Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Long Days Journey Into...Meh: or "We have struggled against the day and lost"

                                 In space no one wacks your milkshake into a sink.

Now that The Master is released the internet is abuzz with wild conjectures and disappointed complaints, just as Scott's miserable Alien: the Precum engendered. Confusing, beautiful, poorly structured, The Master's only joy is deeply developed characters who are given nothing to do. It is Paul Thomas Anderson's overreach into glorious, hypnotic 70 mm self-indulgence.  Much like Reddit'er posts on Prometheus, fans of PT Anderson seem unwilling to accept their God has failed. I love PT Anderson, even and especially Magnolia, but this film shows PT Anderson is very good...at imitating PT Anderson.

It only resonates via shimmering moments of cinematography, a wonderful score, detailed acting and, at times, superb dialog.  Anderson has pressed penetrating performances from Phoenix, Adams, Hoffman and Co. but in the end it is all sound and fury signifying 'Meh'. In preparations I imagine there was much discussion between director and actors, and it shows in what are sure to be Oscar worthy nods, but Anderson should have spent a bit more time with paper and pencil and a big sign that says "It's the story dammit!" on the wall.
                                           It's available as an audiobook Paul!


PT Anderson forgot the necessity of action for great acting to have any meaning.  This film has delicious shine and grit in it's acting, colors, & sounds, but not the whole they create. In the end these characters are no more than awesome emo kids, all surface and emotion, but standing around a corner doing nothing and thus, unimportant to anyone but themselves.



PerspectiveOne little shot of Freddie before the boobies, PTA

In Magnolia & Boogie Nights Anderson pulled off the incredible feet of multiple perspectives among a huge cast. The audience is drawn to every character, as they come to be revealed as deeply, often dangerously flawed human beings.    In any film it must be answered: "Whose perspective is this in?" If I have to ask, you've failed as a director.  I don't have to be right, but I cannot be taken out of the film by my confusion over this.  For example: the shift to female nudity at one point.  For me, a boom mike might as well have slipped into view for how jarring its appearance was. 
                People will remember Plan 9 From Outer Space more than this movie.

Naked people appear magically...is it a dream, a metaphor? Who is seeing it this way?  This has been a hot, conflicting topic on the internet,  No, this does not make the film deep.  Now, if you give me a sense of perspective, but then shift it on me, reveal it false, go Rashomon, drop clues to be revealed upon repeated viewings, great. Any discussion and disagreement is earned. In The Master, the passivity and coolness of the camera in relation to characters fails to elicit any understanding of the sudden appearance of a naked, pregnant Amy Adams. One little shot of Freddy before the boobies, PTA, that's all I ask, but no.  You're the Artist, and we the audience must bask in your glory and figure it all out.  I imagine if I interviewed you it would be akin to Ann Romney exclaiming:

                                 "Stop it! Don't you know this is hard?"

       Granted I'd rather see Amy Adams naked than Ann Romney in the White House, so there's that.


There Will Be Blood had a similar coolness of perspective. It suffers from some structural flaws, but nothing like The Master.  Daniel Plainview sort of has an antagonist, the young preacher Eli Sunday, who reveals his own snake oil charisma and humiliates Plainview in two amazing Church service scenes. 


Let me clean your ear there oilman.

He then disappears until the end of the film, a MAJOR FLAW, but nothing like The Master, where ideas come and go along with whatever conflict a story requires to be worth my time.    


Motivation: A Drunk and His Rejected Savior
In There Will be Blood Anderson lightly sketched out a slowly evolving story in exchange for a companion, Daniel Plainview, delivered by Daniel Day Lewis in a manner so real, so compelling you were entranced, repulsed, captivated and terrified as you traveled with him. You will have a hard time showing me what lies behind Plainview's motivations. Seriously, there is no desire from Plainview except pursuing oil. The interior WHY is missing.  It opens with a man digging a hole in the desert, the shots are beautiful and the music mesmerizing.  10-15 minutes of this. Just as my mind is starting to demand answers, PTA answers them in a speech about oil and money and why Plainview should be the man to get it.  I've got tension here: will the landowners sign with Plainview?  Maybe, maybe not.  There are stakes for our hero. There's money to be made and work to be done and that's good enough when the acting is this great.  I know what's he wants and so he has someplace to go.

  



         TM can't decide if its the next There Will Be Blood or the next Godfrey Reggio film...

The Master begins with a similarly stark introduction. No exposition, just simple action, color and sound.  We don't know where this is going, but that is fine, neither does Freddie. The aimlessness is the point: Freddie is damaged goods. Why? Is it the War? Who knows...  Once Freddie stumbles onto the ship compelling possibilities are introduced: a powerful man named Lancaster Dodd likes this fool and offers to help him with unusual methods that are completely new to Freddie and to us.  But then...The Master slowly peters out.  The Story of  Dodd and The Cause never materializes. Compelling possibilities are introduced and then disappear.  Worst of all, the character THE FUCKING MOVIE IS NAMED AFTER ultimately only is  a ghost as far as the viewer is concerned. I will come back to this later.

Imagine a film about a scientist after the causes of HIV. I don't need their child to have AIDS (though a better story exists with this), I just need to know HIV is a worldwide plague that kills millions. Great, I'm hooked. THIS SORT OF BASIC PLOT NEVER HAPPENS IN THE MASTER.  For me, this is not the problem.

Suppose this HIV cure film is made by Terrance Malick or PT Anderson as a character exploration of 3 scientists in a lab.  It could be awesome, but only if I am given some necessary background to anchor the subtleties and nuances of the performances. I need info about the power plays, conflicts, personalities and histories.   Maybe there's an hour of simmering resentment and anger acted to perfection, then I learn, dramatically or subtly that one slept with the other's husband years before.  New info changes everything and the viewer is drawn in further.  Next the film raises the stakes by relating the cheating to the search for a cure: perhaps an important breakthough is held back out of spite because of this: wow, now I'm really interested! 

                                    Believe it: scientists can be dicks.

How could someone do such a thing, when the cure for HIV is on the line?  Your audience is hooked by the development.  Now, I don't need an expository moment to spell the motivation out. Great writing can often do this with just a few words. Great film can do this with just a few images, I might miss them the first time, and be swept up in the performance, but in another viewing I notice it and the film deepens for me.  It could just be a small shot of a picture on a wall.  The Master ain't got this folks.  I've seen it twice.  A lingering shot of a pregnant Amy Adams is not being deep. I'm not asking for paint by numbers, but I am asking for it all to form some worthwhile coherent image the first time.  I have stared at details of a Monet for hours, it has enlightened and entranced me, 



but up on my wall I want a fucking garden with lily pads, flowers and a bridge. 



                Waterlilies takes as much time as The Master...but is much more rewarding.

I've stared @ the details of a Mark Rothko, then stepped away away and it remains abstract.  He names it "Four Darks in Red", not "A Drunk and His Rejected Savior" and so that's fine. 

                           4 Darks in Red, by Mark Rothko...makes more sense than this film.

PTA has made "A Drunk and His Rejected Savior" but when I pull away from the details it doesn't add up to the title and frankly, except for the technique and details it's not worth putting it on my wall. Narrative is not mastered here.



PERFORMANCE:  Juices flowing nowhere
In many great performances it's stark surface, little inner world is revealed via exposition, as with Daniel Plainview. But it works in TWBB since it's in a world we already know, the oil boom, with outcomes we understand: wealth and power. So we don't worry about it too much and are swept up in the impressionistic nature of it all. TWBB does have struggle and resolution: people die, oil is found, money is made. Struggle occurs mightily in The Master, but it is between the audience and the director. The challenge of figuring it out is not worth it if the director's construction is more the result of aspergers than careful, clever structure.


                               Paul Thomas Anderson's ode to Paul Gauguin (wait for it)...

The Master is worth your time ONLY for the interactions and charisma of the characters via Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman incredible portrayals.  As to where it goes or what it means there is not enough work by PTA to earn the "what's it all about?" the film creates.  It might as well be an acting class lead by Phoenix, Adams, etc. where we are swept up in the performance without having to worry about the outcomes for the characters.  Freddie has a lot of backstory, but its disjointed, creepy (she's 16?), and frankly, I don't care about him.  Who is Lancaster Dodd & why does he choose Freddie? Hell if I know. Is he just trying to see what snake oil is convincing?  Why would he chose such a troubled person when someone with smaller problems but no self esteem would be easier?  Seriously, why is Freddie around once they get to New York?  Dodd seems to genuinely care for Freddie so the scam aspect of his methods make no sense.  I have a suspicion about this & that bomb will drop later. After a wonderful first meeting Anderson assumes their journey together doe not need a direction or reason. Maybe PTA picked up symphillis on that South Pacific Beach like Paul Gauguin and it ruined his ability to tell a story.
                                                       Paul Gauguin’s painting
             Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? 
            I could ask the same thing of Paul Thomas Anderson & Co. (Punchline!)


BILL FUCKING MURRAY: Just Because
Bill Murray's performance in Life Aquatic was one of the best things he's ever done.  There are moments where the pain and disappointments of his failed marriage, the slip from past glories, his friend's death, etc. are carried in his expression & body perfectly.  Fuck The Oscars
The Life Aquatic works the first time because the story, cinematography, acting, design, creativity are all so thrilling the viewer is carried along in joy. The subtleties of the cast's performance are revealed in subsequent viewings as the details in writing, acting, set design, etc. are picked up a little bit each time.    I watch it again and notice these touches and strokes because it is a dense, creative film worthy of my time because the story and Bill Fucking Murray are so fucking awesome.
 "Look Steve, there's The Master's raison d'etre" "No son ,thats a sludge tanker."

The Master's overall details and story are so weak few would want to follow them. Except for the acting and widescreen beauty, this film will be forgotten. I know the internet is picking it apart and trying to see the puzzle PTA has created, but the pieces don't fit together enough the first time. And that's a shame as the story could be so very juicy.

THE STORY: Between a Wall and a Window and no Cause for it 
I've been harsh, so I should give props to the cast. Amy Adams is not given enough, but wow this film is the first time I've noticed her power.  Alas, her character stayed restrained except for a handjob. Joaquin Phoenix, DUH, OSCAR. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, well sir I've been quoting   "We have Struggled against the day and won!" all weekend. 

                                                    Philip Seymour Hoffman Picture

There's JUST not enough plot, conflict or action for these great performances to play among.  We need a reason to stick with their charisma, otherwise it gets boring watching them walk back and forth between Anderson's windows and walls.  Every time something becomes worth my time, its dropped. Dodd & Freddie are arrested. Great, a surprise, an unexpected change our characters have to confront. But not in this film. They're in jail. Now they're not. We never hear about this again and it has *no effect on them whatsoever from then on*.  People tell Dodd that Freddie wants to steal his unpublished works. Why they think this is never explained. No one caught Freddie stealing. Soon Dodd has Freddie dig up a box which he says has his unpublished works.  They're alone in the desert, Dodd's got a gun, okay this is going somewhere, right?  Is it a test?  I have to guess at the reason for this scene: it adds nothing to the plot or Freddie-Dodds relationship.  I feel like Brad Pitt at the end of Se7en   Don't ask questions Brad!

The power of the performances stick with us, but the outcomes, direction frustrate us. So some viewers take that energy and apply it to the huge holes this film has and fill them with conjectures that, frankly, are not earned.  PTA's lack of story over 137 minutes is not compensated by some intricate, subtle puzzle worth teasing out. Frankly, Freddie's not worth it and Dodd's compelling powers remain too much of a mystery to the very end.


LONG DAYS JOURNEY INTO...MEH:
Eugene O'Neill's Long Days Journey Into Night is an incredible, long, emotionally draining study of character. However, we still are given the back story for our characters: The aging theater star regrets selling out with his lifetime playing one character...it made him rich, but it also prevented him from getting better roles and allowed him and his family to become functioning addicts. This play endures because we enjoy actors traveling the emotional tides over one fateful day as the consequences and recriminations of those long ago decisions are addressed. There is no ultimate resolution, but it all works because we have enough back story to jump in the boat with them. For many in the audience it is a journey they can identify with, alcoholism and regret a common reality. Learning it is based on the playwright's own life, that he forbade it to be published until after his death, makes it even more compelling. The Master is a similar study of character and consequences, but it just doesn't work due to a lack of background and story.

 
 
    "I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher.
      But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly unexplained man, just like you." 

Anderson stepped too far away from action, conflict & story in his pursuit of character. Actors flock to him because he helps them attain amazing performances. Daniel Plainview on paper was one beautifully aged and marbled cut of steak for Daniel Day Lewis to throw on his grill and cook.  Alas, while Freddie Quill's damaged state gives us a starting point, our magical mystery man Lancaster Dodd is unexplored & his connection to L. Ron Hubbard makes this not fair.

Freddie & Dodd's interactions, while interesting, go nowhere & there's no outcome to be vested because the story is weak.  Go to a dive bar or talk to bums in a public park...you'll meet great characters. Wait long enough and a couple of them will fight. But you won't give a damn about them because they're not going anywhere really. Just like the story and the characters in this movie.  Their journey is poorly developed & there is no larger story to serve, so what's the point?
 Mikey Rourke, Barfly, 1987
                            Netflix this shit right now...trust me. 
                     Because I'd hate to be you if I were me and saw The Master

Of course, PTA could make a great film about barfly's: once we're in the bar PTA you can character study away & to hell with the plot! Oh wait, Barbet Shroeder did that already and it KICKED YOUR ASS.  

L. RON WHO?
The Master raises the stakes by basing it off the life of a scam artist who founded a world wide religion which has been banned in Germany, accused of murder, brainwashing & kidnapping, and wields great power in Hollywood. PTA made an L. Ron Hubbard film in Scientology's backyard. Wow. Tom Cruise ain't gonna do "Magnolia II: I Miss My Daddy" now.  
                                                          Sequel Beyotches!

PTA puts us in a world that is immensely interesting, the leaders and inner circle of a motivational cult, but we never really explore this enticingly new world. For all the wonderful acting, who gives a crap about The Cause if we learn little about it? At least Obi Wan explained the Force. Do we root for it or against it?  By failing to deliver, I'm going to go ahead and accuse him of using the subject just to sell tickets to his Cinerama self indulgence.

                                No, not that cult.


Freddie, Dodd & The Cause: Too much paint thinner?
Freddy's journey to following the Master is not developed properly and his motivations often make no sense. PTA shows us one scene of Processing, and it is amazing...but then I never see it again until the Window/Wall scene. We never see a breakthough, but Freddy keeps at it. . What affect does the Process have, how did it make Freddie change? HOW DOES IT WORK? 

"Freddie is still battling his demons, that's why he steals" you say, okay, but I don't see him fighting and I don't see him winning from time to time and there is no reason for him to be remain Dodd's experiment.  If you're going to fill in the holes, then I can too: Dodd just wanted his cocktails, which Freddie made & controlled Dodd with!  That's why there's that dramatic shot of the paint thinner container!  "Well, the Process doesn't work, that's why Freddie is so frustrated!"  No one else in the Cause has this problem, so that's not valid...

Lancaster Dodd's story is just plain missing. He certainly is charming and persuasive at first, but what is he after? Is it money? Power? Sinkjobs? Does Dodd believe in the Cause?  Where did he get these crazy ideas?  How does he get his flock to wait all the way through dinner watching Freddie walk back and forth from a wall to a window?  Dodd's ability to control only is believable because Hoffman is so very good, but in trying to find the story of Dodd & The Cause we are left "reaching for air" as Ebert so aptly put it in his review. 
  
Roger Ebert is the awesome Sith Lord of Film Reviewers. Don't fuck with him.

I have no idea what the Cause is, or why its members follow it. The public fiction & cynical truth are both unexplored. Here is the beginnings of a cultish movement with critics and dark forces aligned against them.  Their Master goes to jail and everybody's just hunky dory sitcom satisfied with their status just one scene later. No member of the inner circle seems to mind very much this drunk stowaway has become a separate circle for their Master.  When they do, at dinner, the shift comes out of nowhere. Indeed previous interactions involve helping Freddy beat a guy up or grabbing his crotch. More importantly, the next time we see them THEY DON"T CARE. 

    I'm going to drop my motivations like my husband's semen: right into the sink.


It's a cult around a single figure, there's going to be power plays galore...not here.  What about the son? His doubts appear and then..poof. The daughter?  Why would she make a pass and then support Freddy's attempted dismissal? Why would her husband go rough up a guy with Freddie? Why would Freddie?  Don't get me wrong,  Phoenix is mesmerizing to watch. His psych interview, the department store fight, processing, the way he carries Freddie psychically...it amazing and deserves a more believable, coherent journey.


                            Look! Freddie is smaller than his girlfriend, PTA is trying to tell us something...


The director is special all right...
If I have to figure out EVERY SINGLE THING the author is trying to say, it is not being deep-it is a case of severe story autism.   Since Dodd & The Cause is left unexplored, there's no reason to base this struggle between master & student there. Put it in at a college, a disturbed student and a brilliant, but flawed professor and let the battle begin.

                                                     Oh wait, that's been done.


          Conflict?  Nahhh...we're just one big happy family...and a drunk.


PTA MADE TOM CRUISE ROCK, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.
Magnolia had a huge cast and many stories but there was enough little clues for me to understand some or most of what was going on and, most importantly they're interesting stories which circle back to themselves successfully. Each separate arc is put together enough I have some understanding of WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. It's why we call PTA, ahem, a Master. In Magnolia enough story was given to earn any deeper conjectures.  The Master FAILS AT THIS SIMPLE NECESSITY. Like Prometheus my confusion creates questions, but it doesn't fit together enough to be worth my time.

Worst of all, it should be worth it.  Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are great topics. In the film tantalizing possibilities begin and then disappear. The family conflicts, the disappointed editor, the marriage, the betrayed patrons, the antagonisms of the medical & legal communities, each briefly appear but then ARE NEVER SEEN AGAIN. The Director has NOT earned the right to have me fill in the gaps if they're actually giant holes.
               Plot holes?  Nahh...it's gonna be a smooth ride brother!


THE CAUSE: WTF?
Except for Freddie Quill, everybody seems to be essentially good, as does The Cause. There's some weirdness with a wife and her husband's dick, but it's out of nowhere and that's right back where it goes.  **I'm going to ca
ll it: This is a pro scientology film.** Except for two moments, there's little indication The Cause is anything but righteous. Except for Freddie, no one is negatively impacted by the Master's ideas, but he's a fuck up, and we never see the Cause's effect on him really.  He never really grows, but they keep him around because...? There are no recriminations for the flock, no set backs.  We never learn how they have come to have their own school overseas just a year after having to borrow rich people's houses and ships. 


*A Scientologist might well conclude Freddie failed The Master, whose Cause was just.*


           The Master's upcoming DVD release will include a free copy of this!


The Ending: Droopy, sandcastle boobies
The ending of The Master is a hot topic on Reddit, which is a 'Net site worth spending more time on than PTA's big ride off into the horizon. In itself controversy should be a huge plus, but the discussions are often just filling in the holes with ideas out of nothing. "Well, maybe Amy Adam's really the Master. Because she masturbates Lancaster. It's subtle." NOPE, that's not ART, that's shitty writing if that relationship is not developed properly. I'm not going to go into the ending too much, just point out some things that work better starting with....


                               This movie makes me cry...I keep going in circles.

**I'd rather watch the shaky camera scary film again** 
The Blair Witch Project. The final scene is one huge WTF: the gal goes into the basement and sees her friend standing in the corner facing the wall and then you hear a thunk and she and the camera she's carrying go down and the film goes dark, Wow-what just happened?!  It's awesome, it's shocking, it works as a nice surprise ending.  But then you remember a minor character dropped a bit of backstory waaay earlier in the film. You've forgotten about it, so much other great stuff has happened. When you remember what she said a shiver runs up your spine. It might be as soon as you see the kid in the corner, or it might be when someone reminds you on the way home, either way you realize the characters (& you) dismissed her because she was a less than reputable character and said lots of crazy stuff, but they did so at their peril AND SO DID YOU.   

 


 "I'm spunking in this sink...hey, wait-" THUNK

Blair Witch had lots of red herrings, clues, shocks & the director told you EXACTLY how the film would end and it still made you jump.  It's one reason why it was so popular.  The film has you thinking long after you've left the theater, but there was enough clues to make you jump at the end and walk out satisfied. When you go back you go "AHA!" not "Wait, why is she whacking him off again? Rewind, rewind."


Hey kids, this is a VCR cassette tape, your Dad kept porn on it before the internet came around and Mommy discovered what Cabin boy and Twink meant on his computer and that's why you two live alone now. He had to wait to watch the good parts again by hitting something called 'rewind'.


                    

 Not a fair comparison? Okay, then lets talk about...

Both TM and TWBB have final showdowns which suffer from a lack of penetration between the two characters.  The ending of There Will Be Blood is one of the best acting scenes ever put film. The sudden appearance of Eli Sunday at the bowling alley is a flaw. We needed to know about Eli's ascent to stardom, not have him come in and explain it all: the exact opposite of good writing's dictum SHOW DON'T TELL.  If they'd met in the middle of the film briefly, they could have evaluated each other, Plainview's hatred of him could have been touched on and the Eli's hollowness of faith would have been more evident. The least PTA could do was show Plainview listening to Eli preaching on the radio. We needed a inkling that Eli is famous enough to be let in the mansion, not a sudden appearance & dreaded EXPOSITORY DIALOGUE.  And we kinda needed needed a reason for our oilman to come to exclaim "I'm finished!"  It works, barely, because Eli Sunday was the only person to ever humiliate him in his rise to power, but its been a looong time since that was mentioned. 

 Okay, we really love it because of this:

         Put a smile on someone's face, tell them "I drink your milkshake!"

However, that huge gap in time between their meeting is why you walked out afterward a bit confused. Again, its not deep, unless our perspective is suddenly from the butler.  It's shitty structure.

 **One last shot of boobies for some reason**
The England portion of The Master was way too echo-y of There Will Be Blood; and even though our main characters spent more time together, their relationship never developed properly. The conflicts come and go and Freddy's ride off into the desert comes out of nowhere.Okay, so Freddie was a tough case, but what's in it for this superman Lancaster Dodd? As far as I can tell all Dodd wanted was his packs of Kools, Freddy be damned.  Freddy got a motorcycle and trip to England WITH DROOPY BOOBIES TO PLAY WITH in exhange, so who won?  Don't tell me its the fucking wife with a thing for sink semen, that came out of the desert too.





          SPOILER: Dodd dismissed Freddie because he brought regular
        Kools, not the kind which come ribbed for your pleasure...



                        This ending was udderly better than The Master's

There's been alot of discussion about the theater scene as dream.  Okay, hold it, stop.  Unless PT Anderson had no friends in college and just went from classroom to coffee shop with his writing pad (and that might explain A LOT), he had to have learned 'IT WAS A DREAM' is shitty, deus ex machina writing for bright kids in 9th grade and dumb sophomore's at university.  OF COURSE the England scene is some sort of deep final reveal between Freddy, The Master and The Wife. It's not earned. When every single person in the theater either goes meh or takes to their computer afterwords because they don't understand have questions, you're not the bright wonder kid above us all Paul Thomas Anderson, you're a pretentious dick unwilling to work with the audience and tell a fucking story worth watching.   

                   If Biggie was alive he be all up in PTA's shit about this... 


In the end we end up on the beach again. It might as well just be the exact same thread of film in the beginning for all it's telling us.  Okay I get it, Freddie Quill never resolves his demons. Okay, but why?  Because the Cause doesn't work? Or because Freddy failed the Cause? If the Cause is a sham but Freddie's a fucked up soul then who's to blame? If that's the point, who cares? Frankly, a lost, eubephile drunk humping a sandcastle girl on a beach has not earned the right to be interesting and I wish the MP's would have arrested him.



                 Insert your own body part joke here...i'm exhausted.


Who's The Master?
This question is an obvious one asked when folks try to figure out the film...with "the wife's the actual Master" the #1 "oh wow, I hadn't thought of that" meme.  I'm not gonna touch it. As far as I'm concerned Dan Harmon tackled the stupidity of over thinking on Community's season 2 episode "Competitive Wine Tasting".  Clicky clicky now: Who IS the Boss?   Watched it? Pretty good, huh? Ned Ryerson is the Boss! Season 4 premieres this month: 6 seasons and an opera.


                 Gay bears loved this scene.

Over all The Master is a huge, beautiful tower, but its winding staircase has whole sections between floors missing. Yes, we look out tantalizing windows at points, but together they don't give us a clear picture of what's outside. We pass right by them quickly and those plot holes in the stairs are distracting. If I'm going to climb for 2 1/2 hours I better well stop on some of the floors labelled Processing and The Cause, especially since it is based it on a controversial topic. The views out the windows must fit together so that when I get to the top I can look out & it all forms a coherent vision.  Instead the stairs lead...to the floor we started on. Since it leads back to the beginning the journey better have some serious reveals about that spot, as in Memento or Inception. If not, but parts of staircase were cool, well then C+ and we'll see you in class next semester.  25 best film schools (hint hint PTA!)

This is Heather Graham in PTA's Boogie Nights. That movie is awesome. Boobies are awesome. Heather Graham is awesome.  Heather Graham's...You've all seen Inception anyways, so no pic.

Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master is a weak film, beautifully shot with amazing performances, but run through with Sophomore Lit Meanings and unresolved possibilities in place of plot and earned depth. It made me so mad I needed this afterwards: 3 minutes of the Hulk smashing things in the Avengers

It's not worth you're while to rush back to the theater and try and get your questions answered so check this film out instead:
 Swedish John: a Lesbian Cross-Dressing Western
 
DEAR REDDIT: TIL: L. Ron Hubbard developed Scientology in order to get horny, thieving, uneducated drunks to make him paint thinner drinks and fetch him Kools from overseas.


        This man is too old to be dating 16 year olds.  
                       Trust me.  TRUST ME.

No comments:

Post a Comment