Your Thoughts on The Master: Who Was Freddie Quell? | ortegaunderground Just time this morning for a quick question we wanted to put to our excellent commenting community: as we’ve established in the past, Paul Thomas Anderson researched Scientology’s history deeply before writing the script for his film The Master. There’s just no question that his characters Lancaster, Peggy, and Val Dodd are based on their real-life counterparts: L. Ron, Mary Sue, and L. Ron Hubbard Jr. But what about the star of the movie? It’s Joaquin Phoenix’s character Freddie Quell who is the main focus of The Master, and we have to wonder, is he based on a real-life counterpart as well? More at http://ortegaunderground.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/your-thoughts-on-the-master-who-was-freddie-quell/
Saw it this weekend at a local theater on the 70mm format. I loved it, twisted, disturbing and profoundly eccentric. I really had to let it roll around in my head for a while.
I wonder if "The Master" was perhaps influenced by "The L. Ron Hubbard Story". Compare and contrast: Look at the 3-second scene at 1:03 in "The Master" trailer Here is a similar scene in "The L. Ron Hubbard Story" at 6:20
Not sure whether this has been posted already: Tony Ortega asks his blog followers who was Freddie Quell based on. http://ortegaunderground.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/your-thoughts-on-the-master-who-was-freddie-quell/
Freddie is a fully created character, more of a stray DOG than a Man. Humps on anything that resembles a mate (makes the female sand nude, dry humps it, fingers, licky the tit all regardless who is watching), Constantly horny (instead of listening to Dodd's recordings asks a woman for a “f@ck”, seeing all the ladies at the party naked) Zones out where he drinks, his self made alcohol-chemical concoctions, (like a stray dog will drink or eat whatever satifies its urge). Ferociously loyal to his master ,when the police come (attacks them) or anyone questions the Dodd's work (physically attacks them), Jealousy perhaps and deep repugnancy to a fat married man that he is to photograph. Follows the commands of the master like a dog chasing its tail or a ball. (The orders of Dodd for hours to touch the wall and the window and tell what he feels, commanding him to always follow the orders which probable was easy for any soldier or sailor to do) Attacking the cage that he is in (jail) regardless of his own safety. Depriving him of food (to see how long Freddie will continue the command). All dogs love their master because they smile at them and play with them (so does Freddie when he is reunited with Dodd after the arrest by both of them rolling in the grass together and wrestling. Even Dodd smiles remembering Freddie when told by the family that Freddie needs to go, ) Wandering dog looking for shelter, family, and adventure (finding the boat Dodd has borrowing from a wealthy New Yorker, and abandoning (or escaping?) Dodd by stealing his motorcycle to reconnect with Doris (find another family)). The main positive point at the end of the movie was that Freddie was able to release from the grasp or leash that Dodd had on him. Now his mind is still troubled, but hopefully he will find another outlet, even though he was using the Cause procedures to ask Winn questions as they screw. What will become of Freddie now that he is free. Form his own cult, start a family, or continue on his old dog tricks of flesh and libations.
I watched the LRH story and its actually pretty funny how him declaring himself a clear and others who were clear referred to him as "insane" and "clinically depressed". Soooooo.....hes not clear right?!?!?!
I am a person from the near future traveling back in time to let you know that the dvd is out in the time I came from.
Then he tries to claim he had his second marriage cleared. But in his response he said I never had a second wife.....well technically he did and it was Mary Sue if he had the "second" one cleared. If he truely had something wiped from his memory he would have responded that Mary Sue was his second wife. Not that he didnt have a second wife. This moron cant even attempt to deceive properly.
'The Master' Parody Published on Oct 8, 2012 by PeterFrankMike Did you see The Master? Did you sort of almost not really moderately enjoy or understand it? This will answer all your questions. Written & edited by Peter Moses @DangerMoses and Frank Cappello @100PercentFrank Directed by Michael Ciulla Sound and Thong-Wrangling by Jorge Garcia
PTA mentioned in the NPR interview about newsletters that he collected for research into the Cause. Has anyone found the Abery newsletters from the Harts of Arizona in the 1950s?
Thanks. But now I call Bullshit that it was written by Alphia & Agnes Hart or Fred Hand, try LRH. He wrote it. Was there ever an Alphia & Agnes Hart working for scientology?
I just saw The Master and loved it. Awesome job of research and authentication in this film, not to mention the wonderful acting and space around each line delivered by the characters. This film is a perfect springboard for telling more of the Hubbard/Scientology saga.
Gruen Planet - The Master, Scientology, and Tom Cruise (2012/10/10) Published on Oct 10, 2012 by ZhentSydney In tonight's episode, Scientology, Movies and Spin -- The Master, a movie with Oscar buzz based on the life of L Ron Hubbard, is heading to our shores. The panel looks at Scientology's public image and its PR strategy. There's a thread about this video, here: Gruen Planet (ABC Oz) does The Master, Tom Cruise and Scientology http://whyweprotest.net/community/t...-the-master-tom-cruise-and-scientology.105698
A Minute With Philip Seymour Hoffman on The Master | Reuters By Christine Kearney Since the release of director Paul Thomas Anderson's new movie, "The Master", talk by filmgoers and critics alike has spanned its link to Scientology, themes of control and its Oscar hopes. Much discussion has rested on the film's main performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, who plays his unhinged protege. Both actors split the top acting award at the Venice Film Festival, where the film debuted. Hoffman spoke to Reuters, dispelling suggestions that his character of Lancaster Dodd was purely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and discussing the broader themes of the film. Q. You seem to just roll from one great role to the next. A. "Yes, it's going awful, I mean, Paul Thomas Anderson ... giving me these opportunities. I just can't bear it." Q. How did you create your character, Lancaster, and who did you base him on? A. "Ultimately it was just knowing what we didn't want to do. I think most people have been interested about the Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard stuff, and the thing is Paul used that stuff to have a venue to write the story. And a lot of our discussions early on were like, 'I don't want to play L. Ron Hubbard because that would be very distracting because that is not the movie.' So a lot of the choices had to do with how not to be L. Ron Hubbard. "It is pretty clear we made choices to make sure that the way I behave, the way I talk, it is all very different from L. Ron Hubbard ... One person's religion is another person's cult. We know that. And so we didn't want to be too on the nose about it ... Ultimately it was about creating a unique person that was a piece of fiction." Q. Perhaps fueling that fascination were mysteries about Scientology to begin with? A. "That's a worthy discussion, that is a worthy article to write. People's feelings and what Scientology brings up for people and how would you compare that to other movements of that time and how would you compare that to religion or Catholicism? That is very interesting because to me this guy is the head of anything you want him to be. You know what I mean? "We always talked about this film being a life-changing moment for both of them, and things happen in your life to change your life. After they happen you think, 'Did that actually happen? Did I actually go through that?' Something that is so profound is sometimes so elusive and so hard to nail down. And it becomes a memory and an anecdote and some weird dream." Q. People are fascinated by broader themes of what this film is about. What are your thoughts? A. "It is about an intense emotional connection between two men and how they both need each other, and are both the mirror opposite but ultimately very much alike. So I think all that is very specific and clear in the movie and it creates a strong emotional attachment that both of them are scared to walk away from for fear of finding out they are nothing without the other person. "I think that is what the movie is getting at. And then what happens, that Paul does so brilliantly - that he doesn't do in such a simple, banal or obvious way - is he brings in that time period, post-World War Two. He brings in a movement that is somewhat like Scientology, that time-warp kind of movement ... It is about all those things and how they feed into the core thing, which is this relationship." More at http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/film-seymourhoffman-idINL1E8LA79J20121010
PTA said in an interview that the film is based on Hubbard in the 50's. So, Seymour can try to distract but the fact is his character is based on Hubbard.
A few unclear (pun intended) moments in the movie for me. The final scene for example. Also wasn't completely sure about the scene with Peggy and Dodd in the bathroom after the party where Quell saw all the naked women.
Here's last night's episode of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. In the video there's a brief mention of Scientology that runs from 30 seconds to 42 seconds. You can skip ahead to the segment with Paul Thomas Anderson, which begins at 13 minutes 50 seconds.
"Master" class with director Paul Thomas Anderson - CBS News Moviegoers and critics have been passionate in their discussions of the new film "The Master," which was inspired by the genesis of the Scientology movement. The film, which stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as the L. Ron Hubbard-like leader of a cult and Joaquin Phoenix as a disturbed WWII veteran drawn to his teachings, has sparked passionate debates both by those who love the film - and those who do not. As director Paul Thomas Anderson said on "CBS This Morning," the challenge facing audiences may be the characters. More, and video, at www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57531160/master-class-with-director-paul-thomas-anderson/ I've transcribed part of the interview that's on the video. Q: When I was going to see it, Paul, people said, "Oh, you're going to see the Scientology movie", because people said it's loosely based on Scientology. You're the person to answer that. Is it loosely based on Scientology in some form? A: It is loosely inspired by L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics and the start of that, and Scientology became something much different, and larger. But yeah, for sure, the starting point was investigating what that movement was, and how it began. Q: And your conclusions about it are, Scientology? A: You know my conclusions are - I probably thought about it how everybody thought about it - that it was kind of peculiar, and I wasn't sure quite what it was. Now I think it's no more peculiar or weirder than anything else out there. I think it's helped a lot of people. I don't know a lot about it. Q: What does it do for them? A: It works. Whatever it does for them, it works, and I don't exactly know…
There was a small interview of PTA on dailyshow.com. Scientology is only hinted at in the beginning of the episode, and the interview itself is at the end. Not really interesting from a protesting Scientology perspective, but it's there. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-october-11-2012-paul-thomas-anderson
Q for PTA: If you "think it's helped a lot of people" do you also concede that it might have hurt a lot of people?
He does a fine job of displaying a neutral stance. Keep in mind that he has a friendship with Cruise, which he apparently values.
