JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX Review

They say the art of originality is knowing how to hide your sources but if you saw the first Joker film you know writer/director Todd Phillips has no qualms about sharing his sources. Interestingly enough, it would seem the basis of Phillips' foray into the world of his titular character was not only to make something in the vein of some of his own inspirations but also to tell a story of inspiration itself while somehow crafting a film that doesn't feel the least bit inspiring. "They" AKA Shakespeare also stated that “all the world's a stage” and it is this divide within the psyche of our main character who so badly desires to be the center of attention - the main character of his own story if not others as well - yet is unable to necessarily stand out without doing something drastic that hangs over Phillips' follow-up. It is this coming to terms with his actual mediocrity that pains Joaquin Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck to the extent he doesn't know which side of himself to turn to in the aftermath of killing five people (actually six) - one of which was live on national television. As lost as Fleck seems to be it would appear the same could be said for Joker: Folie à Deux, the sequel to the billion-dollar-earning and Oscar-winning 2019 film, at least over the course of its first hour. 

On the one hand, Phillips is keen on making a film that so subverts expectations that it doesn't allow itself to fall into any trappings audiences might expect from a typical sequel. The desire to subvert going so far as to cause the filmmaker to claim this is a musical, but this is true only in so far as the characters sometimes burst into sing-songs that further highlight their emotions in ways intended to deepen our understanding of these aforementioned psyches yet these moments never transcend the reality or develop into full-on musical numbers. The splitting of hairs between avoiding the obvious path of a Joker sequel and committing to being something else entirely give the result an unbalanced feeling; as if the ambition and desire are present but the passion to execute is not. Somehow, this identity crisis becomes the main text of the film which is an interesting idea yet in addition to feeling unbalanced the film also becomes something of a tedious experience where the overarching intent is never quite clear. The film even going so far as to acknowledge how much the Arthur character wanted to do what the audience expected him to do, for him to give them the Joker they're begging for, but instead simply admits he could no longer carry on the facade, essentially coming clean about his state of mind during the murders and how desperate he is to begin anew - conveying to the audience and more specifically, the fanbase, that they may want to do the same. Admirable, bold even, but not always entertaining.

NAPOLEON Review

There is something very 2004 about Ridley Scott's Napoleon in that it is first and foremost a large historical epic that one might have expected Scott to cash in his Gladiator chips on (it's also he and Joaquin Phoenix's first collaboration since), but more so because it shows no obvious signs of CGI saturation (aside from a few extras in a single battle sequence and a horse carcass) and when combined with Scott's wiggle room to get a little weird here and there it felt at times as if I were back in high school seeing a movie my dad would have been excited for on Thanksgiving break rather than the Apple Studios produced, long in gestation project it became that at times seemed unattainable and unfortunately sometimes still feels as much throughout its execution. The context with which one views Napoleon might be more critical to its reception (as is true with most expectations) than in most cases; the point in this instance being that there are multiple options for which to go into this. Knowing a little or a lot are always available, but knowing Scott has already discussed a lengthier version of the film immediately implies this is something of a CliffsNotes version of what he intended to make. Granted, the life of Napoleon Bonaparte is something one either takes at wholesale or investigates individually given the breadth of history the man was directly involved in and responsible for shaping, but Scott tries to have his cake and eat it too resulting in what is currently a nearly three-hour experience that still feels abbreviated.

JOKER Review

Joker is no The Dark Knight, but much like in Christopher Nolan's second Batman film, the music in writer/director Todd Phillips' origin story about the Clown Prince of Crime plays as critical a role as any living, breathing human character. The score in Joker is so critical in fact, that Joaquin Phoenix's titular character breaks into dance at multiple points in the movie; the music and movement serving as an expression of certain emotions Phoenix's Arthur Fleck is otherwise unable to convey. The first time Arthur kills another person he actually ends up killing three people and though it could be argued the first two were in self-defense, the third death was not only unnecessary, but it is one Arthur seeks out and is determined to have for his own sense of satisfaction. Naturally, Arthur flees the scene for fear of being caught, but once he dumps the weapon and composes himself he slowly begins to move his feet as if a ballet dancer practicing the battement tendu position. As Arthur's arms move into second position composer Hildur Guðnadóttir's score begins to swell and these chords and motions only serve to amplify the liberation the character feels. Liberation of one's self after taking another's life is certainly dark, but it also isn't anything we haven't seen from comic book characters-especially villains-before and Joker certainly isn't the last time we'll see it either. What is it then, that makes this specific instance of revenge from a man beaten down by society both so egregious and compelling as has been highly documented in the cultural response to the film? Is it that Arthur Fleck's trajectory resembles that of any number of mass shooting culprits? This seems a given, yes, but more it is the level of joy-and not only joy-but satisfaction that Arthur and his eventual alter ego come to gain from the act that has incited concern over both the portrayal and promotion of such a man. Sure, Phillips and Phoenix have intentionally crafted as gritty, raw and grounded a movie as any film inspired by comic books has dared to be and in that type of portrayal there is inherent shock to be found (you saw The Boys, right?), but while Joker and its screenplay wrestle with what exactly it's trying to say it stands to make a statement about how this product of certain circumstance inspires a man to become what he believes necessary to remedy others from those same, undesirable circumstances. That's not to say he's right, but what is maybe most unsettling about the film and Phoenix's performance is that Arthur believes he is. 

MOVIES I WANNA SEE MOST: FALL 2019

Per usual, there are a lot of things to be excited for this fall at the movies. I'd like to state up front that when I say "fall" in terms of movie-going seasons that "fall" will be defined as beginning next week, the first weekend of September, through to the end of the year. This actually makes it more difficult to narrow down my most anticipated releases into a short ten as there are releases the first three weeks of September that I've been looking forward to the majority of the year, but I’ll hold off on those until I actually get to the list. Furthermore, I want to provide some context for this list by stating that the ten movies I’ve picked are the ten movies I would want to see most if I could only see ten more movies for the remainder of the year; if I were only allowed to enter a theater ten more times in 2019 these are the ten I would pick to see on those visits. Sure, there are things like Terminator: Dark Fate, Zombieland: Double Tap, the new Jumanji film and Frozen II that I’m excited for and interested to see for one reason or another, but if I don’t know that any of those would necessarily make the cut if it were an absolute scenario such as the one I'm putting myself in for the sake of widdling down the release schedule to the ten titles I'm actually most anticipating. What I do want to do first though, is go through some of the movies that aren’t going to make my list, but that I think deserve to be highlighted as they have a lot of promise and one can only hope they turn out to be as fantastic as they look.

Final Trailer for JOKER Starring Joaquin Phoenix

Joaquin Phoenix enters the super hero genre with what is probably the only role he could ever have entered the genre with: the Joker. While Phoenix was a ripe thirty-four in 2008 and could have more than capably played this same role in Chistopher Nolan's groundbreaking The Dark Knight it is hard to argue anything less than kismet that Heath Ledger took that role and now eleven years later Phoenix is working with a filmmaker more his speed in a film solely dedicated to the character. Despite his films typically receiving more negative press than unanimous praise, I've been a fan of director Todd Phillips since he knocked me out with a double dose of Frat Pack greatness in 2003 and 2004 with Old School and Starsky & Hutch before going on to become better known for The Hangover trilogy. While that trilogy may have become more and more mediocre over the course of three films in terms of story, they vastly improved Phillips' cinematic eye while the filmmaker's subversive take on the material at least led to interesting outlets. And while the character of the Joker arguably will suffer more than he might prosper from an origin story, with a screenplay by Phillips and Scott Silver (The Fighter) along with a cast that features the likes of not only Phoenix, but Robert De Niro, Brian Tyree Henry, Zazie Beetz, Shea Whigham, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Marc Maron, Bill Camp and Bryan Callen it's hard to argue one isn't at least intrigued by the promise if not excited by the idea. Furthermore, can we emphasize the cinematic eye of Phillips and how it has only continued to grow with what we see in this final trailer? The seventies-set New York crime drama feels visceral in a way that transcends the legacy of the character making it feel that Joker, like The Dark Knight, will simply be a strong genre film that just so happens to also feature characters inspired by comic books. This is easily my most anticipated film of the year and it will be hard to forgive all those seeing it early on the film festival circuit as us general movie-goers have to wait another month until Joker hits theaters on October 4th, 2019.

Teaser Trailer for JOKER Starring Joaquin Phoenix

Joaquin Phoenix enters the super hero genre with what is probably the only role he could have ever entered into the genre with: the Joker. While Phoenix was a ripe thirty-four in 2008 and could have more than capably played this same role in Chistopher Nolan's groundbreaking The Dark Knight it is hard to argue anything less than kismet that Heath Ledger took that role and now eleven years later Phoenix is working with a filmmaker more his speed in a film solely dedicated to the character. Despite his films typically receiving more negative press than unanimous praise, I've been a fan of director Todd Phillips since he knocked me out with a double dose of Frat Pack greatness in 2003 and 2004 in Old School and Starsky & Hutch before going on to become better known for his Hangover trilogy. While that trilogy may have become more and more mediocre over the course of three films in terms of story, they vastly improved Phillips' cinematic eye while the filmmaker's subversive take on the material at least led to interesting outlets. And while the character of the Joker arguably will suffer more than he might prosper from an origin story, with a screenplay by Phillips and Scott Silver (The Fighter) along with a cast that features the likes of not only Phoenix, but Robert De Niro, Brian Tyree Henry, Zazie Beetz, Shea Whigham, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Marc Maron, Bill Camp, and Bryan Callen it's hard to argue one isn't at least intrigued by the promise if not excited by the idea. Furthermore, can we emphasize the cinematic eye of Phillips and how it has only continued to grow with what we see in this trailer? The seventies-set New York crime drama feels visceral in a way that transcends the legacy of the character almost and places him in the real context where it seems possible a true clown prince of crime could truly rise from. This is also very clearly a much, much darker movie than other DC films like Aquaman and Shazam!, as it will seemingly stand apart from the rest of the pack as a one-off character study rather than contributing any narrative strands to the larger DCEU. Joker is set to open in theaters on October 4th, 2019.

MOVIES I WANNA SEE MOST: 2019

With a new year we are brought many a new prospects for our entertainment purposes and in looking forward to 2019 one thing is more than clear and that is the fact audiences will have an abundance of interesting material to choose from. In setting out to make a most anticipated list I actually began with some fifty-something films I found interesting or knew I'd care to see based solely on surface factors such as director, cast members, or synopsis. It pains me that movies like John Crowley's follow-up to Brooklyn, Goldfinch, won't get acknowledged here nor will James Mangold's Ford v. Ferrari, Danny Boyle's Beatles project, or Joe Wright's The Woman in the Window, but that is the way these things work. That is without mentioning the long list of blockbusters that won't appear here-including Glass, Shazam!, Captain Marvel, John Wick: Chapter 3, The Lion King, and the Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sequel-as I'm certainly excited to see what each of those deliver, but am not anticipating any with the fervor my top ten bring.

IRRATIONAL MAN Review

In Woody Allen's annual mid-year release we have a typical, late-era Woody Allen film that is more shrug-worthy than anything since the two forgettable cushions on either side of 2011's Midnight in Paris. Every few years the insanely consistent writer/director will deliver something more substantial, something truly affecting, but more times than not we get something akin to what we have this year in Irrational Man. Since becoming rather invested in the art of watching films I have returned to the essential Allen in order to be hip to my craft (Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters), but I've probably been reading about Allen's films since Small Time Crooks (2000) and seeing them in theaters since Paris (2011). Since I've been catching them on a regular basis in their theatrical run though, I've only purchased two that I felt were worth revisiting those being Paris and 2013's Blue Jasmine. It's hard to find much motivation to return to Allen's films because they each more or less offer the same things. There is some philosophizing about a certain area of life under a certain set of character induced circumstances that typically ends up dealing with existentialism in one way or another. This type of conversation and discussion can certainly be interesting, but because of these tendencies Allen's films themselves are more interesting to talk about than they are to actually experience. It's hard to even call Allen's films an experience as they are more lectures than anything else, but every once in a while you actually take something away from them. With Irrational Man though, the only things I took away were that Emma Stone is in fact Allen's latest muse and that Joaquin Phoenix is trying really hard to let us know he put on a pot belly for this role (admittedly among other, deeper things). Whether the point of Phoenix's character being a philosophy professor signals Allen is getting one step closer to just sitting down and filming himself talk for an hour and half on a certain subject, we'll have to wait and see, but more than any time over the last four years I felt like time and age were beginning to catch up the auteur.

First Trailer for Woody Allen's IRRATIONAL MAN

While I still have much catching up to do when it comes to Woody Allen's filmography I have enjoyed taking a trip to the movies over the last four years in order to see what the prolific writer/director has in store for us. Beginning with Midnight in Paris it has been a hit then miss type of pattern as I next saw To Rome With Love, then Blue Jasmine and of course last year was Magic in the Moonlight featuring what looks to be the beginning of another string of collaborations with a talented young actress as Emma Stone returns in Allen's feature this year after starring alongside Colin Firth in Moonlight. This time though, Stone will star in a more contemporary tale centered around an alcoholic, melancholy philosophy professor (Joaquin Phoenix) who strikes up a unique friendship with one of his students played by Stone. While this might be seen as a storyline many viewers will be able to separate from Allen's real life experiences the first trailer makes things seem as if the relationship that develops between Phoenix and Stone's characters might not be purely romantic, but instead hold a strangely unique aspect to it. In fact, the inclusion of Parker Posey and the seeming dynamic between her character and Phoenix's make this film all the more intriguing. Both Phoenix and Stone have been on something of a role as of late, choosing roles that truly challenge them and I'm hoping these roles were taken for the same reasons and not only for the opportunity of working with Allen. We shall see when Irrational Man opens on July 17th.

INHERENT VICE Review

They say the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you agree with that line of thinking than you will likely be disappointed in the latest from director Paul Thomas Anderson. At nearly two and a half hours, it is a mess of a masterpiece that begs for you to dissect every scene and every line of dialogue as well as how the actor speaking a said line conveys the meaning of their dialogue. Do we place this kind of importance on the film because it does indeed come from a filmmaker with the unique status of Anderson? If it came from a lesser known director would the awaiting audience be as accepting? It's hard to say and it hardly matters because no one else would ever make films like the ones Anderson crafts. Like his other six features, Inherent Vice is wholly a concoction of the directors singular voice and style. From Boogie Nights to There Will Be Blood and Magnolia to The Master Anderson has demonstrated an eclectic range that gives each new film a dynamic all its own. It has always been clear his sentiment is slightly off-kilter, but he has never made anything as loopy or goofy as what we have here and somehow it seems as if this is the truest representation of the person Anderson actually is. As much as Inherent Vice fits perfectly into Anderson's diverse filmography it is the way he has approached the project that stands out more than anything, maybe even more than the finished product itself. Set in Gordita Beach, California in the summer of 1970 as Vietnam rages on and the sixties come to a screeching halt the director infuses his film with this aesthetic by consistently relying on the style of limited camera movement and the framing of shots to capture specific angles that immediately conjure up references to films of the time period in which his film is set. From the attention to detail to the technicolor texture of the images and more forward to the seemingly blind, but no doubt highly calculated preciseness of not seeming to give two shits Anderson delivers a film that, on the surface, seems to make little sense at all. And yet, as one begins to dig deeper and break down the whole of the film into single scenes, individual moments and certain pieces of dialogue it somehow makes more sense even if that bigger picture is all but lost. While Inherent Vice isn't and won't be hailed as Anderson's greatest work, it is easy to see it becoming the one his loyal fans end up returning to most often.

First Trailer for Paul Thomas Anderson's INHERENT VICE

It seemed as if we would never get a trailer for the latest Paul Thomas Anderson contraption, Inherent Vice, but now that we have it seems its over two month away release date will take forever to get here. I had no idea what to expect from this adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel and knew little about it other than the summary of said book. Given that, I was beyond anxious to dive into the trailer and upon first glance this couldn't be a better mix of everything I hoped it would be considering the style in the stills we'd seen up to this point and an unexpected comic tone that seems in line with Anderson's natural instincts. I love the look of the trailer (Anderson re-teams with cinematographer Robert Elswit after The Master) and I assume he is again shooting on 65 mm film using the Panavision System 65 camera. It gave The Master such sweeping, epic scope and even on your computer screen you can see the depth of some of the shots here. Besides the excitement that comes along with a first glimpse at footage from a new PTA film there is also the brilliant cast he has in place here that is on full display. Joaquin Phoenix re-teams with the director for his second go- around, but this time as drug-fueled detective Larry "Doc" Sportello. The remainder of the cast features Josh Brolin (getting a nice bit in the trailer), Owen Wilson, Katherine Waterston, Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Toro, Martin Short, Jena Malone and Joanna Newsom. Inherent Vice opens in limited release on December 12th before going wide on January 9, 2015.

Movies I Wanna See Most: Fall 2014

I never much consider it, but I don't know that I could make a list of ten of my favorite films at this point in the year yet. I don't know if there have been enough, but I imagine I could pull some of those I really enjoyed but didn't necessarily come to think of as exceptional onto the list and be satisfied. I say this because as I began to put together my most anticipated list for this fall and winter I began to realize that if my hopes and excitement for each of these films pays off in the way I hope it does, this could just as well be a list of my favorite films of the year. That may seem a simple conclusion to draw given these are the ten films I'm most excited to see the remainder of the year, but what I mean to say is that I think the following films I'm most excited about have the potential to surpass anything I've already seen this year. Having done this a few years now though it becomes apparent there will always be a few of these films that ultimately don't move you or live up to the ambition their early marketing suggested. It always feels like a good majority of these films are still largely mysteries despite the fact the longest length of time between now and the last release on the list is four months.

THE IMMIGRANT Review

The Immigrant is one of those films that is completely mediocre in terms of how it makes you feel when it's over and the impression it leaves on you, but is dressed up so fancy in period decoration and costume as well as high-caliber talent that it would like you to gloss over the fact it's completely average in favor of the hat trick it was able to pull in making you think it might actually be something exceptional. There is no reason to think it wouldn't be anything of the sort as it sports a leading Joaquin Phoenix performance, something you only seem to get these days if you have something specifically special for the actor, yet here Phoenix seems to be trying to make something out of nothing for the most part and is more than likely doing this as a favor for frequent collaborator James Gray (We Own the Night, Two Lovers) while the rest of the cast that makes up the leading trio is either hardly given anything to do (Jeremy Renner, also trying hard and only coming off more successful because his character is more pleasant) or is Marion Cotillard who typically signals truly sophisticated cinema, but here turns out to be nothing more than a one-note performer that we're agitated by and therefore unable to sympathize with at all. As I sit here and write about The Immigrant I'm confronted with the fact that I went into this not knowing what to expect really in terms of what kind of cinematic experience it would be, but as with most films I based expectations on credentials and this films in particular are golden. Phoenix all but swore off acting after Gray's last film and that was an interesting little drama that played with the tone of the film matching the tone of life as it walked the fine line between lighter, more comedic moments and the inherent drama present in the situation, but while that film felt balanced and purposeful The Immigrant is a complete melodrama that can't even match the interesting aspects of its exaggerated characters for the length of its running time. All of that said, I was never really bored and there is obviously potential with where this story could have gone, but it recesses too often and wastes so much talent on hand that I can't help but see this final product as little more than average and disappointing as opposed to what could have been.

TOP 15 OF 2013

2013 was a pretty great year for film. As I've grown accustomed to ranking films on a five-star system I've realized how differently we approach each movie and how that rating reflects how well the film achieved the goals it was intended to meet. Four stars has become the standard for the above average film, ones with exceptional qualities that make them better than anything else playing at the given moment. There were a ton of four-star ratings this year and many of them even came in the midst of the summer movie season which I have been able to re-visit now and have verified that rating was worthy of most, especially films like The Great Gatsby, World War Z and The Fast and Furious 6. I would have liked to include more on the list, as there were so many above average to really good flicks this year, but I already expanded the article to what I would call fifteen of the best films I saw this year and I hate to expand the list further than that to weaken the value of the ones that do make it. I try to mix it up and keep as many small, indie films in there as much as big studio fare that tend to defy there stereotype and deliver something substantial. I really enjoyed Side Effects, Pain & Gain, Blue Jasmine, Dallas Buyer's Club and The East and in a lesser year you would see them ranked here. Then there were of course animated films like Frozen and Monsters University that played really well and I enjoyed, but not to the point I felt they earned a place on a year-end list. We also have awards bait such as Her and American Hustle or the two black and white front-runners on many lists this year, Nebraska and Frances Ha, all of which I enjoyed well enough but didn't think of them as exceptional pieces of work or understood what the hype was about surrounding each of them. You could also lump Before Midnight in that category as I appreciate what those films do and how well constructed and written they are, but I don't necessarily get what all the fuss is about. 42, Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, Out of the Furnace, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom and even Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues are all well deserving of a mention here, but with such stiff competition it was going to be difficult to carve out a spot and Ron Burgundy knows I have a special place in my heart for him. 2013 was a great year for films, but the ones I have chosen to put on my list are the ones that I could watch over and over again or left an impression on me I wasn't able to shake and needed to see again, immediately, to confirm the legacy they will leave. So, without further adieu...

HER Review

For the first hour of Her I couldn't decide what I was watching; I couldn't figure it out, I couldn't follow the hype. I understood the acuteness under which director Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Where the Wild Things Are) was operating and I could see why it was easy for the hipster crowd to so easily jump on board with the flick because our main character, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), seemed to very much be a hipster himself jumping on the latest technology and style trends with his belly button-high pants. What was perplexing me though was the way in which the film has seemed to entrance everyone else and not just those hoping to be in touch with their own spectacled intellectual, but those who aren't desperate contrarians or what you would necessarily call progressive and seem to have a balanced understanding of the value in both large and small scale filmmaking. The strange thing here is that despite Her having the ideals and philosophies of a small, independent film it looks magnificent, as if it were operating with a fairly large special effects budget. The ethereal atmosphere in which these characters exist, though obviously in the not too distant future, actually feels like a plausible place that we as a society might reach. I drank the Hoyte Van Hoytema cinematography in with wonder and the China serving as Los Angeles locations only re-enforced the color scheme and scope with which Jonze was able to convey the mood and minuteness of our main character. We take Theodore as a surrogate of Jonze as it is evident from the opening speech in which Theodore shuffles through his thoughts on what it must be like to share your life with the same person for half a century and that we are not only getting a love story, but an examination of love as an emotion and how it transcends everything else in our existence to ultimately become every persons main point of focus and fulfillment. If we don't have loved ones what have we done to make this life worthwhile? If we don't have people who care about us, what will allow us to live on after we're gone? Questions we've no doubt asked ourselves plenty of times before, but Her looks to take them, throw in a little social commentary, and inevitably come to an epiphany not about the technology at the center of the film, but the emotion that continues to define the satisfaction of our being.

THE MASTER Review

There are several different seeds for several different ideas going on within Paul Thomas Anderson's latest, The Master. By the end of the film you will likely even find yourself wondering what exactly the point of it all was, if there was a point at all. Of course there is a point, as perplexing or scatterbrained as it may sometimes seem, there is most certainly a point. The problem Anderson faces and has likely always faced is in bringing to the screen a platform where he can play with the ideologies, philosophies or spiritual ideas and questions floating around in his head. The problem I've had in dealing with this is that I haven't first become as accustomed to Anderson's work as I might like. I have seen all of his previous films, some even more than once, but none within recent enough memory to where I can recall what their influences might be on this latest work. Though the visual style is elevated even from his last acclaimed masterpiece, There Will Be Blood, the story seems more in line with the questions the director was asking himself around the time of Magnolia. The film should be taken on its own terms despite the fact it will always be part of the Anderson canon and constantly compared to his previous and forthcoming films. This may be the reason I decided not to go back and re-watch even the two aforementioned films. I needed to take in The Master with a clean slate, forget what everyone was saying about it, dismiss the hype even and let the movie play out in front of me with no preconceived notions of what I wanted it to be. Walking out of the film I was more than just satisfied with the final product, but completely fascinated by what I'd just experienced. It was certainly a summary, a concentration of many ideas with no certain answers, but it was also something much more than that. It was an experience to take in and one I don't think I've ever had in a movie theater before.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) does time as an in-store photographer before moving on to his next job.

If one does not typically go out of there way to notice smaller, and for lack of a better word, artistic films it is likely that the only thing known about the film is the fact that writer and director Anderson has used the foundation of the much talked about Scientology religion to express these ideas with which he is currently dealing. I honestly don't know that much about Scientology and I don't really care to know the ins and outs of it. I suspect I know just about as much as everyone else who hasn't researched it and that is that Tom Cruise participates in it. While this may have been a well placed link for the Weinstein Company to draw attention to the film it matters little to the actual content of the what is up for discussion here. Anderson could just have easily meant for it to be a modern day depiction of the disciples traveling across the lands to spread the word of Jesus as it is a mystical man who preaches unconventional, albeit pretty crazy sounding, theories to its ever growing number of followers. It is not a stretch to argue that there are plenty of people regardless of their background or credibility that find Christianity and other major religions to have strange or even sinister teachings. It is all in the eye of those looking in from the outside. That is what makes the film so appealing to an audience looking in on the action. That is what allows us to indulge so deeply in what is going on with our two main characters. Every single person has experienced that feeling of wanting to belong. Taking a step back though every person also realizes or second guesses how deep we can become enamored with something. We know that getting in to deep causes blindness and those that are too weak or too naive to realize what is actually happening never allow themselves that step back to see the bigger picture. They are consumed by what has become ingrained and feel it too difficult to turn back, to in essence, be made a fool of. Thus is the point Anderson seems intent on making, thus is the reason we are given the perspective we are allowed to witness. These ideas about ideas and how capable the human mind is to expand itself when searching for answers to what will forever be unknowable on this earth.

This brings us to where the director has found a way to communicate these ideas and propose such questions. That relationship between those two main characters. We first meet Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) as a sailor in the Navy in the late 1940's. He is already a lost soul, a drifter who is waiting to be released as the war comes to an end. It is clear through the process of his discharge that Freddie is obsessed with two things. He needs to drink and will turn to anything he can get his hands on in order to fill that desire and the same can be said for his sexual needs. After being discharged we see Quell go from job to job staying just enough time at each to test himself before he goes too far. One night he wanders upon the familiar setting of a yacht that is manned by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his entourage of family members and close followers that include his wife (Amy Adams) his daughter and new son-in-law as well as his own son. From the first conversation between Freddie and Dodd it is clear there is not necessarily a connection, but a great impression. Freddie is a damaged psyche, the kind of mind Dodd needs in order to test his style of therapy on before exposing it to his masses. As Dodd travels across the States the next few years Freddie becomes his kind of right hand man, not necessarily a friend but a companion who feels the need to be an enforcer. It is a way to expel his rage that he feels is a justified manner to do it in.

Peggy (Amy Adams) with her husband Lancaster (Philip Seymour Hoffman)
and his daughter Elizabeth (Ambyr Childers).

These two are the anchor for a film that doesn't necessarily have typical narrative structure. In many ways, The Master skews closer to Terrence Malick territory in that it does tell its story in a kind of linear fashion but it is filled with beautiful images that tell as much of that story as the dialogue does. What really makes the film an accomplishment besides its beautiful cinematography is the interesting characters it presents us with but moreso the two actors playing them. The attraction here is Phoenix, a man who swore off acting a few years back only to make a fake documentary that pushed his reputation even further to the edge. Anderson has given the actor a redemptive opportunity here with a role that is perfect for an actor who seems as lost and disillusioned as the character written for him. Phoenix, as he did with the role of Johnny Cash, digs so deep into who this man is that he becomes lost in the mind of him. He is unafraid to go as deep as it takes to understand and inhabit the character fully and he does that to the utmost with Freddie Quail. Everything about the man is so defined and so carefully constructed, from the way he stands to the way his lip is positioned. The commitment from Phoenix as he stares into the eyes of Dodd during one of their sessions not only makes you understand Freddie more but it also develops the character of Dodd as well. As Dodd, Hoffman plays him just as you might expect a man of his own expectation to be. He talks with confidence and clarifies his constantly thinking mind with fancy, flowery language that makes him come off as a great intellect, an academic which in turn convinces a great number of people of his credibility. Though it is exactly the way you might expect a figure such as he to act, Hoffman knows this and knows he has no other choice for he won't be taken seriously as the person he aspires to be if he does not come off as self-serious. He bites at the person who objects him though, he is fueled so much by his ego and what he believes he should be and how he expects to be regarded that he is smitten when he sees the loyalty with which Freddie deals with those who challenge him. Also to be noted is the great Amy Adams who shows a range of capabilities, shedding her sweet coating to reveal a wife purely devoted to her husband and his teachings.

Freddie becomes a drifter after serving his time as a sailor.

While Anderson has provided me an experience in the theater I've never had before there are moments in the film that never seem to mesh as well as they could have or can even seem forced. I can remember well enough in both There Will Be Blood and Magnolia that while they share similar running times with The Master they never seemed to lose focus. Like its main character though, this film seems to wander occasionally, drifting from the beaten path that would better benefit its story and the ideas and questions that fuel it. Even despite its moments of great clarity there are times in the film we wonder if such excessive focus on one aspect of the character is necessary. We realize that Freddie is a drunk and has no filter when it comes to his sexual desires and it displays these issues warts and all, giving a glimpse of a man who has no secrets he can hide from Anderson's audience. He gives us the bad with the good, but the bad certainly outweighs the blessings as most memorable characters turn out to be those composed of tragedy. Still, there is plenty of defend the asking of a question such as is it really necessary or even realistic that Freddie would masturbate out in the open on the beach? Maybe he would, maybe that argument is invalid but for me it detracted not from the character but from the film. There is plenty left to the audiences own interpretation as well, especially the actual beliefs of The Cause (Dodd's name for his organization). Despite giving the audience plenty of explanation on what his cause stands for and what he believes to be true about our existence in past lives we never really get to the core of what it is that Dodd is trying to accomplish with this. Maybe I'm being a bit narcissistic but I couldn't help the feeling there was something more to Dodd's agenda than to spread his made-up theories.

Still, any way I look at it I can't help but be captivated by the film. I can't help but want to talk about it. Whether it be in discussing what might be meant by the open-endings Anderson leaves or interpreting the different meanings or representations of characters and actions that take place throughout. It is hard to even feel like you are scratching the surface when attempting to discuss the film. It is a complex piece of work that has great characters and plenty of rich ideas that get explored with wonderful, thoughtful dialogue and gorgeous images. With all of the hype surrounding it and a lot of the small, indie films letting me down this year I expected The Master to be a kind of meandering piece of artsy images and ideas that form an incoherent story that could easily be taken to mean more than it actually does. While this description could likely be made by some and they would have evidence in support of that provided by certain sequences in the film, I find it hard to believe one could not become wrapped up in the odyssey of Freddie Quell and his quest to find some type satisfaction from things he already knows will disappoint him. He wants to meet his most basic human needs and nothing more. He wants no attachments, no specific set of ideals to live by. He wants to be alone and no matter how hard he tries to go the other way by submitting to Dodd's brainwashing he can't help but to rebel against that urge. Plus, if you think this is all too artsy for your own good The Master also has fart jokes, so there's that too.                      

THE MASTER Review

There are several different seeds for several different ideas going on within Paul Thomas Anderson's latest, The Master. By the end of the film you will likely even find yourself wondering what exactly the point of it all was, if there was a point at all. Of course there is a point, as perplexing or scatterbrained as it may sometimes seem, there is most certainly a point. The problem Anderson faces and has likely always faced is in bringing to the screen a platform where he can play with the ideologies, philosophies or spiritual ideas and questions floating around in his head. The problem I've had in dealing with this is that I haven't first become as accustomed to Anderson's work as I might like. I have seen all of his previous films, some even more than once, but none within recent enough memory to where I can recall what their influences might be on this latest work. Though the visual style is elevated even from his last acclaimed masterpiece, There Will Be Blood, the story seems more in line with the questions the director was asking himself around the time of Magnolia. The film should be taken on its own terms despite the fact it will always be part of the Anderson canon and constantly compared to his previous and forthcoming films. This may be the reason I decided not to go back and re-watch even the two aforementioned films. I needed to take in The Master with a clean slate, forget what everyone was saying about it, dismiss the hype even and let the movie play out in front of me with no preconceived notions of what I wanted it to be. Walking out of the film I was more than just satisfied with the final product, but completely fascinated by what I'd just experienced. It was certainly a summary, a concentration of many ideas with no certain answers, but it was also something much more than that. It was an experience to take in and one I don't think I've ever had in a movie theater before.