I mentioned this in a recent post (so forgive the repetition if you read that but) but the last time I saw a JJ Abrams "Star Trek" movie for the first time, I had my dad sitting next to me. So, as the theater dimmed earlier today, I looked to my right to see an empty chair, and remembered dad. Little did I know that many of the images I would see over the next 2 hours would do even more to remind me of my dad and some of the movie memories I shared with him. This movie (especially its second half) is jammed with wonderful homages to the original Star Trek series, but everything is written well enough that it would take nothing away from the enjoyment of the movie if the viewer knows nothing about Star Trek. JJ Abrams and company are doing wonderful things with this franchise, and since they are not bound by the canon of the original series (due to sci-fi reasons :) ), the possibilities of what they can do with this series are endless. To watch this movie was a wonderful flashback to my childhood, but also a totally original experience. I will attempt to be free from spoilers, but I will say, there is a lot to spoil, so read with caution.
The movie begins with events that end up leaving Kirk without the command of the Enterprise. This event coincides with a bombing of a Starfleet archive in London. The man who ends up being behind the bombing is John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). The bombing prompts Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to call a special session with all of the Captains and First Officers of the fleet present. Harrison, assuming this meeting would take place, then attacks that meeting, and kills Kirk's mentor. Kirk is then reinstated as Captain of the Enterprise, and Spock is reinstated as First Officer. Harrison had escaped after his attack to a far off planet, and Kirk is given the task to hunt down and kill Harrison by Admiral Marcus. Things take a surprising turn, however, when Kirk captures Harrison rather than killing him, and the story really takes off from there.
JJ Abrams is this generation's Steven Spielberg. He is making movies that are at once entertaining, engaging, and have mass appeal. Taking a franchise like Star Trek (which has a large appeal, but a more selective one) and giving it a mass appeal is a tough thing to do, but Abrams has done it with his two "Trek" films. Since Abrams is now directing the next "Star Wars" movie, he may not be directing more "Trek" films, but the franchise will be the poorer for it. I can only imagine that the upcoming "Star Wars" sequels have great potential, given the quality of these "Star Trek" films. Here, he is able to rely on the inherent strengths of the "Star Trek" franchise. The characters created by Gene Roddenberry almost 50 years ago have always been the strength of this series. Taking those characters and giving them a good story made for the best of what "Star Trek" has had to offer. Here, the characters are given a great villain, but also a great story, filled with action that never lets up, and homages to the original series which give the movie great texture. One of the strengths that Abrams and company bring this new version is how much substance they give to all of the Trek characters. While Kirk and Spock will always be the central characters of this mythology, Chekhov, Sulu, Scotty, McCoy and Uhura are all given important roles to pay in this epic, and the story is so much stronger because of it. The other thing which made for some of the best Trek movies and episodes was the villains it gave us. Here, the villain known initially as John Harrison evokes some of the best villains Trek has ever had to offer. He is a character of substance, not simply evil incarnate. He has motivation for what is is doing, in spite of the fact that what he is doing is horribly destructive.
The ending moments of the movie were wonderful in their evocative nature. The writers of the movie truly did their homework and knew some things that would satisfy Trek fans without bogging the story down in Star Trek minutiae. They give us familiar images, but in a new context, and the familiarity is what brings us back to these movies. We all love familiar things, and what Abrams and company have done so masterfully here is gives us something both new and familiar. This is great mass market movie making, and it makes me very excited to see what Abrams has in store for all of us with the next "Star Wars" movie.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Star Trek (2009)
Today, the sequel to this popular reboot of the "Star Trek" franchise is released in the theaters. I can't wait to get out and see it. This week, I decided to watch this 2009 movie again, and really recapture the spirit just in time for the release of the new Star Trek film. Earlier this week, I recalled here a great moment I had with my dad when I first saw this movie. Watching it again this week, I thought a lot of him, but I also remembered just how good this movie is. It is a bold, inventive piece of work that tries to have its cake and eat it too, and pretty much succeeds.
What is meant by the cake remark? The movie wants to be able to give us many of the same characters and situations that made Star Trek fans love the franchise, but it needs to change it enough so that the films are not simply a retread. In order to do that, a time travel plot is given to us that gives everyone in the Star Trek universe a brand new destiny. While the logic of the plot may be a bit suspect (leading the viewer to have to suspend at least some disbelief), it works tremendously well in giving fans familiarity, but keeping it general enough the people who aren't big Star Trek fans can follow the action as well. One of the many things that works very well is the time travel variable scene itself. As James T. Kirk's father George is the First Officer of the USS Kelvin, a Romulan renegade named Nero bursts onto the scene out of nowhere and completely changes everyone's destiny in the Star Trek universe. The main thing that affects Kirk's destiny is that his father dies while he is being born, while in the original Star Trek universe, Kirk grew up with his father. While everything ends up changing due to these events, the writers of the movie still are able to present characters and situations that are familiar to Trek devotees. One such event that hearkened back to the original cast that is executed very well is Kirk's taking the "no win scenario" during his days at the academy. This event was originally discussed in "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan". It involves a test wherein Starfleet cadets are put in a situation wherein the captain in the simulation is put in a sure death situation and then shows how he will react. Kirk is taking the test for the third time, but he has reprogrammed the test in order to beat the "no win scenario". The scene is hilarious in how smug and arrogant Kirk is, and it is one event that happens in both "Trek" worlds, showing a certain constancy to Kirk's bravado, even though so much has changed from the original Trek universe.
While watching this time, it became clear that fans of movies have two things about which to be excited. First, the new film "Star Trek: Into Darkness" looks to be good, and it has gotten great reviews. But second, for fans of the "Star Wars" films, it should be remembered the JJ Abrams (the director of both new Trek movies) will be directing the next Star Wars movie. If he handles the Star Wars franchise as capably as he handled the Trek series, fans have so much to anticipate. Here, Abrams is able to find the right balance of reverence for the characters with the necessity of giving a fresh vision. Also, bringing Leornard Nimoy into the movie proves to be a stamp of approval from the original series. His presence lends a certain Trek gravitas which takes a capable story and launches it into outer space, metaphorically speaking. Scene after scene is infused with life and creativity. The slight cockeyed angle of the camera throughout the movie gives lends an element of realism to the vision. The performances in the movie are also noteworthy. The cast faced the same daunting task as the writers and director here. They had to pay tribute to the characters they did not create, but still be able to bring something fresh to each character. Chris Pine's James T. Kirk has some wonderful homages to William Shatner (witness the scene at the end when he pats Dr. McCoy and the shoulder and proclaims, "Bones, buckle up!"), but is still a different Kirk. Anton Yelchin's Chekhov is the right blend of substantial character and cheesy caricature it was originally meant to be from the 60's series. Zachary Qunito's Spock is note perfect, especially as this incarnation of the series' best character adds brand new nuances to the character. Zoe Saldana's Uhura might be the most important new incarnation in this film. In the old series, Uhura was important, but sometimes seemed like little more than an intergalactic telephone operator. Here, the character is given some real substance, and the movie is so much more deep because of that.
The other characters are similarly substantial, which brings us to the ultimate strength of this new version of Trek. The movie we are watching (though we know it to be a fantasy), is infused with truth and realism. This kind of storytelling has been on display in movies lately, especially in Christoper Nolan's "Batman" trilogy. We are seeing a trend of fantasy films which stay within a fantasy world, but are able to seem real, and so the movies touch us in ways other fantasy films don't. In this movie, the opening minutes never fail to create emotion because they are true to life, even though they are set in outer space. I am a big fan of all kinds of movies. Art house movies and indie movies are always interesting for me. But people like JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan seem to be bringing some real substance to the mulitplex as well, and I am excited to see what is going to come of it next.
What is meant by the cake remark? The movie wants to be able to give us many of the same characters and situations that made Star Trek fans love the franchise, but it needs to change it enough so that the films are not simply a retread. In order to do that, a time travel plot is given to us that gives everyone in the Star Trek universe a brand new destiny. While the logic of the plot may be a bit suspect (leading the viewer to have to suspend at least some disbelief), it works tremendously well in giving fans familiarity, but keeping it general enough the people who aren't big Star Trek fans can follow the action as well. One of the many things that works very well is the time travel variable scene itself. As James T. Kirk's father George is the First Officer of the USS Kelvin, a Romulan renegade named Nero bursts onto the scene out of nowhere and completely changes everyone's destiny in the Star Trek universe. The main thing that affects Kirk's destiny is that his father dies while he is being born, while in the original Star Trek universe, Kirk grew up with his father. While everything ends up changing due to these events, the writers of the movie still are able to present characters and situations that are familiar to Trek devotees. One such event that hearkened back to the original cast that is executed very well is Kirk's taking the "no win scenario" during his days at the academy. This event was originally discussed in "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan". It involves a test wherein Starfleet cadets are put in a situation wherein the captain in the simulation is put in a sure death situation and then shows how he will react. Kirk is taking the test for the third time, but he has reprogrammed the test in order to beat the "no win scenario". The scene is hilarious in how smug and arrogant Kirk is, and it is one event that happens in both "Trek" worlds, showing a certain constancy to Kirk's bravado, even though so much has changed from the original Trek universe.
While watching this time, it became clear that fans of movies have two things about which to be excited. First, the new film "Star Trek: Into Darkness" looks to be good, and it has gotten great reviews. But second, for fans of the "Star Wars" films, it should be remembered the JJ Abrams (the director of both new Trek movies) will be directing the next Star Wars movie. If he handles the Star Wars franchise as capably as he handled the Trek series, fans have so much to anticipate. Here, Abrams is able to find the right balance of reverence for the characters with the necessity of giving a fresh vision. Also, bringing Leornard Nimoy into the movie proves to be a stamp of approval from the original series. His presence lends a certain Trek gravitas which takes a capable story and launches it into outer space, metaphorically speaking. Scene after scene is infused with life and creativity. The slight cockeyed angle of the camera throughout the movie gives lends an element of realism to the vision. The performances in the movie are also noteworthy. The cast faced the same daunting task as the writers and director here. They had to pay tribute to the characters they did not create, but still be able to bring something fresh to each character. Chris Pine's James T. Kirk has some wonderful homages to William Shatner (witness the scene at the end when he pats Dr. McCoy and the shoulder and proclaims, "Bones, buckle up!"), but is still a different Kirk. Anton Yelchin's Chekhov is the right blend of substantial character and cheesy caricature it was originally meant to be from the 60's series. Zachary Qunito's Spock is note perfect, especially as this incarnation of the series' best character adds brand new nuances to the character. Zoe Saldana's Uhura might be the most important new incarnation in this film. In the old series, Uhura was important, but sometimes seemed like little more than an intergalactic telephone operator. Here, the character is given some real substance, and the movie is so much more deep because of that.
The other characters are similarly substantial, which brings us to the ultimate strength of this new version of Trek. The movie we are watching (though we know it to be a fantasy), is infused with truth and realism. This kind of storytelling has been on display in movies lately, especially in Christoper Nolan's "Batman" trilogy. We are seeing a trend of fantasy films which stay within a fantasy world, but are able to seem real, and so the movies touch us in ways other fantasy films don't. In this movie, the opening minutes never fail to create emotion because they are true to life, even though they are set in outer space. I am a big fan of all kinds of movies. Art house movies and indie movies are always interesting for me. But people like JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan seem to be bringing some real substance to the mulitplex as well, and I am excited to see what is going to come of it next.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Another Dad Movie Memory
As the next Star Trek movie is almost ready to be released in the theaters, I keep thinking up the time I saw JJ Abrams' first installment of his "Star Trek" reboot back in 2009. My parents were set to come out and visit us in Minnesota that May, and I thought it would be a great idea to wait to see the movie until dad was out on his trip. We went down to the Mall of America. I loved the movie, and it was fun to see the movie with him, since I had grown up watching "Star Trek" many nights at the dinner table at our home in Southern California. The main thing I remember about that day was that when the movie ended, my dad burst into applause all by himself in the movie theater. The theater wasn't that full as I recall, so his applause was pretty much the only applause in the room. Needless to say, he liked the movie a lot too.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Stand By Me
Here's a movie that I have heard about for most of my life, and until recently, I had never seen it. It's one of those movies that seems to mean something to a lot of people as well, so it was good to finally experience it. The movie was directed by Rob Reiner, who was on a creative tear in the 80's. He directed a string of films that are classics ("Spinal Tap", "Sure Thing", "When Harry Met Sally"), and this one falls right into that era. The movie is based on a short story by Stephen King, and it follows four boys on an extraordinary journey.
The movie is mostly a flashback. A grown man named Gordie (Richard Dreyfuss) sees a note in the paper concerning the death of Chris, a man with whom he had grown up. Upon seeing the headline, Gordie immediately begins to recollect the events of the summer of 1959. Gordie (Wil Wheaton) and his three friends Teddy, Vern and Chris (Corey Feldman, Jerry O' Connell and River Phoenix) are all enjoying their summer and the freedom it brings. Vern hears his older brother and a friend discussing the death of a local young boy and the whereabouts of the boy's body. The boys come up with a plan to find the body so they can become local heroes. They end up in a race to the body with Vern's older brother, who is joined by the local small time thug Ace (Keifer Sutherland). Along the way, the boys all have significant discussions about their hope and fears.
The plot of this movie is really secondary to the feelings it evokes. Sometimes, a movie's story is not nearly as important to its success as the tone that the film has. Here, there is tremendous authenticity to the portrayal of the four boys. Each of them have their own baggage, but all of that is portrayed in a way that is consistent with how boys would speak about such things. Gordie has just lost his older brother, and it seems as though his parents, in their grief, have shut him out. Chris comes from a difficult family, and it seems that he is destined for a life of hooliganism. Vern is awkward and pudgy, and he has a hard time avoiding being picked on. Finally, Teddy is a kid who has been abused at home by an unstable father. Lesser movies with these themes may descend to "after school special" jargon. This movie is able to portray these difficult adult oriented themes while still making the dialogue of the boys believable. In a small role, Jon Cusack plays Gordie's older brother (in scenes that take place before his death). He brings a special element of tenderness to the film, as he seems to have been a perfect older brother to Gordie, and the viewer feels even more grief for Gordie as we see whom he has lost.
After seeing this movie, it was good, but not quite the classic I was expecting. I was very impressed by the ability of Rob Reiner to direct the young actors so well. Also, the ability to bring great drama to everyday small town life was accomplished very well. My hunch regarding this movie's classic status is that it brought together several young actors at once who all went on to do work as older actors. Hence, this movie is a sort of time capsule for all of these young talented actors. It is particularly poignant to see River Phoenix in his role, since he ended up dying so young. He and the other young actors bring a depth to their characters that is rare. I can see myself sitting down with my boys when they are 13 or so and watching this movie, almost as a way to introduce them to certain elements of becoming a young man.
The movie is mostly a flashback. A grown man named Gordie (Richard Dreyfuss) sees a note in the paper concerning the death of Chris, a man with whom he had grown up. Upon seeing the headline, Gordie immediately begins to recollect the events of the summer of 1959. Gordie (Wil Wheaton) and his three friends Teddy, Vern and Chris (Corey Feldman, Jerry O' Connell and River Phoenix) are all enjoying their summer and the freedom it brings. Vern hears his older brother and a friend discussing the death of a local young boy and the whereabouts of the boy's body. The boys come up with a plan to find the body so they can become local heroes. They end up in a race to the body with Vern's older brother, who is joined by the local small time thug Ace (Keifer Sutherland). Along the way, the boys all have significant discussions about their hope and fears.
The plot of this movie is really secondary to the feelings it evokes. Sometimes, a movie's story is not nearly as important to its success as the tone that the film has. Here, there is tremendous authenticity to the portrayal of the four boys. Each of them have their own baggage, but all of that is portrayed in a way that is consistent with how boys would speak about such things. Gordie has just lost his older brother, and it seems as though his parents, in their grief, have shut him out. Chris comes from a difficult family, and it seems that he is destined for a life of hooliganism. Vern is awkward and pudgy, and he has a hard time avoiding being picked on. Finally, Teddy is a kid who has been abused at home by an unstable father. Lesser movies with these themes may descend to "after school special" jargon. This movie is able to portray these difficult adult oriented themes while still making the dialogue of the boys believable. In a small role, Jon Cusack plays Gordie's older brother (in scenes that take place before his death). He brings a special element of tenderness to the film, as he seems to have been a perfect older brother to Gordie, and the viewer feels even more grief for Gordie as we see whom he has lost.
After seeing this movie, it was good, but not quite the classic I was expecting. I was very impressed by the ability of Rob Reiner to direct the young actors so well. Also, the ability to bring great drama to everyday small town life was accomplished very well. My hunch regarding this movie's classic status is that it brought together several young actors at once who all went on to do work as older actors. Hence, this movie is a sort of time capsule for all of these young talented actors. It is particularly poignant to see River Phoenix in his role, since he ended up dying so young. He and the other young actors bring a depth to their characters that is rare. I can see myself sitting down with my boys when they are 13 or so and watching this movie, almost as a way to introduce them to certain elements of becoming a young man.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Movie Quote Contest answers
Thanks for all who participated!!! I got 11 entries, and I know many more of you peaked in and gave it a try! Thanks a lot. I want to do more of these, because people respond really well, and more people check into my little blog world. The winner this month was my old buddy Josh from High School youth group days...he got 16 points on the quiz. He guessed several of the quotes correctly and the actors who spoke them, plus he guessed what all the quotes have in common...I had a couple other people guess the connection as well.
Here are the answers:
CONNECTION: All of these movies are set in or around the city of Chicago.
1. "Say it ain't so Joe"- "Eight Men Out"
2. "Do you have a kiss for Daddy?"-Matthew Broderick, "Ferrie Bueller's Day Off."
3. "I didn't kill my wife!"-Harrison Ford, "The Fugitive"
4. "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"-John Cusack, "High Fidelity"
5. "I'll have a drink."-Kevin Costner, "The Untouchables"
6. "Could you describe the ruckus?"-Anthony Michael Hall, "The Breakfast Club"
7. "We're on a mission from God."-Dan Akroyd and John Belushi, "The Blues Brothers"
8. "I like the mass better in Latin. It's nicer when you don't know what they're saying." Glynis Johns, "While You Were Sleeping"
9. "4 Jacks...you owe me 15 grand pal"-Paul Newman, "The Sting"
10. "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"-"Planes, Trains and Automobiles"
Thanks for playing!
Here are the answers:
CONNECTION: All of these movies are set in or around the city of Chicago.
1. "Say it ain't so Joe"- "Eight Men Out"
2. "Do you have a kiss for Daddy?"-Matthew Broderick, "Ferrie Bueller's Day Off."
3. "I didn't kill my wife!"-Harrison Ford, "The Fugitive"
4. "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"-John Cusack, "High Fidelity"
5. "I'll have a drink."-Kevin Costner, "The Untouchables"
6. "Could you describe the ruckus?"-Anthony Michael Hall, "The Breakfast Club"
7. "We're on a mission from God."-Dan Akroyd and John Belushi, "The Blues Brothers"
8. "I like the mass better in Latin. It's nicer when you don't know what they're saying." Glynis Johns, "While You Were Sleeping"
9. "4 Jacks...you owe me 15 grand pal"-Paul Newman, "The Sting"
10. "YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"-"Planes, Trains and Automobiles"
Thanks for playing!
Friday, May 3, 2013
Return of the Movie Quote Contest
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!!!"
-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!!!"
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)