The Master

A film about two disagreeable characters that’s full of style but has nothing to say

The Master is about two unlikable characters. It is set in the early 1950s and is about Freddie Quell, a shell- shocked psychotic discharged from the US navy after the end of World War II, and about Lancaster Dodd, a philosopher, exploiter and charlatan who takes Freddie under his wing and brainwashes him.

Both characters are unpleasant, and it is to director Paul Thomas Anderson’s credit that he sustains a film with two people who are so disagreeable. Lancaster (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is modelled on Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard, though the film is not about him. He is, what we would call a ‘godman’ in India, but without god, so to speak. He talks of the transmigration of souls and how we all inhabit shells that contain the problems of this life, and how we can solve these by tracing our ‘original’ souls. He preys on the susceptible, but only the wealthy susceptible, and with his mix of philosophy, spirituality and pseudo-science, makes a good living off ‘The Cause’.

Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix) is not the ideal disciple. First of all, he is as poor as a church mouse, and then, given to violent and uncontrollable rages. Is Lancaster setting an example for his movement by attempting to correct the course of a problematic soul? Is there a latent homo-erotic relationship between the men? Anderson never makes it clear, and by leaving most of his film up in the air, he seems to have made the perfect ‘art’ film, full of style but with nothing to say.

We, susceptible souls from a previous incarnation, must interpret The Master. There are significant clues, though. The movie is shot on 65mm film, to give you sharper resolution to analyse a foggy idea, and the glowing light sets the period, because, as we know, light, in the 1950s, before air pollution, was very different.

All said, The Master is interesting and well acted, but ultimately an intellectual and emotional vacuum.

About The Author

Ajit Duara