I’d like to want to write about the films coming up this weekend, but there’s nothing much worth seeing. The Inbetweeners promises to be a regurgitation of Porky’s or any other kids-on-holiday film. Branded is as transparent as its title: global brands conspire to take over the world. I’m sure the ending of the film spouts that this has already happened, but without half of the insightful analysis offered by someone like Eric Schlosser. The Words has Bradley Cooper, but what doesn’t nowadays? Hell, he’s playing Joseph Merrick on stage somewhere.
That said, it’s better to focus on the weekend coming up. September 14th brings Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master.
Before breaking into some thoughts about Anderson’s perception of Scientology, we should all take a moment and revel in a director who might be the most consistently amazing in Hollywood. The Coen brothers are a close, close second here, but Anderson is characteristically adept with a camera, poignant in his screenplays and meticulous with his direction without beating the audience over its head with a forty-five pound metaphor stick.
Boogie Nights made pornography legitimate while exposing the reasons it will never be considered so. Magnolia intentionally defied genre and lashed out at those critics – like myself – who attempt to pigeonhole or categorize films. (It also has one of the best musical montages / interludes in modern cinema.) Punch Drunk Love proved one of two things: either that Adam Sandler can act when he’s not taking on the role of fecophile; or, that Anderson can bring the best out of anyone, even Sandler.
He also brought us There Will be Blood, a film that I stand by firmly when I say that it is the best film of the last two decades. It is shot in the style of Welles and written in the style of Kubrick. Daniel Day Lewis is awesomely remarkable and Daniel Plainview, and Anderson’s ability to capture him in a light amalgamated with sympathy, castigation, and pity is unmatched. Eventually, I will post 10,000 words on the genius that is this film, but I fear that I would still not do it justice.
Given Anderson’s track record, we should assume nothing less that perfection from The Master. In tandem, the cast (Jaoquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams) is superb and nomination-laden, so the acting should be equally stellar.
What I’m most interested in is Anderson’s take on Scientology.
Being an equal-opportunity skeptic of religion, I have no visceral love or hate for this sect, but I suspect that The Master will be looking at it for its influence on someone at the end of their rope (Phoenix) more so than the validity of the religion. In a sense, I get the feeling that this film will be a lens through which we can view all religions – and their origins – and note just Scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard, himself, is a fascinating man with a fascinatingly murky backstory. For more on this, you could check out Lawrence Wright’s article on Paul Haggis and his falling / fleeing from Scientology that was published in the New Yorker last year.
However, we shouldn’t assume this is a biopic – much like we should assume that There Will be Blood is an adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s Oil. (With the exception of one passage a third of the way through the book, the two protagonists are totally different as are the overall themes. One is the emotional / social / personal strain / personal futility of the capitalist endeavor; the other is about ethics in capitalism vs. the ethics in theoretical communism.) Anderson is better than biopics, so this should be seen as a study of coping.
At the same time, Anderson is also a master at leaving his audience guessing and providing everything we don’t see coming.
