Anyone seen ''The Master'' yet, loosely based on L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? (filmed, theater)

[mateo45]

Incredible performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays Hubbard), both of whom will likely receive Oscar nominations. A fascinating and gorgeously filmed movie, but very cryptic! Also an interesting take on the post-WWII 50's, when social conformity was the norm, while at the same time a lot of folks were open to individuality, exploring new ideas and searching for ''meaning'' (BTW, this is the era that also gave us Playboy magazine, McCarthyism, and Ayn Rand).

[StilltheSame]

I saw it! It was interesting. It was very cryptic and well - odd. I thought Phoenix was unbelievably good - I also thought Amy Adams' character was fascinating. The movie left far more questions than answers - I like that!

[Mooseketeer]

I saw it recently and it was a very strange and very "opaque" movie. I agree with with "Stillthesame"above that it posed far more questions than it answered and in a way could be seen by many people as infuriating because of its lack of "clarity" in terms of the plot. A lot of the audience seemed puzzled by it. Blink and you do miss a lot of tiny details.

HOWEVER I thought the acting was about as good as it comes, Joaquin Phoenix literally mesmerising in his ability to "own" the screen , Amy Adams was utterly superb ( her role is very understated which adds to its potency IMO, she has an almost Lady McBeth quality about Her and the subtlety of her acting is really astonishing ) and of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as fantastic as ever.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the acting was the star in a strange way. It was almost an example of how good an actor could get and you almost forgot the plot so utterly bewitching the acting....


Hubby was left feeling lukewarm precisely because of all the above but it worked for me.

Enigmatic, beguiling, beautifully shot, some genuine moments of raw emotions and truths and in some ways also a good social satire of a deeply conservative and conformist era.

[Newdaawn]

I haven't seen it but would like to if it comes to my area. Amy Adams and Hoffman are 2 of my favorite actors. I prefer to see something like this in the theater as oppsed to DVD.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

I saw it recently and it was a very strange and very "opaque" movie. I agree with with "Stillthesame"above that it posed far more questions than it answered and in a way could be seen by many people as infuriating because of its lack of "clarity" in terms of the plot. A lot of the audience seemed puzzled by it. Blink and you do miss a lot of tiny details.

HOWEVER I thought the acting was about as good as it comes, Joaquin Phoenix literally mesmerising in his ability to "own" the screen , Amy Adams was utterly superb ( her role is very understated which adds to its potency IMO, she has an almost Lady McBeth quality about Her and the subtlety of her acting is really astonishing ) and of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as fantastic as ever.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, but the acting was the star in a strange way. It was almost an example of how good an actor could get and you almost forgot the plot so utterly bewitching the acting....


Hubby was left feeling lukewarm precisely because of all the above but it worked for me.

Enigmatic, beguiling, beautifully shot, some genuine moments of raw emotions and truths and in some ways also a good social satire of a deeply conservative and conformist era.

Amy Adams portrays Hubbard's 2nd wife, Sara Hollister, who was a pretty formidable personality in her own right, who actually helped organize, publicize and turn Dianetics into a successful organization. And Adams seems to capture some of that, although she plays her as much more low key than the extroverted Hollister apparently was in real life.

Hollister and Hubbard seemed to be a pretty well-matched pair, and just reading the few wiki entries for L Ron Hubbard, they both were extraordinary personalities (though not always in such a good way)!

Agreed, incredible acting, and Phoenix did "own" every scene. I mostly took the film as more about the odd relationship between Freddie Quell and Dodd, both of whom when you think about it, were probably each living in mentally ill fantasies most of the time, with Freddie's simply being more primitive and less grandiose than Dodd's. Which is also maybe kind of a metaphoric riff on the power of organized religion (which BTW, director Anderson has been very critical of in the past)!

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Also an interesting take on the post-WWII 50's, when social conformity was the norm, while at the same time a lot of folks were open to individuality, exploring new ideas and searching for ''meaning'' (BTW, this is the era that also gave us Playboy magazine, McCarthyism, and Ayn Rand).

Yeah, that whole era proved this point:

“The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.” (G.K. Chesterton)

[Mark S.]

There's apparently a new biography of Hubbard out. I've never been able to make up my mind about whether or not he was a true sham artist of if he generally believed all the Dianetics stuff. The new biography apparently leans toward the latter. Although I once heard Jack Williamson (who knew Hubbard personally) confess that Scientology was always intended as a money-making exercise and Hubbard was more P.T. Barnum than Reverend Moon.

[mateo45]

As any good salesman will point out, whether a used car dealer, stock broker, or a grifter, you still always gotta believe in your product!