Why is it that no one who attended the Chicago screening of The Master has made any attempt to really explore the Scientology parallels, or lack thereof? It’s as if the people who’ve posted reactions have never even heard of Scientology or even toyed with the idea that The Master might be at least an oblique commentary about it. Weird.

I’m aware, of course, that Phillip Seymour Hoffman and others have contended that the film is “not about Scientology”, but I’ve yet to read a piece that explains clearly and precisely how ‘the Cause’ differs from Scientology or goes further and asks “where did anyone get the idea that this might be about Scientology? Because it’s so not that!” Or something along those lines. Have I missed something?

Put another way, did an early decision by director-writer Paul Thomas Anderson to avoid specific allusions to Scientology result in the austere spareness of the film?

“Explanations are pared away; background for ‘The Cause’ that Master (Hoffman) represents is implied, hardly ever explained. Motivations of secondary characters are elided. There’s hardly a force onscreen beyond Master and Freddy (Joaquin Pheonix). Amy Adams, as Master’s wife, has three scenes that show her to be yet another sort of master in the emotional equations.” — MCN columnist Ray Pride, posting on 8.17.12 following Chicago Music Box screening.

My God, does this film sound dense and spare and mesmerizing and all but impenetrable!

“Though it’s not me, it’s cinema that’s all fixated on pants and hair and the Citreon DS.” — Ignatiy Vishnevetsky.

A person who saw The Master last night at the Museum of Moving Image in Queens responds: “Oh, I wouldn’t call it ‘impenetrable.’ While you’re watching it, it’s extremely direct and emotional. The alcoholism of the characters is portrayed very bracingly. It’s when the thing’s over and you’re piecing the various stuff together that it actually gets more mysterious. While you’re in it, it’s incredibly direct and uncomfortable and all the narrative eliding that Pride talks about doesn’t register so much. I’ll be interested in how you like it. if you’re open to it, I suspect it’ll affect you an awful lot.”

“God, that Vishnevetsky guy seems like a smirky little prick!

“As for the Scientology angle or lack thereof, well, yes, of course, the stuff that Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd is doing bears quite a resemblance to L. Ron Hubbard‘s scheme, in both the particulars of the beliefs and the building of the ‘church.’ But not always in the way you expect, and it’s certainly not the movie’s mission to make a commentary on Scientology. The belief system kind of stands in for all belief systems, in a way. You’ll get it when you see it. The movie’s theme is far more primal and elemental than that of a mere sociological/cultural phenomenon.”

I remember deciding a long time ago to instantly dismiss people who use the word “uhhm” while gathering their thoughts. I’m not saying I’ll refuse to deal with them — there are tens of thousands of “uhhm”-ers out there and you can’t live on an island. But the instant I hear that word I tend to pull back and regard the speaker askance. You’ll notice that for the most part “uhhm” is used by younger people and under-educated girly-girls.

I can roll, on the other hand, with people who say “uhhh” or “ahhh.” (I’ll occasionally resort to these.) It’s really the use of the letter “m” that tears it. When you’re pausing between phrases, just don’t say anything that rhymes with the word “bum” — simple.

Part of my problem with this year’s New York Film Festival slate, I suppose, is that I was spoiled by the NYFF’s first-anywhere debut of The Social Network in 2010 — that was a major score that put the NYFF, which had acquired a bit of a sleepy, sedentary rep under Richard Pena, back on the map and was a feather in the caps of the newly ascended Scott Foundas and NYFF selection committee member Todd McCarthy.

Note: I’ve been informed that a certain former Lincoln Center fellow with the initials “K.J.” played a crucial role in landing The Social Network, and that I shouldn’t go overboard in assuming that Foundas-McCarthy were the principal architects of that “get.”

To be sure, landing Flight as the closing-night attraction is a commendable score, but the only thing that could have fully lived up to The Social Network this year would have been Steven Spielberg‘s Lincoln (Disney, 11.9). Life of Pi for the opener, Flight for the Centerpiece and Lincoln for the closing-nighter…perfect!

Alas, Spielberg films almost never play major festivals (the big exception was ’08’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), and Disney marketing’s decision not to debut their film as a closing-night NYFF attraction may, I fear, indicate their level of confidence in it, at least as far as how Lincoln will fare with the NY critical community…but let’s not assume too much. Ease up, take it slow.

Still, the fact that Lincoln will open on November 9th, only three and a half weeks after the NYFF closes, makes you wonder if there’s any big-city, media-centric event that they’d be comfortable partnering with for a Lincoln debut. What are they going to do, show it around the country in a series of rube screenings like they did with War Horse?

The answer, of course, is “no” — that screen-it-for-the-rural-popcorn-crowd strategy convinced everyone except for EW’s Dave Karger that War Horse was a problem, and that’s exactly what it turned out to be. It doesn’t matter how much money it made ($79 million domestic, $97 million foreign) because (a) many if not most ticket buyers are not afflicted with that cultural burden or affliction called “taste,” and (b) the fact that War Horse was grotesquely sentimental and wildly manipulative destroyed its Best Picture chances, and cemented the notion that Spielberg’s worst tendencies are out of control these days.

Which is why people are concerned about Lincoln as we speak, and saying to each other that “whatever Spielberg does with this material, you really can’t trust him to do the right thing any more, not after War Horse and also considering the tedious experience of Amistad.” They’re also saying that “the only thing we’ll be able to really count on, most likely, will be Daniel Day Lewis‘s performance, and hopefully Tony Kushner‘s screenplay and perhaps the supporting performances…who knows?” But nobody trusts Spielberg.

Here’s a typically lively Sunday Times piece by Camille Paglia about the highly perverse Alfred Hitchcock and his notoriously complex relationships with women. Paglia also authored a British Film Institute essay about The Birds. Here’s a review.

Me: “I’m flying into NYC directly from Telluride, and staying for two days before flying up to Toronto. And I have to admit that I’m not that taken with the New York Film Festival lineup this year. Sorry but I’m not. Not Fade Away is allegedly a problem, and Life of Pi is a wide-eyed 3D storybook fable. The Olivier Assayas and Flight are the only ones I really want to see, and the rest of the films are Cannes and Toronto leftovers…not impressed. Plus Flight will screen on the Paramount lot right after NYFF so that might be good enough for me.

“Plus I will not pay those godawful New York hotel or sublet rates for two weeks straight. I tried Pod 39 — $450 and change for two nights? I’m sorry, but is that someone’s idea of a low-cost deal?”

“And I’m not flying to [unnamed West Coast city] on 8.22 to see The Master either. That puppy definitely sounds like something I can wait until Toronto to see.”

Colleague: “I think the NYFF line-up is highly impressive. You’ve unfortunately made up your mind on Life of Pi without knowing the first thing about it. I think it’s a major get for the opener. I’m very excited for Flight. And Not Fade Away has been re-edited from the problem’ cut. And I’m happy to see a good selection of Cannes or Toronto holdovers.”

Me: “I know some things about Life of Pi. I know it’s got a fucking Bengal tiger in it. And a zebra. And some of it takes place upon heaving stormy seas. And it’s in 3D. And it stars a young actor from India, and that his eyes are bug-eyed with wonder or fear or excitement most of the time. It’s obviously a wonderful, eye-filling adventure fable, perhaps for the whole family. Where did you hear or read that the problem version of Not Fade Away has been re-edited?”

Colleague: “You have no idea about Pi. But thankfully there are those who know of things like spiritual journey as metaphor, and they won’t dig their heels in and pronounce, ‘This is what this movie is. It’s only what I see, not what’s behind the imagery.'”

Me: “Oh, I don’t know. I think that snarling tigers and heaving stormy seas are metaphors in and of themselves. I think the decision to use these images is, in a sense, content. I think it’s Ang Lee declaring, ‘Let’s put on a show!’ And let’s slip in a metaphor while we’re at it.'”

Colleague: “I’m told that they tested Not Fade Away some time back and that it didn’t go well, and that [director David] Chase worked up a different version that dealt with those issues and that it’s better now. How much better, I can’t say.”

The aging lawman with a turkey neck, a man of virtue, kindly manner, slight pot belly, face like a satchel. That was Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men. Throw in a little Gran Torino action — i.e., an ornery old cuss with plenty of moxie and muscle tone…spit in your eye, kick like a mule. Mix, shake and throw in some third-act Mexican cartel carnage and you’ve got Kim Ji-woon‘s The Last Stand. Is this the first half-decent Arnold Schwarzenegger film since he left Sacramento? Or just a good poster?

The impediment, of course, is that Arnold’s face doesn’t have that creased weary elegance that benefitted Mr. Jones in No Country. AS’s face looks re-molded. I’m not convinced that any border-town sheriff has ever been able to afford such a procedure.

Logline: “A drug cartel leader escapes from a courthouse and tries to make the Mexican border. But he first has to get past an aging sheriff (Schwarzenegger) and his inexperienced staff.” Pic costars Jaimie Alexander, Harry Dean Stanton, Genesis Rodriguez, Rodrigo Santoro, Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare, Johnny Knoxville, Zach Gilford, Luis Guzman. Wait…doesn’t the projected 1.18.13 opening mean it’ll probably be genre sludge?

So the weekend’s #1 film, The Expendables 2, is something of a weak sister. The goony plastic-surgery action drama is playing in 3316 situations and looking at a so-so $30 million by Sunday night. And yet audiences gave it a CinemaScore grade of A-minus. CinemaScore respondents tend to err on the side of politeness, but an A-effing-minus? For a movie that efilmcritic’s Peter Sobczynski said “bears the same basic relationship to a genuinely thrilling action extravaganza that an order from Papa John’s has to actual pizza”? That the Globe and Mail‘s Rick Groen called “breezily forgettable”? That EW‘s Lisa Schwarzbaum called “excellent crap”?

I decided to forego the pleasure of seeing The Expendables 2…sorry. Maybe someone who’s seen it can explain how it deserves an A-minus? It sounds that by any fair standard that a B-minus or more likely a C would be the way to go. Wouldn’t the presence of facelifts automatically drop the rating down half a point, at least? An Expendables 2 sans plastic surgery would most likely get an A, in other words?

There’s a film series honoring the recently deceased Ernest Borgnine happening at the American Cinematheque, and one of tonight’s features is Richard Fleischer‘s The Vikings (’58). Borgnine plays an elder Viking leader named Ragnar, the father of Kirk Douglas‘s Einar. He’s out at the end of Act Two when he’s forced to jump into a pit of hungry wolves, but first he persuades Tony Curtis‘s Eric to let him die like a Viking with a sword in hand.

I’m mentioning this because I’m bothered by a line in the American Cinematheque online program notes. It says that The Vikings “is a fast, funny spectacle not to be missed on the big screen.” Funny? It’s a broadly staged popcorn movie, okay. And with a sense of humor, for sure, but there’s nothing comical about any of it. It’s campy — any movie about taking women with force (“Bite! Scratch!”) and looting and howling and fighting with axes and swords is a hoot on some level — but it has a touch of genuine gravitas, about brotherly ties and the fear of God.

Here’s how I put it six and half years ago just after Fleischer died:

“For me, Fleischer’s peak was The Vikings — the 1958 historical action epic that was mostly dominated by producer-star Kirk Douglas, but was notable for two dramatic elements that still work today.

“One is what seems to happen inside the male Viking characters (particularly Douglas and Borgnine’s) whenever Odin, the Nordic God, is mentioned. We hear a haunting, siren-like ‘Odin theme’ on the soundtrack, and these rough blustery types suddenly stop their loutish behavior and seem to almost retreat into a childlike emotional place…a place that’s all about awe and fear of death, God, judgment. This happens maybe three or four times in this big, unsophisticated popcorn movie (which nonetheless feels far sturdier and more classically composed than a typical big-budget popcorn actioner made today), and each time it does The Vikings has a spirit.

“The other thing that still works is the film’s refusal to make much of the fact that Douglas and costar Tony Curtis, mortal enemies throughout the film, are in fact brothers, having both been half-sired by Borgnine. Costar Janet Leigh begs Douglas to consider this ten minutes from the finale, and Douglas angrily brushes her off. But when his sword is raised above a defenseless Curtis at the very end and he’s about to strike, Douglas hesitates. And we know why. And then Curtis stabs Douglas in the stomach with a shard of a broken sword, and Douglas is finished.

“The way Douglas leans back, screams ‘Odin!’ and then rolls over dead is pretty hammy” — okay, call it funny — “but that earlier moment of hesitation is spellbinding — one of the most touching pieces of acting Douglas has ever delivered. Douglas wasn’t very respectful of Fleischer’s authority during the making of The Vikings, and for all I know Fleischer didn’t have that much to do with this final scene…but he probably did, and he deserves our respect for it.”

N.Y. Times critic Manohla Dargis on Robert Pattinson in Cosmopolis: “Nearly affectless at first, Mr. Pattinson makes a fine member of the Cronenbergian walking dead, with a glacial, blank beauty that brings to mind Deborah Kara Unger in the director’s version of J. G. Ballard’s Crash.”

Interjection: Over the decades I have seen many actors do very little in this or that part. Very little and sometimes “nothing”, and they do it very well for somehow they manage to suggest all sorts of internal currents and contemplations. I didn’t get a sense of anything going on inside Pattinson as I watched Cosmopolis.

Back to Dargis: “Mr. Pattinson can be a surprisingly animated presence (at least he was on ‘The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,’ where he recently put in a game appearance), and he may be capable of greater nuance and depth than is usually asked of him.”

Interjection: Pattinson “may” be capable of this? In other words, all his directors so far have asked him to tone down the nuance and the depth?

Back to Dargis: “Certainly, with his transfixing mask and dead stare, [Pattinson] looks the part he plays here and delivers a physical performance that holds up to a battery of abuses, including [a] prostate exam and some anticlimactic tears.”

The oddest thing happened last week. It was around midnight and I was standing at the door of my place and talking to Mouse, my fat Siamese cat, about coming inside. The area was dark but semi-lighted, and Mouse was sitting next to a wooden fence about five or six feet away. And then from stage left an opossum appeared, just casually walking along, no hurry. He passed within inches of Mouse, and there was no hissing, no growling, no arching of the back…nothing.

The opossum exited stage right. He looked old and ragged. A somewhat ugly, icky-looking thing. Black eyes, pink ears, white fuzzy coat, long rat tail…yeesh.

I learned after reading the Wikipage that they only live about four years so he must have been three or three and a half. I’m guessing that Mouse sensed how old he was and assessed right away that he was no threat, and that’s why he was so calm about it.

DATE: Friday, 8.17
TO: Hawk Koch, president of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences
FROM: Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere
RE: Side by Side screening at the Academy

Hawk,

I’m writing to suggest something bold and out of the ordinary — i.e., for the Academy to hold a special screening of Keanu Reeves and Chris Kenneally‘s Side by Side, a Tribeca Films release that opens today at the Laemmle Noho and on VOD on 8.22. I’m asking you to approve this not as an “interested party” (I’m just a columnist) but because the film very simply but intelligently explains how and why the industry has changed over from film to digital, and it would benefit everybody to sink into this history and understand it as fully as possible.

The disappearance of celluloid and the dominance of digital is the most earth-shaking and to some extent traumatic change that Hollywood has undergone since the advent of sound, and it seems to me that the Academy membership, which by and large will almost certainly pay no attention to Side by Side because it has barely been promoted, would genuinely benefit by seeing it and taking stock of the knowledge it offers.

The Academy almost never shows indie-styled films, I realize. Every time I go to a special Academy screening it’s always for classics or for Oscar-season contenders, but mostly for looking-back contemplations. Side by Side is a different story because it’s not just about the relatively recent past (i.e., the last 14 or 15 years) but about right now and the future. It’s a major nuts-and-bolts lesson in how the industry is working right now.

Here’s how I explained things in a 7.28 review.

“As recently as 12 or 14 years ago digital was seen a joke that only the DOGMA guys and various no-account indie directors were working with. So we’ve all been witness to a major technological revolution, and it really needs to be fully pondered and studied from this and that angle. It’s too seismic and seminal to ignore.

“Side by Side is a highly intelligent sizing-up of the situation. It tells you what you know or have heard, but it’s a very soothing and stimulating thing to consider what’s happened over the last 14 or so years in one tight 99-minute presentation. It’s wonky, yes, but it’s cut and presented in such a way that even the most ADD-afflicted dilletante will be able to get into it, and yet it’s well-ordered and sophisticated enough to intrigue those who know all about this transition.

“I think it’s easily one the best made and most absorbing docs of the year.

“So I’m of the opinion that Side by Side is not only smart and fascinating, but very necessary to see here and now because every so often we all have to take stock of where we are and where we’ve been, and this is one of those occasions. In short it’s important — it goes over everything and reminds us where things were not so long ago, and where we are today and are likely to be in 10 or 20 or 50 years.

“Plus it assembles all of the leading and necessary hotshots in a single room, so to speak — interviewer Keanu Reeves plus Chris Nolan (a non-fan of digital), David Fincher, George Lucas, Steven Soderbergh, James Cameron, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Richard Linklater, Danny Boyle and dps Vilmos Zsigmond, Wally Pfister (who hates digital), Reed Morano, Michael Chapman and digital pioneer Anthony Dod Mantle, who shot The Celebration, the first significant digital feature, as well as the digitally-captured, oscar-winning Slumdog Milllionaire.”

I realize that the Academy is very heavily booked in advance and it’s not simple to stage one of these screenings, but I truly think it’s important for everyone to see this, and I know that Tribeca Film hasn’t stepped up to the plate to suggest this but I feel compelled to.

Regards,

Jeffrey Wells
Hollywood Elsewhere