Support NeoGAF

[gcubed]

I think people are confusing "story" with "plot" quite honestly. I think a character study of this level is an incredible "story" even if there's no discernible plot.

Of course, cada uno a su gusto.

nope, this is true for me at least... i meant plot. There is a "story"

 

[SilentProtagonist]

Am I the only one who thought the "Slow Boat To China" scene was kinda funny. The tone of the scene was fine up until PSH starts singing, it just seemed very unnecessary and was added just to create a sense of surrealism to the scene.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Fresh Air interview with Anderson.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/02/162153952/paul-thomas-anderson-the-man-behind-the-master

Also, Jim Emerson is writing about The Master. I'm sure he's not liked around these parts (since he, rightfully so, panned Speed Racer), but some might find them interesting.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/09/the_master_who_are_you.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/10/the_master_what_does_it_all_me.html

 

[megamerican]

Am I the only one who thought the "Slow Boat To China" scene was kinda funny. The tone of the scene was fine up until PSH starts singing, it just seemed very unnecessary and was added just to create a sense of surrealism to the scene.

Yeah I didn't think it worked. That scene would have been more powerful without it. But what do I know?

 

[overcast]

Finally saw it today. Initially I liked it, I just didn't know to what extent. After thinking about it more, the movie was like an 8/10. It was a beautiful film to look at. (as PTA films usually are) that had 2 brilliant performances. It jus seemed to be lacking something to make it truly great. It did seem more shallow than expected, although I may have been looking too deeply into it.

I have a few questions

Spoiler

-how instrumental is sex to Scientology? As it was in the forefront here.
-what was with the obsession with red hair? The fact that his love had red hair?
-was PSH wearing a red night gown thing in the beginning for a symbolic purpose? As in depicting him as an evil, devil like character?
-did he just ride back home on the bike?

 

[coldvein]

saw this on dat 70mm last week. good shit!

 

[-Mikey-]

Is all of the 4.5 minute trailer footage in the film? I really want to check it out but at this point I feel like I should just wait to see it on the big screen.

 

[Mifune]

I think this is PTA's first serious misfire. It's fairly entertaining and compelling for a while before disappearing up its own butt in the third act. And ultimately that weak final act torpedoed the entire movie for me because it failed to give any meaning to the preceding hour and forty-five.. A colossal disappointment.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I saw this last night and I am so confused. Incredible performances and numerous memorable shots, but I have no idea where the characters, themes, or story/plot were going.

I know a fair amount about Scientology (or at least I thought I did going in), but how directly was this supposed to be referencing Scientology? Like, were there specific moments that were specifically referencing elements of Scientology that were meant to resonate with the audience for that reason? Have there been any articles online that compare Scientology and The Cause in detail?

 

[Blader]

There is nothing for the average person to relate to. It does not really delve into the origins of the cult the film is inspired by enough to give you much background there. And it does not delve deep enough into the past of the main character where we can put together where his crazy comes from.

I think the decision to write Freddie as being already so disturbed was a mistake, imo. It kind of undermines the idea of cults' ability to emotionally and psychologically manipulate people if the person being manipulated isn't in his right mind to begin with.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I think the decision to write Freddie as being already so disturbed was a mistake, imo. It kind of undermines the idea of cults' ability to emotionally and psychologically manipulate people if the person being manipulated isn't in his right mind to begin with.

Well, a big chunk of the movie was specifically about their lack of ability to control him.

 

[Blader]

Right. I'm probably not articulating it that well. But basically, if Freddie was a more 'normal' guy and not as obviously fucked up in the head, his character would have resonated a hell of a lot more with me than it did in the film.

 

[Dries]

Can't wait to see this. PTA is the shit.

 

[Kraftwerk]

Saw it on Monday, had to let it sink in.

Simply amazing. Stunning movie, with great performances. The soundtrack by Greenwood was perfect.

One universal complaint that I have read and heard regarding the movie, is that is has no plot/goal.

Honestly that was what made this movie. It's about the master and his subject(s).

Spoiler

what did people expect? I mean, I understand that people want closure, but again; what did you expect?

Should Freddie have been 'cured' at the end of the movie? Did you want Freddie to die or kill himself?

I know it's cliche to say this, but it truly was about the experience and the journey. It showed us the complete process.

The ending was perfect to me. He finally go to him, by repetition and breaking him down.

Will definitely see it again this week. Loved it.

 

[jgkspsx]

GAF, what did I just see.

Seriously, I kind of have an idea.

Spoiler

Cults only work on people who are able to control themselves. It's sort of an appreciation of lack of self-control and maintaining a level of animal joy. Freddie's total lack of control early on is indeed extremely destructive, but although the cult training DOES help him control his responses a little more, it doesn't succeed in washing out his identity.

Remember, instead of imagining fake memories when he is undergoing processing, he relives specific real memories. He's not being hypnotized like the actual cultists. "If you're not in it for a billion years, you can't be in it at all." He does derive benefit from a cult without being able to actually become part of it. Two wrongs make a sort of right?

I don't think the ending is meant to show that Dodd maintains a power over him. If anything, Freddie finds it funny and an effective seduction tool. No?

I think the upshot of the film is that there is some virtue in the unpleasant, id-driven, self-destructive asshole.

Sort of the message of There Will Be Blood, too, come to think of it.

Where There Will Be Blood felt like a Kubrick homage, this felt like a Malick homage. (Possibly a ripoff, but I'm OK with that.) For those used to the usual crescendo at the end of PTA films, I can see why it would be disappointing, but to be honest I liked it as a Malick meditation more than anything Malick has done since The Thin Red Line.

 

[Izick]

Saw it today and absolutely loved it. What I took away from it was that

Spoiler

Freddie and Dodd were two sides to the same coin, what with Freddie being the uncontrollable anger Dodd had when he would be questioned and become enraged (He almost always ends fights against his religion with yelling matches and swearing) or being dominated by women (the bathroom scene for Dodd). Freddie is a parralel to this with his fits of uncontrollable rage that resort to violence, and his utter weakness in terms of always needing some sort of sexual gratification. Another interesting element that was touched on is how can a cult/religion control something that is completely chaotic in nature? Even if that chaos itself wished to be controlled? It goes to show the people in these cults have to have some semblance of sanity and reasoning when doing this stuff.

All in all, and absolutely amazing movie. I was sad when my one friend came out of the theater disappointed, as he thought it was "pretentious." Now I've seen a lot of artsy-fartsy, all flash, no substance movies before, and I don't think this fit the bill for that at all. I felt like I was seeing a real character drama. He also complained about the

Spoiler

lack of any real progress or resolution, and the odd immature parts of things. I tried to explain those are both integral to what the story tries to convey and what the character of Freddie is, but it just gets frustrating after some time.

Like I said though, great movie, and for anyone on the fence, I highly suggest it.

 

[border]

Saw it today and absolutely loved it. What I took away from it was that

Spoiler

Freddie and Dodd were two sides to the same coin, what with Freddie being the uncontrollable anger Dodd had when he would be questioned and become enraged (He almost always ends fights against his religion with yelling matches and swearing) or being dominated by women (the bathroom scene for Dodd). Freddie is a parralel to this with his fits of uncontrollable rage that resort to violence, and his utter weakness in terms of always needing some sort of sexual gratification. Another interesting element that was touched on is how can a cult/religion control something that is completely chaotic in nature? Even if that chaos itself wished to be controlled? It goes to show the people in these cults have to have some semblance of sanity and reasoning when doing this stuff.

I think you are on to something here, but to say that they are two sides of the same coin means they are similar but opposites.....that Dodd is strong intellectually while Freddie is weak intellectually. Dodd is weak sexually so Freddie should be strong sexually, but you think of Freddie as sexually weak too. I'd argue that Freddie is pretty strong sexually, considering how crazy he is he gets a surprising number of women to sleep with him despite his obvious psychological problems.

I wouldn't call him a ladies' man, but Freddie can dominate and enthrall women, whereas Dodd immediately becomes subject to their wants and desires. Dodd is master of the mind, Freddie is master of the bedroom...but they are both enslaved by their desire to perform highly in the areas where they are weakest. Freddie can't get his head straight and fails whenever he tries. Similarly Dodd can't get his sex life right, and fails whenever he tries.

 

[Izick]

I think you are on to something here, but to say that they are two sides of the same coin means they are similar but opposites.....that Dodd is strong intellectually while Freddie is weak intellectually. Dodd is weak sexually so Freddie should be strong sexually, but you think of Freddie as sexually weak too. I'd argue that Freddie is pretty strong sexually, considering how crazy he is he gets a surprising number of women to sleep with him despite his obvious psychological problems.

I wouldn't call him a ladies' man, but Freddie can dominate and enthrall women, whereas Dodd immediately becomes subject to their wants and desires. Dodd is master of the mind, Freddie is master of the bedroom...but they are both enslaved by their desire to perform highly in the areas where they are weakest. Freddie can't get his head straight and fails whenever he tries. Similarly Dodd can't get his sex life right, and fails whenever he tries.

Maybe two sides of the same coin is the wrong phrase then. Whatever I mean (and you definitely are bringing up very great points that I agree with) it all came to a head when I saw that brilliant shot of the both of them

Spoiler

in jail, with only the jail cell's bars separating the two. They are both incarcerated, but at the same time, Freddie is going completely wild and ape-shit while Dodd is just standing there calmly telling him to stop being such an animal. They both are fairly vile and devious men, but for different reasons and motivations. They both have their outbursts when pushed, and they both can control their inhibitions, but only so far, especially for Freddie.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

I understand the focus of this movie being about Freddie/Dodd (and it doesn't help that the women in the movie are underwritten), but I would like to chime in that this is one of my favorite Amy Adams performances. I think it is her best work since Enchanted, and the use of her eyes/eyebrows and mouth corners are so subtle compared to the bombastic performance from Phoenix.

For me, the biggest surprise of this movie on reflection (outside of my baffling lukewarm reaction to the movie with only one viewing) is Adams' growth as an actress.

 

[border]

Maybe two sides of the same coin is the wrong phrase then. Whatever I mean (and you definitely are bringing up very great points that I agree with) it all came to a head when I saw that brilliant shot of the both of them

Spoiler

in jail, with only the jail cell's bars separating the two..

I think that is about their opposing reactions to control, authority, and subjugation....which might be outside the rather binary conversation of sex versus intellect.

But maybe not. Freddie cannot abide some external person or thing having control over him. This makes him a pretty terrible candidate for The Cause, but it's also why he's so liberated sexually -- he gets the women he gets on his own terms, and doesn't have to tone down his personality to do it. Dodd immediately defers to and accepts the control of the authorities, in the same way he accepts the control of his wife. Any cult is based around the idea that people will allow themselves to be controlled by someone who seems to have authority, and Dodd himself is not immune to this.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Enjoyed reading some of these reactions/theories. Which is another reason I like the film, it's something I see as very re-watchable. Kind of like Lost In Translation but obviously a lot more dramatic/serious. But plot structure is less about what happens and more about how the interactions progress and how our understanding of the characters changes or surprises us. In the beginning it feels like Freddie is completely out of control and Dodd is in complete control and by the ending I think the notion that Freddie had more control begins to surface despite Freddie not understanding it himself completely. The final scene shows us Freddie in a state of perfect/true happiness... while Dodd is left by Freddie in a very disturbed realization of his own imprisonment to the bullshit he has made up and the "status" he thought would give him power in bed. Dodd is the more tragic character.

 

[Izick]

I think that is about their opposing reactions to control, authority, and subjugation....which might be outside the rather binary conversation of sex versus intellect.

But maybe not. Freddie cannot abide some external person or thing having control over him. This makes him a pretty terrible candidate for The Cause, but it's also why he's so liberated sexually -- he gets the women he gets on his own terms, and doesn't have to tone down his personality to do it. Dodd immediately defers to and accepts the control of the authorities, in the same way he accepts the control of his wife. Any cult is based around the idea that people will allow themselves to be controlled by someone who seems to have authority, and Dodd himself is not immune to this.

Yes, that's very interesting. I guess something related to that is

Spoiler

how Freddie combines his power of sexual domination with the controlling powers he has gleamed from Dodd at the very end, when he tries and use Dodd's interrogation techniques on her, but does so in a foolish and incompetent way. He almost combines his current traits with Dodd's, but the latter in a far less competent form.

I think we can all agree that the thing that makes this movie so great is so much can be taken away from it, and a lot of it must be taken away by the viewer them self. A lot of things are up for debate, but nothing is really "right" or "wrong."

 

[Izick]

Mulling this over, I just thought that

Spoiler

the motorcycle scene is another symbol for Dodd handing Freddie these rules, guidelines, lifestyle to live to, to stay cemented and "imprisoned" in one place, with one master; and while Freddie can "get on the bike" like Dodd, and he can ride it, but he can never bring himself to return to of his own volition. Whenever the freedom is in his grasp, he will take it and run. That's the person he is. He's too wild to be imprisoned.

Another thing was, what was the deal with the scene with the

Spoiler

women all naked? I thought it was a dream or allusion conjured up by Freddie, but I have heard from others that it actually took place, to further solidify the oddball nature of the cult.

I guess I keep going back to what we're all saying is that,

Spoiler

you can't contain the un-containable. You can try and brainwash a man like Freddie, but no matter how much he even wants it himself, it's futile in the end. He's that true wild stallion that can't be shackled, and after a while, won't be shackled. As it was said earlier, it just goes to show that these people who join or fall prey to these cults aren't mindless idiots. They're in part willing themselves into believing for this, for an easy way out, or an easier life. Freddie tries and tries, and after a while he just can't control himself, and after he sees his former world crumble around him, with his former love married, he reverts back to his old ways, as if nothing had ever even happened.

Probably one of the most intriguing scenes is when Freddie and Dodd discuss

Spoiler

their past life. Not only because interesting it is to see how he believes he and Freddie met in a past life, but how illustrative his story is. Not to mention, does Dodd and his ask Freddie why he came back? Does this imply that the scene where Freddie receives that call from Dodd in the movie theater a dream? Or at least does that imply that Dodd wants Freddie to think that it was a dream or vision? Do you all think it really happened, or was a dream by Freddie?

So much to say, and just so much to think about. I love these movies so much, but they almost always consume my mind for the following days after seeing them. So much to see and think about. The more I do think about it though, the more I think as it as one of the classics of all time.

EDIT: Also, I never saw much of the pre-release stuff, but an awesome trailer would have been random clips of the movie all played behind the audio of Freddie interrogation(s) by Dodd and have the last clip be Freddie's stare at him. Would have packed a real emotional punch I think.

 

[Expendable.]

Very proud to premiere two international posters. One below and one at the link (both in SUPER high-resolution over there)

Exclusive: A Pair of Turkish Posters for Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘The Master’

 

[Dmax3901]

This came out in Australia yesterday, only on at five cinemas in Sydney. I saw it last night, just posted a review on my blog.

Check it out if you're interested.

 

[Messofanego]

The Master was inspired by Adam Sandler

One of the best Kermode Uncuts I've seen XD

 

[ShutEye]

Saw it last night in 70mm. Gorgeous movie. I enjoyed it.
I like ambiguous movies. I thought the dialogue was excellent. Very good interplay at revealing the characters' weaknesses.

I can easily see how people would not enjoy this movie though.

 

[C4Lukins]

I just wanted to repeat that I do not like this film. I love the acting, I love the director, but there is nothing there. Which may be the very theme of the film, but it does not make it an interesting experience. I just wanted to run back and forth banging my head on walls like Phoenix while watching it.

I do want to stress that I do not think it is a bad movie. It just felt like a waist of talent and time for those working on it, all who are capable of something much more interesting. The only reason I am continuing my rant is because someone bumped this thread. Blame them for me pissing you off again.

 

[jgkspsx]

I did like this film, but I really understand where you're coming from. I feel a bit that way myself - There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite films, and this didn't do anything for me emotionally. Whatever insight this film has is buried so deeply that it's difficult to imagine people who would benefit from the insight actually getting it.

But I guess I feel that the film was worth making anyway. I think I already said this, but as a Terence Malick film, I like it a lot more than what Malick has done since The Thin Red Line.

 

[border]

The main thing that's disappointing about The Master is that Paul Thomas Anderson only makes a movie about once every 5 years. So we're pretty much stuck waiting until 2017 for another effort from him.

If this were a director that turns out a new film every 2-3 years I probably wouldn't be so downhearted about it.

I think PTA is promising a faster turnaround on his next film, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[XMonkey]

It took him so long to finish The Master because of funding issues. Now that Megan Ellison is behind him 100%, he doesn't need to stress this. I'm cautiously optimistic that Inherent Vice will be here much sooner than 5 years.

 

[border]

It took him so long to finish The Master because of funding issues.

I am pretty ignorant about film production, but how exactly does this happen? Did they film half the movie and wait for more money to come months/years later? It seems like they would wait for the full budget to be covered before they begin ANY filming.

The other possibility would be that they filmed all the scenes, but did not have the money to spend on post-production (editing, score, music, etc).

Or maybe he just wrote a script and it took literally years for anyone to put up the money?

 

[XMonkey]

I don't know specifically about The Master, but I'd feel pretty confident in saying that PTA didn't shoot anything until he had the money locked in. Some pre-production probably occurred (storyboards, location scouting, putting feelers out for casting, etc) but it's usually smaller indie films that fall prey to the "shoot what we can, worry about the rest later" scenario.

 

[Expendable.]

He specifically has said it won't take as long to make Inherent Vice.

 

[jgkspsx]

BTW, in my list of directors appropriate to direct the first film adaptation of Thomas Pynchon, PTA is not.

But then Inherent Vice was a really different kind of novel for him, so who knows.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Finally got to see this.

I thought it was absolutely brilliant. I have no idea where all the confusion about the film came from in the early screening reports. It's very straightforward. It is no more elusive than There Will Be Blood - which is to say that if you didn't understand what was going on in this movie, then I don't know where you were. It was much more methodical than I was expecting and all the better for it imo.

Not being a fan of his, I didn't expect PSH to be as good as he was. Pheonix was brilliant as expected.

 

[Jimothy]

Finally saw it, and have to agree with those that call it a huge misfire. Although I'm not sure if it was done intentionally or not. I came across this post on IMDb (lol, i know) that I think is a pretty brilliant interpretation of the movie...

My initial reaction to The Master after seeing it last night wasn’t positive. Story-wise, I thought it was empty, shallow and disingenuous--100% style, no real substance. Well-acted, sure, but the characters themselves were thinly drawn. Today, though, I have a new theory and, if I convince myself I’m right, I’ll appreciate the film on a new level as an audacious, post-modern experiment.

Hear me out on this: What if Paul Thomas Anderson DELIBERATELY wrote The Master as an insubstantial, pretentious story for the purpose of COMMENTING ON insubstantial, pretentious stories and the way people respond to them?

Reading the film this way, Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) actually represents Paul Thomas Anderson. Dodd sputters impressive-sounding theories and observations to enthralled followers who feel special for receiving his message, yet everything Dodd says is meaningless and doesn’t stand up even to light scrutiny. Similarly, Anderson, as writer/director frames a story onscreen that ostensibly dabbles in “important” themes (religion, alcoholism, the cult of personality, the scars of war, etc.) and a significant portion of the audience, like Lancaster Dodd’s followers, will feel special and important just for being there. Yet, ironically (and perhaps intentionally), Anderson’s script is just as empty and phony as Dodd’s musings about the universe. Dodd disguises the meaninglessness of his doctrines through personal charisma and strong oration. Anderson disguises the meaninglessness of his script with Academy Award-winning actors and good cinematography.

Dodd’s adoring followers (Laura Dern, the undressed women at the party, etc.) represent Anderson’s own adoring audience. The imagery of these people lapping up Dodd’s lofty nonsense is a metaphor for the audience segment that will lap up Anderson’s lofty nonsense. And the irony is intentional. I think Anderson is saying to us: “See, I can stage a ponderous, pretentious story that goes nowhere and people are going to love it anyway because of the production value, indy brand, and marquee names. You, Audience Members, are the women at Dodd’s party.”

By the auteur’s design, this is a movie about a BS artist by a BS artist about the fine craft of BS artistry.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) represents certain other segments of the audience watching this movie. He comes to it looking for something meaningful, something that will touch him. But as it wears on, he has doubts and becomes ultimately dissatisfied.

When Dodd’s son tells Freddie that the Master is just making all this stuff up as he goes along, Anderson is really telling us that HE is making this all up as he goes along.

When Freddie is stuck in jail with Dodd and demands (shouting) that Dodd “say something that’s true,” that’s a reflection of the audience that’s trapped in this interminable movie-watching experience, waiting impatiently for Anderson to say something that’s true or resonant or original or otherwise worth saying.

When Freddie flees on the motorcycle at the one hour and fifty-five minute mark, it represents the audience’s intense desire to get up and leave the movie theater at that moment, a duration at which most movies would end. At that point, Freddie is just as tired of Dodd as we are of the movie, and can’t take it any more.

But then it isn’t over. Dodd keeps pursuing poor Freddie just as the movie keeps demanding more of our time. It’s no accident that the scene when Dodd calls Freddie on the phone, Freddie is sitting in a MOVIE THEATER, exhausted and miserable. At that moment he represents us.

And then, of course, at the end of the movie when Freddie declines Dodd’s invitation to re-join the group, that represents the final decision by some segments of the audience that this whole thing isn’t worth it. It’s BS. Life’s too short. It’s time to leave and do something worth doing. That’s why the film ends with Freddie having a random hookup with that woman, and that odd high-angle shot that thrusts her breast prominently in our faces. That’s Anderson saying: “Life is short. Go watch something light and sexy, bosom-y and bouncy. Don’t give precious minutes of your life away to pretentious nonsense like this.”

This may sound wild but, honestly, the parallels are there. Anderson might really be doing this. I think he’s a smart enough and daring enough director to do something that weird (Lord knows he’s made excellent movies in the past).

Anyway, that’s my two cents.

 

[bud]

i read on that p.t.a. blog that they're planning on shooting inherent vice in april.

 

[Jimothy]

i read on that p.t.a. blog that they're planning on shooting inherent vice in april.

I hope it's a return to Boogie Nights PTA, aka Best PTA.

 

[triplestation]

The Master was inspired by Adam Sandler

One of the best Kermode Uncuts I've seen XD

Adam Sandler has resorted to shit stuff lately but his material from the past is absolutely great. The Waterboy is one of the most funniest/charming movies I've ever seen.

I saw The Master yesterday. I loved the performances in it, and the soundtrack was hypnotic. But the way in which the story unfolds and evolves was a bit of a drag and could have been more engaging.

 

[GremlinFool]

I hope it's a return to Boogie Nights PTA, aka Best PTA.

You've been wrong too much in this thread already, I'd say give it a rest.

The Master is layered, deliberate, and immaculately structured, the perfect manifestation of a Hemingway novel in film form: replete with post-war disillusionment, layered meaning, linear story progression, and profound underlying themes.

And There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, and The Master are each significantly better than Boogie Nights.

 

[Whitebison]

Saw it last night and absolutely love it!

But why is nobody relating the character of PSH with Aleister Crowley?

 

[bud]

it took me a few seconds to realize that

Spoiler

she was jerking him off

, haha. was i the only one?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

The movie was beautifully shot and the music was amazing and the performances were magnificent but I hated just about everything else about the movie.

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

The movie was beautifully shot and the music was amazing and the performances were magnificent but I hated just about everything else about the movie.

Completely agree! I was so disappointed after hearing amazing things about the film. Paul Thomas Anderson let me down this time

 

[Baldwin_the_First]

Just finished seeing the movie for the first time and I felt like I was stone during the entire movie even though I was sober. I mean I get that Hoffman is playing some sort of a cult leader who wants to help Pheonix get past whatever is slowly killing him (PTSD and alcoholism) with some weird as shit methods, while Pheonix seems to enjoy having found a place for himself, but all in all it just seemed to lack something, a meaning of some kind. The ending just felt flat.

Pheonix's character decides to go off on his own path, which is most likely a destructive one, which also brings as to why Hoffman's character takes it so hard; that he feels the need to serenade to him? I mean, wat.

Maybe I should have just paused it in the beginning and smoked a bowl, I might have appreciated it more. Performances were great, but I wasn't expecting to be thrown into the mindset of some kind of cult fanatic freaks like this. Took me by surprise.

Those scenes where he's pacing back and forth between the window and the wall. LOL what were we even supposed to understand about that? It just ended so abruptly with no explanations whatso-fucking-ever. xD And the actor from Mr.Robot with his Dumb Dumb dialogue with Pheonix staring straight at him, hahaha, that stuff caught me off guard so bad I ended up in tears. Too funny.