The Master (2012)

I've just had the privilege of enjoying Paul Thomas Anderson's much anticipated sixth feature film, the eponymous, at the beautiful Astor Theatre in St Kilda, a rather fashionable beach-side suburb just south of Melbourne's CBD.  The director and writer Anderson was there for the screening and offered a Q-and-A session afterwards (I naturally jumped at the chance).  But the gorgeous old cinema, excitement of a premier, and grace of such an internationally esteemed director aside, was it a good film?

The Master was shot on 65mm film.  It's the first film to be shot on such a format, beginning to end, since Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet in 1996, and the screening at the Astor was from a 70mm print.  Couple this with lingering close-ups and beautiful scenery, a recurrent pastel blue colour palette, and the result is a visual feast.  What Anderson also brings to film is his use of music and sounds, sometimes in perfect harmony and sometimes dissonant, to help along the narrative he builds.

This sort of visual and musical beauty is necessary for the film as it leaves out a strong narrative; it's not so much a film of events and characters' responses, but rather a film where characters are put together, and time marches forward as we learn more about them, more about their relationships, and their true nature.  Having this non-narrative sensibility forces Anderson to give the best writing he can, and he achieves it admirably.  The plot revolves around two men with their own unique forms of ego-centrism.  Phoenix's Freddie Quell is the shell-shocked, alcoholic, sexual deviant, who lives only for the pleasure of the moment.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd is the leader of a growing cult, who has all the answers in the universe and the secrets of happiness, if you're willing to devote your life to having him 'teach' you.  These two brands of self-centeredness form an unusual and intriguing marriage between Phoenix's and Hoffman's characters, and it's the love-hate, the peculiarity, and the romance of this relationship which makes the film itself so intriguing.

What will stay with me, more than anything, is the magnificent performance by the lead Joaquin Phoenix.  Phoenix so entirely inhabits the role, that it's now difficult for me to imagine him as anyone else.  Further, the film is told entirely from his perspective.  A scene of full-frontal nudity, what we the audience are to make of 'The Cause', and a trick with Amy Adams' eyes enforce the understanding that we the audience see what Freddie sees.  As we see the universe in such a way, through the eyes of such a disorganized degenerate, we're left with a wide berth for interpretation.  I love that aspect of it, I love drawing one conclusion but being forced to embrace another, equally plausible one.

I do, however, have a nagging feeling that while in the theatre, I felt a dragging towards the middle.  Perhaps being accustomed to more story-driven cinema, I was willing something to happen, willing a death or a divorce, and was only given more character exposition.  Is this the film's downfall?  I don't think so.  The disadvantage of writing this review so shortly after seeing the film is that I immediately feel that The Master is a film enjoyed more in retrospect.  I enjoy it now more than I did on the drive home, I enjoyed it more on the drive home than I did as the credits rolled, and so on.  It is a film which really needs to settle, and is enjoyed best when discussed over a cold beer in the pub afterwards. 

I've spent the last week re-watching P. T. Anderson's earlier films, and relative to them, The Master is a strong entry into that esteemed circle, but not the best.  I still retain that title for Punch Drunk Love.  I must recommend everyone watch this film, P. T. Anderson is thought of by many, myself included, as on the forefront of film making; and this esteem is justified by this his latest work.  Because of the nature of the work, it somewhat transcends a star rating, but my best approximation is four.

  

Moneyball (2011)

Out on DVD is Director Bennett Miller's (of Capote fame) latest work, again pairing up with Phillip Seymour Hoffman but putting him in a supporting role, with Brad Pitt in the lead. It's an ambitious venture: make a baseball film with little to know footage of baseball, make a film about the drama which unfolds in sports management and even more challenging, make a film about the sports statistics and make it interesting.

It turns out that statistics aren't that dull at all. We think of statistics as long, black and white spreadsheets of incomprehensible numbers, only meaningful to 'eggheads' and 'boffins'. Luis Buñuel once offered 'statistics' as his sole pet hate. The fact is, the product of statistics is usually information which challenges our pre-conceived notions and established societal conventions. Despite the dull sounding nature of a movie about statistics, consider the work of documentary filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock are wall-to-wall statistics. Miller, rather than making a documentary, creates a narrative of a Baseball team down on it's luck, which uses statistics to create a team of undervalued ball players.

The film also works as a vehicle for Brad Pitt, who has matured into one of the best American actors working today, to showcase a flair for dialogue in confrontational situations. He must introduce this 'technique' of using statistics to create a team roster instead of guesswork. He must go up against the literal and figurative 'Old Guard' of the Oakland A's as well as the teams coach, to take what little money the club has and create a champion team. The conflict between Pitt's 'Radical' Billy Beane and Jonah Hill's nervous Peter Brand, against the 'reactionary' Old Guard and coach creates an entertaining drama. Pitt's 'Billy' is especially an engaging screen presence when he's not in control of the situation and must fight for it. This drama and conflict is enjoyable to watch and stays in the memory.

Moneyball is worth a watch and probably a second. I do feel the praise of the movie has been overstated, but Moneyball is a solid three star film, earning an extra half for a) Pitt's stand-out performance, and b) it's successful transformation of documentary subject matter into a format so, so much more entertaining than any sports documentary I've seen.

The Ides of March (2011)

Big names and a trailer suggesting intruiging content made this a must see for me, but would it live up to expectation? Not quite. Here's why.

Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris (Clooney), portrayed as an idealistic Democratic candidate for President, is the principled politician--but here lies the first of my problems with the film--Atheism is used as a selling point on his way to the White House, so far removed from reality I believe I audibly scoffed during the screening. 
The political landscape, in a word, is incredible. I did appreciate the various ‘shout-outs’ to real life political idiosyncrasies: Morris’ campaign slogan ‘I Like Mike’ and the Obama-reminiscent campaign posters, but found the 'humour' which the filmmakers tried to achieve here to be laboured and almost overplayed.

Our protagonist is Morris' campaign manager, a 30 year old Steven Meyers (Gosling) and, unfortunately, Gosling delivers a thoroughly mediocre performance. The maturity required to portray the campaign manager confronted with the themes of loyalty, idealism vs pragmatism, and vulnerability of women in the 'industry' of American politics are lost to the vacuous expression Gosling seems to carry throughout the film, so much so that I had a constant expectation that his next line might be “Whoa, dude, like, chill out.” This deficiency could not be saved by clever cinematography, either: one rainy scene in which Steven, after an emotional experience, sits in his car to contemplate his future, is shot is taken from outside with the car’s windshield in focus. Because of the rain, the droplets trickling down the windshield seem representative of tears. It is a clever trope and cleverly employed to get the emotion out of the scene which, unfortunately, Gosling's acting could not. Similarly the use or perhaps overuse of chiaroscuro I suspect may have been a late edition as the Director (Clooney) perhaps realised he couldn’t get the necessary dramatic gravity out of his lead.

My only other problem with the film is that we’re given a setting of an important primary election, and Morris needs the endorsement of a state senator to take the state. My problem is that the endorsement (or lack thereof) is given as the climactic event when I wanted and I imagine many other cinema goers wanted the actual vote. I am left feeling the plot isn’t played out to it’s rightful conclusion. This may not have been a problem in the stage play upon which the film is based, but the importance of the endorsement I do not feel is not driven home sufficiently, leaving the end anticlimactic.

It's an artful and sympathetic adaptation from the Beau Willimon play ‘Farragut North’ (the working title of the film, until it was changed to ‘The Ides of March’; nonsensical considering the plot bears little to no similarity to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and there’s nothing in-universe significant about March 15th). Good performances from Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, however, make the film a worthwhile adventure.