Simon Dillon reviews the film based on the life of Ron Hubbard and the rise of Scientology
Paul Thomas Anderson's films are critically revered but not universally loved. However, I find him one of the most arresting and unique directors working today and The Master is another excellent piece of work - even if a lot of audiences will hate it.
Apparently based on the life of Ron Hubbard and the rise of Scientology, The Master is set in 1950 and revolves around Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a disturbed, alcoholic war veteran who happens upon cult leader Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams). They promote their new alternative science known as "The Cause" as a means of possibly curing him.
What follows is a fascinating character study examining the relationship between Dodd and Quell. Dodd is charismatic, revered by those within "The Cause", and backed up by his frighteningly supportive wife whose ambitions perhaps exceed his own. In Quell, Dodd finds someone he likes and perhaps genuinely wants to help. There is even a hint of homoeroticism in his feelings for Quell. But the techniques he employs are essentially brainwashing, and as is observed on a number of occasions, he is making up the so-called science as he goes along. Quell by contrast is a desperate, broken man unable to engage in normal human relationships on account of the war, alcoholism and a very traumatic family background. He is a lonely, bitter man prone to violent outbursts and we desperately want him to get better, even though "The Cause" and everything related to it is clearly not the answer.
Bubbling under all this is an implied condemnation of cults in general and Scientology specifically. What Anderson targets is their lack of accountability. "The Cause" (read: Scientology) claims to be science, yet as one critic in the film points out, good science is questioned, tested and proven by other scientists, not simply followed because one person says its true. Furthermore, given Quell's obvious problems, it is clear why someone like him would gravitate to the charisma of a man like Dodd and find his weakness being preyed upon - an all too common scenario in cults as well as many religious organisations. Incidentally, Quell's ability to make booze from anything is clearly intended as a metaphor for Dodd's ability to invent a belief system from anything, as "The Cause" is cobbled together from bits of science, religion and other odds and ends.
Anderson directs with occasionally surreal flourishes that are supported by his subject matter (after all, viewed objectively all cults are absurd). Visually he makes inspired use of claustrophobic interiors such as those onboard a ship, as well as wide expanses in the Arizona desert. Phoenix, Hoffman and Adams are all excellent in their roles. Jonny Greenwood's eerie score is another bonus, and Anderson, along with cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr have chosen to shoot in 70mm - an expensive but interesting choice given the relatively esoteric, low-key nature of the piece.
From a spiritual angle the film exposes the folly of man thinking of himself as God, and trying to solve serious problems accordingly. Like all deception Scientology has within it a grain of truth (mankind is meant to be above the animal kingdom and the ability to control certain urges does separate us accordingly). However, by removing God from the equation and instead suggesting that we can effectively become gods, the perversion of truth is immediately and devastatingly apparent.
For me, The Master almost matches Anderson's previous film There Will Be Blood. It is a subtle, provocative and searing piece with an aching sadness that lingers long in the memory. It certainly isn't for everyone (and here I must add the usual warnings about very strong language, as well as strong sexual content and nudity), but it's a must for anyone with a serious interest in cinema.
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date.