guess I just want to say that I think the film is incredible. You can't please everyone, though. Everyone has their own subjective experiences with the film and that shouldn't be dismissed. I simply don't agree with the argument that every film should be looked at with the same eye. If Bergman or Kubrick released a film tomorrow, I think those deserve more analysis and thought than most of the other films that come out this year. And certain critics I think need to really think about what they saw in The Master before dismissing certain aspects of it that they simply didn't catch or didn't see. The film isn't playing hard-to-get as much as some people are making it out to be. That's just my opinion though. Thanks for reading.
Rashad
September 27, 2012 at 2:16PM EST Reply to CommentThe Master just isn't that good.
Guy Lodge That's not the point. Or a point, really.
September 28, 2012 at 4:13AM ESTRichardA
September 27, 2012 at 2:49PM EST Reply to CommentIt's like that last Charlie Kaufman movie--you know it was great, but didn't really understand it.
Personally, I thought The Master was a great movie. I felt like I was seeing something great. I don't think there's much to take away from the movie, other than some kind of a "love story"--other half of your whole, completing each other, etc.
Such confusion will surely leave the audience cold, but I had the same feeling about There Will Be Blood--great acting, not much to take away from (or who cares whatever it is).
If The Master plays it right, its nominations will come from the critics luv of the movie convincing everyone else should.
Marvin H
September 27, 2012 at 6:54PM EST Reply to CommentI'm a huge fan of PTA - but I just feel that "The Master's third act fell apart. It had me drawn in until the third act's narritive started going all over the place.
Awesome performance's by Pheonix and Hoffman - and I would recommend seeing the film on just those performances alone.
Definetely falls a little short of Anderson's prior work
weed4504 Just out of curiosity, what aspect of the third act fell apart for you? And where do you think the third act begins?
September 27, 2012 at 9:24PM ESTI've just heard this complaint a lot and I'm curious about your take on the third act and what didn't work about it for you?
Laura Stewart Motorcyle scene for me. You feel the film about to end and then it keeps going.
September 27, 2012 at 10:35PM ESTLaura Stewart *motorcycle
September 27, 2012 at 10:35PM ESTweed4504 You're just saying that's where you think it started to drag or that's where you think it should have ended? Because, for me, that wouldn't have been a real ending. Especially since everything after that motorcycle scene basically wraps up the movie and reveals it's (sad and deeply cynical) ending.
September 27, 2012 at 11:23PM ESTM Harris The third act begin in my opinion after Qwell and Dodd got out of jail. The film just dragged to me after this point.
September 28, 2012 at 5:48AM ESTM Harris
September 27, 2012 at 7:04PM EST Reply to CommentI'm a huge fan of PTA - but the third act of "The Master" was not good in my opionion. I was drawn in up until the third act - then the narritive seemed to go all over the place.
I would recomend seeing the film on Hoffman's and Pheonix's performance's alone. They were mezmerizing.
It falls a short of Anderson's prior work in my opionion.
M Harris
September 27, 2012 at 7:08PM EST Reply to CommentSorry for double posting.
Jake G!!!
September 27, 2012 at 9:25PM EST Reply to CommentI will be laughing at you guys when The Dark Knight Rises gets about 8 to 9 nods including Best Picture nod! You can doubt this movie all you want but its that grand, that epic, that much bigger and better than TDK!
Laura Stewart That's not going to happen as much as I wish it would. I admire your enthusiasm though!
September 27, 2012 at 10:31PM ESTasdf
September 27, 2012 at 9:37PM EST Reply to CommentIsn't Zacharek one of the Kaelites who feels the need to give every single DePalma film a good review? Physician heal thyself.
HoustonRufus I'm not sure if she's a "Kaelite," but I definitely hear Kael's influence in this piece, particularly in the emphasis on the audience, as in the mass audience, connecting with film.
September 28, 2012 at 11:40AM ESTLaura Stewart
September 27, 2012 at 10:34PM EST Reply to CommentMuch like TDKR, I felt The Master lost itself in the third act (also could have been that I saw both films for the first time at a late night show) but both have individually lingered in my mind for weeks on end and almost guarantee multiple viewings. I can't complain because there are very very very few filmmakers that are willing and crafty enough to make films like Nolan and Anderson.
Brian Birmingham
September 28, 2012 at 11:42AM EST Reply to Comment“The controversial new movie, “The Master,” is described as a forbidden look into the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. Author Steve Hassan, of “Freedom of Mind,” spoke to the “CBS This Morning: Saturday” co-hosts about the movie and why it’s got Scientologists up in arms.”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421798n&tag=mncol;lst;1
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/5050b42f78c90a6f4a000215
The Freedom of Mind information page on the Church of Scientology can be found here!
http://freedomofmind.com/Info/infoDet.php?id=230&title=Scientology
Info on Steve’s new book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults and Beliefs, can be found here:
http://freedomofmind.com/Media/bookFreedom.php
Brian Birmingham
September 28, 2012 at 11:42AM EST Reply to CommentWrite a comment...“The controversial new movie, “The Master,” is described as a forbidden look into the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. Author Steve Hassan, of “Freedom of Mind,” spoke to the “CBS This Morning: Saturday” co-hosts about the movie and why it’s got Scientologists up in arms.”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421798n&tag=mncol;lst;1
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/5050b42f78c90a6f4a000215
The Freedom of Mind information page on the Church of Scientology can be found here!
http://freedomofmind.com/Info/infoDet.php?id=230&title=Scientology
Info on Steve’s new book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults and Beliefs, can be found here:
http://freedomofmind.com/Media/bookFreedom.php
angryshark
September 29, 2012 at 10:41PM EST Reply to CommentWon't Back Down deserves all the protests in the world. No offense to Davis or Gyllenhaal, but there's an abhorrent agenda behind it. The idea of parents taking over a failing school is mindblowingly idiotic.