The Master - 2012 - Movie - Paul Thomas Anderson

The Master 

2012

Paul Thomas Anderson Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams

He is Jack Kerouac, he is the younger brother in Mice and Men.  He is at once Us in our most urgent and disconsolate moment, our worst in the drunken and disembodied moment, and our most ardently self sufficient and American free spirit.  Freddie Quell is the post war search for the self,  the sensate, lost, and irreducible man of the flesh.  And in this story, he is diametrically opposed to the Master, the genius, the hope and glory and promulgation of culture and Greco-Roman philosophical fulfillment, a pinnacle of humanity, and ultimately, a fraud.

The contrast and atomic co-dependence that these two characters represent make the essence of their stories so much more poignant for their differences.  The story could not have been written any more tightly woven and more intricately extruded than what has been represented here in film.  The Master, as a title, lives up to its name and delivers a master of cinema art.

Bring together a disenfranchised drifting hobo ex-seaman, a self-proclaimed prophetic Anthony, and mix in the veiled, yet powerful Cleopatra of a spouse whose truly domineering manipulations from the wings of the play are without equal, and you have the recipe for this drama.  From the very first shot, to the last, there is film orchestration here that fully realizes the medium, and could be a statement for the reason why the written work has bowed down to the screen.  This work in literature would be equal to, and in fact seems to draw some parallel from “All the King’s Men”  - Robert Penn Warren.  There is the influential demagoguery, the pandering public, followers, believers, and there is the antithesis of the Master’s persona in the person of Freddie, a brawler, an “animal”, as Lancaster describes him.  There is the real life hero Woody Guthrie to compare to, but in Freddie, there is no talent, nor an introspective need to develop one.  He’s just a hobo, a “scoundrel”, also aptly described by Lancaster.  The opening shot of the film tells his entire story, in fact.  At first we see the helmet, and what appears to be an alert soldier under it, looking around, but for what?  Where is he?  Entrenched in a bunker?  Is there an enemy near?  What is his condition?  He appears listless.  Then we realize….he is simply sleepy, and dozes off, nothing really, no substance at all.

A Kerouac kind of comparison comes from the drifting, the existential nature of Freddie, and hence our sympathies, our rooting for underdogs.  Our dislike for Lancaster Dodd may well be a sort of built-in cynical disdain for anyone who espouses curative fictions of mankind and wields them as powerful opiates to salivating acolytes.  Lancaster is our Pied Piper, his spouse Peggy Dodd, plays accompaniment, and Freddie is like some Tarzan, taken from the jungle of the world and taught how to play an instrument, like a drum, touted before them all as some kind of lab experiment.  We are privy to the conflict from the inside of the film maker’s vision, and witness to the psychological battle of the trio of players, and ultimately the truth of the nature of both men revealed, set apart, never the twain to meet.

The cinematography, the editing, the acting certainly, and the music (especially the music in this film) all create a perfect soup here of storytelling almost unparalleled.  There is a reason for the accolades from awards societies and “best of” lists.  

The music is its own character.  I have to get the soundtrack to this one.  There is really not a moment of the entire film that a music or sound-effects track is not playing along with the visuals.  That’s a 2-CD set I’m going to guess.  Musical “sounds” and atmospheres dominate the senses.  Sound is used as transition from one scene to another, in which case some scenes contain practical music, and others a background score that could be playing in the scene.  We’re not always allowed to know for sure.  The mix is fantastic.

One scene in particular stands out right away at the start of the film, and sets the precedent for most musical effects to come, while furthering our understanding of the characters, and carrying the plot forward to its next destination .  There is “jazz”, a small ensemble, playing considerably erratic-sounding and tense lower notes and sound effects with their instruments.   This begins as Freddie escapes from his last position, running from what appears to be the 2^nd disastrous situation in the story.   One is reminded right away of the Beats, the seeming cacophony of “free associated thoughts” and behaviors.  But this jazzy, disruptive ambiance slowly gives way to a celebratory brass band of syncopated and metered, loud party music, much in the spirit of Citizen Kane’s loud and pronounced trumpets, complete with bloated negro faces straining at the mouthpieces of those instruments.  The tracking shot behind Freddie as he walks along a pier, hunched, as a cold and dislocated wanderer would be, brings a boat of revelers in and out of focus, even as the music wafts and waves between the minor key jazz and this new music from the boat, which turns out to be a wedding cruise of Lancaster’s daughter, Elizabeth.  The  genius of the shot, and it is one long tracking shot, is that the musical score trades between these two diametrically opposed musics at the same time the camera is making those distinctions, literally changing when the focus changes.  Freddie is clear at first, in the foreground, with jazz mimicking him, and then as the boat music soars, the once fuzzy atmospheric lights come sharply into focus, and then back again, like a dance, and the jazz slowly gives way as he leaps aboard stealthily on his life-changing voyage, the brass 4/4 time music then completely overwhelming.  The shot carries us from lonely wanderer in the night, to stowaway, from ether, to concrete.  So very well done.

There are many nuances to this film that bear mentioning, and at least two other most brilliant scenes.  For one thing, Joaquin Phoenix’s stance as Freddie, hands on hips, elbows thrust out to the sides like wings, an expectant kind of look, slightly on edge, combined with a hunched shoulder profile.  This makes Freddie’s character stand out as awkward, and confirms his outsider status, and his estrangement from the world of “the sane”.  There is Amy Dodd’s propensity for always being a bit higher than everyone in the room, and sitting in chairs that are very throne-like.  Her queenly nature, along with her nose in the air, confirms who it is that is really running the show (not to mention her domination of Lancaster in a bathroom scene).

One most brilliant scene I mentioned is the arrest sequence, in particular the contrast between Lancaster and Freddie in adjoining cells as Freddie, out of control, smashes his environment while the cool and collected Lancaster looks on.  And the second genius scene, I’m quite sure was difficult but also a hoot to shoot, was the interior “sing-along” where one moment we’re a gala crowd clapping and dancing to music, genteel and sophisticated, and the next we’re the vision of the same from the interior of Freddie’s mind, with all of the women unselfconsciously unclothed.  Brilliant.

There is not a wasted frame in this one.  An artistically done piece of historical fiction, well deserved accolades, and “master”ful cinematography.  Music is huge.  See it.

5 stars out of 5

Breaking Bad - again
5th Season - Last half begins:
Sunday, Aug. 11th AMC

Ok, I'm just going to say this once (more?) This is the best television drama series ever made.

And here is my favorite quote from Vince Gilligan, creator of the show:

In an interview with The New York Times, creator Vince Gilligan said the larger lesson of the series is that "actions have consequences".^[9] He elaborated on the show's philosophy:

If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that’s become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell.'

Skyfall
2012

Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem

A largely commercial venture that caters to the Superman crowd, I could not take this as seriously as a Mission Impossible, for instance.  There were too many panderings to Cinametique, and the whole thing was just way too long.  It stretched and stretched it seemed.  I could have edited this down and chewed off at least 40 minutes.  Plus it was all way too obvious as far as progression of plot.  The mystery just wasn't there.

Javier Bardem played his role magnificently, as would be expected.  He makes a great bad guy.  But the clownish blonde hair and the CG teeth...man.  I'm thinking as well that Javier felt a little out of his element here as he's been involved in some very serious roles in the past with No Country, Biutiful, and  To The Wonder (ok, we'll not count "Between Your Legs").  The security setup with him in the glass cage (with no potty to go in) was way ridiculous, as well as the moment with him on the ladder being shot at 5 times by Bond and evidently Bond claiming that he missed on purpose.  The explosion in the ceiling of the tunnel and the crashing of the train with its lights still on during the whole ordeal and no one on board the train in evidence was quite amateurish, no matter how much they spent on the scene.

The only delightful thing about the film, really, was the opening, and the credits were fantastic.  I think credits are becoming a category for the Oscars in themselves.  "For Best Credit Sequence in a Feature Film, the statue goes to...."  I actually like Adell's song for this movie, it was perfect for the pace of the credits as well.  Smooth baby.

Cannot say I'd ever watch again though.  Only a few fun moments, otherwise most of it lost in being filmy and Hollywoodish.  Lots of money, no results.  Oh, but at least a cool retro car in the end, and like a rock group and their guitars, they have to smash it of course.  Sorry, that's my spoiler.

1.5 stars of 5

Push

a novel by Sapphire
rel. date: June 1996

The reality of this world is too harsh for most, even in our minds mostly not comprehending the clarity with which this short but powerful work takes us to.  You imagine that it’s there, the dirty apartments, the dark halls, the cooking smells, the desperate people.  But mostly we don’t want to imagine, we don’t let enter our waking consciousness the incestuous, rapist father, the 400 pound abusive mother who would actually kick her own girl while she’s having a baby on the kitchen floor, then send the baby off to live with a grandmother because it’s retarded and she only wants the welfare money.  We can imagine the school where something/someone like this would go unnoticed, and not really be educating a child like this, but we cannot imagine what it is really like to be this person, to be this child.

Sapphire’s language choice, some critics would say, “pushes” the boundary between realism and sensationalism, a kind of Maury Povitch flavor to it.  You’d think that Precious and Mama would be guests on his show.  Precious is on stage first trying to tell Maury all about her life with this woman, and occasional man named Carl, in her broken BEV, which half the audience relates to in any case, and most understand because Maury is translating and helping along by asking pointed questions.  At key moments there are the TV monitors showing Mama’s reaction back stage, and occasional boos from the audience for the woman.  Then they bring her out to meet with Precious in front of everyone, and Mama tries to explain it away, the same way she tried to explain it to the social worker, who was horrified, and saw right through the disguise.   Near the end of the show it might be one of those scenes where both people are standing and flailing accusations at each other and security guards are keeping them apart, a spectacle for TV.

Well, that’s sensational, but it’s also very real.  This voice is real, although it is one that we do not like to hear.  These situations are real, and happen every day, in many ways that we may not imagine.  

You cannot come away from reading this without a heightened sense of awareness of the plight of the poor and the inner city life of the underprivileged.  The descriptions even of simply walking through neighborhoods, the broken tenements and dives of Harlem, are haunting.  This is a voice that while difficult for us to turn our face to, we need to continue to do so.

I’d like to “rate” this book, or compare it, but I cannot at this time.  What “scale” does one use to “rate” something like this?  What criterion?  What frame of reference?  All I think I can tell you is:

Not for youth or light reading.  Please be of a mature mind and solid heart if you undertake to read this book.

Home

a novel by
Marilynne Robinson
rel: 2008

Farrar, Straus and Giroux publishers

Home

An almost unutterably and grievously sad tale of longing, heartbreak, and their attendant truth.  This is the sequel to Gilead, Robinson's novel of a small town by that name, and 2 ministers who polarize yet orbit one another, much like the necessary bond of an Oxygen molecule, sharing an equal number of electrons.  But Home is another step, the polar perspective to Gilead.

Home winds us not through history or the townspeople, except for those necessary to the central tale, and not through a miasma of family ties either, like old scrapbooks that are simply interesting to the family members, and neither does it give way to narrative by way of events that keep us in suspense by their interweaving, as some fiction does.  It does have history, people, family, and a narrative that is definitely present, and leaning towards mystery, yet without any of those structures being the main support beam.  Instead, it takes us through the intricate, interwoven, and sometimes broken tapestry of the relationships that are born in a home, hence the title.  The other goal that this work so masterfully achieves is the unraveling of the mystery of faith in the individual, the nature of it, the impossibility of it in the face of our condition, and the inevitability of it only because of grace, and our ultimate submission to it.

Jack Boughton, the scion of the first book, the truly prodigal son of Reverend Boughton, comes Home, and this is the story from inside his house, a reversal of the perspective of Reverend Ames in the novel Gilead. For Jack to return, it has required a great deal of time away, and effort of will, battling the most supreme enemy of them all, destitution.  Purposes and motives are revealed, peeled back, one paragraph at a time, at times seeming to plod, and bringing us to a place of repetitiveness it would seem, but only for a moment, and then we realize that we're not reading the same thing again, with the same people, but it's delightfully different, deeper, sometimes darker, yes, but more intriguing than what we were expecting, more exacting, more closer to….home.

That's the scary thing really.  This painstakingly careful work of literary genius is surgical in its insistence that we face the human, ourselves, and although few of us might actually be in the exact relationships that these 3 people find themselves, that is only a stage and a backdrop to the play that we face when we put the book down for awhile and allow the haunting of the work to echo in our own reality.  I guarantee you that you will at some moment in the reading of this novel find a relational resemblance to something in your own life that bears bringing out from its possibly closeted inner sanctum for examination.  I also guarantee that because of the grace of the work that you will find a solace in it that will make it worth the effort.

Read this novel after Gilead.  If you have not read Gilead, or my review of Gilead, the Pulitzer Winner, please feel free to find it here: Gilead Review

Prometheus

2012

Ridley Scott

Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green, Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender

You'd think Alien would have run it's course as a three time film franchise.  It's been since 1979 since the first Alien popped out of a stomach and into a man's birthday cake, and today we still have acid blood that eats through helmets, and snake-like creatures that dominate men and seem to like esophegii.

But what we do not have in this film is cheesy effects and off-screen suspense as style.  We have instead the great visionary filmmaker Ridley Scott, author of Bladerunner and Gladiator, both stories having different epic proportions.  He was the perfect choice to bring this story line back to life, and as he's said in an interview, "re-open that book".

Story is oftentimes everything, but here in Prometheus, it is story and look and feel, just as cinema should be.  Film is show, and not tell.  The showing does the telling, and we are offered a great feast of first rate special effects, practical sets mixed with digital artistry, and wonderfully orchestrated mise-en-scene.  That would have been Roger Ebert's vernacular.  But what would Gene Siskel then say?
"Basically, for a scary movie, it's beautiful."

As for myth, Prometheus was a progenitor, Greek mythology, making man from clay, so it's appropriate to show the self-sacrifice of an "Engineer", allowing his own genes to be utterly destroyed in order to populate a virgin planet with the genetic makeup of a god.  Am I giving away too much?  He was a Titan, so you'd think this would draw some superhero fans, ok maybe not.  But this Titan evidently obtained Fire for mankind as a sort of blessing, yet for it, was given a curse by the gods.

In this story one is prone to associate Prometheus with the Engineers, but we need to remember that name was the name of the ship.  Considering the ending, it's quite possible that the name Prometheus sticks very closely with the mythical tale in proving that anything like an attempt at improving mankind ends up in tragedy somehow.

So the Engineers made us.  Well, ok, but then the pertinent question does get asked somewhere in the story,"So who made them?"  Yes, tricky.  Seems destined that we're off to a Prometheus II in some future day, given the end does lead us trailing off to somewhere else.  Everybody wants to get to the core, right?  And still the questions dangle, why the Aliens?  Why the escape tactics?  Questions begging to be answered in a sequel, we still don't really know.

My own personal theory is that the Alien species exists as an antithesis to the Creation.  Creation/Destruction, much like the balance of Yin and Yang.  It would seem they are a pet creation of the Engineers themselves, as their ship is brimming with enough ephermeral goo to....well anyway...we all know, however, that this balance in theology is not a theology, but rather a lack of one, and there is no real beginning, or at least the beginning is unknowable.  As  the astronaut/archeologist played by Noomi Rapace places the cross necklace back around her neck, the AI, David, by Michael Fassbender, asks her, "After all this, and you still believe?"

Yes, yes of couse she does. All the answers have not been given.  Only a robot would ask such a question.  Shh David, you just shush up until the sequel.

Many critics have cited the numerous "science" flaws and lack of professionalism by the crew, and the ability at the end for the inept captain and remaining crew to just give their lives completely to stop the alien ship.  There were quite a few inept and inappropriate moments afield, not to mention that you don't just get up from an operation that cuts open your gut and walk around.  But Scott knows that science is not all there is to the sci-fi.  It's mostly fiction, and you can get away with quite a bit with a compelling mystery and narrative.

4 stars of 5 for beauty and cinematography
4 stars of 5 for the editing, pacing, but not the music really (maybe a 2 on that)
5 of 5 for directing and 3.5 for acting - incredible "operation" scene by Noomi - just un-reeeeel.  But most of the acting was nominal.  Fassbender was terrific.

Manchester Orchestra

Manchester Orchestra
Simple Math Video - 2012

I discovered this band via a friend, and instantly sacrificed real cash and bought Simple Math, the album.  That was first, but then I discovered their earlier works to be just as potent.  A must listen/try them and see thing.  Was so excited I actually laid out cash again and bought the album for my friend Jim Spiegel.

Here is the Vimeo link to the song simple Math (they won the 2012 Vimeo music video award with this).  https://vimeo.com/22379296

And then there is the Letterman appearance.  They were on Letterman one night with a song from the Simple Math album called Virgin.  They had a backup chorus of some very special middle-schoolers.  Fantastic. https://vimeo.com/27108856