The Master

[jelly]

This is me pulling an xiao and posting a movie topic for a movie that most likely nobody on these forums are ever going to see. But I saw it last night, it blew my mind, so I figured I would post about it here on the ToO even though everyone will probably ignore this thread.

BUT ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IT..

Well done, you admirable person. You've readily submitted yourself to the best that cinema has to offer: 'difficult' filmography that seeks to provoke, question, and challenge you -- and ultimately reward you -- on a very intimately spiritual level. If you've even considered film as being something other then passive entertainment (and I know that you have), then you're more than likely incredibly grateful for what The Master has to offer.

I actually pulled a spontaneous double-feature last night along with Looper, which was an incredibly brilliant sci-fi film.. but when I awake this morning, it was The Master that was replaying itself through my head.

Seriously it's mind blowing.

Bam.

[American Eagle]

Pardon me for being the bearer of contradictory news, but your moral standards have rapidly declined in the last few years, Jelly. >_> You once seemed to be the artsy-film lover as long as morality wasn't sacrificed, but now apparently anything that has an emotionally enthralling story is worthy of being promoted to the masses; regardless of the filth therein.

Just being honest.

[The Top Crusader]

So is Joaquin still crazy or is he normal now?

But yeah I think I agree with AE from what I've heard of the movie. >_>

I thought it was funny that the ads say "THE MOVIE YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING ALL YEAR FOR!" when regardless of if its good or not most people haven't heard about it.

[jelly]

Pardon me for being the bearer of contradictory news, but your moral standards have rapidly declined in the last few years, Jelly. >_> You once seemed to be the artsy-film lover as long as morality wasn't sacrificed, but now apparently anything that has an emotionally enthralling story is worthy of being promoted to the masses; regardless of the filth therein.

I've always promoted what I believe to be redemptive stories, regardless of the filth therein. The Bible is a redemptive story, regardless of the filth therein.

There are plenty of 'emotionally enthralling' films that I would walk out of if I felt like I was sacrificing my moral standard.. but The Master isn't one of them. It's a potent and serious character study with spiritual parallels and thought provoking themes. A few of the lines sound like they could have been taken straight from Scripture. I rather wish you wouldn't judge a movie -- or my moral standards -- before you find out more about it, or better yet watch it for yourself.

So is Joaquin still crazy or is he normal now?

Yes.

I thought it was funny that the ads say "THE MOVIE YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING ALL YEAR FOR!" when regardless of if its good or not most people haven't heard about it.

Yeah well, most of the Superheo/Action movie fans probably haven't heard of it, but anyone who takes cinema more seriously on any level will tell you that this is actually one of the more anticipated releases of the year. It marks the return of Paul Thomas Anderson (coincidentally my favorite director), who last directed the highly appraised There Will Be Blood back in 2007.

[American Eagle]

The Bible is a redemptive story, regardless of the filth therein.

No, because the Bible does not show endless lust-inducing and sexually explicit portrayals of sin. I don't need to explain the difference between describing wickedness and enjoying movies filled with it. >_>

I rather wish you wouldn't judge a movie before you find out more about it, or better yet watch it for yourself.

I'm obviously a hypocrite with all the garbage movies I've seen, but I don't need to watch The Master to know what is contained within. I did my homework on it, just like I've studied up on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol and profanity. One does not need to experience something to have a reason to avoid it.

-- or my moral standards --

I will not be making an apology for my statements. You chose to watch and share this film and in doing so you've given us a look at your personal standards. I don't need to list all the filth in this film - you've seen it. If you choose to expose yourself to such degradation, that's your choice. But you can't act like a victim when others call you out on it.

[jelly]

The Bible is a redemptive story, regardless of the filth therein.

No, because the Bible does not show endless lust-inducing and sexually explicit portrayals of sin.

Have you read through Genesis or Judges recently?

I don't need to explain the difference between describing wickedness and enjoying movies filled with it. >_>

Here's exactly where you're missing the point. Just like the Bible is filled with instances of immoral content and depravity, so are films like The Master.. but not for the sake of condoning such evil.

Ephesians 5:11 - "Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them."

The Master does exactly this. It doesn't dwell on evil, it exposes it for what it is. The Master is not afraid to delve deeply into the human psyche, exposing the ugliness of our sinful nature and causing us to look into a mirror as we reflect on our own weaknesses, lustful desires and misplaced priorities. It actually caused me to feel somewhat exposed and vulnerable before God as I realized that I was able to empathize with Freddie's disturbed character, and to reach a fresh realization that we cannot let ourselves be 'mastered' by our own flesh, but that we must turn to Him for peace and understanding.

I think that's why people have a hard time watching films like this. They're too honest. They make us uncomfortable because they remind us how susceptible we are to sinful depravity. We want fantasy... films that give us heroes and instant redemption, paint everything in black and white and assure us that our airbrushed perspective of the world is accurate and infallible.

What about films that challenge us? That expose evil for what it is rather then trying to cover it up or pretend like it doesn't exist? Would that not be all the more constructive to our faith then living in the 'safe' fantasy environment of most of the films that seem to be so popular in the church?

I'm obviously a hypocrite with all the garbage movies I've seen, but I don't need to watch The Master to know what is contained within. I did my homework on it, just like I've studied up on cigarettes, drugs, alcohol and profanity. One does not need to experience something to have a reason to avoid it.

See, you're confusing a piece of artistic storytelling with the objective elements found inside the story. To throw a movie like this into a pile of cigarettes, drugs and alcohol would be akin to me throwing a copy of the Bible into a pile of pornographic literature because the Bible contains the Song of Songs, and CLEARLY I don't need to read any erotic descriptions of love to have reason to avoid it. >_>

Know the difference between content and morality.

I will not be making an apology for my statements. You chose to watch and share this film and in doing so you've given us a look at your personal standards. I don't need to list all the filth in this film - you've seen it. If you choose to expose yourself to such degradation, that's your choice. But you can't act like a victim when others call you out on it.

So what you've essentially done is cut out all the sketchiest, most explicit and profane verses from the Bible and throw all the other pages in the garbage, choosing only to focus on (and misinterpret) the ugliness by itself. And you expect that I've done the same.

I keep using the Bible as a similar example because I'm hoping it will cause you to reflect on the dismissive arrogance that you're portraying.

Obviously we view movies as very different things.. I understand film as an artistic medium of storytelling, and you seem to understand it as a passive form of entertainment. And that's fine.. I won't ask you to watch films like The Master with your current mindset, because I know that you're not equipped to look beyond the evils that may be on display. But I will ask again that you not judge my standards or (even if subtly) my Christian faith. Because where you focus on the shadows, I see the light.

[The Top Crusader]

Guys, Avengers is out on DVD/Bluray, that should really be all anyone is watching, anyway.

[American Eagle]

We're selling those DVDs like crazy at Meijer, Top.

Note: This topic and my post are particularly blunt. I shutter at the thought of going into too much detail... but this is intended for at least 13 .

The Bible is a redemptive story, regardless of the filth therein.

No, because the Bible does not show endless lust-inducing and sexually explicit portrayals of sin.

Have you read through Genesis or Judges recently?

Meaning...? Yes, reproduction, romantic love and even rape are mentioned in the Bible, but when sin is present it is shown as sin and all involved faced consequences.

Think about this. Apparently you're a giant of the faith who can see endless nude women without lusting, but what about everybody else? How many people have lusted over scenes in this film? How many actors and actresses had to expose their bodies (which God shuns) and lose their physical or mental purity over a silly work of fiction? I know you like to get wrapped up in the fiction, but never forget that these exposed women have parents mourning over their child selling themselves for a movie paycheck.

See, you're confusing a piece of artistic storytelling with the objective elements found inside the story.

So all those adulterous acts and exposed nakedness wasn't real?

False. See above.

But I will ask again that you not judge my standards or (even if subtly) my Christian faith.

Oh, I don't doubt the sincerity of your Christian faith at all. You're a legit guy. I just see a slipping pattern in your behavior. You and I used to get into discussions over the D-word being okay in a movie... and now you're promoting a hard-R rated film. Would you have so adamantly endorsed this movie a few years ago? I understand your passion for filmmaking, but I don't want to see you throw away your purity (or someone else's >_>) for the sake of a story. No mesmerizing emotional journey is worth the consequences of sin.

[jelly]

The Bible is a redemptive story, regardless of the filth therein.

No, because the Bible does not show endless lust-inducing and sexually explicit portrayals of sin.

Have you read through Genesis or Judges recently?

Meaning...? Yes, reproduction, romantic love and even rape are mentioned in the Bible, but when sin is present it is shown as sin and all involved faced consequences.

Dude, read Judges 19. Definitely one of the most deprived and sexually/violently explicit stories you can imagine. But wait, read on.. nowhere does the Bible give any kind of moral commentary on this story. It's simply told, as is. I love chapters like that, because it doesn't come with any label explaining why it's even in the Bible in the first place.. and people have had to either wrestle with it or ignore it throughout the centuries of church history.

But again. You're missing the point. I'm telling you that The Master depicts sin in the same way that the Bible does... it's exposed as sin. You're just trying to convince yourself that this movie (which you haven't even seen) waves sin in the air saying "look at this! this is fun!" or something like that. But you're wrong.

Think about this. Apparently you're a giant of the faith who can see endless nude women without lusting, but what about everybody else? How many people have lusted over scenes in this film? How many actors and actresses had to expose their bodies (which God shuns) and lose their physical or mental purity over a silly work of fiction? I know you like to get wrapped up in the fiction, but never forget that these exposed women have parents mourning over their child selling themselves for a movie paycheck.

You keep using the word 'endless', like you actually know what you're talking about. There's actually only two scenes containing nudity.. both being brief and neither coming across as gratuitous. Some people may not be able to tell the difference, but I definitely can. I know when I'm watching something that was created to be pornographic and something that was created with artistic purpose; one incites mindless lustful desires, the other is often beautiful or disturbing.. depending on the context. But artistic nudity is a separate topic.

Don't get me wrong though, my desire is not to cause others to 'stumble'. This is not a film that I would take others to see with me, and I would exercise extreme caution to anyone who looked like they were interested in seeing it. Nudity and whatever else aside, this is a difficult film to watch. It's difficult because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.. it hits uncomfortably close to home because it exposes the ugliness within ourselves. It's ultimately constructive, but can easily be too heavy for those who are weak in mind and spirit.

Oh, I don't doubt the sincerity of your Christian faith at all. You're a legit guy. I just see a slipping pattern in your behavior. You and I used to get into discussions over the D-word being okay in a movie... and now you're promoting a hard-R rated film. Would you have so adamantly endorsed this movie a few years ago? I understand your passion for filmmaking, but I don't want to see you throw away your purity (or someone else's >_>) for the sake of a story. No mesmerizing emotional journey is worth the consequences of sin.

Hebrews 5:13-14 - "Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

I've been learning to graduate to solid food. This is not a slipping pattern.. this is a constructive path towards righteousness. I'm slowly learning how to distinguish good from evil. Perhaps I'll occasionally be struck with food poisoning.. I'm not perfect. But it's an ultimately redemptive journey. Hopefully you'll be able to see this some day.. if not for yourself, then at least for me, so that you don't have to continue accusing me of sacrificing my moral standard on 'memorizing emotional journeys'. Because I would hardly describe The Master as anything like that.

[American Eagle]

You're just trying to convince yourself that this movie (which you haven't even seen) waves sin in the air saying "look at this! this is fun!" or something like that. But you're wrong.

This is not so and I've never made such a claim. I believe that viewing and creating this explicit content is unnecessary, derogatory and impure. Does God take pleasure when His children submit themselves to it?

There's actually only two scenes containing nudity.. both being brief and neither coming across as gratuitous.

I find this to be incredibly misleading. Perhaps only two scenes contain full nudity, but IMDb lists a bit more which you may have forgotten about.

You didn't address this.

How many people have lusted over scenes in this film?

You cay scream "ART! ART!" all you want, but in the end, onscreen sexuality and nudity drives lust and unapologetically causes many to stumble.

However, THIS is really what I'm worried about. You avoided these questions. I wonder if the paragraph below bothers you or if you see as a "causality of art".

How many actors and actresses had to expose their bodies (which God shuns) and lose their physical or mental purity over a silly work of fiction? I know you like to get wrapped up in the fiction, but never forget that these exposed women have parents mourning over their child selling themselves for a movie paycheck.

[jelly]

There's actually only two scenes containing nudity.. both being brief and neither coming across as gratuitous.

I find this to be incredibly misleading. Perhaps only two scenes contain full nudity, but IMDb lists a bit more which you may have forgotten about.

Reading a list on IMDB is like taking all the dirty bits from the Bible and compiling a list. Context, context, context. (And yes, I'm going to keep using the Bible as an example until you actually respond to it.)

You didn't address this.

How many people have lusted over scenes in this film?

You cay scream "ART! ART!" all you want, but in the end, onscreen sexuality and nudity drives lust and unapologetically causes many to stumble.

However, THIS is really what I'm worried about. You avoided these questions. I wonder if the paragraph below bothers you or if you see as a "causality of art".

How many actors and actresses had to expose their bodies (which God shuns) and lose their physical or mental purity over a silly work of fiction? I know you like to get wrapped up in the fiction, but never forget that these exposed women have parents mourning over their child selling themselves for a movie paycheck.

I didn't address these quotes directly because I wasn't anxious to dive into the topic of artistic nudity, but you seem to be really focused on it so I guess I'll address it now.

In your mind, nudity is equal to sexual objectification. Understandable, because our culture has confused the two. But the naked body featured in an artistic context wasn't always labeled as any kind of sin, and I don't believe it needs to be, even if our culture has it mixed up. Many of the great artists throughout the centuries, Christians like Michelangelo and others, didn't think twice about featuring extensive nudity in their creations. The human body is beautiful. Sexuality is beautiful. It's only in more recent American history that the Church has started exercising major backlash against the culture's obsession with sexual objectification, in turn creating an obsession with 'sexual purity'. Admirable, yes, but I doubt pornography and sexual addiction would be nearly as problematic if wasn't nearly as magnified and confused as it is. All that to say, your picture of mourning parents and exposed women is ridiculous, because you're trying to describe a pornographic film.. which this is not. Those women are actresses who are committed to their roles. They would most likely be horrified at the idea of being viewed to satisfy sexual objectification. Fortunately, there are enough people who appreciate cinema as an art that they know they won't have to worry about that. There's no other reason that people would sit through this film anyway. The nudity neither detracts nor adds to the appeal for those wanting to see it.. it's simply part of the package.

You're very quick to be absolutely sure about what God does or doesn't shun. Your focus is so narrowed and blinded right now that you were upset that I didn't directly address parts of your post, yet you directly ignored large portions of my last several posts. Forget the specifics for a second.. can't you simply stop the legalistic Bible-thumping and see where I'm coming from? It's not an issue of differing moral standards here. It's about an entirely different point of view, one that isn't trying to 'defend' or tolerate the ugliness but that embraces it because the big picture offers rewards and redemption. You know.. sort of like how we all look at the Bible.

Just.. read the rest of my last post. I already talked about the kind of extreme caution I would exercise towards someone who expressed genuine interest in seeing it. I talked about how the bigger picture is redemption, and how I'm able to see the light while you're only focusing on the shadows. You've ignored all of that.

AE, sometimes I look at you and admire the way you've matured and grown in your faith.. and other times, I can't see past the judgmental, legalistic fundamentalist who used to rant about pants on girls and long hair on guys. I don't doubt your Christian faith, any more then you doubt mine, but I hope that as you travel down your path of faith your heart will only continue to expand and embrace the simplicity of Christ's truth.. that we are saved by grace, that our lives are an exciting journey towards redemption, and that legalism is dead. This doesn't mean to not use caution; by all means, use it excessively. I know I do. But if someone comes along and tells you that he found Jesus in a bar, or received divine revelation from an R-rated film.. don't use judgment, even if you may not be comfortable with those things yourself. I'm just so thankful that the Spirit isn't restricted to all the little moral, legalistic boxes we try to place him in.

[American Eagle]

There's actually only two scenes containing nudity.. both being brief and neither coming across as gratuitous.

I find this to be incredibly misleading. Perhaps only two scenes contain full nudity, but IMDb lists a bit more which you may have forgotten about.

Reading a list on IMDB is like taking all the dirty bits from the Bible and compiling a list. Context, context, context. (And yes, I'm going to keep using the Bible as an example until you actually respond to it.)

Heh, sexual perversion in context is still sexual perversion and is a far cry from Philippians 4:8. I'm not really sure what you want me to respond to about the Bible. The fact that there's stories about prostitution, reproduction and rape? Yep, it's in there. I don't think 7-year-olds should read a few chapters of the Bible. Milk vs. meat, as you said. I think there's a clear difference between a historical true story about rape and paying two actors to strip naked and act it out. I don't think we should allow ourselves to watch such filth, and I especially don't think any Christian ought to promote actors and actresses doing such acts. Even though such things are mentioned in the Bible. Does that cover everything?

All that to say, your picture of mourning parents and exposed women is ridiculous, because you're trying to describe a pornographic film.. which this is not. Those women are actresses who are committed to their roles. They would most likely be horrified at the idea of being viewed to satisfy sexual objectification.

Really? Pardon my bluntness, but a woman allows a man to sensually undress her, and she doesn't expect anyone watching to lust? Her parents aren't going to be ashamed? She thinks everyone will just understand that she's committed to her role and that they shouldn't be drawn to her exposed body? Your viewpoint is noble, but it poorly represents our human nature. The average man can't watch a straight-up sensual sex scene without lusting and I'm amazed that you can.

Your focus is so narrowed and blinded right now that you were upset that I didn't directly address parts of your post

Is my focus for this topic narrow? Yes, it has been. I'm honestly not interested in this specific film or the redemptive themes it may have. My focus since has been exposed sexuality and viewing it. I was only irked when you ignored my questions regarding these specific things.

...yet you directly ignored large portions of my last several posts.

Just.. read the rest of my last post. I already talked about the kind of extreme caution I would exercise towards someone who expressed genuine interest in seeing it. I talked about how the bigger picture is redemption, and how I'm able to see the light while you're only focusing on the shadows. You've ignored all of that.

I didn't intentionally ignore anything. I either agreed with what you said or I didn't feel that it warranted a response at the time. Forgive me.

AE, sometimes I look at you and admire the way you've matured and grown in your faith.. and other times, I can't see past the judgmental, legalistic fundamentalist who used to rant about pants on girls and long hair on guys. I don't doubt your Christian faith, any more then you doubt mine, but I hope that as you travel down your path of faith your heart will only continue to expand and embrace the simplicity of Christ's truth.. that we are saved by grace, that our lives are an exciting journey towards redemption, and that legalism is dead. This doesn't mean to not use caution; by all means, use it excessively. I know I do. But if someone comes along and tells you that he found Jesus in a bar, or received divine revelation from an R-rated film.. don't use judgment, even if you may not be comfortable with those things yourself. I'm just so thankful that the Spirit isn't restricted to all the little moral, legalistic boxes we try to place him in.

Dude, the user I portray on this forum is no longer synonymous with my real person. I'm not judgmental, legalistic or confrontational anymore (since I was like 15, actually). I brought all this up because of two reasons:

1. You're my friend, and you're a man. No matter what I say against your media choices, I trust that you know me well enough to know that I care for your best interests. You're tough and you can choose to accept or reject my advice. I wouldn't have said anything if you were some dude from my college talking about Borat. >_>
2. This is the ToO, bro. You know how much I seek to protect this place. Even though real-life has taken me away, I still feel a drive to maintain squeaky-clean discussions everywhere except Bad Company. Because you're an admin, and everyone here respects you, I didn't feel right in remaining silent. So I spoke up.

In the real world I mostly just try to make people smile and invite them to church, or I just be nice and chill out.

In conclusion, Jeremy, I respect your right to make your own choices as a Christian. We have liberty. You know how I feel about all this. If you choose to disagree, that's fine and I'll never think less of your Christian faith for doing so. Please don't hate me for having a conviction and encouraging you to consider the same.

[jelly]

Oh, I don't, and I appreciate your post immensely. I still believe we have different viewpoints when it comes to art and culture, and mine allows me to objectively excuse more garbage than yours would, but we're brothers in Christ and I don't think we should have to argue about legalism or morality every time we actually engage in serious discussion. The timing of all this is somewhat impeccable, actually, because just the other day (after I made my last post in here) I was convicted about the amount of time and energy I put towards arguing with fellow Christians. For the past couple of years I've felt what I've believed to be a righteous conviction about how the church should engage culture, but I still need to learn how to properly respond to that conviction. I hope you can forgive my somewhat abrasive attitude in this matter.. if I could go back, I would probably take the bulk of content out of my posts, because you're absolutely right; this conversation isn't really one that's suited for this social setting.

Nevertheless, I do hope that the people who have been actively following our discussion (the topic view count would indicate that there's actually been quite a few) will have been given cause to think about these things, and hopefully reach personal convictions based on careful consideration of the Gospel essentials. Because that's all I'm really hoping for.

Dude, the user I portray on this forum is no longer synonymous with my real person.

This threw me off, and it's probably the reason I've reacted with aggression. I'm pretty much incapable of creating that kind of false persona.. my strong opinions just want to burst out from within me!

[American Eagle]

You're fine, my friend. I intentionally challenged your morality, and your defensive response was warranted. I expected it and intended to make it clear that my challenge was out of concern and certainly not spite! Thanks for taking the time to explain the way you see things. I guess we can let the ToO return to business as usual.

[Marvin D.]

And this round is settled again. .until the NEXT time Jelly watches another movie and posts about it. .

. .and AE shall come back

[xiao]

I hope you guys enjoy severely limiting your artistic palette, denying yourself of wonderous, masterful works of art because you're too scared of seeing a human nipple on a screen. Absolutely pathetic.

On a side note, The Master was excellent.

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

Oh, not THAT master. Lame.

[jelly]

On a side note, The Master was excellent.

Thank you.

I totally just saw it for a third time the other night.

[xiao]

On a side note, The Master was excellent.

Thank you.

I totally just saw it for a third time the other night.

Have you seen Looper? Or the Cabin in the Woods?

Not quite the Master, but they were some awesome films.

[jelly]

On a side note, The Master was excellent.

Thank you.

I totally just saw it for a third time the other night.

Have you seen Looper? Or the Cabin in the Woods?

Not quite the Master, but they were some awesome films.

Both. I actually saw Looper on the same night I saw The Master, so I need to go see it again because The Master was so overpowering that I don't even really remember it.

Cabin in the Woods was brilliant, though I'm not a big fan of slasher films. It's like The Truman Show's rebellious offspring.