The Master

[secretiveoldfag]

I haven't seen The Master tl;dr, but is it possible that those who post here and who are seriously disappointed were expecting to be entertained or to be justified in leaving the cult or have some other personal agenda which they expected to be addressed by PTA and which was not?

I get the impression that the story has begun but not finished, that this may be instalment 1, that at least one sequel may come, now that he has started. This film was mooted already in 2010 when things were still rather difficult.

Would this explain the negative feelings when so many other people with less or no personal experience are enthusiastic about the experience.

Ex members are in a very vulnerable situation for all sorts of reasons.

I wonder what continuing dupes feel about it, or if any of them have seen it?

 

[Gadfly]

I have had various friends ask me, "so have you seen the movie yet?"

Um, no.

When are you going to?

When it comes out on DVD in the CHEAP section!

I simply don't have any interest in it. I am mildly curious. Of course, I very much like both Hoffman and Phoenix, and I am sure I will enjoy their performances when I do see it.

There will never be a movie that is "really" about Scientology. Why?

Most people just don't care about it. It has so little meaning to most people. It would have no "market appeal".

Scientology, and a flim about Scientology, would only have interest for people who were or are involved with it. Otherwise, the subject of Scientology has about as much interest as a purple ant sitting on the butt of a pink elephant resting in a crater on the drak side of the moon.

Irelevant!

 

[Good twin]

@ Gadfly

 

[secretiveoldfag]

I wish Gadfly was right!

Thousand and thousands of people are hooked on Scientology including a lot like me who have never seen an e-meter in action.

If The Master is relatively bland this can only be because Anderson was being very careful. Remember until quite recently he was denying that his film had anything to do with Scientology. Of course not! Just a cult, any old cult.

I hope he is now reassured that the Co$ has no more the ability to dictate to him than it has the right to do so.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Well, I am very glad you enjoyed it.

Certainly the visuals are fantastic and the acting is good (though restricted by the script in my opinion).

There's lots of good about it but it was a disappoint to me but I am certainly glad it was not for you.

could you further essay your disappoinment sindy?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

No mention has as yet been made of the portrayal of Mary Sue, afaics. So I will tell you that such portrayals seemed quite true to her persona to me. I always thought her a cold, insensitive woman. So she seemed in The Master.

phenomanon

and no one has yet commented on the name her character was given

anyone care to think about it and come up with the fairly obvious conclusion?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

...


So many interesting (and different) reactions to the film. I purposely had not read any reviews or information about THE MASTER before seeing it and finally saw it today.

I can understand how some did not respond well to the story telling and ending but PTA is an innovative artist who ignores many of the conventions of commercial film and story structure, but his brilliance shines through in so many other ways.

I quite loved it from beginning to end. It evocatively captures a world inhabited by characters we know very well from the cult.

How Marty Rathbun concludes that this movie is helpful to Hubbard/Scientology is utter madness.

MAYBE SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ---DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

I don't feel much like writing about the experience because that is how I react when I love something and just want to luxuriate in the feeling of it for a time.

But I will say this...the ending that is often rejected because of its uncertain storytelling technique (again ignoring the conventions of modern cinema) is extremely brilliant...even inspired. I could say much about why the director left so much of Hubbard's evil on the cutting room floor, but perhaps most of all, leaving "Hubbard" equal parts lovingly charismatic & treacherously manipulative was purposeful in its ambiguity. How else could could Phoenix's character have been left with a decision otherwise? There is no choice between good and evil, and that is what crazy glues Scientologists into the cult for so long.

What "Hubbard" showed throughout the story was a richly textured patina of love and devout care for his followers. But, at intervals when challenged, the beast quickly erupted with the hideous danger just below the surface.

The last scene (it dawned on me moments after the movie ended) was a seduction. "Hubbard" even serenaded Phoenix with a love song--while alternately threatening to destroy him in this life and all that follow. There was pure genius in that moment because that was what the entirety of the movie was all about--a seduction.

And that is what Scientology is all about. A vicious attempt to capture and enslave another while seducing them with every conceivable extreme of darkness and light.

I regard that last confrontation as one of the most compellingly evil moments ever captured cinematically. For that alone, the film should win the Oscar for Best Film, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor and i expect that it will.

PTA's understanding of Scientology, cults and the human mind's capacity to both enslave another and willingly submit oneself to slavery is far beyond the comprehension of any active Scientologist that I have ever met.

To all the great artists who made this collaborative art form into a masterwork, thank you!

well, HH, it's very helpful to scientology because the cinemtography is done at fullblown and immaculate Tone 40 and eloquently and poetically discusses man's spiritual nature and transcendent capacities abilities and potentials

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I have had various friends ask me, "so have you seen the movie yet?"

Um, no.

When are you going to?

When it comes out on DVD in the CHEAP section!

I simply don't have any interest in it. I am mildly curious. Of course, I very much like both Hoffman and Phoenix, and I am sure I will enjoy their performances when I do see it.

There will never be a movie that is "really" about Scientology. Why?

Most people just don't care about it. It has so little meaning to most people. It would have no "market appeal".

Scientology, and a flim about Scientology, would only have interest for people who were or are involved with it. Otherwise, the subject of Scientology has about as much interest as a purple ant sitting on the butt of a pink elephant resting in a crater on the drak side of the moon.

Irelevant!

it don't cost all that much to see a flick GF and this one particularly and eminently begs to be seen on the big screen

and if you can find at theatre equipped for 70mm it's worth going out of your way to get there. i did. in the bay area that's in oakland at the Grand Lake on lake merrit. and the renovation was designed, as so many renovations in this area are, with those who attend movies stoned on high octane psychdelics in mind. as was, perhaps, the film itself

the matinee starts at 3:45PM and costs $7.00

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

and no one has yet commented on the name her character was given

anyone care to think about it and come up with the fairly obvious conclusion?

You mean "Peggy Dodd"???

The character's name in the earlier script versions was Mary Sue but changed to Peggy Dodd in the actual movie.

 

[NoName]

I have a couple of observations about The Master.

First, PTA is a real genius in that he managed to make a film about Scientology without making a film about Scientology. There were so many inside jokes in that movie - barely 5 minutes would go by without one - and yet, it was completely unnecessary to understand them for the film to have meaningful impact. I heard a few snickers here and there, usually when something was lifted verbatim from DMSMH or the TR's. But mostly, I was the one doing the vast majority of the snickering. But people were walking out of the film talking about how powerful it was, and making generic comments about the "self-help movement".

Which brings me to my next point. ***Spoiler alert***

The movie is less about LRH and Scientology and more about the social fabric from which Scientology was woven. In the beginning, all you see is Freddie Quell being treated by psychs at the VA and not getting better. In fact, they send the soldiers on their way telling them that the public at large will not understand shell shock and what they've been through. Completely unhelpful. And really, Freddie can't function in society because he is extremely aggressive, prone to rage, drunk (he never really handles that completely), and headed for a very difficult life. After doing the bullbaited TR's, he can at least have someone make offhand comments about his romantic ambitions failing miserably without beating the shit out of them.

Freddie and Dodd end up parting ways before Dodd ends up going to England. So really, the material that PTA used for Dodd was the really early charming and charismatic LRH. Not the raving lunatic of the late 70's onward.

So, to summarize, if you were expecting an unflattering true-to-life biopic of LRH, prepare to be disappointed. This movie was made to appeal to a far larger market, and, in my opinion, it is done in a way that is far more damaging to the culture of so-called "Corporate" Scientology. I mean, how many times do we hear the wogs who know NOTHING of our situations ask how we could be so stupid? What's our problem? And how many times do we ask that about ***OURSELVES***? Well, this movie handles **that** aspect of the Scientology experience in a wog-accessible manner. In that regard, while it wasn't the cathartic open season on LRH that I might have found amusing, I see a huge amount of social value in this movie and I highly recommend it.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Hey, this might get into a rant, there is no telling. LOL. I am just going to write it quickly and push "send" without even attempting to read, edit or correct it. Let the madness begin.....

Having seen the film last night, it still lingers like subtle aftershocks of a remote psychic earthquake.

I am drawn again to the portrayal of a cult leader whose thundering madness is only scarcely evidenced in a few fleeting moments of volcanic eruption. If one chooses to ignore or discount those, the vast majority of time spent with Lancaster Dodd presents a man exuding love, kindness and compassion to all who would join him on his quest to transcend the human condition.

What is fascinating to me is how a cult member would view the character in balance, considering that virtually the entire time we are with "Hubbard", the nature of his raging and indefatigable will to dominate others has only the faintest trace signature, most times disappearing entirely.

And so how would a true believer in L. Ron Hubbard walk away from a 137 minute visit with Lancaster Dodd? I re-read Marty Rathbun's take of that experience--not his opinion of the movie, but instead his insistent recalibration of what was in the movie to align with his necessary devotion to L. Ron Hubbard.

Posted on September 23, 2012 by martyrathbun09 | 5 Comments

I watched Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master this evening.

My first thought while walking out of the theater was a one sentence sum up as follows:

Given the behavior, product and the likely resultant public perception for the past twenty six years of David Miscavige’s Scientology Inc., Anderson’s film is probably the best possible healing salve imaginable for Scientology.
Interesting. Fascinating, in fact! Marty saw an epic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbarfd and his "first thought" was about David Miscavige.

On August 28th, I made a prediction about the movie in a comment on this blog that went against the grain of the plethora of ‘doomsday’ predictions for Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I noted:

I have a different (and possibly wildly inaccurate) take on the likely content and impact of the movie. That is, based on the involvement of an actor of Hoffman’s skill and a director of Anderson’s, I bet while they paint the Master as a con, they also make him human and the audience will have some level of sympathy (ala Bush at least looking likeable when Stone hammered him, and the same with Clinton in Primary Colors). To do a one dimensional slam job would be way below the pay grade of this calibre of artist. One lone viewpont. We’ll see.

My prediction turns out to be a fairly accurate sum up of what I saw on the screen tonight. However, there was not even any attempt to paint L. Ron Hubbard as a con.
Remarkable! Lancaster Dodd was at every level one of the most flamboyant con men in cinematic history. But Marty did not see any of that. Did "Hubbard" in the film not defraud the socialite dowager and have a stern courtroom judgment levied against him for money he stole from her? Did the cult leader not magnanimously lecture others about loving transcendence while regularly evidencing outbursts of vengeful vitriol that was entirely and shockingly hateful of others who dared to evidence any of the volitional freedom of thought and spirit in those rapturous lectures he gave? Did "Hubbard" not directly threaten the well being and life (and future lives) of the Phoenix character for not instantly agreeing to a billion years of unquestioning servitude to the Master? Where was Marty during those parts of the story? Quite apparently in the same world of denial he lived in while serving David Miscavige and continues to inhabit to this very day with Master L. Ron Hubbard.

While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured. They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.
Like Freddie Quell, Rathbun springs to the instant defense of his Master (Hubbard) when others see through the deception.

If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on. That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow. But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology. For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.
Would anyone in their right mind wish "processing" for themselves after watching Freddie undergo untold hours of torturous wall-to-window objectives where he descended into utter madness?

What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated.
Paul Thomas Anderson "digs" L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? This can only be likened to Nazi propaganda minister Goebbel's unashamed use of "The Big Lie" to forward a very dark agenda.

Though I never met L. Ron Hubbard in the flesh, I probably had more access to and have studied more of his own words, and all of the available histories about him, from his cradle till his death. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in my opinion, captured Hubbard’s beingness (personality) perfectly. One dear friend and person who was personally trained by Hubbard to the highest levels of Scientology and who spent years in his company made precisely the same assessment of Hoffman’s performance.
If Marty saw "Hubbard's beingness...captured perfectly" then he would have seen what other movie viewers saw when Lancaster Dodd savagely attacked those who dared to disagree with unbridled hatred, threats and treacherously manipulative "affinity". Marty's movie filter is the same one he uses in life, no surprise there. He simply cannot see what is in front of his eyes. Yet, Marty is leading his own faithful indie flock "a little higher" to ascendent spiritual states. And anyone who has read Marty's blog knows that he, like Hubbard or Dodd, is a practitioner of the swift and vicious rebuke of any who dare to disagree.

I probably spent more years interacting with, and had more access to more detailed information about, those who throughout Scientology’s history devoted themselves to it and Hubbard to the point of violently defending him, to ultimately becoming disappointed, than anyone in the history of Scientology. I cannot imagine a more accurate and effective combining of those hundreds of people into a single character than the performance of Joaquin Phoenix.
Marty has not yet made the connection between the performance of Joaquin Phoenix as the thug enforcer of Lancaster Dodd and his own performance as the thug enforcer of David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard.

Corporate Scientologists, to the degree they are even permitted to watch the movie, will likely chafe at the finale when Phoenix is confronted by Dodd with a tough dilemna: remain in the group and be loved and cared for, with the caveat that he will always remain subservient and obedient to the master, or freely pursue his own path, with the caveat that he will be considered an enemy in the future and will be treated with no mercy as such.
Marty viewed a movie about "corporate Scientologists". The rest of the world saw the actual movie. When Marty thugged for Miscavige he, likewise, did not see what was in plainly in front of his eyes 24/7. His blindness has not been reversed, despite Hubbard's assertion that the tech miraculously cured his own.

It is understood that the truth sometimes initially hurts. I witness and deal with the reality of the painful truth of The Master’s finale each and every day of my life. It has become my calling to heal that pain. I can attest that is painful. But, I cannot deny that it is the truth.
The ambiguity of this final paragraph is profoundly telling. What is Rathbun referring to as "the painful truth of the Master's finale"? David Miscavige? L. Ron Hubbard? If he was an honest man he would have stated what the painful truth was. This is precisely where the cult has gripped his mind and he is simply unable to escape--in speaking directly what is obvious. How effortlessly he at once proclaims and obscures what he has discovered. It is the essential trade of all cult members and their victims, to pretend to enlighten others with greater truths that they, themselves, bear no vestige of evidence has influenced or even touched their own character.

End of rant.

 

[Sindy]

I haven't seen The Master tl;dr, but is it possible that those who post here and who are seriously disappointed were expecting to be entertained or to be justified in leaving the cult or have some other personal agenda which they expected to be addressed by PTA and which was not?

I get the impression that the story has begun but not finished, that this may be instalment 1, that at least one sequel may come, now that he has started. This film was mooted already in 2010 when things were still rather difficult.

Would this explain the negative feelings when so many other people with less or no personal experience are enthusiastic about the experience.

Ex members are in a very vulnerable situation for all sorts of reasons.

I wonder what continuing dupes feel about it, or if any of them have seen it?

Okay, good questions.

Firstly, I don't think the expectation to be entertained (in all of its definitions) is an unreasonable one. Now, if by "entertained" you are speaking about the entertainment one would expect by going to some action flick, a cutesie romantic or slapstick comedy, or any other movie that one can just sit back and not really have to think about, to be "moved" in some way, then no, that's not what I was expecting or desiring.

I was not anticipating or wishing for any particular storyline, philosophically speaking or otherwise. I was expecting to be made to think and then to have some sort of moving intellectual experience. I absolutely did not.

Though I enjoyed the acting, personally I felt Joaquin Phoenix's affectations to be distractingly unengaging.

Technically, the film is brilliant. Visually it is beautiful. To that I saw, bravo and so what. If you can't otherwise engage me, I'd rather go spend a few hours at the Art Institute or the Planetarium. I'm not a student of cinematography and I care only ever so slightly about those technical details. I appreciate the beauty as a backdrop

Technical perfection and really good acting does not alone a good movie make. The whole package needs to be there and what was meant (at least I would hope the creator intended) to be meaningful messages and engaging storyline, came off as predictable, unimaginative and banal.

For a movie without a real storyline and yet totally thought provoking, think Memento. The Master wasn't abstract enough to allow me as an audience member to go on an intellectual journey, filling in the delicious and purposefully unanswered intentions with my own pondering realizations.

For an artsy, supposedly provocative film, it was pretty straightforward and yet obtuse (as in not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain) at the same time. It plodded rather aimlessly (and excruciatingly slowly) to its unsatisfying end.

The end was unsatisfying to me not because I was desirous of any particular outcome. I was never engaged enough to actually even care about the outcome. It was unsatisfying because after my two and half hour investment, at the time of the ending, I felt it might actually be coming to where it was now going to enter a realm of pay off, where it now might start getting more interesting and then boom!, it ends.

I found the movie cold, detached and where the audience is left out of the picture.

I disagree that Paul Thomas Anderson demonstrated an acute understanding of cults and their adherents. Though not just anyone could have created this film, I do believe that any scriptwriter with a cursory understanding of Scientology, its inception and its history could have written this script. I found the the script and character development to be just a level or two above a caricature treatment of the subject.

Many of those in the very interesting cast, were left with not much to do. Their parts were rather insignificant when they should have been developed, like "Hubbard's" son...yawn.

I'm glad I saw the movie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance was worth the price of admission and frankly, the only aspect of the film that kept me in my seat.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

You mean "Peggy Dodd"???

The character's name in the earlier script versions was Mary Sue but changed to Peggy Dodd in the actual movie.

right. Peggy. now why was that name chosn for the character?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

...

Hey, this might get into a rant, there is no telling. LOL. I am just going to write it quickly and push "send" without even attempting to read, edit or correct it. Let the madness begin.....

Having seen the film last night, it still lingers like subtle aftershocks of a remote psychic earthquake.

I am drawn again to the portrayal of a cult leader whose thundering madness is only scarcely evidenced in a few fleeting moments of volcanic eruption. If one chooses to ignore or discount those, the vast majority of time spent with Lancaster Dodd presents a man exuding love, kindness and compassion to all who would join him on his quest to transcend the human condition.

What is fascinating to me is how a cult member would view the character in balance, considering that virtually the entire time we are with "Hubbard", the nature of his raging and indefatigable will to dominate others has only the faintest trace signature, most times disappearing entirely.

And so how would a true believer in L. Ron Hubbard walk away from a 137 minute visit with Lancaster Dodd? I re-read Marty Rathbun's take of that experience--not his opinion of the movie, but instead his insistent recalibration of what was in the movie to align with his necessary devotion to L. Ron Hubbard.






End of rant.

that's not a rant HH. it is a polemic delivered from a comprehensible and duplicable perpective

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

O
Though I enjoyed the acting, personally I felt Joaquin Phoenix's affectations to be distractingly unengaging.

Although the zeitgeist of Phoenix's performance is all a aflutter with the buzz of his unforgettable performance, I would have greatly preferred PTA's original casting choice of Jeremy Renner. It would have been a far more nuanced performance in keeping with the rest of the cast.

I thought it was, while perhaps a very savvy commercial decision to cast Phoenix, a real distraction to the delicately and brilliantly balanced eco-system of The Master to have such obvious insanity portrayed in every uncomfortable moment of his performance. Phoenix carries with him the baggage of a deeply disturbed personal life (not the actor) and while "dark" it nonetheless brought a cartoon dimension to the otherwise flawless mood.

If Phoenix's character had evolved and become a polished "winning" cult member, now THAT would have been truly disturbing within the context of the story.

I can't help but feel that Phoenix's personal life is tragically embedded with real mental illness that is on a dark trajectory and that was an unwelcome element that I needed to try and ignore to maintain the suspension of disbelief during that great film.

What if Jeremy Renner or a younger Deniro had been cast? I think it would have been fulfilled the vision of the film even more brilliantly.

When audiences are talking too much about Phoenix's "performance", I think that this confirms that his affectations and dramatic artifacts must have thrown off the balance of the art form. It is much like a great symphony where an appropriately placed sotto cymbal crash is executed fortissimo.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Okay, good questions.

Firstly, I don't think the expectation to be entertained (in all of its definitions) is an unreasonable one. Now, if by "entertained" you are speaking about the entertainment one would expect by going to some action flick, a cutesie romantic or slapstick comedy, or any other movie that one can just sit back and not really have to think about, to be "moved" in some way, then no, that's not what I was expecting or desiring.

I was not anticipating or wishing for any particular storyline, philosophically speaking or otherwise. I was expecting to be made to think and then to have some sort of moving intellectual experience. I absolutely did not.

Though I enjoyed the acting, personally I felt Joaquin Phoenix's affectations to be distractingly unengaging.

Technically, the film is brilliant. Visually it is beautiful. To that I saw, bravo and so what. If you can't otherwise engage me, I'd rather go spend a few hours at the Art Institute or the Planetarium. I'm not a student of cinematography and I care only ever so slightly about those technical details. I appreciate the beauty as a backdrop

Technical perfection and really good acting does not alone a good movie make. The whole package needs to be there and what was meant (at least I would hope the creator intended) to be meaningful messages and engaging storyline, came off as predictable, unimaginative and banal.

For a movie without a real storyline and yet totally thought provoking, think Memento. The Master wasn't abstract enough to allow me as an audience member to go on an intellectual journey, filling in the delicious and purposefully unanswered intentions with my own pondering realizations.

For an artsy, supposedly provocative film, it was pretty straightforward and yet obtuse (as in not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain) at the same time. It plodded rather aimlessly (and excruciatingly slowly) to its unsatisfying end.

The end was unsatisfying to me not because I was desirous of any particular outcome. I was never engaged enough to actually even care about the outcome. It was unsatisfying because after my two and half hour investment, at the time of the ending, I felt it might actually be coming to where it was now going to enter a realm of pay off, where it now might start getting more interesting and then boom!, it ends.

I found the movie cold, detached and where the audience is left out of the picture.

I disagree that Paul Thomas Anderson demonstrated an acute understanding of cults and their adherents. Though not just anyone could have created this film, I do believe that any scriptwriter with a cursory understanding of Scientology, its inception and its history could have written this script. I found the the script and character development to be just a level or two above a caricature treatment of the subject.

Many of those in the very interesting cast, were left with not much to do. Their parts were rather insignificant when they should have been developed, like "Hubbard's" son...yawn.

I'm glad I saw the movie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance was worth the price of admission and frankly, the only aspect of the film that kept me in my seat.

art, beauty and contact lenses are all in the eye of the beholder

thank you for expanding on your opinon

i'm blown away by it.

you find the filming to be lovely but so what. i find it to be lovely and profoundly meaningful

i'll be further essaying my own view and i hope you'll be one of my readers

 

[Commander Birdsong]

...

Hey, this might get into a rant, there is no telling. LOL. I am just going to write it quickly and push "send" without even attempting to read, edit or correct it. Let the madness begin.....

Having seen the film last night, it still lingers like subtle aftershocks of a remote psychic earthquake.

I am drawn again to the portrayal of a cult leader whose thundering madness is only scarcely evidenced in a few fleeting moments of volcanic eruption. If one chooses to ignore or discount those, the vast majority of time spent with Lancaster Dodd presents a man exuding love, kindness and compassion to all who would join him on his quest to transcend the human condition.

What is fascinating to me is how a cult member would view the character in balance, considering that virtually the entire time we are with "Hubbard", the nature of his raging and indefatigable will to dominate others has only the faintest trace signature, most times disappearing entirely.

And so how would a true believer in L. Ron Hubbard walk away from a 137 minute visit with Lancaster Dodd? I re-read Marty Rathbun's take of that experience--not his opinion of the movie, but instead his insistent recalibration of what was in the movie to align with his necessary devotion to L. Ron Hubbard.






End of rant.

okay...

think back HH...

the dowager mildred drummond sues for fraud but...

that was not why she sued. if you will recall she was very plasantly surprised to find her neck felt better. she was very happy with what hubbard was doing until he addressed another guest as "PIGFUCK!" whereupon she tossed the lot of them out

okay, now i am saying this is implied but of course you can all it inferred...

by that dowager's boozhwah standards tossing them out is enough response. she actually files suit because freddie went and beat her guest.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

in fact this sequence from the dowager's salon to the courtroom verdict is PACKED with commentary. astounding how much ground is covered here. this sequence is good grist for close examination of each word

which i fear most members here would prefer not to do because there is much in it which shows anderson to not only be critical of hubbard but to also affirm proper response to faulty criticism of hubard's work

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Okay, good questions.

Firstly, I don't think the expectation to be entertained (in all of its definitions) is an unreasonable one. Now, if by "entertained" you are speaking about the entertainment one would expect by going to some action flick, a cutesie romantic or slapstick comedy, or any other movie that one can just sit back and not really have to think about, to be "moved" in some way, then no, that's not what I was expecting or desiring.

I was not anticipating or wishing for any particular storyline, philosophically speaking or otherwise. I was expecting to be made to think and then to have some sort of moving intellectual experience. I absolutely did not.

Though I enjoyed the acting, personally I felt Joaquin Phoenix's affectations to be distractingly unengaging.

Technically, the film is brilliant. Visually it is beautiful. To that I saw, bravo and so what. If you can't otherwise engage me, I'd rather go spend a few hours at the Art Institute or the Planetarium. I'm not a student of cinematography and I care only ever so slightly about those technical details. I appreciate the beauty as a backdrop

Technical perfection and really good acting does not alone a good movie make. The whole package needs to be there and what was meant (at least I would hope the creator intended) to be meaningful messages and engaging storyline, came off as predictable, unimaginative and banal.

For a movie without a real storyline and yet totally thought provoking, think Memento. The Master wasn't abstract enough to allow me as an audience member to go on an intellectual journey, filling in the delicious and purposefully unanswered intentions with my own pondering realizations.

For an artsy, supposedly provocative film, it was pretty straightforward and yet obtuse (as in not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain) at the same time. It plodded rather aimlessly (and excruciatingly slowly) to its unsatisfying end.

The end was unsatisfying to me not because I was desirous of any particular outcome. I was never engaged enough to actually even care about the outcome. It was unsatisfying because after my two and half hour investment, at the time of the ending, I felt it might actually be coming to where it was now going to enter a realm of pay off, where it now might start getting more interesting and then boom!, it ends.

I found the movie cold, detached and where the audience is left out of the picture.

I disagree that Paul Thomas Anderson demonstrated an acute understanding of cults and their adherents. Though not just anyone could have created this film, I do believe that any scriptwriter with a cursory understanding of Scientology, its inception and its history could have written this script. I found the the script and character development to be just a level or two above a caricature treatment of the subject.

Many of those in the very interesting cast, were left with not much to do. Their parts were rather insignificant when they should have been developed, like "Hubbard's" son...yawn.

I'm glad I saw the movie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance was worth the price of admission and frankly, the only aspect of the film that kept me in my seat.

I like reading your take so very much!

It makes me re-think the, for many, ambiguously unsatisfying climactic scene between Hoffman and Phoenix.

Phoenix, the protagonist, did overcome his Master's gravitational pull and, ultimately, did not go into cult orbit--instead finding his true home in the transient pleasures of real-world carnality.

What of the story's guru and his guardian-of-the-faith wife? They were left to scam the rest of the world, untouched by any justice for their treachery. That is so drearily unconventional in terms of classical dramatic structure because one expects the denouement to 'untie the knot' (in accord with its word's literal origin) but this was not to be.

Frustrating, in a sense, that the knots could not be fully unraveled--but in a darkly ironic sense, neither has anyone yet been able to untie the NOTS that Hubbard likewise used to entangle his own devotees.




de·noue·ment   [dey-noo-mahn] noun
1. the final resolution of the intricacies of a plot, as of a drama or novel.
2. the place in the plot at which this occurs.
3. the outcome or resolution of a doubtful series of occurrences.
Origin: 1745–55; < French: literally, an untying, equivalent to dénouer to untie, Old French desnoer ( des- de- + noer to knot < Latin nōdāre, derivative of nōdus knot) + -ment -ment

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

okay...

think back HH...

the dowager mildred drummond sues for fraud but...

that was not why she sued. if you will recall she was very plasantly surprised to find her neck felt better. she was very happy with what hubbard was doing until he addressed another guest as "PIGFUCK!" whereupon she tossed the lot of them out

okay, now i am saying this is implied but of course you can all it inferred...

by that dowager's boozhwah standards tossing them out is enough response. she actually files suit because freddie went and beat her guest.

So true!

But, isn't it the personal assault that ultimately triggers true believers to finally exit culthood?

If, for example, Marty Rathbun had, rather than being very personally and psychologically assaulted, instead been feted at an international award ceremony with a gold medallion given an appropriate hagiographical designation, would he not have remained in the cult to this very day?

The "winning" dowager who blew her somatic was incited to litigate against her guru because of his abominable behavior which affected her personally. Maybe that is the key to how the cult works--it continues in perpetuity for every individual up until the exact point that the "tech's" cruelty is pointed in their direction.

I am left believing that if the "miracles" were really true, even personal assaults would not prompt cult members to ever depart. Thus, I think every devotee's departure is, given enough time, inevitable.