The most underrated movie of all time. Likely the best movie of all time. Almost 0% of people actually understand the true meaning but when you do you will agree with me.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The most underrated movie of all time. Likely the best movie of all time.
i didn't get it, plus i found it deeply concerning whenever he was drinking random chemicals
"if you found a way to live without a master, you'd be the first"
This movies about the importance of religion. Why is "the master" able to possess Joaquin Phoenix' way of thinking like he did, and others? Because they lacked a christ/Muhammed etc religious construct which gave them a pre existing master, thus opening them up to be another Shephard's sheep.
Whats the ending signify? With no christ or strong man to lead them men return to Gaia (women) worship. Which is likely why religions where invented in the first place. They're a sort of anti feminist ideology spread as faith.
People treat feminism as a modern invention but it's actually our natural state of being. That's why the race that stayed closest to nature (Africans) are matriarchal; where as, the race that strayed farthest from nature (Europeans) are patriarchal. God, Hitler/napoleon, communism etc etc, all these ideologies exist to give men masters so they don't default to Gaia worship.
Civilization is built by giving men masters
It's a very simple movie. Philip seymor Hoffmans character spells the whole movie out in his final scene with Phoenix
You're completely wrong but you seem nice so I won't call you a moron.
>Civilization is built by giving men masters
Civilization is built by men, true, but it's to please women. Women are the big beneficiaries of it. The closest thing to a truly man centered civilization would be something like Genghis Khan's empire, which was basically a really well organized form of barbarism.
Civilization is a conspiracy by the weaker to restrain the stronger through invisible chains. Women benefit insofar as they're weaker, yes, but so do other weak groups such as ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, the disabled and unwell, the bizarre. The height of civilization is the modern city and all of the aforementioned groups cling to cities for that reason.
Yeah, but what drives strong men to build a cilization isn't the urge to help minorities and weak men, but to please women. It's obviously a huge mistake though. They are being played by nature, and end up building their own demise.
He's not worshipping the lady at the end though, he's using the master's own verbal tricks to have her worship him. It's a story about finding the strength and confidence within yourself because any external figure will ultimately be a disappointment.
He actually succeeds where the master fails, because the master is reliant on women for their support and even loses the religion he made to them.
>He's not worshipping the lady at the end though, he's using the master's own verbal tricks to have her worship him.
It seems to me more he is being playful and making fun. I agree though this signifies he wants a real connection with this girl like he had with Lancaster
I don't think he's as much of an egotist to need his own religion or to be worshipped in a way. But I think being his own center of power instead of externalizing it is more how I took it. And by becoming a center of power, other people find it alluring like the woman. The whole way the scene is shot, with him laid back in bed, denotes a kind of confidence and strength of self he doesn't have before. But I dunno I haven't seen it in a long time. That post does make me think women and gender play bigger roles now, though.
You're entirely right. I agree with that part. It's why it's the only scene in the movie where he actually has sex. Multiple woman attempt but it's only after this last with encounter with Lancaster that it actually happens.
That's a good point, I forgot about the failed attempts
Although it's not the women that make it a failed attempt. All of them want to have sex with him. It's Freddie every time. In two encounters he falls asleep. It's not until this revelation at the end with Lancaster that he removes this barrier within himself.
?si=L7mHwH6iQeyfBpTd&t=253
Watch this deleted scene to see what I mean.
>mfw this makes complete sense
What is a big brain anon doing on Cinemaphile? He must have stumbled in from Cinemaphile or something.
He is wrong. PTA said in interviews the movie has nothing to do with scientology and religion. It's just a backdrop
>He is wrong
I was going to ask you what's right, but the fact that you think an interpretation can be wrong, tells me all I need to know. Have you explained the movie like he did?
>like he did
She's using a picture of Nanase Kurumi so the poster you're calling "he" might be she
If I thought it was a woman then I wouldn't have replied. Thank you for that comment. It may actually be a woman, but I doubt it.
It's a "woman" not a woman
Well, she's doing more to discuss films than you so there's no need to be rude
Interpretations are wrong. The only thing that matters is what the director/writer says. Only leftist morons think their own made up imaginary ideas have any substance compared to what the writer actually intended. If you wanted you could easily listen to interviews with PTA and he leaves little hints as to the meaning of the movie.
David lynch supports the idea that movies are meant to be interpreted by the viewer, not dictated by the creator. And it's what I adhere to. This is my explanation but many others will have their own.
I wish more artists held lynch's philosophy.
I think a lot do, it's mostly on places like this and reddit where people care less about new and interesting ideas and more about telling others they're wrong.
Lynch is a hack who makes terrible movies so of course he subscribes to this philosophy. If your films are bad and you can just say it's up to interpretation and you don't have to answer to any criticism. This philosophy is what trannies and communists use to mold every film into their schizo political writings. With this philosophy you can make Triumph of the Will a pro capitalist pro trans communist movie... Do you really believe that?
NTA but it's not about molding films, it's about finding things within films that resonate with your own experience or are worth analysing in new ways
>you can make Triumph of the Will a pro capitalist pro trans communist movie... Do you really believe that?
No but I think a capitalist or a trans person could still have a very interesting take on Triumph of the Will. If something about the movie aligns with a trans experience or could be interesting when examined from a capitalist perspective, then what's so wrong in allowing that?
You can do whatever you want in your own time but we are talking about the objective meaning of a film. Your personal subjective opinion is worthless in this discussion no?
Meaning itself is a subjective thing, I think. What you're calling objective is just the director's subjective take on their own work. If that's interesting enough to merit discussion, why not any other takes?
The directors take is the only take that matters in this discussion of the real meaning of a movie. Hence my point about Triumph of the Will. If we're talking about the actual meaning of the film why does your personal opinion matter? I don't care about your feelings. I care what the director is actually trying to say. Nothing else.
I guess I just disagree that there's a real meaning and an unreal meaning, there are only meanings. We tend to discuss director interpretations not because they're more real but because they're more closely connected to the creative process and that's unique.
Well, let's just have both interpretations?
I was thinking about this too. A lot of the time, people draw parallels between historic works and the current era. Should that be invalid because the writer or director didn't intend it?
>Well, let's just have both interpretations?
If someone is trying to actually understand what the director wanted to say how does your subjective interpretation that goes against the director help them? You're just muddying the waters with your useless feelings. If you want to write a diary of your personal feelings go ahead but don't bring them up in a discussion of what the director intended a work of art to mean. You understand? I don't have a problem with this but don't bring it up when people ask for something else.
Well it doesn't help them but that's not really what we were discussing before. I agree that there's such a thing as the director's interpretation, but that's not the same as saying there's a real or true interpretation and unreal or false one. So I guess we can meet each other half way there.
Why do you keep bringing up feelings? It doesn't have anything to do with feelings. Except in that ultimately everything we believe comes down to our feelings, including your belief that the only thing that matters is a director's stated meaning. Lol
Postmodernism isn't cool anymore israelite. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact.
What makes you think I'm a israelite, or that I even like them? It doesn't have to be all or nothing, your view is indefensible.
Postmodernism is inherently israeli. Even if you are not israeli by subscribing to it you become spiritually israeli.
Thinking there is more to a work than the stated intention of the director is postmodernism, is that what you think?
Thinking that directors intention is irrelevant or doesn't even exist is postmodernism
Okay, cool, and when did I or anybody else ever once say in this thread that the director's intention was always irrelevant or nonexistent?
Learn how to read. He says some directors don't have an intention planned going in. Do you doubt them, if that's what they say? Where does he say that the director's intention never matters, or never exists?
Even if that were true it's irrelevant when talking about a writer who knows exactly what they intend to write which is what we're talking about. I don't believe directors don't know the meaning of their own movies. When they say that I think they're obfuscating or they're intentionally making a film without meaning which thereby becomes the meaning of the movie.
>your view is indefensible.
If we want to understand what the directors intended why does anything outside of what the director intended matter. I'm logically correct. It's irrefutable. It's scientific
Way to move the goalpost moron, you did it right here
when you changed it from "the only thing that matters about a film is the director's intention" to "the director's intention is the director's intention."
I said it's the only thing that matters when discussing the meaning of a movie. I said multiple times if you want to write diary blogposts about how you feel Triumph of the Will was a pro trans movie go ahead but when discussing what a film actually objectively means nothing else matters.
>what a film actually objectively means
Why is the director the person that gives the movie meaning? Why not the writer, who wrote all the dialogue, plot, major scenes, stage instructions, etc? Do you think the director knows exactly what the screenwriter thinks when they're not the same people?
We're obviously talking about an auteur director who writes and directs the script.
If you only care about what the director is trying to say then you miss out on quite a lot. With that sort of mindset how could you possibly evaluate other art, like paintings? I'm sure you have a gut reaction (like "that one guy that does paint splotches is trash"), but can you evaluate it any further than that?
>If you only care about what the director is trying to say then you miss out on quite a lot
I'm missing out on nothing. Why would I care at all what you feel?
>that one guy that does paint splotches is trash"
I do say this but it's funny how even these abstract painters admit that there is objective meaning in their work and they say people hate it just don't understand it.
You're missing out on the fact that the movie was made at a specific time, in a specific place, by somebody in a specific group, with a specific zeitgeist. These are not factors that a director can control. The director is often not even aware. And yet they have profound implications for the work that he makes. A movie can be meaningful far beyond the intention of the director.
That can be true but it's entirely separate to what the director intended and in the discussion of what the director intended nothing else matters. That's just factual.
>The directors take is the only take that matters in this discussion of the real meaning of a movie.
This is obviously bullshit. Take Spike Lee, for example. He thinks Radio Raheem was in the right. And some directors don't even know the meaning of their own movies while they are making them, like Jodorowsky, and only get an idea after the movie is done.
I don't watch black directors so I don't know what you mean but bringing up Jodorowsky the biggest fricking schizo in cinema is not a good example in the discussion of objective meaning
You're being dense, just because a movie can be subject to multiple interpretations it doesn't mean that every interpretation is as well supported by the movie. You seem to think Lynch's movies are nonsense too, which is either facetious or plain dumb.
>With this philosophy you can make Triumph of the Will a pro capitalist pro trans communist movie... Do you really believe that?
Yes and I think Hitler was a closet crossdresser too. He would crossdress and frick Geli and it drove her crazy that's why she killed herself.
>David Lynch supports the idea that movies are meant to be interpreted by the viewer
This kind of falls flat because all of Lynch's films have a discernable plot/theme/meaning, the only exception (imo) is Inland Empire but that's mostly due to how fragmented the movie is. David Lynch is one of my favorite writers/directors but the meme that his movies are purely open to interpretation is incorrect.
>People treat feminism as a modern invention but it's actually our natural state of being.
This is a theory a lot of feminist day dreamers have been pushing for a few decades. A lot of it is based on a handful of archeological findings and a lot of filling in the blanks. For example, the so-called minoans of crete worshipped the snake goddess, there were several cults to Aphrodite and obviously, Athena in Athens as well as the snake goddess in the ancient near east and several stone age primitive carvings of fertile (pregnant) women. There isn't any direct evidence of feminism as being a natural state other than feminist speculation about these statues. Ancient greece was insanely mysogynistic, yet they worshipped Athena, listened to corrupt drugged oracles and there were temples dedicated to Aphrodite. The ancient figures may have been goddesses or priestesses like the oracle, it doesn't mean they were "feminist" societies. Anymore than an ancient carving of a dick means they worshipped wiener.
> the race that stayed closest to nature (Africans) are matriarchal
If you look at virtually any hunter gatherer tribal society, and they exist TODAY, you don't have to even do archeology, virtually all of them are set up the same way and it is not a feminist paradise.
> Civilization is built by giving men masters
Maybe this is what the movie is about. It wouldn't surprise me if it's sort of a feminist film. Hollywood is filled with pseuds who think they are educated because they read a best seller like sex at dawn.
Africa matriarchal? Are you fricking moronic? Man this was a bunch of drivel to read. Women were always put at second tier, though with some varying agency throughout all premodern societies, including the pre monotheistic religions.
Did you skip every history class ever? This reads like a fantasy.
>People treat feminism as a modern invention but it's actually our natural state of being.
you should really pick up a history book one of these days
>Almost 0% of people actually understand the true meaning but when you do you will agree with me.
Alright what's the "true meaning" smart guy?
probably he mean freud ego id superego maybe
>freud ego id superego
No that's the redditor explanation and not true or based on fact
In that case it looks like it’s your time to shine and wow us with your facts and logic anon. I’m waiting
I'm not spoonfeeding you. Watch the movie and really try to understand it
You could have just said you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, it’s okay.
Watch the movie and try to figure it out and come back
Its been watched by millions then solved already and its not that interesting to most people, you just don't have much life experience, so you are a mark for life experience simulator media.
Yeah millions of people are wrong and idiots. I've only found one guy on an obscure blog who figured it out.
That is exactly what I said, its solved and not that interesting, have fun discussing you little life simulator film.
yeah, that was me
it was a shitpost, dummy
>I'm not spoonfeeding you. Watch the movie and really try to understand it
You don't understand it, either, than. F off.
I'm not telling you so redditors get wind of it
The true meaning of 'The Master' is that any successful nation must eventually assemble into groups of Scientology-like societies.
No it not moron frick
you mean cults? we've already got major religions trying to frick us all in the ass
Nietzschean struggle between Apollo (PSH), god of order, control, search for perfection, and Dionysus (Phoenix), god of wine, chaos, will to life, etc. Read The Origins of Tragedy
have a nice day
>filtered
Oof how embarrasing
One of my top 5 movies, for sure.
>its solved
So tell me what it is?
>life simulator film.
Post your top 5
I just fricking told you, imbecile, read what I wrote more closely and try to figure it out, then come back when you do so you can frick right off because its not even interesting.
You haven't posted the meaning of the film anywhere because you don't know it but let's move away from that. What constitutes a life simulator film? Isn't that basically every film? What are these non-life simulator films you enjoy? Do you mean like those ones where they film random flashing black and white lights?
Except that I did and you only want to move on because you know that you can't prove otherwise because you didn't even read closely and really try to understand what I wrote.
>What constitutes a life simulator film?
>What are these non-life simulator films?
Fantasy and Science Fiction are obviously the top genres that aren't about presenting some simulation of what you could be doing instead of living your mundane life.
>Do you mean like those ones where they film random flashing black and white lights?
What the frick are you talking about, is that the limits of your attention span, is that why you can't figure out subtext and read between lines to figure out the simple answers you have been provided?
>Fantasy and Science Fiction
Lmao why would you embarrass your self like this. What you said actually stung until you said this
You need to read more closely, yet again, since I clearly removed the emotional anchor you attached as a shame trap that you don't even yet realize didn't actually succeed because I didn't quote you verbatim, only the part that mattered since you clearly didn't even understand the type of film genre you are addicted to as a result of your lacking life experience.
Your example of a non-life simulator film is fantasy and science fiction which are fantasy life simulators for redditors who can't imagine living a normal life so they have invent imaginary ones. Every film is a life simulator film except for avant garde garbage.
You clearly know a lot about them without knowing a lot about words, so you should go back since they are clearly the foundation of all your points and they would probably love people like you who mindlessly huff their own farts about being the only person who can truly understanding a film and other such bullshit.
You're actually a dumbass, man. The irony of you telling him to learn to read between lines when you don't understand the clear meaning of his words kek
Obviously I understand, since I am the one who used the original subtext to condition his response just like I used it to trigger you and prove to everyone you don't even know what irony is.
One of the best american movies of this century and easily a top 100 movie ever made, but calling it the best movie ever may be a stretch.
It's a great movie and Phoenix is obviously great on it, but it's harder to get immersed in it when you find out his character was supposed to be in his early 20s.
does the master CALL the SHOTS
>Only I understand it! No I won't tell you, it's my big secret!
This is like the most pathetic attempt at having some sort of "power" over anybody else. Did you microdick twitch a bit when you made this thread you fricking dumb homosexual?
It's not about power it's about everything you enjoy being ruined by tiktok and reddit zoomer morons
You think your Cinemaphile post will be so powerful that it percolates out and becomes some mass hysteria
get over yourself
druk kino and one my favorite Phoenix movies. Didn't really understand it untill my second watch
I've never heard a coherent explanation for why this movie is so great. There's no way it's better than There Will Be Blood. Prove me wrong reddit
liquid dogshit
all PTA flicks are just pretentious *ackshually* garbage
Holy filtered cope and seethe
>if you already know the answers to your questions then why ask PIG FRICK
Joachim bullying Todd was also pretty funny.
One of the best movies of the century. I'm disgusted by people who think films have to be some product that is easily digested. You get out of it what you may. There's more than enough there to appreciate. The cinematography is beautiful. The score is wonderful. The acting is phenomenal.
Okay, but what about going beyond the cinematography, score, and acting? I agree that they're all great but they're not the sort of thing where they're so good that the other elements of the movie don't matter. What does this movie mean to you?
I love this film and also do no understand it
Two chads on opposite side of the bell curve. Frick the midwits who hate the film
I don't understand it and think it's okay, but I don't see how some think it's better than TWBB. Mostly because nobody on this image board has ever given me a reason or interpretation that made sense
All of PTA's movies are complex but actually simple. Freddie is a trouble man who is looking for a master (happiness, love, deep connection). He had Doris but it didn't work out because she was too young and then got married. Lancaster didn't work out because he realized he was a fraud. And in the end he is changed and able to accept that he is his own master and this is what allows him to find real connection and happiness with the girl at the end.
Wrong movie, anon. This is the best movie of all time and MANDATORY viewing for any male in their 20's to understand reality and the self.
You can only get smarter by playing a smater opponent
This scene BTFOs anything PTA has ever made. It's so fricking redpilling, it's insane. It echoes Stirner and Nietzche like nothing i've ever seen and it reveals to you to what the ID, super ego and the base ego are and how to find your true self and identity in that storm. Mind frick on every level. If this was directed by PTA and starring Phoenix, it would be a fricking classic but plebs can't praise a movie unless it features specific people in it. Absolute bugmen.
It's not. If you understand the true meaning behind the movie you'll realize it's mid. You're literally in that bell curve meme where morons and high-iq individuals (myself) think it's a mid movie and you're in the legions of reddit midwits who think it's cinema's magnum opus.
An easy way to test this is to post your top 5 favorite movies and we can see if you're a midwit or not. If you don't respond you are confirmed midwit and pussy
>godzilla 1954
>chinatown
>city lights
>pan's labyrinth
>kung fu panda 2
any other questions, moron?
It's very underated as a comedy
This thread keeps taking moronic left turns from homosexuals bickering about inconsequential shit and I’m all for it