I haven't done one of these in awhile...so here goes. I have ten quotes below. They all have a common connection. The title of each movie is worth 1 point, and the actor (s) or actress who spoke the line is worth one point (in this case, quotes 1 and 10 are spoken by bit actors, so those are only worth one point, since I don't know that names of the actors who spoke the lines, while number 7 is spoken by two different actors, so that question can be worth 3 points total). If you guess the connection between all of the quotes, I will make that worth 5 points. Here are the rules:
-You have to get your answers to me via email (losbascoms@me.com) or private Facebook message. If you put your answers in the comment section, others can see them and I will delete them. I will take answers until Friday, May 10 at 9PM Minneapolis time.
-NO GOOGLING OT LOOKING UP ANSWERS...this is meant to test your brain without help :)
-The winner will get a $10 Trader Joe's gift card.
GOOD LUCK
1. "Say it ain't so Joe"
2. "Do you have a kiss for Daddy?"
3. "I didn't kill my wife!"
4. "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"
5. "I'll have a drink."
6. "Could you describe the ruckus?"
7. "We're on a mission from God."
8. "I like the mass better in Latin. It's nicer when you don't know what they're saying."
9. "4 Jacks...you owe me 15 grand pal"
10. "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"
Friday, May 3, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Master
As I watched the enigmatic last images of this movie, I realized something. Much like life, this movie was a journey. The movie didn't seem to be trying to advance any point of view, but simply allowing the viewer (s) to live with the characters in the movie for 2+ hours. Their journey doesn't come to a tidy conclusion. Their journey has not reached any specific destination. We only know that the two principle characters have affected each other deeply, even though the principle character has made little, if any, progress. (SPECIAL NOTE: this movie earns its R-rating...be warned that if you see this movie, there are several scenes involving nudity and sexuality---and the language is pretty rough too)
Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a young man who has just returned from fighting on the Pacific front in World War 2. He is a slave to impulse, especially in desires for sex and alcohol. The opening images of the film show the extent to which he will he go for sexual release, and at other points in the movie, his addiction for alcohol is revealed to be so deep that he uses paint thinner in a cocktail. One night, in a drunken stupor, he finds himself stumbling onto a yacht in San Francisco Harbor. On the boat is a group of people led by a man named Lancaster Dodd, who presides over a group of people dedicated to "The Cause." Freddie ends up in the bowels of the ship with Lancaster (whose name we do not even know until much of the film is over), and Lancaster subjects him to a lengthy interrogation. Why he asks the questions he does is not clear. The one thing that is clear is that Dodd believes in some kind of ability of humans to heal past hurts, free themselves from addictions, and attain some kind of perfection that all humans have lost.
"The Cause" has gained quite a following, as Dodd is able to count on the good will and hospitality of people from homes as varied as San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. As Freddie continues in the cause, his loyalty to Dodd becomes fierce enough that he becomes willing to resort to violence toward those who question him. He also is willing to endure bizarre physical challenges from Dodd simply because he is asked to do so. Rifts inevitably develop between the two men, and the whole time, Dodd's wife Peggy (Amy Adams) presides over their relationship with suspicion.
This movie could have been "about" a lot of things. It could have been a critique of self help religion (the history of Scientology did help inspire the film, according to director Paul Thomas Anderson). It could have also delved more deeply into life's meaning as it examines the obvious questions that are brought up with the subject matter. Instead, it seems to me that the movie is most concerned with personal dynamics. The two main characters and the people they affect give us a fascinating story. Add to that some of the supporting roles, and the dynamics become even more interesting. For instance, though "The Master" is the character of Dodd, I couldn't hep but think as I watched the film that the film's title could just as easily be talking about Dodd's wife. While the ideas, gift of gab, and glory all belong to Lancaster, Peggy seems to quietly preside over it all, telling Lancaster when he has gone too far, and demanding certain things from him that no one else could.
Therefore, the movie is not really "about" anything, in my final analysis. It seems more observational, much like an episode of "Seinfeld". It's almost as if Anderson wanted to simply make a movie about interesting people, and let the audience observe them. Of course, by doing that, it is actually about a lot of different things! I suppose this is the paradox of the movie. It doesn't take much of a position on what it depicts, and in so doing, it gives the viewer many issues to ponder. For me, the ultimate issue that I pondered was the human being's search for belonging and meaning. Where do we go for these things? Anderson shows Freddie going to several places for this, but in the end, it all seems somewhat vain. In the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, a phrase appears: "Nothing is new under the sun". As Freddie tries to find meaning everywhere (except in God, who never really factors into this story), he is left somewhat empty handed. The principles of Ecclesiastes come across in this film, whether Paul Thomas Anderson intended them to or not.
In the end, despite its intensity and grim nature at times, this movie is something I found exhilarating. The writing and creativity of Anderson is an amazing thing to behold. As I listened to the dialogue, at times I found myself in awe of the creativity and the precision of the vision and the dialogue in the movie. This filmmaker has received many accolades (he has not won an Oscar yet), and his work is definitely noteworthy. It may not always be palatable, and it sometimes is polarizing. However, it is always interesting, and this is in that vein.
Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a young man who has just returned from fighting on the Pacific front in World War 2. He is a slave to impulse, especially in desires for sex and alcohol. The opening images of the film show the extent to which he will he go for sexual release, and at other points in the movie, his addiction for alcohol is revealed to be so deep that he uses paint thinner in a cocktail. One night, in a drunken stupor, he finds himself stumbling onto a yacht in San Francisco Harbor. On the boat is a group of people led by a man named Lancaster Dodd, who presides over a group of people dedicated to "The Cause." Freddie ends up in the bowels of the ship with Lancaster (whose name we do not even know until much of the film is over), and Lancaster subjects him to a lengthy interrogation. Why he asks the questions he does is not clear. The one thing that is clear is that Dodd believes in some kind of ability of humans to heal past hurts, free themselves from addictions, and attain some kind of perfection that all humans have lost.
"The Cause" has gained quite a following, as Dodd is able to count on the good will and hospitality of people from homes as varied as San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. As Freddie continues in the cause, his loyalty to Dodd becomes fierce enough that he becomes willing to resort to violence toward those who question him. He also is willing to endure bizarre physical challenges from Dodd simply because he is asked to do so. Rifts inevitably develop between the two men, and the whole time, Dodd's wife Peggy (Amy Adams) presides over their relationship with suspicion.
This movie could have been "about" a lot of things. It could have been a critique of self help religion (the history of Scientology did help inspire the film, according to director Paul Thomas Anderson). It could have also delved more deeply into life's meaning as it examines the obvious questions that are brought up with the subject matter. Instead, it seems to me that the movie is most concerned with personal dynamics. The two main characters and the people they affect give us a fascinating story. Add to that some of the supporting roles, and the dynamics become even more interesting. For instance, though "The Master" is the character of Dodd, I couldn't hep but think as I watched the film that the film's title could just as easily be talking about Dodd's wife. While the ideas, gift of gab, and glory all belong to Lancaster, Peggy seems to quietly preside over it all, telling Lancaster when he has gone too far, and demanding certain things from him that no one else could.
Therefore, the movie is not really "about" anything, in my final analysis. It seems more observational, much like an episode of "Seinfeld". It's almost as if Anderson wanted to simply make a movie about interesting people, and let the audience observe them. Of course, by doing that, it is actually about a lot of different things! I suppose this is the paradox of the movie. It doesn't take much of a position on what it depicts, and in so doing, it gives the viewer many issues to ponder. For me, the ultimate issue that I pondered was the human being's search for belonging and meaning. Where do we go for these things? Anderson shows Freddie going to several places for this, but in the end, it all seems somewhat vain. In the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, a phrase appears: "Nothing is new under the sun". As Freddie tries to find meaning everywhere (except in God, who never really factors into this story), he is left somewhat empty handed. The principles of Ecclesiastes come across in this film, whether Paul Thomas Anderson intended them to or not.
In the end, despite its intensity and grim nature at times, this movie is something I found exhilarating. The writing and creativity of Anderson is an amazing thing to behold. As I listened to the dialogue, at times I found myself in awe of the creativity and the precision of the vision and the dialogue in the movie. This filmmaker has received many accolades (he has not won an Oscar yet), and his work is definitely noteworthy. It may not always be palatable, and it sometimes is polarizing. However, it is always interesting, and this is in that vein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)