Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read

Gateway Cinephile

Appreciation and Criticism of Cinema Through Heartland Eyes
Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read
Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.29.07 PM.png

The Cause Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed: The Master and the Inadequacies of Ideology

[Note: This essay contains spoilers. My original September 12, 2012 review of The Master for Look / Listen can be found here.]

Last month The New Inquiry published an incisive essay titled “American Saints,” the subject of which is, in author Rohit Chopra’s phrasing, “the fetishization of the entrepreneur” in American cultural and political life. Overall, the piece is a trenchant slice of social criticism, but it is this early paragraph in Chopra’s essay, highlighted by Andrew Sullivan, that zeroes in on a phenomenon that has long needed a name:

The obsession with the figure of the entrepreneur reflects what may be called the “evangelical imagination,” in American society. I use the term broadly to refer to a style of thinking in which the act of adopting a set of beliefs and attitudes is seen as profoundly transforming both the individual and the state of the world. The term also invokes the missionary fervor with which the advocates of particular ideas, beliefs, or products seek to persuade others about the value of these notions or objects…

 

Chopra employs this idea of the evangelical imagination as an explanatory framework for what he perceives as the culture’s monomaniacal lionization of “Homo entrepeneuricus”. However, the concept is a useful one for understanding a distinctly American approach to all manner of ideologies, whether they are economic, political, religious, or philosophical. The evangelical imagination has a particular relevance for cinephiles at the present moment, as the phenomenon is one of the foremost thematic preoccupations of writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson’s brilliant, divisive new feature, The Master.

Moreso than any other American feature released in 2012, Anderson’s film has provoked a bumper crop of deep-focus critical assessments. In the past three months or so, a staggering number of words have been generated in an attempt to suss out The Master’s plot, themes, style, and various perceived strengths or weaknesses as an art object. Thus far, however, there has been little discussion of the prominent place of ideology in the film’s dense thematic landscape. In particular, The Master’s acidic criticism of the American zeal for a transformative, receivable Truth is one of its most enthralling aspects, and one that deserves serious attention.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.03.53 AM.png

One could hardly imagine an individual in greater need of a transformation (any kind of transformation) than World War II Navy veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), who exhibits a host of compulsive, destructive behaviors. Freddie is a raging alcoholic with a predilection (and apparent talent) for concocting eye-opening elixirs from ingredients ranging from Cutty Sark to paint thinner. He will, however, swig straight Lysol in a pinch. His addiction routinely results in all manner of first- and second-order troubles. The booze keeps him snoozing through a dinner date with a lovely department store model, Martha (Amy Ferguson). It goads him into a pointless, adolescent scrap with a customer (W. Earl Brown) at the photography studio where he works for a time. Eventually, it finds him sprinting across a fallow field in California’s Central Valley, chased by Filipino cabbage-pickers who believe that Freddie’s homemade hooch has poisoned a fellow worker (Frank Bettag).

Boozing is just the most prominent of Freddie’s innumerable bad habits, however. He is routinely seized by a sexual mania that overwhelms his senses, not to mention his already-marginal social graces. During the War, when his fellow sailors construct a sand sculpture of an anatomically correct woman on a South Pacific beach, Freddie doesn’t just hump the effigy for a few seconds to elicit a laugh. He proceeds to finger the sand-woman’s vagina in detached silence, while the appreciative smiles of the gathered sailors gradually slacken in discomfort. (Phoenix adds a superlative physical flourish to this scene by offhandedly shaking the grit from his hand.)

Within every inkblot presented to him by a Navy psychologist, Freddie detects a pussy or cock or some combination of the two. Even his more poetic romantic outbursts are streaked with sexual frenzy. About to depart for China on a sea freighter, he whispers a dawn goodbye at the bedroom window of Doris (Madisen Beaty), the sixteen-year-old object of his desire, and then abruptly rips through the wire screen to embrace her. (The moment evokes William Hurt’s lust-crazed glass-shattering in Body Heat, albeit without the subsequent sexual release.) Freddie’s characteristic stance—crooked back, sunken chest, arms akimbo, hands resting on his bony hips—highlights his satyriasis. He seems to be ready to direct an animal thrust at anything that crosses his path, or perhaps straining (unsuccessfully) to keep his urges leashed.

Freddie’s gargantuan impulse-control problems appear to have been exacerbated by his wartime experiences. These are ambiguous, although sufficiently scarring that he is committed for a time to the care of Navy hospital for what was is euphemistically referred to as his “nervous condition.” Later in the film, he confesses to having slain an unspecified number of “Japs” during the War, and although he claims that he feels no guilt for these murders, it’s plain that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, shell shock (as it was then called) is not the only explanation for his erratic, violent tendencies, which the film traces back (in part) to a family history of alcoholism, mental illness, and emotional and sexual abuse.

Like all addicts, Freddie is in deep denial about the extent to which his actions are problematic, preferring to project the persona of a hard-working, easy-going fellow with no particular troubles. Questioned by a Navy doctor, he exhibits little remorse for past “incidents,” such as a drunken attack on an officer or a sobbing breakdown provoked by a letter from Doris. Freddie’s reaction when confronted with any accusation is to first refute and then minimize. “There’s no problem” is his mantra, but anyone with eyes can see that there most definitely is a problem.

It’s clear that Freddie desperately needs to change his ways or he will soon meet a violent, booze-soaked end, but it’s less obvious how such a change might come about. For some individuals, the day-to-day structure provided by military life serves as a much-needed organizing principle that nurtures self-discipline, but Freddie is not that sort of individual. Even threats of imprisonment or hospitalization have evidently done little to curb his drinking, libido, or rage. He’s as untamable as a mad rattlesnake, prone to lash out at anything that grazes him.

Freddie’s dissolute behavior positions him as the potential hero in a classic Conversion Story, in which a lost soul is transformed by exposure to a Truth (usually religious in nature). In such tales, the convert is snatched from the talons of self-destruction and blessed with a new sense of completeness and purpose. However, while The Master relies in part on the conventions of the Conversion Story, the film is eventually revealed as a bloody-minded refutation of the very notion of conversion. Far from offering a boilerplate portrait of Augustinian repentance and zeal, The Master depicts Freddie’s attempt to reform himself through ideological devotion as a futile and even catastrophic endeavor.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.25.23 PM.png

Bottoming out for the umpteenth time, Freddie stows away aboard the Alethiea, a luxury ship moored in San Francisco Bay. Upon awakening blearily the next morning, he is led into the stateroom of "The Master." This is Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a self-described "writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, and theoretical philosopher," who also presents himself as the commander of the vessel. During their first conversation, Dodd observes that Freddie is a “hopelessly inquisitive man.” This phrase does not seem to describe the volatile drunk and sexual obsessive that the film has thus far depicted. However, the longing for answers to questions (and for solutions to dilemmas) proves to be one of the fundamental forces that propels Freddie’s Conversion Story—and ultimately derails it utterly.

From the moment of their initial encounter, the complex relationship between Freddie and Dodd becomes the dramatic centerpiece of the film. Freddie’s stance towards Dodd’s pseudo-religious self-help movement, the Cause, is informed to a large extent by his stance towards the Master. This is unsurprising, given Dodd’s status as the Cause’s first and only prophet. However, Dodd also develops an affinity for Freddie that goes beyond the normal dynamic of a high priest and his acolyte, with Dodd exhibiting behavior that is faintly paternal, fraternal, and homoerotic. Both men are eventually disillusioned by the failures of the other, and those failures become a part of the film’s broader criticism of ideology gone haywire, and of the evangelical imagination’s stark limitations.

To the skeptical eye, Dodd’s Cause appears to be a mish-mash of past-life regression, positive-thinking gobbledegook, and laughable snake oil claims. In its outlines, the Cause bears some similarities to L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics movement and its religious descendant, the Church of Scientology. Likewise, Dodd’s biographical details and personality traits partly resemble those of the historical Hubbard. The dramatic heft of The Master relies to some extent on the evocative power of such similarities, permitting the film to exploit the prominent position of Scientology within the American religious, economic, and cultural landscape. (Undeniably, Scientology is a profoundly American faith in both its origins and character, with its pay-to-play system of spiritual advancement and institutional reverence for celebrity and financial success.)

However, the fictional nature of the Cause is essential to The Master’s success as a bleak rebuttal of the zealous advocacy that characterizes the evangelical imagination. Anderson’s centering of the film’s events on an invented cult shifts the focus away from the creeds or rituals of any particular real-world faith. This enables the film to preempt accusations of sectarian motive and circumvert slogs through digressive theological mires. Instead, The Master takes as its theme the phenomenon of ideology, and in particular the ways in which ideological systems are intrinsically incapable of confronting and addressing their own failures. In revealing the weaknesses of a non-existent religious movement, the film thereby confronts all the -isms that promise a sweeping transformation of the self and society.

This sort of transformative power is strongly associated with American evangelical Christianity; hence Chopra’s appropriation of the movement’s terminology for his essay. For Americans who were raised in the evangelical subculture, the holistic character of Biblical truth—its alleged applicability to every aspect of life and every problem one could potentially confront—is a familiar concept. One’s Christian faith, and specifically a non-literal “literal” reading of the Bible, provides a yardstick by which all judgements can be assessed for righteousness, from the most banal consumerist choices to legal interpretations of the United States Constitution.

To those Americans who stand outside the evangelical Christian bubble, the all-encompassing reach of its worldview can be difficult to fully comprehend and appreciate. Occasionally, the flitting sunlight of YouTube will illuminate a prominent true believer who takes the evangelical imagination to its logical endpoint: cultural hegemony enforced at the point of a sword (or at least a bureaucrat’s pen). Such a moment was recently highlighted when video emerged of Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) extolling the Bible before a like-minded audience:

What I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it... It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

As Broun’s words illustrate, the evangelical imagination approaches Christianity not merely as a set of principles for confronting day-to-day ethical dilemmas, or as a source of personal fortitude in the face of adversity. The church is, rather, a cultural force that can and must be implemented in every facet of human life. Such hubris is hardly the exclusive domain of Christianity, nor is it limited to religious movements. It is the common thread of every ideological system when it imagines itself at the End of History and subsequently becomes infected with sweeping self-importance.

Just as all ills—whether personal or social—are rooted in the absence of the ideology, there are no problems that can stand before the ideology’s gleaming truths. This stripe of grandiose, magical thinking creates space for truly ludicrous claims. In The Master, Lancaster Dodd insists that the Cause’s “de-hypnosis” methods can achieve aims as grand as establishing world peace and curing leukemia. (“Some kinds of leukemia,” Dodd helpfully clarifies.) Such statements directly evoke Scientology’s claims that its pseudo-scientific hoodoo can heal all manner of psychiatric ailments. However, one is also reminded of the remarkable assertion of George W. Bush’s neo-colonial Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer that right-wing laissez-faire economic policies were the cure-all for the post-Saddam, U.S.-instigated chaos in that country. How exactly a flat tax rate would have blocked the bullets that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians is a mystery on par with how Dodd’s interrogation exercises can abolish cancer.

***

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.06.25 AM.png

Were The Master especially concerned with highlighting the silliness of the Cause’s self-help claims and quasi-mystical newspeak, then one might justly accuse Anderson of fashioning a ideological scarecrow to pummel into submission. However, while the film presents the Cause’s beliefs as almost laughably wobbly at times, Dodd is hardly portrayed as a failure. He has, after all, amassed a nationwide assemblage of followers, many of whom sincerely believe that his methods have helped them overcome physical and psychological challenges. The Master is, if nothing else, a consummate pitchman and manipulator, capable of convincing his devotees that his Victorian parlor tricks are providing dramatic results in their daily lives.

The vacuousness of the Cause plays a vital narrative role in The Master, but the film’s dramatic focus rests on characters’ reactions and counter-reactions to that vacuousness. This is crucial to the film’s grace and sophistication: its criticism of the evangelical imagination is discreetly expressed through the experiences of its characters. Specifically, the film employs the person of Freddie Quell to illustrate the paradox of a zealot who does not see the divine light that fellow believers claim to sense. Fundamentally, The Master is the story of how Freddie responds when confronted with this alienating situation, and how Dodd in turn responds to the presence of a stillborn apostle in his flock.

Approaching The Master in this way permits a strikingly clear division of the film’s scenes into chapters, with significant shifts in Freddie’s relationship to the Cause serving as narrative breakpoints. The scenes that precede Freddie’s first encounter with Dodd aboard the Aletheia function as a prelude, establishing significant facts about the former man’s character and past (although some revelations are held in reserve for later). In the chapters that follow, the film creates a sense of expectation through the promise that Freddie will experience a “profound transformation,” in Chopra’s phrasing. This epiphany never arrives, resulting in a story that is characterized by repeated episodes of aimlessness and fizzled potentiality. The viewer, like Freddie, expects that the burning bush will eventually speak, but The Master is utterly ruthless in its silence.

The film’s setting encompasses a sequence of localities that are not revisited (save in flashback), conveying the sensation of trudging towards an ever-lengthening horizon. The action drifts to San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Arizona, Massachusetts, and England, as though a moment of clarity lies just over the next hill. (The South Pacific of Freddie’s war memories, meanwhile, seems to exist outside of time, bookending the film with its churning turquoise waters and sandy mother-lover.) The rootlessness of setting is an outgrowth of Lancaster Dodd’s itinerant nature. Recalling Christ, he is a holy man without a temple, dependent on the largesse of well-heeled, more sedentary benefactors in order to sustain himself and preach his gospel. Of course, in contrast to Christ’s asceticism, Dodd appreciates the finer things in life, and has no compunctions about borrowing a wealthy follower’s stately pleasure ship for his daughter Elizabeth’s (Ambyr Childers) maritime wedding.

I. Aboard the Aletheia

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 8.05.35 AM.png

Having discovered that he is the guest of an enigmatic self-help author who answers only to the title “Master,” Freddie is understandably guarded. Even when confronted with Dodd’s disarming observations regarding his alcoholism and anger—apparently gleaned from a single off-screen night of misbehavior—Freddie repeats his Navy hospital tactics and simply denies that he has any problems. The wedding of Elizabeth and Clark (Rami Malek) and the following days at sea expose Freddie to the Cause’s strange jargon and rituals, albeit offhandedly at first. During the wedding reception, Dodd’s son Val (Jesse Piemons) asks Freddie whether he has performed any “time-hole work,” a question to which the latter man responds with his characteristic grinning uncertainty. Playing along and telling people what he suspects they want to hear proves to be a favored strategy for Freddie when he is on unfamiliar ground.

Freddie is generally captivated by Dodd’s self-assured charisma, and pleased by the man’s appreciation for his mixology talents. (Dodd, who is a guilt-wracked sensualist at heart and loves mystifying the mundane, coyly refers to Freddie’s alcoholic concoctions as “potions”.) Where the Cause’s bizarre beliefs and practices are concerned, however, Freddie exhibits a blend of mild curiosity and eye-rolling disbelief. During a strange group session, Dodd’s wife Peggy (Amy Adams) explains in hushed tones that the Cause’s methods allow subjects to revisit formative in utero experiences, and even regress through countless past lives. “We record everything,” she declares, hands on her pregnancy-swollen stomach, and although Freddie nods in agreement, he doesn’t seem to know what to make of this statement. Spiritual matters don’t hold much attraction for him. Confronted with a bank of headphones that pump a recording of a droning, anti-carnal diatribe read by Dodd, Freddie defiantly scribbles a crude proposition to the woman sitting across from him.

Perhaps sensing Freddie’s growing frustration, Dodd asks him to participate in the Cause’s signature sacrament, a marathon of repetitive, confounding, and deeply personal questions referred to as Processing. Freddie’s Processing is one of the film’s pivotal scenes: Dodd succeeds in cracking open the man’s shell of stiff-lipped denial, and exposes the core of raw pain underneath. The ease with which the Master does this, and Freddie’s eagerness to please him by “succeeding” at the Processing, convince the latter man not only of Dodd’s wisdom, but of the ideological merits of the Cause. The silliness of past lives and time-holes aside, Freddie is unable to deny that Dodd has access to some secret way of seeing the world, enabling him to quickly discern a subject’s most private shames.

To a skeptical observer, standing outside the emotionally heightened Processing experience, Dodd’s methods seem mundane, comparable to the cold readings performed by strip-mall psychics and cable-show mediums. His questions are so generalized as to be pointless: Do your past failures bother you? Do you care how others see you? Is your life a struggle? Is your behavior erratic? Dodd creates false familiarity with such inquiries, priming Freddie to answer other, more specific questions with unthinking frankness. Furthermore, by asking the same questions repeatedly and staging the entire Processing as a kind of endurance test, the Master creates a sense of disorientation that invites non-rational responses. Freddie becomes wholly caught up in the Processing, going so far as to strike himself violently as punishment for repeatedly “failing” the rite.

The tone of Freddie’s Processing scene is ferociously intimate, one part confession and one part psychoanalysis. It also possesses a strikingly erotic undertone. After excavating all of Freddie’s secrets and declaring him “the bravest boy I’ve ever met,” Dodd shares a cigarette and a turpentine cocktail with his new devotee. (Dodd’s moaning exultation after a swallow of Freddie’s potion is nakedly orgasmic, and will be echoed later in the sounds Peggy’s bathroom sink handjob elicits from her husband.) However, the sexual dimension to Freddie’s Processing ultimately proves compelling not so much for its intimations about the Dodd-Freddie relationship as for its reflection of the Cause’s supposedly transformative qualities. Like the virgin freshly awakened to the secret world of sexuality, Freddie sees his surroundings through new eyes. (There will, of course, be eventual disappointments when the lover’s blemishes and aggravating habits become more evident with time.) He has witnessed the light on the road to Damascus, and has submitted himself to the ideal of the evangelical imagination: The Truth having (allegedly) enacted a profound change on him, he is compelled to venture into the world to participate in the dispersal of the Good News.

II. New York City

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 9.26.44 PM.png

For Freddie, however, the afterglow of his Processing—and any attendant positive effects on his self-destructive behavior—is short-lived. He willingly accompanies the Master and his entourage to New York City, where Dodd is received like an honored guest by an elderly, well-to-do patron, Mrs. Drummond (Patty McCormack). It is almost immediately apparent that Freddie’s ways have not been mended by the dubious miracle of Processing. Introduced to Mrs. Drummond, he gauchely fingers the dowager’s necklace, sizing its value with reptilian listlessness. Thereafter he slips away to a nearby room to swipe knick-knacks. The rationale for this kleptomania is not apparent, but is consistent with Freddie’s impulsive, anti-social pre-Processing behavior. Likewise, the Cause has evidently not deprived Freddie of his taste for alcohol, as he orders a scotch from the bartender. Later, perhaps after imbibing a few more fingers of whiskey, Freddie laughingly hurls food at John More (Christopher Evan Welch), a writer who dares to question Dodd’s methods.

Freddie’s failure to be dramatically remade by Processing and his rapid regression to negative thoughts and actions are stark expressions of a pattern that will be repeated throughout the film. Presented with a wooly promise of personal transformation, Freddie submits himself to the Cause’s ministrations, only to quickly slip back into his characteristic ugly behaviors. While he now directs a measure of his aggression outward at the perceived enemies of the Cause (such as More), that aggression has not subsided in the least. New Freddie does not embody a tamed animal, but a mere redirection of snapping jaws towards heathen “attackers,” in Peggy’s self-righteous phrasing. Eventually, Freddie takes the initiative to counter-attack in the name of the Cause: calling upon More during the wee hours, he forces his way into the skeptic’s apartment under false pretenses and subjects the man to an apparently brutal beating.

As will be illustrated later in the film, Freddie is a poor proselytizer, as he lacks the person-to-person charisma and unflappable demeanor that such a task demands. In addition to lacking the profound transformation of the evangelical imagination, he is comically ill-suited for the missionary aspects of such thinking. His hair-trigger temper and rattling furies, however, make him an effective religious enforcer, a junkyard dog who can be unleashed for the purposes of a kind of inverted advocacy. While rank-and-file members of the Cause woo lambs into the fold, Freddie prefers to prowl the perimeter in search of wolves (and wolves in sheep’s clothing). Freddie’s assumption of the legbreaker-in-chief role is startling, in part because of its rapidity, but also because it contrasts with the apparent disingenuousness of his conversion. One generally expects inquisitors and conquistadors to be true believers, not secret apostates.

Dodd, for his part, makes a grand show of scolding Freddie for the assault on More, and of emphatically declaring his follower’s actions to be subhuman. However, the sincerity of Dodd’s outrage is questionable. His disapproving scowl quickly melts into a grin, and he warmly repeats an earlier claim of deja vu, a suspicion that he and Freddie have met somewhere before. Dodd’s disapproval at Freddie’s bad acts is rendered toothless by his reassertion of intimate familiarity. This creates confusion for Freddie, a confusion that will only be compounded by subsequent dissonances in Dodd’s responses to his behavior. For now, it is sufficient to observe that the teacher’s reaction to moral stumbles pantomimes disapproval while drawing the convert closer. This two-step will become more difficult to achieve as Freddie becomes more agitated at the Cause’s shortcomings.

III. Philadelphia 1 - Freddie Stumbles

The Master and his entourage soon depart for Philadelphia, where they are are welcomed by another devoted follower and benefactor, Helen Sullivan (Laura Dern). In contrast to Mrs.O’Brien’s ritzy Gotham apartment, Helen’s home is a picture of tree-lined middle-class coziness, and proves to be far more accommodating to long-term occupancy by the Cause faithful. Freddie's uncertainty about the movement at this point in the story is highlighted by a surreptitious thigh-grope from Elizabeth. (The inconsistencies are accumulating: Is lust to be discouraged or not?) Later, Freddie watches drowsily from a corner as Dodd heartily belts out a bawdy song to the delight of assembled Cause aspirants. From Freddie’s alcohol-soaked viewpoint, the women in the room suddenly appear to be unclothed: laughing, applauding, and shameless in their nakedness. Peggy Dodd, partly concealed by her armchair, turns to glare at Freddie with what resembles mingled pity and fearfulness. She seems to sense the latent mischief that bubbles as Freddie’s lazy, licentious eye wanders over the revelries.

Theat night, after aggressively asserting her power over Dodd with the aforementioned bathroom sink sex act, Peggy awakens a slumbering Freddie to demand that he stop his boozing ways for good. Still half-asleep and three-quarters-drunk, he thickly assents to this request, but by the next day he can already be observed nipping from a flask. Not coincidentally, it is this moment that Freddie chooses to reprimand and threaten Val for his faithlessness. “He’s making all of this up as he goes along,” the visibly bored Val observes regarding his father, “You don’t see that?” Of course, Freddie has harbored suspicions regarding Lancaster Dodd’s charlatan character from his first encounter with the man, but the convert’s craving for pragmatic solutions to his woes has thus far been trumped by his desire to belong. For Freddie, this latter need is expressed by the fulfilment of his enforcer duties. Rather than confront the hollowness of Dodd’s teachings (or his own failure to self-improve), Freddie retrenches his devotion by policing his fellow converts for thought-crimes.

Unfortunately for Freddie, this is also the moment when Philadelphia’s Finest appear to arrest Dodd for his larcenous schemes. Emboldened by his own guilt, Freddie leaps to Dodd’s defense with bestial fury. He becomes uncontrollable, flailing and squirming like a feral animal while he is handcuffed and hauled away. Later, Master and student are placed in adjoining jail cells, and the partitioned space (captured in the same shot) sharply contrasts the two men. Dodd slouches passively, regarding Freddie with disgust as the younger man engages in a frothing, self-destructive frenzy: slamming his hunched back into the hanging cot, writhing out of his shredded shirt, kicking the toilet into a porcelain ruin. (The latter echoes’ Phoenix’s destruction of a bathroom sink as a drug-crazed Johnny Cash in Walk the Line.) “Nobody likes you but me,” Dodd observes sneeringly. He also asserts that Freddie has not yet defeated the supposed eons-old spiritual ailment that is the cause of his alcoholism and violent rage. The profound transformation promised by the Cause is not yet complete.

Dodd’s jailhouse admonishments to Freddie provide a striking illustration of the ways in which the purveyors of the evangelical imagination address moments of crisis in believers' lives. Dodd chastises Freddie for his aberrant behavior, painting a picture in which Freddie’s self-destruction is fueled by external (and extra-temporal) forces, but can also be attributed to his own lack of will. Dodd’s remedy for Freddie’s recidivism is vague: He must, apparently, redouble his efforts, get serious about reforming his ways, and really try this time. There are no specific prescriptions other than a need to affirm the ideology’s Truth and submit to it more completely. (That the Cause’ exact doctrines are hazy, at best, serves to underline that the film’s criticisms are directed at the phenomenon of creeds rather at than their specific content.)

The focus on an individual believer’s failure of will—as opposed to the failures of the ideology itself—is a recurring preoccupation of the evangelical imagination. It is not, needless to say,  limited to religious movements. Political blogger Matt Yglesias famously articulated the “Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics” in reference to the neoconservative obsession with “will” and “resolve” in American foreign policy:

...[The Green Lantern ring] lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that... what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. Consequently, the main criterion for becoming a Green Lantern is that you need to be a person capable of "overcoming fear" which allows you to unleash the ring's full capacities.

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower...

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will.

This succinctly describes the conundrum facing Dodd and all those who champion a universally applicable ideological framework. The Cause can never be wrong, so any obvious failures that it appears to birth—for example, a man who has been Processed by the Master himself, and yet continues his thieving, boozing, lecherous ways—must be the result of a lack of individual resolve (or else a sinister plot). This remorseless logic is demonstrated in a scene that follows Freddie’s jailhouse fit, where Dodd, having presumably been freed on bail, dines with his family. Peggy, Elizabeth, and Clark all tentatively raise the subject of Freddie’s out-of-control behavior, suggesting that the man might be a nefarious agent dispatched to discredit the Cause, a venal thief seeking to swipe the Master’s unfinished manuscript for a tidy profit, or simply a madman who is beyond any kind of mental or spiritual salvation.

Dodd, in contrast to the bristling annoyance he displayed with Freddie in jail, hears these suspicions out with calm attentiveness. However, he responds by matter-of-factly asserting that Freddie is not unreachable, and that his bad acts are the result of the Cause leadership’s own ministerial deficiencies. The failure of will actually belongs to Dodd, and to every member of the Cause who has given up on Freddie. In this way, Dodd slyly reverses the characteristic criticism of the flaccid will in the evangelical imagination, appearing humbled by his own deficiencies rather than scolding towards his acolyte. However, as the film later demonstrates, even Dodd has his limits. A wayward follower must be reformed or expelled, lest their continued existence serve as a demonstration of the ideology’s inadequacies.

IV. Philadelphia 2 - Freddie Reborn

Freddie’s brief exile in the custody of the Philadelphia police is the only significant narrative breakpoint that does not correspond to a shift in geographic setting. When the wayward convert returns to Helen’s home, Dodd embraces the man warmly and laughingly, their hug devolving into an adolescent wrestling match on the lawn. This horseplay manages to tear the leg of Freddie’s trousers, with both echoes his earlier clothes-shredding frenzy and foreshadows the upheavals to come. (Despite the Prodigal Son kabuki that Freddie and Dodd play out, there has been no true repentance or rehabilitation.) The Master’s jocular paternalism serves to assert his authority and solidify his earlier dinner table statements. The matter is not up for discussion: Freddie will be permitted back into the fold.

Such forgiveness comes with conditions, however. Much of the remaining time that the film spends in Philadelphia is devoted to the Cause’s elaborate efforts to bring about Freddie’s tardy profound transformation. Dodd subjects his black sheep to a series of bizarre exercises supposedly intended to urge him “toward existence within a group, a society, a family.” As has been noted, Freddie’s desire for acceptance within a social group is one of the primary motivations that drives him towards Dodd and the Cause. However, mere tribal identification with the movement is not sufficient: the Cause demands that its devotees also exhibit behavior that validates its ideology of personal improvement. The drunk must walk a sober path, the satyr must become chaste, and the violent criminal must transform into a peaceable emissary. Freddie’s place within the Cause is threatened by his failure to achieve an epiphany, and Dodd is determined to bring one about by any means necessary.

Examining Dodd’s motivations with a cynical eye reveals the cunning in his strategy. Having attributed Freddie’s failings to the Cause’s lack of pastoral will, Dodd is now obligated to demonstrate significant effort in the mission to reform his follower. If Freddie backslides yet again after such a campaign, then his misbehavior can be justly blamed on his lack of will rather than Dodd’s. It does not bode well for Freddie, then, that the Master’s rituals (“applications,” he calls them) are perplexing and opaque. They seem to be designed not to spark enlightenment within Freddie, but to break his will. In other words, they resemble a kind of psychological torture. Underlining the point, the film repeatedly cuts between the exercises to which Freddie is subjected, jumbling time’s passage and mimicking his increasing disorientation as Dodd’s ministrations wear him down. It is ultimately unclear whether Freddie’s marathon rehabilitation takes place over the course of a few hours or several days.

In one application, Dodd has Freddie and Clark face one another while seated, and orders each man to exhibit “no response” to the other’s statements, no matter how agitating their words might be. Clark goes for the jugular: he repeats the name of Freddie’s lost adolescent love, Doris, revealing that Dodd has shared the most intimate revelations of Freddie’s first Processing with the other members of the Cause’s leadership. Freddie, when his turn comes, merely asserts himself through his veteran status and childishly expresses a desire to fart in Clark’s face, calling back to a joke he and Dodd once shared.

Freddie is also observed seated across from Peggy, although there his challenges are different. At one point she reads pornographic literature out loud to him. At another, she orders him to “make” her eye color change. (Will, once again, is claimed to be the means by which the believer achieves change.) Reflecting Freddie’s aspirational point-of-view, Peggy’s irise do in fact dissolve from bright blue to inky black on command, providing the subtlest of the film’s handful of magical realism flourishes.

In the most harrowing application, Dodd commands Freddie to walk back and forth, eyes closed, between a wall and window, touching each and describing the sensation. This exercise is at first conducted in front of an assembled throng of rapt Cause followers, but Freddie is also observed repeating his ping-pong path in solitude. To Freddie, the rite seems monumentally pointless at first, and his attitude appears to swing primarily between dull half-attention and violent irritation. In some shots, however, he seems to be lost in an ecstatic reverie, and his verbal renderings of wall and window take on a hallucinatory quality. (At one point, he describes the window as a Ferris Wheel.) The psychological effects of Freddie’s mental endurance tests have begun to reflect the collapse of time and space that the Cause asserts is the means to rectifying aberrant behavior. Yet when Dodd finally—and arbitrarily, it seems—declares “end of application,” Freddie’s response upon opening his eyes is incredulity. “You gotta be kidding me? That was it?” If Freddie has had a profound transformation, it is invisible to the viewer’s eyes.

Later, Peggy appears before the Cause devotees to deliver a beaming announcement: Dodd’s second book is at last ready for publication, and the movement will hold its first annual conference in Phoenix, Arizona to mark the momentous event. Unable to allow a metaphor to dawdle without a little shove, Peggy predicts that the Cause, like the flaming bird of myth, will be reborn following the setbacks experienced in New York and Philadelphia. The unmentioned phoenix in the room is, of course, Freddie, who should by all rights be enjoying a second, more enlightened life thanks to Dodd’s close attentions. However, the straying sheep, as usual, proves to be a problem that the Cause cannot solve, and Freddie’s ability to fake his way through that coveted “existence within a group” begins to crack.

V. Phoenix

With the Cause’s pilgrimage to Arizona, the relationship between Freddie and Dodd superficially appears to have been restored to its past levels of warm interdependence. Freddie serves as the photographer for the Master’s new publicity shots—posing him in kitschy Western surroundings—and their exchanges are full of joking camaraderie. However, the fissures in the apostle’s faith are becoming visible. Although Freddie exhibits childish enthusiasm (and talent) when recording a radio advertisement for the Cause’s conference, his ambivalence and frustration are palpable when he is tasked to hand out fliers to disinterested and hostile Phoenicians. Proselytization isn’t Freddie’s wheelhouse, and when confronted with such duties, he is reminded that his own reformation is incomplete, his epiphanies are fraudulent, and his bad habits crouch nearby like stalking predators.

In a scene bubbling with indefinite tension, Freddie accompanies a gun-toting Dodd on a enigmatic trek into a narrow desert canyon. The purpose of the quest is unclear at first: Is this some new, menacing application, or perhaps a purifying wilderness exile akin to those undertaken by Christ and John the Baptist? Eventually, Dodd and Freddie unearth a strongbox, which is revealed to contain the Master’s unpublished manuscript. Like the golden plates from which Joseph Smith supposedly transcribed the Book of Mormon, Dodd’s wisdom represents a kind of buried ideological treasure, waiting to be delivered to the world. The air is briefly electric with menace, as Dodd silently surveys the horizon for threats—an Apache war party or swarm of flying saucers seem equally likely. Clark’s earlier dinner table accusation floats in the air: Did Freddie actually ask about the monetary value of Dodd’s unpublished work? Does Dodd secretly believe that Freddie cannot be reformed? Are the guns loaded? Then the men suddenly set off back to civilization, the awful potential of the moment passing.

The doubts linger, however, and as the conference kicks off in a modest theater space—all linoleum and sad party streamers and tent revival piano tunes—both Freddie and Dodd betray a crumbling confidence. Dodd seems more anxious than usual, and his prefatory remarks on his second book, The Split Saber, have a slipshod, rambling quality has thus far been absent from the Master’s spiritual pontifications. When Helen asks about a single word change in the book's description of Processing, Dodd explodes, “WHAT DO YOU WANT?!” This moment of exasperated rage not only echoes the Master’s own profane outburst at More earlier in the film, but it also highlights the stress that Freddie’s very presence as an unrepentant, unreformed believer is placing on the Cause’s credibility.

Freddie, meanwhile, is outwardly calm but seething within. In one of the film’s singularly great shots, he paces slowly in a wide back room where copies of Dodd’s latest tome are piled on tables. Eyes closed, he lazily retraces his old route between the (now-imaginary) wall and window. Visiting New York disciple Bill William (Kevin J. O’Connor) wanders in from the right, and Freddie’s metronome path is smoothly diverted. He imposes himself between Bill and the hubbub in the front of the building. Signals abound that Freddie’s enforcer duties are about to boil over into violence, even before Bill injudiciously declares that The Split Saber “stinks”. Freddie passes a cart laden with bottled chemicals, recalling the link between his alcoholism and his temper. Bill limply carries a plate spattered with half-eaten red food that foreshadows bloodshed, and also clutches his hat, exposing his bald pate for a pummeling. When Freddie leads Bill around back and unleashes a savage beating on the man, it is unsettling but thoroughly unsurprising.

The assault on Bill proves to be the moment when the bitter reality of Freddie’s situation becomes apparent: he is completely incapable of reform, and therefore will inevitably be cast out of the Cause’s embrace, lest his presence embarrass the Master. Freddie seems to sense this fact clearly at last, as he collapses in defeat on a bench, sobbing into his hands. He will never achieve his profound transformation. Perhaps this is due to the severity of his spiritual wounds, which run too deep to ever be healed by any ideological palliative. Perhaps it is due to some incompatibility between the nature of his trauma and the Cause’s curative methods. Or perhaps it is merely because Dodd’s wisdom is a sham, and his techniques do not provide anything but a mumbo-jumbo-wrapped placebo. Ultimately, it does not matter. In his desperation to alleviate the pain of his life’s dread pattern, Freddie has hitched himself to an ideology that has proven inadequate for that purpose. The lords of that ideology will not suffer to have their deficiencies paraded before them in human form.

Dodd later accompanies Freddie out onto a gleaming desert plain for yet another outlandish, ad hoc exercise, with Elizabeth and Clark tagging along. The Master explains that the objective of “Pick a Point” is to ride a motorcycle a high speed in a rigorously straight line, and then demonstrates by rocketing across the wastes with boyish whoops of glee. When Dodd returns, dust-coated and grinning in satisfaction, the anticlimactic pointlessness of this latest ritual is depressingly apparent to both the viewer and Freddie, and only highlighted by Elizabeth’s vapid cheerleading (”Whoo! Go, Daddy!”). Dodd dismounts and offers the motorcycle to Freddie, who rides it in the opposite direction, diminishing to a wavering speck on the sun-baked horizon. “He’s going very fast,” Dodd observes with dry anxiousness. Then it is dusk, and Freddie has not returned, and it is clear that he is not going to.

Superficially, Freddie’s flight seems a childish response to the intractable spiritual position in which he finds himself. Bereft of the transformation that the Cause has promised, and unable to face the scrutiny of his fellow believers (or the disapproval of his Master ), he turns on his heel at an opportune moment and simply runs. Yet the abruptness of Freddie’s departure denies Dodd and the others the opportunity to subject him to further enticements and rituals. Given Freddie’s apparent susceptibility to the siren call of social acceptance, his sudden escape illustrates an uncommon self-awareness, a perceptive recognition that his break with the Cause must be swift and sharp or it will be no break at all. In contrast to his looping, fruitless path in Helen’s parlor, Freddy’s motorcycle trajectory is a vector: unidirectional and infinite (or so he hopes).

VI. Massachusetts

Freddie’s impulsive departure from the Cause’s ranks (or clutches) is sparked in part by his realization that Dodd will not tolerate his failures indefinitely. However, while the Cause’s dogma might contain little but psychological buzzwords and half-baked spiritual hand-waving, the personal agonies that Freddie’s Processing uncovered are not phantasmal. In particular, the regret and shame Freddie feels regarding his abandonment of Doris are still acute, still pumping poison into his heart. Paradoxically, tethering himself to the Master’s wanderings has prevented Freddie from seeking a face-to-face resolution of this painful chapter of his life. Now that he has fled the Cause, he is free to return to his native Massachusetts and visit the spawning ground of his more potent personal demons.

Freddie’s pilgrimage leads him to Doris’ childhood home, but as both A. E. Housman and Thomas Wolfe observed in their way, the dewy past and hard-edged present lie in separate hemispheres. The reunion that Freddie envisioned is not forthcoming. He only encounters Doris’ mother (Lena Ende), who with wringing hands and quavering voice explains that her daughter has long since married a local boy, moved south, and sired three children. Freddie takes this crushing news far better than one might expect, politely taking his leave while marveling that his beloved’s married name is now Doris Day. (Freddie’s return to Massachusetts is, at best, described by the title of Day’s first hit recording: “Sentimental Journey.”) Freddie could pursue Doris to Alabama and points beyond, but his New England homecoming acts like a bucket of freezing water on his need for closure. Unshackling himself from the Cause might have freed him from daily spiritual torment, but for Freddie self-improvement appears to be just as much a fool’s errand when it is pursued in solitude as with an ideological cabal.

Underlining the fact that Freddie’s ways are carved in stone, he is soon observed slipping into a drunken stupor in an otherwise unoccupied cinema while a Casper the Friendly Ghost short rolls on. This proves to be The Master’s most defiantly ambiguous scene, for after Freddie seems to fade into a deep sleep, he is awakened by an usher carrying a telephone that trails an absurdly long cord. “You have a call.” The nagging questions that might trouble a sober patron seem to slide past Freddie: Who knows that he is at the theater? How does the usher know who he is? Freddie answers the phone to find, improbably, the voice of Lancaster Dodd emerging from the handset. The Master, evincing no trace of anger towards his fugitive acolyte, asks Freddie to join him in England, where the Cause has established its own school. Dodd claims that he has, at long last, recalled the specifics under which he and Freddie first encountered one another, and that he wants to share this revelation in person. (Freddie is also tasked with restocking Dodd's supply of a favored vice, menthol cigarettes, reminding the viewer of the shared taste for pleasure-seeking transgression that once bound these two men.)

Freddie’s response is primarily one of drowsy amazement: “How did you find me?” However, Dodd’s call seems to abruptly end with the sleeper awakening again, this time to discover a theater without usher or telephone. The surrealism of the scenario points to its unreality: a message from a strangely jovial Dodd in a distant country, delivered to Freddie as though it were a cocktail on a tray. Imagined or not, Dodd’s communication provides a dose of mysticism to the film at a critical juncture in the narrative, re-establishing the well-worn Conversion Story outlines that have generally receded as Freddie’s alienation from the Cause has grown. The phone call fills the role of a divine message, a missive directly from the source of holy wisdom to the wayward lamb, conveying that all sins are forgiven and that his return will be greeted with rejoicing.

Despite the panicked character of Freddie’s flight from the Cause, his reaction to Dodd’s call seems welcoming, as though it were a message he had secretly been hoping to receive. Having fled the movement that once counted him as a brother, and then failed to discover a more personal resolution to his deep-rooted miseries, he has already begun to slide into aimless self-destruction. (Peggy’s speculation that Freddie might be “beyond help,” has begun to look fairly perceptive.) Disillusioned by the unfavorable contrast between gauzy memory and present-day reality in his old stomping grounds, Freddie allows his time with the Cause to to take on a nostalgic glint, forgetting all the anguish that he so recently fled. His frustration with Dodd (and himself) is easily set aside when he sees the prospect of re-awakening that coveted sense of belonging. Where Freddie errs is in assuming that acceptance will be as forthcoming now as it has been in the past. Unfortunately, a personal testimonial that is streaked with recidivism casts a shadow over a faith’s legitimacy, and therefore must be expunged from the evangelical imagination.

VII. England

Despite the dearth of identifying information in Dodd’s dream-call, Freddie makes his way to England and to the threshold of the Cause’s thriving new school. He strides through the door with the confidence of a long-lost scion whose return has been eagerly anticipated, but the faces that he encounters do not recognize him. Indicating a photo of Dodd on a mass-produced flyer, he lamely asserts, “I took that picture”. A faintly Orwellian odor clings to the building’s dark wood and lingers in its echoing halls: The history of the movement has already been rewritten, and it does not include Freddie. A slightly more spit-and-polish iteration of Val appears to usher Freddie into the school’s inner sanctum, where Lancaster Dodd awaits in a cavernous hall that has apparently been converted into his private office. With its towering, gothic windows of frosted glass, this magisterial chamber conveys the power and wisdom that Dodd has long craved. He is, at last, no longer an itinerant holy man, but a pontiff with his own enclave and throne.

Freddie has brought the Kools that Dodd covets, but neither the poker-faced Master nor glaring Peggy seem to be pleased to see him. Peggy in particular views Freddie’s departure from the Cause as an act of betrayal, and Dodd seems to have finally accepted his wife’s suspicions, as he is resistant to allowing Freddie to return to the movement. Indeed, Dodd exhibits no acknowledgement that the bizarre phone call to Massachusetts even occurred, leaving Freddie to wonder if he conjured the transatlantic message from his own subconsciousness.

However, one element from the call appears genuine: Dodd does in fact recall the circumstances under which he and Freddie first encountered one another. The men were friends in a past life, serving as French messengers who employed hot air balloons during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. In the worst winter on record, Dodd explains with unconcealed wistfulness, he and Freddie lost only two balloons. Dodd may be spinning a fanciful story in order to ornament the emotional bond between the two men. However, the fondness for Freddie that he displays appears so authentic, and his longing for this dream of wartime heroics and camaraderie is so naked, it is hard to dismiss it as a mere cynical ploy.

Dodd’s reluctance to embrace his Prodigal Son a second time is rooted not in some newfound personal antipathy for Freddie, but in the danger that his habitual straying represents to the Cause. The inability to square specific failures with the general Truth of the ideology is the fundamental dilemma of the gatekeepers who peddle the evangelical imagination. In 2006, left-wing political blogger Digby turned an old Bolshevik adage on its head to draw attention to the almost Stalinist manner in which contemporary American conservatism was prepared to transform George W. Bush from a conquering saint into persona non grata:

Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)... In this I actually envy the right. When they fail, as everyone inevitably does at times, they don't lose their faith. Indeed, failure actually reinforces it... The Republicans are smart enough to rid themselves of failure by always being able to convince themselves that the failure had nothing to do with their belief system.

Similarly, Dodd must be rid of Freddie, or he risks a catastrophic loss of faith within his flock. The Master offers an ultimatum: Freddie may return to the fold, but only if he is willing to remain there permanently, to never again backslide or wander in search of false prophets. Reluctantly, Freddie demures, acknowledging for the first time that he cannot make such a promise: “Maybe in the next life.”

For Dodd, who views history as a continuum on which the same struggles are played out over and over, there will not be another occasion for reconciliation. He vows that when he meets Freddie again, even if if their souls are housed in different bodies, they will be sworn enemies. The wavy ritual daggers glimpsed earlier on Dodd’s desk seem permeated with potential menace, as though either man might suddenly rise and seize a weapon in order to slash the other's throat. The grand guignol bowling pin assault that caps Anderson’s There Will Be Blood hovers over the scene as well, reinforcing the ominous atmosphere and creating an expectation that Dodd and Freddie’s reunion, like that of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday, will end in carnage.

Dodd offers a sarcastic bit of wisdom to Freddie that succinctly summarizes the ideologue’s certainty that submission is a fact of the human condition: “If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know.” Perhaps sensing that their farewell should not occur on such an antagonistic note, Dodd suddenly breathes out a slow, mournful rendition of the pop standard “Slow Boat to China”. It is a sublimely odd flourish, one that permits the pseudo-romantic subtext of Dodd and Freddie’s relationship to be stated openly and with a level gaze. (Peggy, having departed the room in irritation, is not privy to this intimate moment.)

In the context of the master-disciple relationship, “Slow Boat” articulates Dodd’s dream of devoting himself solely to Freddie’s redemption: to get his student “all to himself alone” and “leave all the others waitin’”. Together, “out of the briny,” with all the time in the world, they might at last discover the profound transformation that has so long eluded Freddie. Dodd might be a charlatan, but in this moment, his wish seems as genuine as any romantic’s longing that life had turned out differently. For Freddie, the song not only ironically recalls his cowardly flight from Doris (aboard, as it happens, a ship bound for China), but also directly echoes his beloved’s long-ago a capella rendition of “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree,” which expresses similar, utopian dreams of exclusivity. Strange as his choice might seem at first, Dodd could hardly have selected a more affecting song with which to serenade his former apostle.

His heart unexpectedly broken, Freddie takes his leave of the Cause for the last time, and proceeds to drown his sorrows in the pints poured at a local pub. There he makes eyes at a blonde English nymph, Winn (Jennifer Neala Page), and before long the two are engaged in a sweaty, lingering, face-to-face coupling. “What’s your name?,” Freddie asks, repeating the question five times as Dodd once did during his Processing session. Here the question is posed in a moment of comparable intensity, one as sensually joyous as the Processing was brutal and cathartic. Both Freddie and Winn giggle in delight, and he declares “You are the bravest girl I have ever met.” Methods that were once implicitly sexual have becomes explicit, repurposed as a shortcut to romantic intimacy (rather than pastoral intimacy).

The temptation to regard Freddie’s "Processing-lite" pillow talk as exploitative is undercut by the ecstatic tone of the sex that he and Winn share. For the first time, Freddie seems somewhat at peace, his anger and restlessness calmed. Yet while his body might be entwined with that of a comely woman, his mind is elsewhere, as the film illustrates with its final shots. On a South Pacific beach, Freddie again lays down next to his sand-matron, nestling himself between her breast and arm, as though preparing for a long-awaited and blissful sleep.

Everything that the viewer knows of Freddie’s past behavior suggests that any reprieve from his demons will be temporary at best, and a messy demise by booze or a bloody-knuckled foe may still await him. Yet Freddie’s final exit from the Cause frees him of the torments that the ideology’s inadequacies wreaked on him. No longer will he yearn for the acceptance of a group whose anti-carnal commandments he is congenitally incapable of observing. No longer will he be deafened by the hollow clang of muddled spiritual wisdom ringing in his ears. And no longer will his failures belong to anyone else. He will be his own animal.

***

The Cause’s failures in contending with Freddie’s myriad problems—alcoholism, sexual mania, violence, impulsiveness—throw into stark relief the deep incompatibilities between his stuttering, stumbling progress towards self-improvement, and the absolutist demands of the evangelical imagination. The manner in which an ideological system confronts its own shortcomings represents a test of its flexibility and resilience. A system that permits space for intellectual modesty can limit its culpability for the fallen character of the world. The Master provides a dramatic illustration of the eruptions that inevitably occur when a system permits no limits for itself, and insists on the perfectibility of the individual and the world through the universal application of its doctrines. The presence of self-evidently imperfect believers such as Freddie denies the profound transformation that is the promise of the ideology, and thereby undercuts the missionary fervor that is needed to propel the system outward into new segments of society. Such walking imperfections cannot be tolerated indefinitely, and must eventually be either reformed by force or else expelled and denied.

A reading of The Master that foregrounds its criticisms of ideological inadequacies is, naturally, not the only analytical angle that the film permits. The sinuous, arid character of Anderson’s marvelous film allows many possible points of entry, none of them mutually exclusive: the thorny psychological terrain (and abundant twinning) in the Freddie-Dodd relationship; the problematic transition of the veteran from wartime bloodshed to peacetime domesticity; the pivotal role played by nostalgia and by what Magnolia’s Earl Partridge calls “the goddamn regret” in shaping Freddie’s actions and choices. However, one cannot neglect the role of ideology in The Master without ignoring the fundamental conflict of its narrative: the collision between the unstoppable force of an evangelical movement and the unmovable object of an unreformable soul.

PostedNovember 5, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
MadMenGrab01.jpg

Project Android and the Involuntary Santa Claus: A Superficially Off-Topic Prelude to The Cabin in the Woods

[This essay—part personal storytelling, part appreciation of a Mad Men episode—was first presented on October 1, 2012, as an introduction to Drew Goddard's 2011 film, The Cabin in the Woods. Posed an experiment in "ultra-spoiler-free" writing, the essay introduces the themes of the film without any direct reference to its story. Indeed, this piece makes no mention of The Cabin in the Woods at all.]

I'm sorry, I always forget that nobody wants to think they're a type.

—Faye Miller, Mad Men Season Four, Episode 2: "Christmas Comes But Once a Year"

Nightmare the First: A Sinister Experiment

When I was a child, I occasionally contemplated the possibility that other human beings were evil robots. I can’t say at what age this idea took hold of me, because I frankly can’t remember with any precision. Nor can I say exactly when the notion finally diminished from an unlikely-but-still-conceivable scenario to a mere silly fantasy that I had once entertained. Indeed, I'll concede that a mischievous sliver of my mind still ruminates on the evil robot hypothesis, if only as a dime-store thought experiment. Like a Rubik’s Cube, it's good for thirty seconds of exasperating self-amusement before it is inevitably cast aside.

The idea was fairly impressive in its sinister complexity, perhaps too elaborate to have sprung from the imagination of a child without some manner of outside influence. But if there was a specific inspiration for the sinister scenario I imagined—some work of fiction, say, or the words of a particularly perverse adult—I have long ago forgotten it. The idea itself, meanwhile, is stubbornly resistant to the erosions of memory, and I can recall it to this day with tremendous clarity.

This is how my child-mind postulated it: What if, beneath their apparently human skin, everyone around me were nothing more than steel pistons and electrified circuitry? If the construction of these androids were of high enough quality, if the illusion were sufficiently skillful, how would I be able to tell the difference between a real human and a false one? What if everyone only seems to be going about their routine, but is, in actuality, following a cold-hearted program? What would the purpose of that program be, one might reasonably ask? Why to trick me, of course. To deceive me into living out the role of a normal Midwestern white male, to follow a path that had been predetermined by a bevy of malevolent researchers hidden somewhere just out of sight.

It’s notable that this robot-suspicion extended not only to deserving targets of childhood scorn, such as the strict teacher or the playground bully, but to everyone whom I encountered on a daily basis. Everyone: The girl for whom I harbored a desperate crush, the learning disabled boy in the back of the class, the clerk at the corner convenience store, the bus driver, my little brother, even, yes—horror of horrors—my own parents. Absolutely every individual was an accessory to this conspiracy, which I at some point mentally labeled Project Android.

That this secret suspicion was unbiased in its application seems the clearest indication that it was not born of petty resentments, but of pre-adolescent alienation, as well as a fairly sophisticated recognition of the limits of my own knowledge. Sophisticated for a grade-schooler, at any rate. For even the most cursory follow-up questions revealed the flimsiness of the whole notion. Why would such vast effort and financial resources be brought to bear in order to deceive an ordinary if bookwormish boy from South St. Louis? Who would fund such a diabolical yet profoundly pointless experiment? Who were the hidden, presumably white-coated chess-masters who were nudging me this way and that with their cybernetic creations? What exactly was the point of tricking a child into doing the things he very likely would have done anyway, had he been surrounded by flesh-and-blood parents, teachers, and schoolmates?

Ah, but that was the fiendish genius of it all: Because the experiment was perfectly seamless, there was no way to determine which of my own behaviors and thoughts were normal and which were the result of robotic manipulation. That Project Android permitted such ever-deeper rabbit holes of paranoia was not a bug, but a feature. It permitted me a way to pass the time as I endured the weekly school chapel or lay in bed at night waiting for sleep. However, it doesn’t speak much of my creativity or sense of self-importance that this scenario never led to more fantastic conclusions. Why would manipulating a child into a relatively banal existence be so vital to the experiment’s creators? Was I special in some way, perhaps a superhuman being who had to be kept docile? A cluster of extraordinary potentiality who must be never allowed to blossom to his true purpose?

In a word: No. In my young mind, the deception was the motive, and so Project Android was my crude version of Descartes’ Evil Demon, a malicious, omnipotent entity that manipulates the thinker’s perceptions because it can. Which often feels like the point of modern philosophy: Providing a credible academic framework for the insomniac musings of an elementary school student.

Nightmare the Second: A Very Uncomfortable Christmas Party

A couple of years ago, I found myself ruminating on Project Android for the first time in what seems like ages. This revisitation of a ludicrous childhood fantasy was prompted by, of all things, an episode of Matthew Weiner’s television drama Mad Men, which is set in a Madison Avenue ad agency in the 1960s. The episode in question is the second of the show’s fourth season, entitled “Christmas Comes But Once a Year,” and is, as one might deduce, a Holiday Episode.

As with any installment of Mad Men, quite a bit happens in the space of the episode’s forty-five minutes. The office of fledgling agency Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce scrambles to organize a deliberately “wild” Christmas party for the benefit of their most valued client, the president of Lucky Strike Tobacco, Lee Garner, Jr. (Darren Pettie). Copywriting wunderkind Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) weighs whether to concede to her boyfriend’s whining regarding their stalled physical intimacy. Dr. Faye Miller (Cara Buono), a consulting psychologist who studies consumer behavior, introduces her work to SCDP and receives a doubtful reception from creative director Don Draper (Jon Hamm). Don himself spends an unhealthy chunk of the episode drinking to excess and brooding about his first post-divorce Christmas. This leads to a downward spiral that culminates in an ill-advised couch-screw with his capable yet naive assistant Allison (Alexa Alemanni), after which he heartlessly tosses the woman aside.

The episode is admittedly one of the lesser lights in a strong season of a phenomenal show, but it is memorable for exploring one of Mad Men’s most significant themes in a quite forceful and characteristically multi-pronged manner. That theme is pointedly expressed in Dr. Miller’s pithy summary of her work: “It all comes down to what I want versus what’s expected of me.” The struggle between the desires of the true self—if there is such a thing—and the demands of others is one of the foremost preoccupations of Mad Men. And it’s a theme that strangely summoned memories of Project Android when I first viewed the “Christmas” episode in 2010.

If there is an adult, non-fantastical version of the manipulative robot anxiety, it is the fear that one’s real identity will be swamped by the expectations and demands of external parties. The self-conscious dread of contemporary life is that there are no thoughts or actions which are free from the influence of others. At every turn are currents that pull us to and fro: the command of the authority figure; the approval of the parent; the request of the lover; the preference of the taste-maker; the dictate of the advertisement that shrieks CRAVE and CONSUME. Where, one can justly ask, does my true self begin? Where is the real me amid all the roles I am asked to play, all the identities I am required to assume? This is the nightmarish reality that is repeatedly insisted upon throughout Mad Men: We are playing out a complex script that is being inked in real-time by a committee of writers.

This reality is embodied in a scene in “Christmas” that is among the most absurdly unsettling in the entire run of the show. Roger Sterling (John Slattery), the silver-haired tomcat who is both a founding partner of SCDP and its head of accounts, is urged to don the office Santa suit by prize client Lee. Never mind that the acerbic, sharp-dressed Roger is perhaps the most ill-suited member of the agency to play the Jolly Old Elf. In the space of about thirty seconds, Lee’s joking request gradually and remorselessly evolves into a domineering command. Roger, who is irreverent to a fault but loathes being told what to do, slowly realizes that Lee is dead serious. To Roger's dawning horror, the future of the agency at that moment depends on him playing a dancing monkey for the amusement of this contemptuous creep.

The fact that this extremely uncomfortable situation is thrust upon Roger is less terrifying than the punchline: He of course, does put on the Santa suit, because he believes that refusal is not an option, given the agency's precarious financial position. The result is a sight as oddly horrific as any slasher film massacre: A dapper late-middle-aged man sweating and grimacing beneath a crimson suit and white polyester beard, forced to pose for photos as his employees take turns sitting awkwardly on his lap, all the while straining out pained bellows of “Ho Ho Ho!”

PostedOctober 2, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
ComplianceGrab01.jpg

Compliance

2012 // USA // Craig Zobel // August 22, 2012 // Digital Theatrical Projection (Landmark Tivoli Theater)

More often than not, the declaration "Inspired by True Events" serves as a marker that the film in question will, in fact, bear little resemblance to reality. In the case of writer-director Craig Zobel's discomfiting, slow-motion thriller Compliance, however, the resemblance is fairly uncanny, at least as far as narrative features go. Zobel revises the setting from the McDonalds in Kentucky where the events actually took place to a fictional "ChickWich" in Ohio. He also changes the names of the individuals involved, and tweaks a few other details. However, in the main, Compliance is a rigorously faithful depiction of the horrifying events that unfolded at the aforementioned McDonald's in 2004. (Zobel evidently had plenty of source material to work from: The whole incident was captured on security tape, and was later recounted in both criminal and civil trials.) This makes Zobel's feature a sort of film à clef, although unlike the usual examples of the form, the people depicted are not public figures, but the ordinary victims and perpetrators of a bizarre crime. That crime was the final, repulsive flourish on one of the strangest telephone pranks in American history, triggering the capture of alleged perpetrator David R. Stewart.

Compliance introduces all of its principals in the first ten minutes or so: Harried middle-aged restaurant manager Sandra (Ann Dowd), shift supervisor Marti (Ashlie Atkinson), teenaged chicken-slingers Becky (Dreama Walker) and Kevin (Philip Ettinger), and Sandra's fiancé Van (Bill Camp), whose significance to the story only becomes apparent later. The events of the films take place over the course of several hours, on a gray, slushy, but nonetheless busy day at the ChickWich restaurant. One of Zobel's apparent additions to the tale: A freezer left ajar the previous evening has resulted in spoiled food. The mistake prompts Sandra to dress down her employes, although she pointedly does not report it to the corporate higher-ups. This little character detail renders Sandra's subsequent behavior marginally less surprising.

Partway through the day, the restaurant receives a phone call from a man identifying himself only as "Officer Daniels" (Pat Healy). He informs Sandra that Becky has been "under surveillance" and that an unnamed customer has accused her of stealing money. At Daniels' request, Sandra hustles Becky into a combined office and stockroom, and there she forcibly searches the girl's purse and pockets. Becky objects in a disbelieving, panicky sort of way to both the accusations and the search, but ultimately complies out of faint exasperation. ("Let's Just Get This Over With" is revealed as the recurring phrase of the film, either stated out loud or implied by facial expressions and body language.) The initial search turns up no stolen money in Becky's possession, so Daniels suggests—reluctantly, of course—that Sandra perform a strip-search of the girl.

Things... escalate from there, but to reveal more would be to rob Compliance of its potency as a thriller, which relies on the indefinite character of the narrative's trajectory. The viewer is not entirely certain where the film is headed, save that it is almost assuredly to a Bad Place. There are ample opportunities for the whole nightmare to be brought to a halt, and part of the sadistic cunning of Zobel's script is how easily these moments glide by unnoticed, only appearing tauntingly in the rearview mirror. It's a mistake to regard Compliance's characters as though they were the dim-witted slasher film Meat, whose foolish behavior can be unfavorably compared to one's own clear-headed thinking. ("I would never have done that...") Zobel doesn't expend energy tut-tutting the errors in judgment (and outright criminal acts) committed by Sandra and the others, nor is he preoccupied with sneering at "Officer Daniels" in self-righteous disgust. The director plainly discerns the story's potential for eliciting an atmosphere of nauseating moral free-fall, and he devotes himself whole-heartedly to the task of crafting Compliance into an unexpectedly evocative, vérité thriller rather than a Grand Statement on the Human Capacity for Evil. (Heather McIntosh's score, filled with long, wandering passages of bells and strings, assists with this ambition quite splendidly.)

This straightforward approach is both a boon and a curse to Compliance, which is ridiculously engrossing for virtually every minute of its running time, but does little that warrants a second viewing. It is, in essence, a one-trick pony, which is not to say that Zobel's methods aren't worthy of attention. The treatment of Compliance's story as a kind of stranger-than-fiction anecdote staged for maximum effect proves to be a gratifying approach. Zobel manages to strike a capable balance between the absurd and the grave in the film's tone, all without doing disrespect to the real-world flesh-and-blood victims behind the tale.

The most distracting elements in Compliance prove to be those that detract from the film's verisimilitude. To wit: One wishes that the film-makers had cast with an eye towards true newcomers. The presence of familiar indie character actors such as Healy and Atkinson (normally a welcome sight) provides a perpetual reminder that one is witnessing a fiction. Similarly, Walker's movie-star gorgeous face and model-perfect figure seem out of place within the film's greasy, creased Heartland setting. Casting nitpicking aside, Walker in particular gives a remarkable, vital performance, quite apart from the gushing about her "bravery" that any nudity-heavy role inevitably elicits. Her depiction of Becky's utter collapse and, eventually, dead-eyed resignation is the film's most singular, stunning emotional node.

PostedSeptember 3, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
CommentPost a comment
ParanormanGrab01.jpg

ParaNorman

2012 // USA // Chris Butler and Sam Fell // August 18, 2012 // Digital Theatrical Projection (Wehrenberg Ronnies 20 Cine)

Rather unexpectedly, Henry Selick’s kiddie-goth bedtime story Coraline revealed itself as one of the best feature films of 2009: an unassuming masterpiece bursting with sensory wonders, psychological depth, and pitch-perfect storytelling. The film was an absurdly auspicious feature debut for stop-motion animation studio Laika, and it was perhaps unavoidable that their sophomore effort, the zombies-and-black-magic horror-comedy ParaNorman, would prove to be a lesser work. Nonetheless, Laika’s latest film successfully claws its way out from under the long, skittering shadow of Coraline and reveals itself as a marvelous, PG-gruesome cauldron of delights. Moreover, beneath its giddy vibe of dime-store Halloween scares lies an emotional potency that is positively startling.

Certainly, ParaNorman operates in an entirely different register than Coraline, although like Laika’s previous film, its exquisite design has a magical, immersive character that benefits significantly from the tactile qualities of stop-motion. Where Coraline was a bedtime story streaked with mythic nods and Grimm ghoulishness, ParaNorman is much more aggressively satirical. It is not, however, principally a satire of the horror genre, but of the cheap ugliness of contemporary life in general. Writer and co-director Chris Butler sets his tale in the New England settlement of Blythe Hollow, an unrepentantly tacky little town that is spiritual kin to Springfield of The Simpsons fame. The populace is generally dimwitted and self-absorbed, having long ago elected to make a quick buck off its history of Puritan witch-hanging with a proliferation of burger joints and tchotchke shops.

One would think that grade-schooler Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee), as a zombie movie aficionado, would be at home in a town where the spooky has been rendered banal and kitschy. Alas: Norman possesses a talent for seeing and speaking to ghosts, and while this ability has enabled him to maintain a relationship with his departed grandmother (the marvelous Elaine Stritch), it has alienated him from his living family and peers. His father (Jeff Garlin) and mother (Leslie Mann) react to Norman’s claims of otherworldly socializing with hostility and anxiousness, respectively, while his narcissistic teen sister Courtney (Anna Kendrick) simply sneers and huffs. School, meanwhile, is a gauntlet of ostracism and bullying, the latter perpetrated chiefly by mean-spirited lunk Alvin (Chrispterh Mintz-Plasse). Friends are in short supply, which is perhaps why Norman reacts with bafflement to the genial entreaties of cheerful, rotund schoolmate Neil (Tucker Albrizzi).

Mystery worms its way into Norman’s unhappy routine when his batty, hygiene-challenged uncle Mr. Penderghast (John Goodman) approaches him, offering dire warnings liberally sprinkled with mad cackling. Blythe Hollow, it turns out, is afflicted by an ancient curse that Mr. Penderghast holds at bay through an annual ritual, and it is presently Norman’s turn to take over for his uncle. Naturally, the curse is connected to the town’s legend of the hanged witch, and, naturally, the Real Story is nothing like the sanitized tale presented in the annual school pageant for which Norman and Neil are currently rehearsing. Unfortunately, the under-prepared Norman ends up fumbling his curse-warding duties, and things go pear-shaped awfully fast. Seven remorseless Puritan zombies rise from the grave and lurch towards town, while a storm of crackling black magic begins to gather…

There's quite a bit going on beneath ParaNorman's screwball surface, but the film hangs together remarkably well. Butler and co-director Sam Fell mostly keep the broad, dialed-up comedic horror in the foreground. To be sure, the film makes space for moodier, atmospheric scares and more than a few emotionally wrenching moments. However, ParaNorman's diverse elements cohere that much more effectively because the viewer knows that satirical jabs and wacky zombie gags lie waiting in the wings, ready to shamble onscreen at a moment's notice. Ultimately, the film is attuned to the wavelength personified by Norman himself: the fearless kid who adores the freakish and revolting, and holds very little sacred. ParaNorman gets plenty of mileage out supernatural-related humor, but also out of poking fun the rampant stupidity, gluttony, and propensity for violence in American culture. That's a fairly nasty stance for what is theoretically a family film, and the result feels like an uncanny cross between Idiocracy, Beetlejuice, and an Abbott and Costello monster feature.

The film's phenomenal design reflects its cynical bent: every character is a grotesque, even the ones who are theoretically intended to be “attractive,” such as apple-bottomed cheerleader Courtney, and her latest romantic infatuation, Neil's none-too-bright bodybuilding older brother Mitch (Casey Affleck). Equally vital are the environments, which exhibit a remarkable level of detail—Norman's zombie-themed bedroom in particular is a day-glo wonderland of eye-popping minutiae—and establish a dense, amusingly garish substrate for the film's nightmarish events. The filmmakers even manage to work in allusions to classic horror films without being smug and detached about it. (One particular visual nod to Halloween is quite satisfying, and placed at an entirely appropriate moment.)

At times, it becomes glaringly apparent that ParaNorman's narrative is fueled more by momentum and laughs than by dramatic urgency. The exact mortal threat posed by seven wobbly zombies is never quite clarified, and the characters spend a good deal of time fleeing to and fro without any particular plan or destination. (The fact that the film itself lampshades the silliness of its scenario doesn't prevent the relentless running and screaming from dragging in spots.) Like The Simpsons, however, ParaNorman accomplishes the deft feat of being a mildly acidic send-up of, well, everything awful about America, while also making space for earnest emotional beats. Norman's loneliness is palpable without veering into adolescent miserablism, and the risks he eventually takes for a town that barely tolerates him reveal a selflessness and wisdom that is truly heroic.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the film is its message, which is both stridently anti-bullying and critical of fear-based reasoning. Moreover, the film ties these two threads together expertly, illustrating that cruelty in the adult world is rooted in the same cultural and personal fearfulness that drives pint-sized bullies like Alvin. Butler and Fell work this theme in sneakily, seeding the early scenes with lines that at first seem like pablum from an after-school special, but are later revealed as key psychological observations that relate directly to the tale of the witch's curse. ParaNorman's poignancy and the surprising gravity of its lessons are driven home with a stunning reveal that occurs roughly at the beginning of the third act. Nothing in any film in 2012—animated or live-action, kid-friendly or adult-serious—has come close to equalling the affecting gut-punch of that moment, and for that alone, ParaNorman is a welcome treat.

PostedAugust 25, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
CommentPost a comment
TheDarkKnightRisesGrab01.jpg

The Dark Knight Rises

2012 // USA - UK // Christopher Nolan // July 27, 2012 // Digital Theatrical Projection (Wehrenberg Des Peres 14 Cine)

The third (and by all accounts final) of director Christopher Nolan's Batman films pulls off a rather curious feat, one that appears to be novel in the annals of sequel-dom. The Dark Knight Rises manages to enrich the series as a whole, even as its only intermittently successful tonal and thematic preoccupations throw the singular achievements of its direct forebear, The Dark Knight, into sharper relief. To be sure, Rises is pleasingly effective as a sequel, and it carries the ashen aura of its predecessors to appropriately dizzying heights (and depths). The film expands upon the convoluted narrative and absorbing themes presented in the first two films, wrapping up Nolan's grim, mayhem-and-exposition-stuffed trilogy in a quite gratifying manner. Appraised as three chapters in a sprawling seven-plus-hour tale, the Batman films take on an air of queasy grandeur. Together, they comprise an unsettling epic about paralyzing contemporary fears, moral codes both noble and demented, and cramped psyches straining against the fragility of flesh and spirit. Rises also returns the focus to the fundamental story at the saga's heart: that of a haunted vigilante and the city he has taken as his personal charge. In this, Rises resembles Batman Begins a bit more than The Dark Knight. Its primary absorptions are the psychological contours of Bruce Wayne and the phenomenon of the Caped Crusader. Nolan's Batman films, especially Begins, have often observed that the cowl itself is a potent symbol. Rises clarifies and complicates this observation, presenting it as a quandary rather than a strength. The Batman is now bigger than Bruce, and it will outlast him. The fresh conflict posed by Rises is: Can Bruce disentangle himself from this symbol before he makes his exit? And does he even want to?

Unfortunately, restoring the centrality of Bruce Wayne has the effect of rendering Rises a bit more personal and corralled than the blissfully out-of-control The Dark Knight. Admittedly, this is an odd complaint to direct at Rises, a film that features several outlandishly super-villainous plots, not to mention the subjugation of all of central Gotham City under a nuclear-backed, months-long Reign of Terror. However, the first-order appeal of 2008's The Dark Knight is one of mood, a mood established through a brilliant intersection of velocity, atmosphere, and performance. There is something wickedly phosphorescent about Nolan's second Batman film. Its vision of a world gone mad possesses a noxious clarity, assisted in no small part by Heath Ledger's still-mesmerizing portrayal of the Joker. The Dark Knight offers an essential portrait of early twenty-first-century American fear, and its Gotham is partly a “Nightmare Town” plucked from Frank Miller's demented headspace and partly a crumbling Ground Zero where an alien malevolence writes its rambling manifesto in napalm. Perhaps it's unfair to gripe that Rises returns the focus of the story to the character of Bruce Wayne; narratively speaking, such realignment is arguably the sensible and humane thing to do in a Batman trilogy. However, the third film unquestionably feels a bit diminished and even prosaic in the enervating, reflected light of The Dark Knight.

Summarizing the story of Rises in great detail seems patently unnecessary. Suffice to say that it is eight years after the events of the prior film, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is now a stiff-jointed recluse, having hung up his cowl and permitted the Batman to be vilified as a murderer. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is nearing retirement, the city's prisons are swelling with convicts, and crime is at an all-time low. Of course, this last fact doesn't appear to account for the nocturnal prowlings of cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who has set her sights on the baubles of Gotham's One Percent. The threat that is foremost on Bruce's mind, however, is a masked fiend known as Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious soldier-of-fortune who has purportedly arrived in Gotham in order to carry out a violent revolution. That upheaval gives lip service to the miseries endured by the roused rabble, but it is directed by Bane's glib cynicism and sociopathic personality. Similar to those of the Joker, Bane's plots are massive, staggeringly crabbed things, demanding a level of planning that strains against the supposed realism of Nolan's series. However, where the Joker veered from one unlikely scheme to the next “like a dog chasing a car,” Bane moves calmly and relentlessly towards a singular goal: the obliteration of Gotham and the Batman, in that order. This establishes Bane as a more opposable and comprehensible nemesis, in that he has a Master Plan that must be discerned and stopped. The question becomes whether the weaker, slower, out-of-practice Bruce is capable of stopping Bane. The horror of Rises is therefore not one of "escalation," as foreshadowed in Begins and demonstrated in The Dark Knight, but of diminishment, of the unstoppable march towards a day when the Batman will be defeated.

Rises develops this thematic thread splendidly, although the film surrounds it with obscurely presented plot points, questionable character actions, and a plethora of science-fiction nonsense that far outdoes anything in the prior films. (In one of the film's more laughable sights, an enormous fusion reactor-turned-doomsday device is tossed around as though it were a medicine ball, with no discernible effect on its ominous countdown.) One wonders why Nolan elected to resurrect the unfortunate Bond-villain wackiness of Begins—recall Ra's al Ghul's ludicrous “microwave water vaporizer” scheme—and meld it with the often confounding, Byzantine plotting of The Dark Knight. Regardless, Rises' story is at its most enthralling when it is focused on Bruce Wayne and his demons, rather than militaristic spectacle. Certainly, there's an adolescent thrill to be gleaned from the sight of Batman's hovercraft dodging heat-seeking missiles between Gotham's skyscrapers, or of thousands of police officers and Bane-loyal zealots clashing man-to-man in the streets within a haze of swirling snow. What truly lingers, however, is the stark drama of Bruce's tribulations in a hellish prison-pit half a world away. Echoing motifs and moments stretching all the way back to the opening scenes of Begins, it is this borderline surreal sequence that exhibits Nolan at his most evocative and persuasive. The sequence cunningly exploits both Bruce Wayne's status as a legendary hero and the thematic groundwork laid by the prior films, creating an emotional crescendo that matches the guttural chant of the prisoners: “Rise... Rise... Rise...”

PostedJuly 31, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
CommentPost a comment
BeyondtheBlackRainbowGrab01.jpg

Beyond the Black Rainbow

2010 // Canada // Panos Cosmatos // July 6, 2012 // Theatrical Print (Hi-Pointe Theater)

[Beyond the Black Rainbow was screened on July 6 and 7, 2012 as a part of Destroy the Brain's monthly Late Nite Grindhouse program, featuring cult and exploitation films from the past and present.]​

Writer-director Panos Cosmatos' oneiric science-fiction feature, Beyond the Black Rainbow, is deeply entrenched in a veritable encyclopedia of genre landmarks, drawing on its antecedents for theme, mood, and evocative production design detail. Particularly evident are the fingerprints of David Cronenberg's late 1970s and early 80s horror films, with all their distinctive markers: the creepy religio-political factions and cult-like self-help movements; the nightmarish "fifteen-minutes-into-the-future" technology, replete with sinister black-box devices that bridge the gap between the analog and digital; the affectless, drawn-out performances; and the pointedly Canadian atmosphere to the art direction. There's a bit of later Cronenberg in Cosmatos' film as well, in that Rainbow calls to mind the druggy disconnectedness and Wonderland randomness of the former director's William S. Burroughs riff, Naked Lunch.

Other apparent forebears abound: Ken Russel's Altered States, Mark L. Lester's Firestarter, and Saul Bass' sole directorial effort, Phase IV. There are also a plethora of stylistic and thematic echoes from the works of Kubrick and Tarkovsky. Heck, even Silent Running gets a visual nod, a jarring reference given that Rainbow is, tonally speaking, worlds apart from Douglas Trumball's eco-futurist parable of a space-faring Garden of Eden. However, the deep cinematic traditions that Cosmotas draws upon are something of a distraction from the task of approaching the film as a trippy, difficult work in its own right. And Rainbow is nothing if not keenly aware of its own unconventional character. The film isn't quite desperate about wallowing in obtuse weirdness, but it is damn determined to be as challenging and impenetrable to the viewer as possible.

The film opens with a promotional film that describes the Arboria Institute, a psychological research center devoted to ensuring the "happiness" of patients through vague technological, pharmacological, and spiritual means. The year is 1983, although it is a menacing, parallel 1983 illuminated by a baleful red LED glow and scored by a relentless electronic drone. The film posits an alternate universe where the late 1970s have simply continued and Reagan-era gaudiness and sentimentalism have yet to arrive. Inasmuch as Rainbow has a plot, it is this: Elena (Eva Allen), a young woman who barely speaks and has ill-defined psychic powers, is being held at the Institute under the "care" of the turtleneck-favoring and obviously sinister Dr. Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers). Why exactly Elena is imprisoned at the Institute and what Dr. Nyle wants from her are unclear, but there is much about Rainbow that is unclear. Suffice to say that stuff happens: Elena is subjected to a series of bizarre interrogations; jump-suited, helmeted guards menace her; she is permitted to psycho-kinetically murder a nurse who snoops through the Institute's files; Dr. Nyle meets with Arboria's elderly founder (Scott Hylands), and has a flashback to his own early days in the man's care; Elena stumbles upon a means to escape; Dr. Nyle has a kind of psychotic breakdown; a pyramidal machine emits light and smoke.

The film doesn't make much sense, but it's difficult to say whether this is by design or not. Often, Cosmotos seems to be working in an almost avant-garde mode, where narrative is an afterthought and the film occupies itself primarily with conjuring an unsettling mood and creating disturbing, potent images. In this it succeeds, for Rainbow proves to be a legitimately creepy film. It does, however, seem wildly inappropriate to term it a "thriller" when, from a purely objective standpoint, nothing at all happens for long stretches at time. The film's stylings seem designed to be oppressive, creating a haze of nauseating light and sound that echoes the psychological demolition that the Institute is inflicting on Elena. The boundaries between individual days dissolve as Elena awakens again and again in her spotlessly clean white cell to the same spinning Arboria logo on the video monitors. The performances from the two primary actors are pitched to be overtly alienating: Rogers softly moans out his lines, punctuating every word with a long pause, while Allen has exactly one expression of slack terror that she wears throughout the film. They aren't really "acting" in the usual sense, but, then again, Cosmotos doesn't seem to want acting cluttering up his bench project in mood and design.

The overall effect is that of a narcotic trance, where every detail seems significant, but slips away from the viewer with maddening ease. It's a bracingly audacious way to make a film, demanding a staggering tonal discipline that Cosmotos nearly (but not quite) pulls off. However, a film in which lots of nothing happens and the few somethings that do happen are mysterious (or downright opaque)... well, that can be wearisome for any viewer, even a viewer who is accustomed to glacially-paced experimental film. It's not a pleasant experience by any stretch, but pleasure doesn't seem to be Rainbow's aim. It is, in its way, pure cinema, but it is a cold, somewhat aimless cinema. Cosmotos lacks the talent that master surrealist film-makers like Lynch and Jardowsky demonstrate in selecting inexplicable images that seem intuitively, emotionally "correct". Rainbow, in contrast, often feels calculatingly weird, in the most joyless, serious-minded manner possible.

Cosmotos' film eventually collapses, but, surprisingly, it is not due to its unyeilding atmospherics. Rather, it is when Rainbow executes a baffling sprint into slasher-film convention and black comedy camp in its final scenes. This suggests that, oddly enough, it is a lack of dedication to confounding strangeness that ultimately defeats the film, undermining its potential as an enduring acid-trip cult feature.

PostedJuly 11, 2012
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
1 CommentPost a comment
Newer / Older
RT_CRITIC_TM_BADGE.jpg
The Take-Up Podcast

Twin Peaks: The Return

2007 - 2016: A Personal Cinematic Canon

download.png

Recent Posts

Blog
New Reviews at The Take-Up
about 7 years ago
Miles to Go Before I Sleep
about 7 years ago
Delete Your Account: 'Friend Request'
about 7 years ago
Feminine Mystique: 'mother!'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - 'Twin Peaks: The Return,' Parts 17 and 18
about 7 years ago
Send in the Clown: 'It'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 16
about 7 years ago
Fetal Infraction: Prevenge
about 7 years ago
You Don’t Know Why, But You’re Dying to Try: The Lure
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 15
about 7 years ago

© 2007 – 2025 Andrew Wyatt