Any new Paul Thomas Anderson movie (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood) is an event in certain circles, the film critic equivalent of a new Marvel Comics movie. His latest follows a troubled WWII veteran (Joaquin Phoenix, sensationally animalistic yet nuanced) who feels adrift when he returns home, but falls in with Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, controlled and mysterious), the leader of a new spiritual movement that has some parallels to Scientology. [The filmmakers are adamant that this is NOT based off the beginnings of Scientology, and maybe it isn’t, even if there are parallels they’re really beside the point.]
This is a film (and it really feels more like a novel) that will either fascinate or bore you to tears, and it will all depend on how often you go to the movies and why you go. There are those of us who watch more movies than there are weeks in the year, who really get tired of watching the same movie over and over again with different faces, but many people don’t feel that way…and they’d be just as happy at Resident Evil 15 this past weekend. That’s not a judgment (necessarily), it’s just admitting that they’re more interested in their adrenal glands being engaged at the movies than their brain. A movie that gives them a certain experience (like junk food) immediately as they’re consuming it, but they can’t fully remember a couple days later. The Master——if you let it——can reach out from the screen, grab you, and last for days. It’s the rare movie that’s better to me today, days after seeing it, than it was minutes after leaving the theater.
What Works: What P.T. Anderson has done is so tricky and revolutionary, many reviewers are missing it: He’s taken a classical approach (1950’s setting, beautiful cinematography that has every frame feeling like a crisp postcard into that era) with big themes (dislocation, war, religion, the need to follow and the need to believe, and what happens to your mind when you can’t do either one) and made it all intensely personal. He’s made an epic movie that revolves almost entirely around the psychology of the two main characters. It’s like a Terrence Malick movie that actually allows characters, and the dueling/dancing performances of Phoenix (the rebellious and fiercely loyal student) and Hoffman (you guessed it, “the Master”) are knockouts in such drastically different ways that it’s difficult to say which one is better.
But why pick? Why not just enjoy them both? Even people who hate this movie (and there will be many who do) will admit there are two strong performances at the center of it. [But, again, not everyone goes to the movies to see “strong performances” and they would think Clint Eastwood playing Clint Eastwood in Trouble with the Curve is acting that’s just as good.]
The scene where Hoffman grills Phoenix for the first time (this religion’s version of a confession) is the best cinematic example I’ve ever seen of the promise and breakthroughs that religion can provide to people. By allowing such a moment where we can so easily see why Phoenix would be drawn to Hoffman’s teachings, the movie is doing something much braver (and more honest) than painting The Cause as an obvious fraud. A lesser movie would have dismissed it as a cult outright, but this one shows you why it’s so hard to walk away from.
What Doesn’t Work: The movie uses Anderson’s signature style of letting long, seemingly-tranquile takes explode into quirky anger (anytime Hoffman snaps it feels more humorous than genuine), but this is the first time where I felt that was somewhat immature on Anderson’s part. He has made an almost entirely still yet deeply probing movie, but he keeps adding false bits of tension that never really climax. You feel there’s always something bubbling right underneath the surface of what’s happening, and certainly beneath the surface of its time bomb lead character, but it’s never allowed to fully form. At least, that seems to be the general consensus…However…
I really admired a “cult” movie that doesn’t end in a bloodbath and takes the road less traveled, but a lot of other reviewers have grumbled that the film feels anti-climatic and never really builds to anything conclusive. But, I would argue that it never draws any full conclusions about exactly how dangerous its religion and leading character are because the mystery is a huge part of the draw with anything spiritual. Its out to capture the factual mysticism (they answer the unknowable, telling you what happens when you die in a way you can believe but never prove) that all religions sell, and the real point is that Phoenix’s drifting character (the first shot is of him at sea…a place he never really leaves) isn’t at home in this world.
What I Would Have Done Differently: This film will be analyzed, picked apart, gone over, and will look entirely different to different people. The themes are deep enough that I’ve probably missed some and have only recently discovered others. To change any of it is premature since I feel like it’s an “iceberg movie,” one that is only somewhat visible while you’re looking at it, with much more to see the deeper you go.