degraded being
Sponsor
Re: post your review of The Master!
Could it be that it ended abruptly because it hasn't ended?
Could it be that it ended abruptly because it hasn't ended?
The Master
- Thread starter CarmeloOrchards
- Start date
Magoo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
Well, here are a few things we observed.
I went w/ one other ex-sea org member, a critic and his
wife who is a teacher--never been involved with $cientology.
We all thought the acting was FANTASTIC.
The story---I agree with the first poster: I am not sure
what I thought "The Master" was going to be, but I found
it was disappointing for we who knew way more about
Hubbard.
The story takes place, as has been stated, in the early 50's.
My Ex-Husband's parents got into Scientology in 1950---so I
heard many stories of Hubbard being as is described in this movie.
My late, ex- Mother-in-law used to call "Ron" "A rascal". This story
shows *that* side of him.
We who know his story---even from way back then, he had the connections w/ Crowley, Parsons and Black Magic----which a *bit* of that era is covered, but it's fast and brief, and certainly leaves LOTS out.
It's a good story---as I said, not great, imnsho, although I wouldn't be shocked IF it got great awards. Lots of it is good. The movie theater was TOTALLY packed. ALL Of the Archlight shows were sold on Friday by 2:00pm. (I wouldn't put it past C of $ to buy all the tickets---they have before. I know, I know--that doesn't make sense--but I've NEVER seen a movie *that* sold out, that early. And I called the theater to make sure it wasn't a Net mistake. "Nope---the tickets are all sold out").
We saw it at the Landmark--and barely got tickets there by 3:00, for 7:30pm.
We were in the 4th row---which I don't recommend. Both theaters showed it in standard type, digital and 70 MM. We saw it in the latter.
Lastly--the one person who had nothing to do with Scientology was a teacher. Her view was that "Freddie" was the darker side of Hubbard...which made sense to us. I thought Steve Hassan (cult expert) made a good point this morning on CBS....pointing out re "Freddie"....MOST people who join cults are NOT that nuts, and he thought that was misleading. I agree with him (and so did the others with me) that the show IS far too flattering re Hubbard. Even so, we all agreed this is NOT going to be good for C of $.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421798n
I love that "Scientologists are upset about this show" (And writing tons of letters)
Way to go, $cientologists!!
And that they had to "hire extra security"
Love to all
Tory/Magoo
Well, here are a few things we observed.
I went w/ one other ex-sea org member, a critic and his
wife who is a teacher--never been involved with $cientology.
We all thought the acting was FANTASTIC.
The story---I agree with the first poster: I am not sure
what I thought "The Master" was going to be, but I found
it was disappointing for we who knew way more about
Hubbard.
The story takes place, as has been stated, in the early 50's.
My Ex-Husband's parents got into Scientology in 1950---so I
heard many stories of Hubbard being as is described in this movie.
My late, ex- Mother-in-law used to call "Ron" "A rascal". This story
shows *that* side of him.
We who know his story---even from way back then, he had the connections w/ Crowley, Parsons and Black Magic----which a *bit* of that era is covered, but it's fast and brief, and certainly leaves LOTS out.
It's a good story---as I said, not great, imnsho, although I wouldn't be shocked IF it got great awards. Lots of it is good. The movie theater was TOTALLY packed. ALL Of the Archlight shows were sold on Friday by 2:00pm. (I wouldn't put it past C of $ to buy all the tickets---they have before. I know, I know--that doesn't make sense--but I've NEVER seen a movie *that* sold out, that early. And I called the theater to make sure it wasn't a Net mistake. "Nope---the tickets are all sold out").
We saw it at the Landmark--and barely got tickets there by 3:00, for 7:30pm.
We were in the 4th row---which I don't recommend. Both theaters showed it in standard type, digital and 70 MM. We saw it in the latter.
Lastly--the one person who had nothing to do with Scientology was a teacher. Her view was that "Freddie" was the darker side of Hubbard...which made sense to us. I thought Steve Hassan (cult expert) made a good point this morning on CBS....pointing out re "Freddie"....MOST people who join cults are NOT that nuts, and he thought that was misleading. I agree with him (and so did the others with me) that the show IS far too flattering re Hubbard. Even so, we all agreed this is NOT going to be good for C of $.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421798n
I love that "Scientologists are upset about this show" (And writing tons of letters)
Way to go, $cientologists!!
And that they had to "hire extra security"
Love to all
Tory/Magoo
Demented LRH
Patron Meritorious
Re: post your review of The Master!
I live in New York City. The movie was not listed in any of the Manhattan movie theaters. Could you tell me where you watched it? According to The NY Times, the movie could be seen only in Nyak, NY.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Re: post your review of The Master!
If you go to Moviephone.com the above are the listings
If you go to Moviephone.com the above are the listings
Gadfly
Crusader
Re: post your review of The Master!
From MSN Money review:
Paul Thomas Anderson's cult drama "The Master" commanded a huge following in its opening weekend, smashing records on just a handful of screens.
The Weinstein Co. release made $729,745 in five theaters in New York and Los Angeles for a record-setting per-screen average of $145,949, according to Sunday studio estimates.
The hugely anticipated film, which just won several of the top awards at the Venice Film Festival and will open in more cities in upcoming weeks, stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a charismatic cult leader and Joaquin Phoenix as his wayward protege.
See full review:
'The Master' smashes box-office records
From MSN Money review:
Paul Thomas Anderson's cult drama "The Master" commanded a huge following in its opening weekend, smashing records on just a handful of screens.
The Weinstein Co. release made $729,745 in five theaters in New York and Los Angeles for a record-setting per-screen average of $145,949, according to Sunday studio estimates.
The hugely anticipated film, which just won several of the top awards at the Venice Film Festival and will open in more cities in upcoming weeks, stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a charismatic cult leader and Joaquin Phoenix as his wayward protege.
See full review:
'The Master' smashes box-office records
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Being honest about The Master!
Folks ,what I like best about this movie is it pisses off the dwarf, it pisses off OSA, it pisses off SO members & it pisses off public scientologists. Itsa winner !
So ? I love it !
What is better than that bunch being in a tizzy about it and all they can do is pull one anothers chain about it, stir themselves up, & do absolutely nothing about any of it but be 'turbed up ?
,
Good stuff !
When it come to a theater near me I'll go see it to support it making money. Worst possible outcome ? I'll enjoy a cool theatre mid-afternnoon and much a giant box of popcorn - & still be tickled about the piss off value of the movie.
Do I qualigy as a critic ?
An apostate ? ( How quaint ! )
Am I evil ?
Have I made it all the way to the honored title of SP ?
Folks ,what I like best about this movie is it pisses off the dwarf, it pisses off OSA, it pisses off SO members & it pisses off public scientologists. Itsa winner !
So ? I love it !
What is better than that bunch being in a tizzy about it and all they can do is pull one anothers chain about it, stir themselves up, & do absolutely nothing about any of it but be 'turbed up ?
,
Good stuff !
When it come to a theater near me I'll go see it to support it making money. Worst possible outcome ? I'll enjoy a cool theatre mid-afternnoon and much a giant box of popcorn - & still be tickled about the piss off value of the movie.
Do I qualigy as a critic ?
An apostate ? ( How quaint ! )
Am I evil ?
Have I made it all the way to the honored title of SP ?
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: post your review of The Master!
Gonna see it this Friday with a bunch of friends. We're all totally looking forward to it.
I hear it's doing very well at the box office.
Gonna see it this Friday with a bunch of friends. We're all totally looking forward to it.
I hear it's doing very well at the box office.
jojo
Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
I saw it Friday night when it opened in L.A. Tried to get seats at the Cinerama Dome but it was sold out. The Arclight was a good venue but I would still prefer to see it in a 70mm capable theater as that was how it was filmed. Now for my review:
Performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman were stellar. Cinematography brilliant. Screenplay amazing. I completely agree that the character of Freddie Quell (Phoenix) was the dark side of Lancaster Dodd's character (Hoffman). Was it about Scientology? Yes and no. It was definitely based on the beginnings of the movement but there was a lot of liberty taken with the subject. Was Lancaster Dodd LRH? Absolutely! In some parts Hoffman even tried to duplicate LRH's voice and inflections. Amy Adams played the Peggy character (aka Mary Sue Hubbard) with steel in her eyes. As the quietly controlling wife of the Master she would put control in on the "aberee" Quell when he seemed to be influencing Dodd and causing problems for the group.
I don't think there were too many exes in the audience of the theater I was in. You could clearly hear us laughing whenever familiar things like bullbaiting and touch that wall drills were being run. As I said they were not following the exact patter as we know it today but the format was there.
I found the film exciting and brilliant. However, I would not expect someone who knows little about Scientology to enjoy it at all. I think it would be boring to them.
I saw it Friday night when it opened in L.A. Tried to get seats at the Cinerama Dome but it was sold out. The Arclight was a good venue but I would still prefer to see it in a 70mm capable theater as that was how it was filmed. Now for my review:
Performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman were stellar. Cinematography brilliant. Screenplay amazing. I completely agree that the character of Freddie Quell (Phoenix) was the dark side of Lancaster Dodd's character (Hoffman). Was it about Scientology? Yes and no. It was definitely based on the beginnings of the movement but there was a lot of liberty taken with the subject. Was Lancaster Dodd LRH? Absolutely! In some parts Hoffman even tried to duplicate LRH's voice and inflections. Amy Adams played the Peggy character (aka Mary Sue Hubbard) with steel in her eyes. As the quietly controlling wife of the Master she would put control in on the "aberee" Quell when he seemed to be influencing Dodd and causing problems for the group.
I don't think there were too many exes in the audience of the theater I was in. You could clearly hear us laughing whenever familiar things like bullbaiting and touch that wall drills were being run. As I said they were not following the exact patter as we know it today but the format was there.
I found the film exciting and brilliant. However, I would not expect someone who knows little about Scientology to enjoy it at all. I think it would be boring to them.
Semper Phi
Patron with Honors
Re: post your review of The Master!
In addition to the two theaters Mimsey mentioned above, it is at the Lincoln Square 13 on Broadway at 68th Street, on two screens - 70mm and digital.
In addition to the two theaters Mimsey mentioned above, it is at the Lincoln Square 13 on Broadway at 68th Street, on two screens - 70mm and digital.
BunnySkull
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
I have to disagree totally. 100% of the critics reviewing the movie, and I would guess at least 98% of the audience who have seen it thus far (and are raving about it) have never been scientologists or even know much about it.
Scientologists and Ex-Scientologists are a minute, almost atomic level percentage of the population. Making a movie that would only appeal to some ex cult members would be very foolish and you wouldn't make any money.
PTA makes brilliant films, he always like to use larger than life father figure archetypes. In Hubbard he had some extremely interesting material to further explore that concept and the entire mindset of postwar America. He loves to capture the mindset of an era, digging deep into a specific small subculture to showcase the larger themes. (California 1970's porn industry, 1890's oil boom town, etc... People who weren't in the porn industry, or oil boom at the turn of the century still love his movies.)
You have to keep that in mind. I think the exes here have gotten to focused on it "being about scientology" - Anderson would never limit himself like that. He has chosen scientology as canvas, a small culture and larger than life man to dissect in order to get to the great themes and dramas of life, and how the environment of an era and time shaped them.
"I loved one reviewer saying, it's a movie "It's an arresting and utterly absorbing psychological drama of marginal lives, an emotional history of charlatanism and gimcrack philosophy, a world of snakeoil truth salesmen offering self-medication of the spirit, all set in a postwar America realised with superb flair and confidence, utterly without cliché.....It has the feel of something by Steinbeck or DeLillo."
I think in some ways he reveals more psychological truth about Hubbard and Scientology than a strictly factual biography or documentary ever could.
Anderson goal wasn't to make a factual movie "about Scientology" his goal was to make real art that delivers the real underlying human motivations and lives that go into building the movement of a false prophet. What drives humans to give up all rationality to follow and subjugate their freewill to another? In that sense he has revealed the real core of Scientology -- and many other cults and "movements." That's the type of filmaking that will appeal to many people, esp people who want to see great films. Films that strive to be something other than 2 hours of escapism and chewing gum for the mind. This won't be a "popcorn blockbuster" but it will draw everyone who still holds out up of film remaining a important artform,or people who appreciate stories that strive to reveal something about the grand themes and dramas inherent in human nature and the motivations that drive us - and that is a much, much bigger population than just exes or people "who know about scientology."
I have to disagree totally. 100% of the critics reviewing the movie, and I would guess at least 98% of the audience who have seen it thus far (and are raving about it) have never been scientologists or even know much about it.
Scientologists and Ex-Scientologists are a minute, almost atomic level percentage of the population. Making a movie that would only appeal to some ex cult members would be very foolish and you wouldn't make any money.
PTA makes brilliant films, he always like to use larger than life father figure archetypes. In Hubbard he had some extremely interesting material to further explore that concept and the entire mindset of postwar America. He loves to capture the mindset of an era, digging deep into a specific small subculture to showcase the larger themes. (California 1970's porn industry, 1890's oil boom town, etc... People who weren't in the porn industry, or oil boom at the turn of the century still love his movies.)
You have to keep that in mind. I think the exes here have gotten to focused on it "being about scientology" - Anderson would never limit himself like that. He has chosen scientology as canvas, a small culture and larger than life man to dissect in order to get to the great themes and dramas of life, and how the environment of an era and time shaped them.
"I loved one reviewer saying, it's a movie "It's an arresting and utterly absorbing psychological drama of marginal lives, an emotional history of charlatanism and gimcrack philosophy, a world of snakeoil truth salesmen offering self-medication of the spirit, all set in a postwar America realised with superb flair and confidence, utterly without cliché.....It has the feel of something by Steinbeck or DeLillo."
I think in some ways he reveals more psychological truth about Hubbard and Scientology than a strictly factual biography or documentary ever could.
Anderson goal wasn't to make a factual movie "about Scientology" his goal was to make real art that delivers the real underlying human motivations and lives that go into building the movement of a false prophet. What drives humans to give up all rationality to follow and subjugate their freewill to another? In that sense he has revealed the real core of Scientology -- and many other cults and "movements." That's the type of filmaking that will appeal to many people, esp people who want to see great films. Films that strive to be something other than 2 hours of escapism and chewing gum for the mind. This won't be a "popcorn blockbuster" but it will draw everyone who still holds out up of film remaining a important artform,or people who appreciate stories that strive to reveal something about the grand themes and dramas inherent in human nature and the motivations that drive us - and that is a much, much bigger population than just exes or people "who know about scientology."
secretiveoldfag
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
First of a trilogy? The Master, The End of the Master, the Wee Wee Usurper?
There are some helluva good films still to be made.
First of a trilogy? The Master, The End of the Master, the Wee Wee Usurper?
There are some helluva good films still to be made.
BunnySkull
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
I'm convinced due to the reading I've done over the years about Scientology, and I've always been the most interested in the personal stories about individual's experiences within the CoS framework, that there are many great stories and dramas within it to be told. The stories of Scientologists almost always have 3 vital components - extremes, sacrifice and drama. It certainly doesn't have to be about Hubbard, he's just the biggest character you could start with. The stories of the individuals within his creation are just as riveting and revealing.
I loved the reviewers comment about "marginal lives" - even marginal lives have real and great turmoil and emotion - and that's right there is the basis to any good film or story.
I'm convinced due to the reading I've done over the years about Scientology, and I've always been the most interested in the personal stories about individual's experiences within the CoS framework, that there are many great stories and dramas within it to be told. The stories of Scientologists almost always have 3 vital components - extremes, sacrifice and drama. It certainly doesn't have to be about Hubbard, he's just the biggest character you could start with. The stories of the individuals within his creation are just as riveting and revealing.
I loved the reviewers comment about "marginal lives" - even marginal lives have real and great turmoil and emotion - and that's right there is the basis to any good film or story.
Boson Wog Stark
Patron Meritorious
Re: post your review of The Master!
What a great review and thank you for confirming my greatest desire for this movie -- something I suspected it could very well be. THE PROFIT was an example of trying to bite off too much of Hubbard's story. Reading Miller's biography, I could tell there was way too much there for one movie, without it going seriously awry or seeming unbelievable or silly. Telling one person's story, who gets involved with something Scientology-like, was definitely the way to draw people in.
I threatened to join ESMB after Tony called it quits and here I am.
What a great review and thank you for confirming my greatest desire for this movie -- something I suspected it could very well be. THE PROFIT was an example of trying to bite off too much of Hubbard's story. Reading Miller's biography, I could tell there was way too much there for one movie, without it going seriously awry or seeming unbelievable or silly. Telling one person's story, who gets involved with something Scientology-like, was definitely the way to draw people in.
I threatened to join ESMB after Tony called it quits and here I am.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Re: post your review of The Master!
Welcome !
What a great review and thank you for confirming my greatest desire for this movie -- something I suspected it could very well be. THE PROFIT was an example of trying to bite off too much of Hubbard's story. Reading Miller's biography, I could tell there was way too much there for one movie, without it going seriously awry or seeming unbelievable or silly. Telling one person's story, who gets involved with something Scientology-like, was definitely the way to draw people in.
I threatened to join ESMB after Tony called it quits and here I am.
Welcome !
BunnySkull
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
I have never been involved in Scientology, but became fascinated not so much by the subject Hubbard made up but the human drama surrounding it all. (I will also admit to be fascinated by all cults for this reason.) I wanted to understand why people are willing to sacrifice everything, bankrupt themselves, cut off family, etc... The core motivations of why people are drawn, and then stay and believe in a cult are endlessly interesting to me.
I'm so glad a director decided to make a movie to seriously explore these issues.
He can reveal and explore so much by not having to stick to some factual account and instead explore the psychology between a cult founder and an early disciple. It was a marvelous choice to keep the focus on those two core principals - prophet and disciple - in order to really flesh out the the core motivations and turmoil that would be inherent in the broader community. Phoenix in a way represents not only the subconscious of all seekers (esp those who end up in a cult), but is even a direct reflection of the founder.
Like I said PTA was aiming very high with this film - and he has pulled it off in a way I don't think any current director could. Great art doesn't spoon feed you answers, it gives you brilliant flashes of the truth that you must then interpret.
If anybody else wants to make a movie using Scientology to take a deep look into the issues of belief, subjugation, nihilistic turmoil and the desire for answers to combat it even if the "answers" are total bullshit created by a conman, the bar has been set very, very high.
What a great review and thank you for confirming my greatest desire for this movie -- something I suspected it could very well be. THE PROFIT was an example of trying to bite off too much of Hubbard's story. Reading Miller's biography, I could tell there was way too much there for one movie, without it going seriously awry or seeming unbelievable or silly. Telling one person's story, who gets involved with something Scientology-like, was definitely the way to draw people in.
I threatened to join ESMB after Tony called it quits and here I am.
I have never been involved in Scientology, but became fascinated not so much by the subject Hubbard made up but the human drama surrounding it all. (I will also admit to be fascinated by all cults for this reason.) I wanted to understand why people are willing to sacrifice everything, bankrupt themselves, cut off family, etc... The core motivations of why people are drawn, and then stay and believe in a cult are endlessly interesting to me.
I'm so glad a director decided to make a movie to seriously explore these issues.
He can reveal and explore so much by not having to stick to some factual account and instead explore the psychology between a cult founder and an early disciple. It was a marvelous choice to keep the focus on those two core principals - prophet and disciple - in order to really flesh out the the core motivations and turmoil that would be inherent in the broader community. Phoenix in a way represents not only the subconscious of all seekers (esp those who end up in a cult), but is even a direct reflection of the founder.
Like I said PTA was aiming very high with this film - and he has pulled it off in a way I don't think any current director could. Great art doesn't spoon feed you answers, it gives you brilliant flashes of the truth that you must then interpret.
If anybody else wants to make a movie using Scientology to take a deep look into the issues of belief, subjugation, nihilistic turmoil and the desire for answers to combat it even if the "answers" are total bullshit created by a conman, the bar has been set very, very high.
pineapple
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: post your review of The Master!
I agree with you. When I said "I don't see how anyone can say that this movie is not about scn," I didn't mean to imply that scn was all the movie was about; but I had expected something much more "loosely based" on scn than this. I was surprised at the many references which were obvious to me and I think would be to any ex-scio, for example the first time Lancaster Dodd refers to "an implant from millions of years ago," which elicited a big burst of laughter from the audience, me included.
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from seeing The Master. As you pointed out very well, there's a lot of other stuff there to appreciate besides the scn stuff. It is not just for ex-scios. But I think it will be a special treat for exes. It certainly was for me, and I plan to see it again after I come down a bit from the initial shock. I did not expect anything like this.
I agree with you. When I said "I don't see how anyone can say that this movie is not about scn," I didn't mean to imply that scn was all the movie was about; but I had expected something much more "loosely based" on scn than this. I was surprised at the many references which were obvious to me and I think would be to any ex-scio, for example the first time Lancaster Dodd refers to "an implant from millions of years ago," which elicited a big burst of laughter from the audience, me included.
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from seeing The Master. As you pointed out very well, there's a lot of other stuff there to appreciate besides the scn stuff. It is not just for ex-scios. But I think it will be a special treat for exes. It certainly was for me, and I plan to see it again after I come down a bit from the initial shock. I did not expect anything like this.
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: post your review of The Master!
...
Scientology OT celebrity Kirstie Allie screened the movie The Master privately at her home yesterday.
Soon thereafter, a delivery truck was observed at the estate's service entrance, unolading large cases.
...
Scientology OT celebrity Kirstie Allie screened the movie The Master privately at her home yesterday.
Soon thereafter, a delivery truck was observed at the estate's service entrance, unolading large cases.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Re: post your review of The Master!
Probably was a "Kirsty Creem" truck!
...
Scientology OT celebrity Kirstie Allie screened the movie The Master privately at her home yesterday.
Soon thereafter, a delivery truck was observed at the estate's service entrance, unolading large cases.
Probably was a "Kirsty Creem" truck!
Lone Star
Crusader
There's at least one negative review of The Master.....
"Certain movies cannot be reviewed indifferently. The critics simply have too much invested in their directors to acknowledge that, past performances to the contrary nothwithstanding, their latest effort has to rank somewhere between a disappointment and a disaster. Such is the case with Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master.” His previous films, which include “Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia” and the terrific “There Will Be Blood,” gave reason to hope that Anderson, still in his early 40s, was the major young talent that American movies have been yearning for (seemingly for decades). There is no reason to abandon that hope now. But the fact remains that “The Master” is an inert film, and that the chief pleasure it affords is watching it make the reviewers squirm."
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/paul_thomas_andersons_cult_of_personality_20120917/
"Certain movies cannot be reviewed indifferently. The critics simply have too much invested in their directors to acknowledge that, past performances to the contrary nothwithstanding, their latest effort has to rank somewhere between a disappointment and a disaster. Such is the case with Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master.” His previous films, which include “Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia” and the terrific “There Will Be Blood,” gave reason to hope that Anderson, still in his early 40s, was the major young talent that American movies have been yearning for (seemingly for decades). There is no reason to abandon that hope now. But the fact remains that “The Master” is an inert film, and that the chief pleasure it affords is watching it make the reviewers squirm."
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/paul_thomas_andersons_cult_of_personality_20120917/
J. Swift
Patron with Honors
Re: post your review of The Master!
Paul Thomas Anderson brilliantly uses Scientology in the 1950's as a very singular and exotic lens to take the viewer on a spellbinding journey into a cryptic, mesmerizing world.
Naturally, then, the movie must open with Freddie Quell locked up in Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, a place where LRH was also a patient and worked on his proto-Dianetics theories by posing as a medical doctor.
We see Freddie at Oak Knoll being interviewed by a military Psychiatrist who uses inkblots. These inkblots serve as just one part of the lavish psycho-historical scenery of the film.
The Psychiatrist and the inkblots exactly summarize what LRH opposed. Moreover, this scene in which Freddie sees sex in every inkblot is the American sexual repression of that era writ large. This scene establishes the Anderson's comprehension of Hubbard, Dianetics, and America at the outset.
Freddie Quell is atavistic; he is the animal side of human nature incarnate in flesh and blood. Freddie is the very thing Lancaster Dodd is enraptured by even as he wants to tame and conquer it. Likewise, Freddie wants to learn from Dodd and yet at the same does not want to be captured or overcome by Dodd.
After Freddie sneaks aboard Dodd's ship, he is awakened and summoned to Dodd's cabin. Lancaster Dodd informs Freddie that he sampled the contents of Freddie's flask and liked it so much that he drank it all. Dodd then asks Freddie to make him more. Freddie says he make can Dodd something and that what he will make depends upon how Dodd wants to feel. This speaks to the power of Sensuality to seduce and beguile Reason.
Freddie makes Dodd something and the two men drink together. This scene was religious communion in which Dodd symbolically agrees to partake of Freddie's madness in exchange for plumbing the depths of Freddie's mind.
*****
The jail scene is a stunning filmic metaphor of the human condition. On one side is Freddie. He is the wild and untamed part of human nature. On the other side is Dodd who represents the allegedly "higher powers" of human nature.
And yet both sides are imprisoned together.
This captures the central tension of the human condition: The individual is locked in a state of subjective captivity and inner conflict. These two selves are divided by bars of steel so that one side cannot destroy the other. All the two sides can do is scream at each other or try to communicate across an Abyss.
In the jail scene, Dodd screams at Freddie that he, Dodd, is the only one who likes Freddie. This line is so completely Scientology as to be breathtaking in its understanding....
(To be continued)
/////
Paul Thomas Anderson brilliantly uses Scientology in the 1950's as a very singular and exotic lens to take the viewer on a spellbinding journey into a cryptic, mesmerizing world.
Naturally, then, the movie must open with Freddie Quell locked up in Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, a place where LRH was also a patient and worked on his proto-Dianetics theories by posing as a medical doctor.
We see Freddie at Oak Knoll being interviewed by a military Psychiatrist who uses inkblots. These inkblots serve as just one part of the lavish psycho-historical scenery of the film.
The Psychiatrist and the inkblots exactly summarize what LRH opposed. Moreover, this scene in which Freddie sees sex in every inkblot is the American sexual repression of that era writ large. This scene establishes the Anderson's comprehension of Hubbard, Dianetics, and America at the outset.
Freddie Quell is atavistic; he is the animal side of human nature incarnate in flesh and blood. Freddie is the very thing Lancaster Dodd is enraptured by even as he wants to tame and conquer it. Likewise, Freddie wants to learn from Dodd and yet at the same does not want to be captured or overcome by Dodd.
After Freddie sneaks aboard Dodd's ship, he is awakened and summoned to Dodd's cabin. Lancaster Dodd informs Freddie that he sampled the contents of Freddie's flask and liked it so much that he drank it all. Dodd then asks Freddie to make him more. Freddie says he make can Dodd something and that what he will make depends upon how Dodd wants to feel. This speaks to the power of Sensuality to seduce and beguile Reason.
Freddie makes Dodd something and the two men drink together. This scene was religious communion in which Dodd symbolically agrees to partake of Freddie's madness in exchange for plumbing the depths of Freddie's mind.
*****
The jail scene is a stunning filmic metaphor of the human condition. On one side is Freddie. He is the wild and untamed part of human nature. On the other side is Dodd who represents the allegedly "higher powers" of human nature.
And yet both sides are imprisoned together.
This captures the central tension of the human condition: The individual is locked in a state of subjective captivity and inner conflict. These two selves are divided by bars of steel so that one side cannot destroy the other. All the two sides can do is scream at each other or try to communicate across an Abyss.
In the jail scene, Dodd screams at Freddie that he, Dodd, is the only one who likes Freddie. This line is so completely Scientology as to be breathtaking in its understanding....
(To be continued)
/////
Last edited:
Similar threads
