Mary-Sue played by Reese Witherspoon

Bam. The Playlist has another interesting rumor regarding The Master now saying an offer has been made to Reese Witherspoon to play Phil Hoffman's wife. Blockquotes:

Things have been pretty quiet on the Paul Thomas Anderson front and his new untitled religion picture, affectionately known as "The Master" by fans.

 

Loosely -- or not so loosely -- based on the life of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard (read our review of a very early draft of the script), we know that Philip Seymour Hoffman will play the messianic lead, Jeremy Renner will play Freddie Sutton, the drifter character that becomes The Master's right hand man, and we know that Universal passed on the project and River Road is footing the bill (the company that produced Terrence Malick's "Tree Of Life" and Doug Liman's "Fair Game"; Honcho Bill Pohlad is also an investor in distributor Apparition, so don't be surprised if the film ends up there).



Now comes a few more details from the latest issue of Production Weekly. According to their intel, Reese Witherspoon has been offered a role in the picture and the production is eyeing a June start date. 

Producing is John Lesher, Pohlad and Jo Anne Sellar.

 June is next week if it actually starts on the first. Could the production really be this ready to go and no one's really reported that yet? 

Zero further details are given, but we would assume that if Witherspoon takes a role, it's that of the Master's daughter wife Mary-Sue, who acts as his caretakers and vigilant lieutenant. 

Witherspoon is also attached to McG's "This Means War," which is supposed to start shooting in July, so that could be a potential conflict if she even agrees to the role (she's also currently shooting "Water For Elephants"). However, all of the daughters' roles in the draft that floated around earlier this year were pretty tiny. 

Sure, it was an early script and things must have certainly changed, but we can't imagine it's been completely deconstructed.

There is one small role of a prostitute who also hooks up with Renner's character, but that role, while reoccurring throughout, does feel pretty small too. 

Witherspoon can be pretty commanding when she needs to be -- her company is called Type A productions after all -- and some have joked she's not that far removed from the Tracy Flick character she portrayed in "Election," so we think she would be pretty good for the key daughter who oversees her father's business and best interests.

 

But again, it is just an offer. She could easily turn it down, there were some salacious bits with the daughter in that early draft, we'll just have to wait and see and hope this report uncovers more info.

"Renner 100% locked" into The Master

The Playlist - your primary source for all breaking news updates regarding The Master - is now reporting that Jeremy Renner is going to play Freddie Sutton. The score is now 3-1. In their words:

So one could argue that THR already confirmed this — and sites like us and Vulture were confused with their weird verbiage — and we'd be fine with that, but we've been told by a couple very good sources, what you've probably figured out already: Jeremy Renner is now 100% locked in to take the role of the drunken, existentially lost drifter, Freddie Sutton in Paul Thomas Anderson's take down of Scientology religion in a currently untitled film project, affectionately known to fans as "The Master."

An official announcement should be made soon. The question about funding and when this will shoot still needs clarification (River Road was last rumored to be footing the bill). We've heard the project will go in front of cameras "soon" (our guess is late summer/or the fall) but we suppose that despite Universal passing on the project, the film that now has Renner and stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a surrogate for L. Ron Hubbard is moving forward (read more details in our thorough script review). More details as we get them 

Freddie Not Played by Jeremy Renner

Despite two posts saying he was involved, The Playlist is now saying Jeremy Renner has backed out of The Master due to scheduling conflicts. Here is what they had to report:

After his critically acclaimed turn as Sgt. William James in Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker," Jeremy Renner has found himself an interesting bunch of projects to potentially follow up with.

The actor first joined James McTeigue's upcoming murder mystery centering on Edgar Allen Poe's last days (described as "The Raven" meets "Se7en") but has also been linked to roles in Peter Berg's film adaptation of board game "Battleship" as well as a collaboration with auteur Paul Thomas Anderson and Phillip Seymour Hoffman on their untitled Scientology drama.

However, in a sidenote to Taylor Kitsch's casting in "Battleship" today, Renner has reportedly passed on Anderson's project with "scheduling conflicts preventing his involvement" — the same conflict also caused him to pull out of Berg's film. With "Battleship" scheduled to shoot this summer, it's not known what project is causing the issue though it could very well be McTeigue's "The Raven."

But wait, does this mean Anderson's religious drama is also shooting this summer despite it's studio woes? Have River Road stepped up to the plate after Universal passed? It had been thought such backing issues would cause the film's production to be delayed and open up the calendar for Renner but all this was, of course, before the other Renner project was slated to shoot at the same time.

Renner's exclusion from PTA's film is disappointing but may ultimately make things easier. His link had stirred a little controversy as his potential role, Freddie, was written as a young, impressionable 20-something drifter in an early draft. Our original script review had actually proposed "There Will Be Blood" star Paul Dano for the role, who is 14 years younger than Renner. Of course, there's also the possibility that the religious drama had undergone rewrites, after all, Renner had reportedly taken at least five meetings with Anderson.

Either way, we're sure this is just the tip of the iceberg to the story with details surrounding what's happening with Renner, "The Raven" and PTA's religious drama likely to hit soon if both are in fact set for summer shoots.

"Everyone lies about their budget" LA Times

Los Angeles Times writer Patrick Goldstein ran into Paul Thomas Anderson recently and the encounter led to an article regarding films and their reported budgets called "Why Everyone Lies About Their Movie's Budget."

I was at PEN USA's annual Literary Awards Festival a few weeks ago, having a great time, hobnobbing with all sorts of illustrious writers, when I ran into "There Will Be Blood's" writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson, who was there to accept an award for his film script. A huge fan of his work, I told him how much I'd liked his movie. He nodded and shyly smiled, and I thought he might say something like, "Oh, geez, thanks for the compliment." What he really said was: "In that story you did, you got the budget wrong."

If I actually believed in New Year's resolutions, I'd happily promise to never write about a movie's budget ever again -- all it does is cause pain and misery, both for the press, which is always being spun by studio executives and producers, and for the filmmakers, who are always convinced that clueless reporters and columnists are wildly inflating their movie budgets. (It is safe to say that no one in the history of Hollywood has ever complained about the press underestimating the cost of his or her movie.) 

To be fair, Anderson wasn't all that angry. We went on to have a perfectly amiable conversation. But I'm sure he was unhappy, since when I made reference to his budget, which I said was in the vicinity of $45 million, I was making the point that his movie -- a dark, intense historical drama -- cost so much (along with the marketing outlays of Paramount Vantage's Oscar campaign) that it could never possibly make a decent profit.

The problem that journalists have in reporting about movie budgets is that nearly everyone they ask about a movie's budget tends to -- how do I put this nicely -- offer a whopper of an untruth. In other words, shock of all shocks, people in Hollywood lie. The studio chief who made the movie gives you a low-ball number. The head of a rival studio, eager to make a competitor look bad, gives you a wildly inflated number. Most journalists have reported that Baz Luhrmann's recent film, "Australia," cost $130 million. 20th Century Fox insists that it cost less, saying it received a hefty subsidy from the Australian government, knocking $30 or so million off that figure. But every rival studio chief I spoke to about the film said with great authority, as if they'd seen a host of internal Fox documents, that the film cost $170 or $180 or $200 million, just to throw out the three different figures I got from three different executives.

What's a reporter to do? Who tells the biggest whoppers? And how does one reporter use triangulation to figure out the real budget number? Keep reading:

I'm old-fashioned about reporting budget numbers. I like to go to the source. In other words, I try not to report a number unless I've gotten it from a top executive at the studio (or financing company) that made the picture or a producer or some other high-level member of the production team. You'd think this would work out pretty smoothly, but even then, I've discovered that budget numbers are a slippery business.

My colleague John Horn, who is something of an expert on movie budgets, since he is always writing about film profitability, reminded me of the legendary example of funny numbers involving Jeffrey Katzenberg and his DreamWorks Animation films. When "Shrek 2" was being released, Katzenberg (like most studio execs) was eager to make the film look as profitable as possible, so he didn't stop reporters from believing his movie cost a pittance. That's why Newsweek, in 2004, reported that the film's stars Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz "got $10 million each to reprise their characters, which accounted for almost half the film's modest $70 million budget." But after DreamWorks Animation went public, its budget figures suddenly soared dramatically, with the company acknowledging that the original "Shrek" cost closer to $130 million, with its and other DreamWorks sequels costing "15 to 30% higher" than that.

Once burned, twice shy, which is why the showbiz media has a healthy skepticism about budgetary information from studio executives. Sometimes you get the feeling that you could ask five people who worked on a film to tell you the budget -- and you'd get five different answers. When I was writing about the unknown screenwriter who'd penned Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" last month, I reported that the movie (co-financed by Warners and Village Roadshow) cost $35 million. Warners immediately called to complain, saying my number was totally wrong. Rob Lorenz, a delightful guy who's one of the producers of the film -- and has worked with Eastwood for years -- asked how I could have possibly gotten such a wrong figure. Actually, I told him, I got the budget figure from Bill Gerber, who -- ahem -- was the other producer of the film, with Lorenz and Eastwood. Since Gerber had once been a head of production at Warners, I figured he knew what he was talking about. Lorenz told me the film cost closer to $25 million, so I amended the figure, saying the film cost "less than $30 million."

This happens all the time. I wrote in a recent post that Sam Mendes' "Revolutionary Road," a Paramount film produced by DreamWorks, cost $45 million. I didn't make up the number -- it's what a top executive at Paramount (which then owned DreamWorks) told me the film cost. As soon as the story ran, Stacey Snider, who runs DreamWorks, e-mailed me to say the film only cost $35 million. It seems unlikely that Paramount would inflate the cost of a film it financed and distributed, since if "Revolutionary Road" fails to find an audience, it will look like an ever bigger flop if it cost $45 million instead of $35 million. But I also trust Snider, who has a better track record than most studio chiefs in offering honest numbers. So what does the movie cost? Let's just say -- that's a work in progress. 

As you can see, assessing movie budgets is a skill that relies on instinct as much as actual reporting. Horn uses something akin to triangulation, i.e. the art of measuring from three different points of reference, the epicenter being where those lines intersect. As he puts it: "Ask three people without axes to grind, or reasons to lie, what a movie's budget is, and the average of those numbers can be a close approximation of the film's true cost."

When Horn was reporting on the budget of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" for his Word of Mouth column, he asked a few executives "close to Paramount" what the film cost. Two got back to him. One said $175 million. Another said $185 million. Horn ran the lower figure. Even so, the studio complained, saying that while the film's initial budget was in fact $175 million, incentives from Canada and Louisiana -- where much of the film was shot -- reduced the actual cost to $150 million. The Times published a clarification to explain why our original budget number was off the mark.

But right around the time that Paramount was upset that our "Benjamin Button" number was too high, I found myself on the phone with a studio boss who complained that our "Button" number was too low, saying, "You guys are so gullible. That movie cost at least $200 million." I guess that makes us damned if we do, damned if we don't. It makes for a frustrating experience all around. As a baseball junkie, I take pleasure in the sanctity of numbers. You know that at the end of game you can accurately calculate every player's batting average, based solely on his performance. Fudging isn't allowed. If a player's hitting .315, he's hitting .315. If he goes 0-for-4 in the next game, his batting average goes down. No explanation, no exception.

But movie budgets, like everything else about the business, are never black and white. In Hollywood, the numbers are a lot like the truth -- they are always subject to interpretation. 

River Road Entertainment to finance The Master

Mike Fleming has posted an exclusive report regarding the current state and speculations surrounding The Master. We have copied/pasted it here for your convenience:

EXCLUSIVE: After the disappointing box office returns on Paul Greengrass’s thoughtful but vastly expensive action polemic Green Zone, what’s gonna happen with a new Paul Thomas Anderson drama that won’t get made by Universal because of its $35 million budget? I’m hearing talks are serious for Bill Pohlad’s River Road to fully finance a film that will star Philip Seymour Hoffman as a charismatic intellectual who in the 1950s becomes the leader of a start-up religion that takes off like wildfire. The Hurt Locker’s Jeremy Renner is circling the role of a young drifter who becomes his right hand man but begins to question his mentor and the whole belief thing. The presence of Oscar winner Hoffman and Oscar nominee Renner gives PTA another Oscar-bait movie, and a topical one, as the storyline questions long established religions as well as comparative upstarts like Scientology and Mormonism. But the $35 million price tag was blasphemy to some indie distributors who considered the package.

Jeremy Renner- I’m also hearing that PTA’s longtime agent and former Paramount honcho John Lesher is likely to join as producer alongside Anderson’s longtime collaborator, Jo Anne Sellar. River Road seems a strong fit, given Pohlad's affection for auteur fare. He made possible the Terrence Malick-directed The Tree of Life with Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, as well as the Warner Bros castoff Fair Game, the Doug Liman-directed drama about outed CIA op Valerie Plame which stars Penn and Noami Watts. Pohlad is principal investor and partner with Bob Berney in the distribution shingle Apparition. It's unclear if Berney will get the PTA film, though it seems right in the distributor's wheelhouse. Apparition next distributes The Runaways for Pohlad.

Universal Passes On The Master

The Playlist has the latest on the Master, again. This time they are reporting that Universal has passed on the 35 million dollar budget and that Jeremy Renner is still going to play Freddie:

As we first reported a few weeks ago, Deadline Hollywood confirms that Jeremy Renner is circling a role in Paul Thomas Anderson's gestating, to-be-titled Scientology film. As we assumed, it appears that Renner is indeed being considered for the role of Freddie, the young drifter who is becomes apprentice to The Master (Philip Seymour Hoffman). In many ways it was the worst kept secret in Hollywood that Renner and PTA had been talking, but it's only now that their discussions have been confirmed.

It's an intriguing development as in the early draft of the script that's currently making the rounds, Freddie is supposed to be in his '20s and in need of guidance and direction, having hit rock bottom with wanton alcoholism. With Renner nearing 40 years old, it's anybody's guess whether or not the script will be tweaked to play closer to his age. We're curious to see how this changes the script (or not). And just remember, this isn't confirmation he's taking the role yet. There's been salient conversations that PTA was resistant to Renner at first specifically because of his age. The character is supposed to be young and impressionable, which makes him open to manipulation and following the word of this self-made godhead, but that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out. After all the script that is floating out there is a very early draft.

The other major development is that Universal has gotten cold feet, passing on the project and its $35 million budget. PTA fans have no need to fear as production company River Road is in serious talks to foot the bill. The company has been a haven for auteurs of late, funding Terrence Malick's "Tree Of Life" and Doug Liman's "Fair Game." Honcho Bill Pohlad is also an investor in distributor Apparition, so don't be surprised if the film ends up there. Longtime Anderson collaborators John Lesher and JoAnne Seller are expected to come on board to produce.

Reading between the lines, it appears the film is being shopped around as package which leads us believe that once the film finds a home, Renner will officially be on board. At the very least, we hope it gets him out of starring in "Battleship."

Freddie played by Jeremy Renner

The Playlist is reporting now that Hurt Locker star Jeremy Renner is set to play Freddie in The Master. Here is their latest post which will more than likely contain slight/major spoilers:

File this under rumor if you like, but the buzz and noise about this has become too deafening to ignore.

It all started in the comments section of our script review of Paul Thomas Anderson's gestating and untitled Scientology project, though called the "The Master" in some circles for shorthand. We posited that Paul Dano might be a good fit for the Freddie, a young, naive, misguided and semi-alcoholic youth in his '20s who slowly becomes mentored by The Master (Philip Seymour Hoffman has this role according to Variety). Some readers took that to believe we had some sort of inside information there, and things began to snowball.

In the comments section an Anon says "when was Paul Dano confirmed to be in this??" which is followed up by another Anon post, "I don't think he was/is. Everything I've heard is that an offer is out to Jeremy Renner." We normally wouldn't pay attention to this, but right around the same, Jeremy Renner revealed to the NY Times, that he had taken five meetings already on a "secret project" he was unable to talk about. We took pause at that, but Movieline and Cinematical definitely started to speculate, pointed to our comments section and lo, and behold the rumor began taking some real shape.

It's been two weeks now, and the rumors have quietly, but substantially persisting. An Anon poster on IMDB says what we too have heard: that Renner has met with Paul Thomas Anderson several times, but that Anderson is not convinced that Renner is right for the role. Age is the factor here as Freddie is supposed to be in his '20s, and Renner is 39. And yes, they note our comments section could have just spiraled this out of control, but we've heard this from a number of different sources and are frankly surprised someone like Deadline hasn't caught wind of it yet. Furthermore, a source in L.A. confirms to us that Renner has met with Anderson, but cannot say more.

It could all add up to nothing, but our gut tells us this is something that we shouldn't not ignore. We're also betting if he doesn't get the role — in our minds, as much as we love him, he probably shouldn't, he is too old for it— it will at least come out after the fact that he was in the running.

But as the script that has circulated for "The Master" is still a very early draft, some may wonder if Anderson might rework the role, aging the character slightly to match the 39 year-old Renner. We think that it's a slight possibility, but pretty much doubt it will happen. Freddie is a lost soul on the run, who needs a bit of guidance which makes it far easier for him to come under The Master's spell. And while a cult figure like The Master can weave his spell on anyone, of any age, that has fallen on hard times, in a film, it's probably a much easier and more dramatic sell if that character is younger. Simply put, we don't see Freddie being rewritten as older. It could work, we suppose, but we like the way it was written. It feels right.

Aside from The Master and Freddie, the other major characters are the Master's fiercely protective daughters and that's about it. There is a minor role of The Master's son, but it's so small, we don't see Renner being interested.

The only other possibility, is that Philip Seymour Hoffman is out and that Renner is eyeing the lead role, but again, we highly doubt that. The role is written for someone who already has adult children in their '20s and '30s and while Hoffman is only a few years older than Renner, he can play older a lot more convincingly.

As Renner said to the New York Times, a decision will need to be made soon as he's also eyeing a role in Peter Berg's "Battleship" and both films are aiming for summer shoots. That said, as far as we know, Anderson's film is still awaiting a greenlight from Universal who will need to approve the finished script so its possible that "The Master" might start at a later date depending on when all the pieces fall into place.

So yes, consider this rumor now if you like, but expect to hear some kind of news soon.

 

Master Script Review From The Playlist

We have recently received and read the screenplay that has been passed around the last while and it has been summed up in the most in depth and spoiler filled review to date. Read/Highlight ahead at your own discretion:

A script purporting to be Paul Thomas Anderson's untitled new drama, which centers around religion — affectionately being dubbed "The Master" by many — has been making the rounds.

Let us reassure you. It's very real.

However, due to one relatively incoherent review on the The Cinematic Experience of Forizzer (that's since been cleaned up, but still wantonly rambles), and then the subsequent leaker (Forizzer), desperately trying to prove its authenticity on various message boards by posting pages from the script, it's legitimacy has been called into question (the whole doth protest too much catch 22). Other skeptics taking a too-literal look at the initial trade reports, are also calling his review apocryphal because the script in question was dubbed the "Untitled Scientology Project" and the trades explicitly stated in the announcement that the film wasn't about Scientology.

But let's assure you, that's a red herring. While "The Master" (as we'll call it here for the purposes of this review) is perhaps not a out-and-out screed or attack on Scientology, not recognizing the strong, strong ties, allusions and specific references to that cult religion is itself, is either blindness or ignorance (though to be fair, PTA zealots have nitpicked the hell out of Forrizer's message board defense posts — though again a doth-protest-too-much defense will backfire).

We would be worried about spoilers and revealing too much if it weren't for the fact that this version of "The Master" is a very, very early draft — there's a litany of spelling errors and abbreviated scenes with "tbd" or "etc." written in as placeholder for where more context and description will soon come.

However, so much is laid down, so much fleshed out, and all with that hurried pace that can be so compelling about Paul Thomas Anderson films. It careens a little in the beginning, wanting to establish a lot in a short amount of time (i.e. the opening of "Magnolia," though not quite as lightning fast), but it's clearly his voice and work. No other yokel out there can write a fake 124-page screenplay and be this precise or good.

As for the Scientology ties, they've been evidently brewing for quite some time now. You'll remember in August 2008, PTA put on a top secret play at Largo that starred his wife, Maya Rudolph and her SNL c0-star Fred Armisen. The play centered on a series of vignettes and one in particular focused on a couple, "getting to know each other over a complicated personality test." What many people didn't realize at the time is that personality test questions were taken from what is known as the Oxford Capacity Analysis, a free personality test that is given by the Church of Scientology (and that's been confirmed in the comments section here by someone actually in attendance at the Largo show).

While people have been ravenous for details and what the picture was exactly about, Variety spelled out the picture quite well when they first reported the story and said it, "explores the need to believe in a higher power, the choice of which to embrace, and the point at which a belief system graduates into a religion." And that's on the money with themes of sublimation of self, lack of identity and perverted ideas of solipsism.

Using their initial description, we'll give you a modified synopsis:

“The Master” is the story of a charismatic intellectual (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who hatches a faith-based organization that begins to catch on in America in 1952 called The Cause. The core dynamic centers on the relationship between The Master and Freddie Sutton, (Paul Dano) an aimless twenty-something drifter and alcoholic who eventually becomes the leader’s loyal lieutenant. As the faith begins to gain a fervent following, Freddie finds himself questioning the belief system he has embraced, and his mentor.

Here's your first clue. Scientology was founded in 1954. A significant chunk of the screenplay takes place on a boat so "The Master" is free to write his next cult tome (Book II, "The Dual Saber") and not be distracted by the outside world and the criticisms that are constantly dogging The Cause. And similarly in in the late '60s, L. Ron Hubbard also lived on a Panamanian ship for quite some time and allegedly up to four years. The references are myriad.

So "The Master" essentially starts when an aimless Freddie — an amateur moonshine alchemist who is on his way to drinking himself to an early death if he continues this way— stows away on a ship after a toxic mix of his brew accidentally blinds a Filipino migrant worker he is toiling away with on a farm. Fearing he has potentially killed the man, Freddie's instincts are nothing but basic survival (another recurring theme in the screenplay) and aggressively drunk himself, he reaches for the first form of escape.

The ship however is the aforementioned vessel of the Master and the followers of The Cause including his children Mary-Sue (the name of of one of L. Ron Hubbard's wives), Norman Conrad, Elizabeth and the faith-wavering son Val (to further the connections, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. also condemned his father and the church in a 1983 Penthouse interview, though Val is nowhere near as traitorous).

Instantly discovered on the ship by the close-knit cult, Freddie's drink is drugged and then he's interrogated by the highly paranoid Master who wants to know who sent him to spy on their community: The AMA? The APA? The CIA? (This paranoia would not be unfounded by L. Ron Hubbard, in 1977, Scientology offices on both coasts were raided by the agency). This tête-à-tête is one of many excellent back-and-fourths scenes between Master and Freddie. Run how we imagine a Scientology "audit" session is run — a sort of quasi psychotherapy stress test cum interrogation/ authoritative hypnosis via repetition session — the scene is a series of rapid-fire, bare bones question and answers.

Freddie, the skeptic, answers truthfully and reveals much in near grunts. The Master, establishes his dominance and genius and wields a bumbling, word-heavy, lyrical style of speaking. Anderson is so talented in building his characters through dialogue, giving them quirks of speech, misspelling words to emphasize accent. Here, Anderson, barely, if at all, writes action lines. It's all dialogue and nothing else for a few pages (this may also be because of how early a draft this is).

Freddie reveals some personal darkness from his past and the Master — perhaps sensing guinea pig possibilities — gets hooked. After making sure as best he can that the young stow-way isn't some spy or a thief after the renaissance man's secret manuscripts (he calls himself a doctor, a writer, a philosopher, apoet, etc.), he welcomes Freddie into the fold, impressed by his blunt instinct, and talents for making tasty homemade liquor. And the Master — believing they had met in a previous life — takes a shine to his "scoundrel" ways. Cynical, bemused and completely weirded-out, Freddie is introduced to the ways of the cause, the concepts of "time-holes," the interrogation-like psychotherapy sessions and regression work that's supposed to transport us back into our earliest memories of suffering in order to banish and own them (a very basic tenet of Scientology). "Shall a man be his master of his memories? Or shall his memories be the master?" Seymour Hoffman's character posits at one point.

For those that worry about spoilers that leads us up to about the end of the first act and many of these details would be in one of those detailed Apple trailer synopsis that are about three paragraphs deep.

Suffice to say, in what seems like a story that spans over a decade — though it's tough to say exactly how long — Freddie graduates from a naive dilettante to a trusted right hand man who does the Master's bidding and often uses intimidation tactics. The story, in a way, is the battle for Freddie's soul which has been seduced by the dark charms of the master, but even that is far too simple a description to this layered, mysterious and at times very ambiguous tale.

The key to "The Master," and what might make it a difficult sell, is not its story — in many ways like "There Will Be Blood" not a lot happens plot-wise, there are few "big" scenes — but its odd enigmatic tenor which are not unlike those moments in "There Will Be Blood" where mystery and purposeful uncertainty rule (think the sequences where we're unsure whether Dano has a twin or not, or whether the man claiming he is Plainview's brother is actually who he says he is). And again, like 'Blood' which used Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" as a starting off point,' "The Master' screenplay seems to use Scientology in the same manner to examine and explore cults and megalomania.

The tenebrous enigmatic story does have strange, noteworthy and twisted scenes of sex, incest, polygamy, adultery and wild flashes of rancor from the Master that Daniel Plainview himself would be proud of. PTA seems to have seized upon dark, spiritual forces at work in recent years and Messianic figures. From the plague of frogs in "Magnolia," to the raging hubris of Daniel Plainview and The Master, he is clearing exploring spiritual themes and men with a God complex. One hypnosis-like scene where a woman regresses to a pre-natal time when she is back in the womb and remembers her father having sex with her mother is particularly creepy and striking.

Universal apparently won't greenlight this approximately $35-million-dollar budgeted project until they read the script and you can see why. In many ways, it's a film with a more twisted mien than "Doubt," but just as low-ley and with small stakes. Then again 'Blood' had a similar vibe on the page, but boiled over into something much more operatic thanks to the eerie score and the volatile electricity of Daniel Day Lewis.

Still, Universal won't be greenlighting this version, but it's probable that no on was meant to see this draft yet. If intelligent dramas are being threatened with extinction of late (or at least at a certain budget), surely this could become a problem for PTA eventually. But more than just a chamber drama, the shadowy and cryptic elements of this story could be pushed in the marketing — sort of like 'TWWB' to suggest something otherworldly and not just a period piece about religion set in the '50s.

What one comes away with during "The Master" is that PTA's a damn confident writer. He has a great deal of faith in his audience to either get-it or at least hang on for a deeper-than-usual ride the gets stranger and odder as the film comes to its conclusion. There's eloquence in the loopy metaphors of the master's monologues. It's like his determination to tell the story becomes part of the momentum or heartbeat of his films.

"You write who you are and what you know," PTA told Moviemaker magazine in 2000. "But you also cheat and you write what you want to be. It’s a little embarrassing, sometimes, to be the guy that made the movie, knowing that I’m not exactly what I want to be."

Need a little emotional and spiritual guidance in your life? "The Master" suggests that The Cause can help you help yourself. — [with additional script notes by Andrew Hart and graphics courtesy of M. Morrison]

"Sure Reads Like A Scientology Critique To Me"

Hollywood Elsewhere has also gotten a copy of this pdf file making its way around the internet and had this to say about the amount they had read of the script so far:

On 12.2.09 Cinematical's Monika Bartyzel, following-up on a Variety announcement, reported that Paul Thomas Anderson and Philip Seymour Hoffman would be teaming up for a new flick "about a man who creates his own religion." The feature would cost in the vicinity of $35 million with Hoffman playing "the Master," an L. Ron Hubbardish figure "who starts a faith-based organization in the 1950s. He teams up with a twentysomething drifter named Freddie who becomes his lieutenant until the kid finds himself questioning the faith he's gotten himself involved in."

In its announcement story, Variety wrote that "the drama does not so much scrutinize self-started churches like Scientology or the Mormons, as much as it explores the need to believe in a higher power, the choice of which one to embrace and the point at which a belief system graduates into a religion."

That's a smokescreen statement. I was sent a copy of PTA's untitled script yesterday and while I haven't read all of it, it sure reads like a Scientology critique to me. I'm particularly thinking of a line near the end in which Hoffman's "Master" presents a contact that he wants Freddie to sign that stipulates he "will serve the Cause above all other laws and regulations in this or any other neighboring galaxy for three billion years." That sounds kinda Hubbardy...no?

Their website has additional screen captures of the script which can be seen here.