Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson)

[Watashi]

https://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Phantom-Thread-alternate-poster-6-620x916.jpg

[Watashi]

Yep. It's great.

Saw it in 70mm and the whole look of the film is gorgeous as if this was some lost film from the 70's. I really don't see movies look like this anymore.

Also, the score is incredible.

[Morris Schæffer]

Day lewis oscar lock?

[Watashi]

Day lewis oscar lock?

He's terrific and will get a nomination, but nah, Oldman is looking like the clear frontrunner.

[Weems]

I don't really understand PTA's scriptwriting anymore. His movies after Punch-Drunk Love feel so aimless to me, and the characters too thinly sketched. I appreciate individual components like Greenwood's score, but my experience watching the movie leaves me so apathetic.

[Watashi]

I don't think you understand what a good movie is, Weems.

This is a good movie.

[Weems]

I don't think you understand what a good movie is, Weems.

This is a good movie.

I think a movie can have great technical merits, strong acting, and still be nigh worthless. Too many directors nowadays have no sense of the total impression of their movie; they're like novelists who can write the occasional striking sentence, but can't write a strong chapter, much less an entire book.

Also, did you find "Fucking chic!?" funny? Because that's emblematic to me of how lazy much of the purported humor and writing in this movie is.

[Watashi]

That was a jab against you at your silly one-off criticisms of well-liked films digging through your posting history. Ex. you gave Dunkirk a 1/10 because it didn't "have a story (uh, who the fuck cares? some of the greatest films ever made don't have stories; movies are not novels). What directors do you think have any sense of their impression of their movie.

Also, "fucking chic" is no different from "Pigfuck" or "I drink your milkshake!"

It's funny.

[Weems]

That was a jab against you at your silly one-off criticisms of well-liked films digging through your posting history. Ex. you gave Dunkirk a 1/10 because it didn't "have a story (uh, who the fuck cares? some of the greatest films ever made don't have stories; movies are not novels). What directors do you think have any sense of their impression of their movie.

Also, "fucking chic" is no different from "Pigfuck" or "I drink your milkshake!"

It's funny.

And those weren't good lines either. Scorsese and Tarantino to answer your question. As for the idea that great films can not have stories, I think that's absurd in the extreme and just modernist delusion.

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing this on Tuesday.

My body is ready.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Beautiful. Just beautiful. I don't wanna gush since I just left the theater, but this is my movie of the year.

[baby doll]

As much as I liked the film, I can't help but regret Anderson's reliance on Hitchcock and Bergman as models, which tends to preclude him from making any fresh discoveries of his own. Given what Lesley Manville does in her films with Mike Leigh, where she invents her characters from scratch, it's a little sad to see her reduced to replicating Judith Anderson's performance as Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca.

[Spinal]

Not my favorite P.T. Anderson movie, but I am filled with admiration that he created something so unexpected and so seemingly outside of his comfort zone. I suppose by that I mean that he's made a movie that is fierce and gripping without the use of sexuality or violence. It's not exactly Merchant-Ivory, but repressed emotions and biting language become the focus and the three lead actors are straight-up extraordinary in making the whole thing seem plausible and engaging. The ending is fine. A little bit pat and cute perhaps. But still, I was left with a lot to think about and remember fondly.

[Ezee E]

This movie is like a Sunday Brunch.

Plenty to like about it. Laughs throughout. Exquisite to look at, listen to, and admire. You kind of just move on as there isn't really anything to it that's going to stick with me for the longterm, and that's fine. You can add Woodcock to the list of other great PTA characters, which is due to Daniel Day-Lewis knocking another performance out of the park.

This is a step up from the very disappointing Inherent Vice, and back on par with The Master. I don't know if PTA will ever get back to masterpiece level, but he can certainly show that he's got some gas left.

I was wondering if PTA was aiming to hit every decade as I wasn't completely sure if this was late 40's or not, but turned out it was similar period as The Master, so there goes that line of thinking.

[TGM]

DDL was good, for sure, but is nowhere near Lincoln or There Will Be Blood caliber. Can't help but feel it'd be a waste to nominate him this time out.

[ledfloyd]

This is a step up from the very disappointing Inherent Vice, and back on par with The Master. I don't know if PTA will ever get back to masterpiece level, but he can certainly show that he's got some gas left.
The Master isn't masterpiece level?

This is a film I couldn't have had less interest in given the subject matter, but I was engrossed from very early on. I agree with Wats in that it feels like a movie out of time. I kept thinking it felt like Max Ophuls made a movie in 2017. It's so tactile and imbued with so much feeling. I'm not sure what led him to make this film, but I'm glad he did.

I also enjoyed seeing a more restrained performance from DDL. I think this is nearly as impressive a performance as There Will Be Blood, just in a different way.

[Ezee E]

The Master isn't masterpiece level?

This is a film I couldn't have had less interest in given the subject matter, but I was engrossed from very early on. I agree with Wats in that it feels like a movie out of time. I kept thinking it felt like Max Ophuls made a movie in 2017. It's so tactile and imbued with so much feeling. I'm not sure what led him to make this film, but I'm glad he did.

I also enjoyed seeing a more restrained performance from DDL. I think this is nearly as impressive a performance as There Will Be Blood, just in a different way.

There's some fascinating scenes in The Master, but I certainly don't go back to it like I do for Boogie Nights-There Will Be Blood era. I may have watched the full thing twice is all.

Absolutely agree on the subject matter. Thank goodness it had PTA and DDL on it. I don't think I was ever 'bored' from beginning to end.

[Pop Trash]

PT Anderson is weird because he seems to be a shapeshifter of a director. Its been to long for me to accurately reflect on Hard Eight, but Boogie Nights seems to be a Scorsese riff (Goodfellas and Raging Bull specifically). Then Magnolia seems to be Scorsese by way of Altman and Kieslowski. Then there is kind of a shift with Punch Drunk Love, which I'm not sure what type of movie it is riffing on, but there definitely seems to be some nascent signs of Kubrick which really came out in There Will Be Blood. The Master is some more Kubrick riffage, although maybe less pronounced than TWBB. Inherent Vice goes back to Altman, specifically The Long Goodbye and the Coens' The Big Lebowski. Apparently, Phantom Thread feels like an 80s Merchant Ivory movie, but I haven't seen it yet, so I'll reserve judgement.

[Mal]

Vicky Krieps vs. DDL is some great shit. DAMN.

[Ezee E]

Phantom Thread is as classic as it gets really. I've seen many say Hitchcock, but it's been so long since i've seen Rebecca that I don't notice that at all.

[baby doll]

Regarding the issue of which Anderson films are or are not masterpieces, I'll just be upfront and say that, for me, nothing he makes in the future is likely to top his first four films (some of which are arguably just as derivative as Phantom Thread, if not more so) simply because I saw them when I was a teenager.

[Milky Joe]

Perfection.

[Pop Trash]

Regarding the issue of which Anderson films are or are not masterpieces, I'll just be upfront and say that, for me, nothing he makes in the future is likely to top his first four films (some of which are arguably just as derivative as Phantom Thread, if not more so) simply because I saw them when I was a teenager.

I feel that way about Boogie Nights (I was in college when Magnolia came out, which maybe explains why I was more 'meh' about it...at that point I was getting into older films). Everytime he makes a new movie, I'm like "eh it's no Boogie Nights" although TWBB and Punch Drunk Love have quite a bit of rewatch / staying power.

[Milky Joe]

Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and even Hard Eight) have this incredibly infectious energy to them—they epitomize youth and verve and swagger and ecstatic excitement at the tools of cinema, and I don't think it would even be possible for an older (not-coked-up?) PTA to replicate. It's unfair to compare them, IMHO.

The Master and Phantom Thread are both just as ecstatic and rapturous as his 90s stuff, just mellower and more level-headed. Less surface swagger, and with far more philosophical depth.

[DavidSeven]

I think beyond the lack of "exuberance," Anderson's most recent films come across as increasingly insular. These later films are less interested in the broad human experience and more tailored for the interests of a very specific type of intellectual white male. Not to say this is an outright knock, but I think Anderson's waning interest in appealing to a more diverse audience comes across in his later movies.

This was better in that respect than Inherent Vice, but I still struggled with it at times, especially in the beginning. The film really started firing when it found some universality in how it portrayed relational conflict and the ebbs and flows of long-term partnerships. It's obviously gorgeous, and it's resonating extremely well for me. Still, I find myself saying, "oh, this is good, but it's not Boogie Nights; it's not Magnolia." Maybe that will never go away.

[Milky Joe]

I think beyond the lack of "exuberance," Anderson's most recent films come across as increasingly insular. These later films are less interested in the broad human experience and more tailored for the interests of a very specific type of intellectual white male. Not to say this is an outright knock, but I think Anderson's waning interest in appealing to a more diverse audience comes across in his later movies

Well, my non-white-male girlfriend would completely beg to differ. She thought Phantom Thread was one of the best and most profoundly feminist films she's ever seen. She literally said she felt like it was made for her. Doesn't sound particularly insularly white and male to me.

[baby doll]

Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and even Hard Eight) have this incredibly infectious energy to them—they epitomize youth and verve and swagger and ecstatic excitement at the tools of cinema, and I don't think it would even be possible for an older (not-coked-up?) PTA to replicate. It's unfair to compare them, IMHO.

The Master and Phantom Thread are both just as ecstatic and rapturous as his 90s stuff, just mellower and more level-headed. Less surface swagger, and with far more philosophical depth.First of all, I don't think he ever had a drug problem. Secondly, I'm not arguing that Anderson's early films are necessarily better than his later ones; I'm just saying I can't be objective. I love Magnolia the same way I love No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom (and to a slightly lesser extent Return of Saturn). That said, I still don't think Phantom Thread is a masterpiece just on its own merits for the reason I stated earlier.

As for philosophical depth, I've never understood why people expect talented filmmakers to also be great thinkers. Surely, if we continue to value, say, Krzyzstof Kieślowski's films it's not because the ideas in them are especially profound but because he was a master storyteller who could dramatize his ideas in a compelling fashion.

[Milky Joe]

I hear you on the objectivity thing. And if you asked me which PTA movie I want to fire up right now it would be Boogie Nights without a moments hesitation.

Re: philosophical depth, though, Art isn't about thinking. I don't mean that these movies are good because PTA had many deep thoughts and heavy concepts to weigh in on. Artists are vehicles, and late PTA has created worlds in which complex characters bounce around in response to one another. Thus they are reflective of real direct human experience, reality as an endless funhouse maze of meaning, arranged with effortless technical mastery. And like reality itself, they can never be fully resolved. It's no wonder he made a film from Pynchon–he does the same with his novels. They are working in the same arena. Pure Cinema–I dunno how else to put it.

[Ezee E]

On a different note, I'm surprised at how different Greenwood's scores have been across the board for the different PTA movies. I would've thought it was a different composer. The piano really elevates this particular movie.

I'll have to rewatch, but it's been sitting very well with me. Seems like it'll be a perfect winter-coffee movie when it's too cold to go outside.

[ledfloyd]

Let's play the ranking game!

1. The Master
2. Inherent Vice
3. Punch-Drunk Love
4. Phantom Thread (tentative ranking)
5. There Will Be Blood
6. Boogie Nights
7. Magnolia
8. Hard Eight

[Milky Joe]

This is really, really hard.

1. The Master
2. Boogie Nights
3. Phantom Thread
4. Punch Drunk Love
5. There Will Be Blood
6. Magnolia
7. Inherent Vice
8. Hard Eight

[baby doll]

Let's play the ranking game!
1. Magnolia
2. Punch-Drunk Love
3. Boogie Nights
4. There Will Be Blood
5. Hard Eight
6. The Master
7. Phantom Thread

It's been ages since I've seen either Hard Eight or Punch-Drunk Love, so they're liable to move up or down whenever I get around revisiting them. I've not seen Inherent Vice, but the book bored me to distraction.

[Mal]

1. Boogie Nights
2. There Will Be Blood
3. Phantom Thread
4. The Master
5. Inherent Vice
6. Magnolia
7. Hard Eight
8. Punch Drunk Love

[Ezee E]

****
Boogie Nights
Magnolia
There Will Be Blood

*** 1/2
Punchdrunk Love

***
Phantom Thread
The Master

** 1/2
Hard Eight

* 1/2
Inherent Vice

[Lazlo]

1. Boogie Nights
2. Magnolia
3. Punch-Drunk Love
4. There Will Be Blood
5. The Master
6. Phantom Thread
7. Inherent Vice
8. Hard Eight

[DavidSeven]

Tier 1:
1. Magnolia
2. Punch-Drunk Love
3. Boogie Nights
4. There Will Be Blood

Not Tier 1:
5. The Master
6. Hard Eight
7. Phantom Thread
8. Inherent Vice

[Ezee E]

DavidSeven and I are in complete agreement, lol.

[Watashi]

They're all masterpieces.

Next.

[Spinal]

Excellent:

Everything but Inherent Vice

Crap:

Inherent Vice

[Ezee E]

Excellent:

Everything but Inherent Vice

Crap:

Inherent Vice

COMPLETE AGREEMENT

[Milky Joe]

What's wrong with Inherent Vice?

[TGM]

What's wrong with Inherent Vice?

Yeah, I'm not getting the Inherent Vice hate either. :\

[Dillard]

My nay is articulated well by this article (http://www.riotmaterial.com/p-t-andersons-phantom-thread-couldnt-come-at-a-worse-time/). I agree with DavidSeven that the filmmaking is insular.

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:


In the post-Weinstein era, we look around at the carnage of shattered lives and wonder how we got here. What a poor time for the release of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Phantom Thread, which pushes the narrative that geniuses are on some level allowed to be abusive. If your work is beautiful enough, your soul can be made of scabs and darkness. The world excuses so much if you’re talented and male.

As we regard the allegations coming out of Hollywood, old school anecdotes of bullying creators feel less charming and more ominous. To Anderson’s credit, his tale of a tyrannical fashion designer does have a thread of criticism, as its female lead pushes back and declares Reynolds Woodcock (60-year-old Daniel Day-Lewis) is “a spoiled baby.” Still, there is a stark power imbalance between the two, both within the plot and the structuring, that cannot be ignored or overcome. Phantom Thread will try to convince you that in the amusing muse Alma (34-year-old Vicky Krieps), Reynolds’ has at long last met his match. Anderson’s script, however, only ever considers her in the context of him.

[baby doll]

What's wrong with Inherent Vice?I can't speak to the film but the book is fairly tedious. Pynchon either doesn't have the skills to pull off a passable detective yarn or doesn't want to, but even if it's the latter, the book is too bogged down by its complicated plot to work as something else (nor is it funny enough to qualify as a genre parody). Basically, it feels like the work of someone who simply doesn't give a shit about what he's doing.

[Milky Joe]

Two astoundingly bad takes in a row. I wish I cared enough to do more than shake my head.

[Dillard]

Two astoundingly bad takes in a row. I wish I cared enough to do more than shake my head.

Ah, the flame-throwing Internet. Delightful.

[Peng]

Ah yes, assessing a film with The Way We Live Now mindset, my favorite kind of criticism.

[Dillard]

As if the way we live now has nothing to say. As if the Great White American Male Filmmakers were making films in a vacuum. Yes, let’s pretend shall we?

[Peng]

It's such a bewildering notion to me as a foreigner when I first started to read reviews, and then many of that kind have grown more and more self-satisfied over the years. Maybe if most of them are better, not adoptiong the tone of Great Patronizing Voice of Truth. Those first two paragraphs are enough for me when the second directly contradicts the first, and that's not to mention how the film itself disabuses that reading even further.

[Dillard]

It's such a bewildering notion to me as a foreigner when I first started to read reviews, and then many of that kind have grown more and more self-satisfied over the years. Maybe if most of them are better, not adoptiong the tone of Great Patronizing Voice of Truth. Those first two paragraphs are enough for me when the second directly contradicts the first, and that's not to mention how the film itself disabuses that reading even further.

I had a hard time picking which paragraphs to quote because the argument unfolds in the review and there is not a zinger summation paragraph. If you read on, she’s actually pretty even-handed in giving Anderson his due. She still thinks the film is problematic in its portrayal of women. I agree with her. Calling a female dissenting voice Patronizing is exactly the point she’s trying to make. Men have a hard time listening to a perspective which reveals the darker side to their Great Artists. Anderson is sympathetic to the abusive, narcissist artist in the film. Why else make the woman a foil for his transformation?

[Ivan Drago]

1. Magnolia
2. There Will Be Blood
3. Punch-Drunk Love
4. Phantom Thread (for now...seeing again really soon to confirm)
5. The Master
6. Boogie Nights
7. Junun
8. Inherent Vice
9. Hard Eight

As for Phantom Thread....I have thoughts on this myself but I'm saving them for my 10 favorites of the year article because it's going to be on that list.

[Pop Trash]

Anderson is sympathetic to the abusive, narcissist artist in the film. Why else make the woman a foil for his transformation?

I agree that Alma is a bit of a cipher and perhaps should have more shades and agency, but I don't get how Woodcock is "abusive" other than just being fussy and impossible to deal with. Plenty of divorces have happened because of this, but I doubt the relationship would be categorized as "abusive." Alma, on the other hand, [SPOILER] poisons the guy with mushrooms, and at least initially, none of this is consensual, and seems like a clear case of physical "abuse" via poison.

[Dillard]

I agree that Alma is a bit of a cipher and perhaps should have more shades and agency, but I don't get how Woodcock is "abusive" other than just being fussy and impossible to deal with. Plenty of divorces have happened because of this, but I doubt the relationship would be categorized as "abusive." Alma, on the other hand, [SPOILER] poisons the guy with mushrooms, and at least initially, none of this is consensual, and seems like a clear case of physical "abuse" via poison.

Right, Woodcock isn't physically abusive. However, he terrorizes women emotionally with his hot and cold game, and we see a pattern of it being very cold once he has his latest victim in tow and moved into the house. It's a classic case of emotional abuse. Alma certainly does manipulate him back, but that leads to another problem I have with the film: I have no idea why she stays with him. I didn't find it convincing at all. There were a couple of obvious moments where I was thinking: just leave! This is ridiculous! This "love" Anderson writes into her character came out of left field and is completely unbelievable! Even over at criterionforum there was a fanboy completely in love with the film who was like... 'you know the mysterious thing about the film that I don't get but keep thinking about is...why does she put up with his awful behavior? It's just so intriguing!' And I'm thinking... it's not a mystery! It's actually poor writing and a lack of chemistry between the leads!

Ok in case people might think I’m just playing the contrarian, I will say this. The score is amazing and sensitive. The camerawork is sumptuous. The acting impeccable. I just found the screenwriting poor and the portrayal of women to be problematic. I felt gross watching the film. It gets a nay even though it is in many ways a refined and beautiful art film.

[Pop Trash]

Right, Woodcock isn't physically abusive. However, he terrorizes women emotionally with his hot and cold game, and we see a pattern of it being very cold once he has his latest victim in tow and moved into the house. It's a classic case of emotional abuse. Alma certainly does manipulate him back, but that leads to another problem I have with the film: I have no idea why she stays with him. I didn't find it convincing at all. There were a couple of obvious moments where I was thinking: just leave! This is ridiculous! This "love" Anderson writes into her character came out of left field and is completely unbelievable! Even over at criterionforum there was a fanboy completely in love with the film who was like... 'you know the mysterious thing about the film that I don't get but keep thinking about is...why does she put up with his awful behavior? It's just so intriguing!' And I'm thinking... it's not a mystery! It's actually poor writing and a lack of chemistry between the leads!

Ok in case people might think I’m just playing the contrarian, I will say this. The score is amazing and sensitive. The camerawork is sumptuous. The acting impeccable. I just found the screenwriting poor and the portrayal of women to be problematic. I felt gross watching the film. It gets a nay even though it is in many ways a refined and beautiful art film.

Yeah, I actually agree with you. Although, I would say I've noticed real life couples that are even more mismatched than these two, but then, unlike in this film, I'm not privy to their private life. Maybe they are having head explodingly amazing sex or something? Speaking of which, and I don't know if it has been discussed here yet, but we never see Woodcock use his......penis with Alma, so I wonder if this is another case of a potentially impotent Anderson character ala Plainview in TWBB? Discuss.

[Dillard]

Yeah, I actually agree with you. Although, I would say I've noticed real life couples that are even more mismatched than these two, but then, unlike in this film, I'm not privy to their private life. Maybe they are having head explodingly amazing sex or something? Speaking of which, and I don't know if it has been discussed here yet, but we never see Woodcock use his......penis with Alma, so I wonder if this is another case of a potentially impotent Anderson character ala Plainview in TWBB? Discuss.

Good points all around, Pop Trash. And maybe I’m projecting my naive romantic ideal onto the real world in which mismatched couples weirdly fall in love. ALL. THE. TIME. In spite of unfortunate power dynamics. That’s a great point. I just want so much more for Alma and I want so much more for her characterization because I was taken with the fantastic acting. And Anderson made the movie before the #metoo movement exploded this Fall. Does he get a pass because of that? I do think it’s a good thing if male writers feel pressured in the future to be more sensitive to the stories and perspectives of women in their writing. Or hell, just #morefemalefilmmakersinhollywo odgettingfunding.

[Peng]

I had a hard time picking which paragraphs to quote because the argument unfolds in the review and there is not a zinger summation paragraph. If you read on, she’s actually pretty even-handed in giving Anderson his due. She still thinks the film is problematic in its portrayal of women. I agree with her. Calling a female dissenting voice Patronizing is exactly the point she’s trying to make. Men have a hard time listening to a perspective which reveals the darker side to their Great Artists. Anderson is sympathetic to the abusive, narcissist artist in the film. Why else make the woman a foil for his transformation?

I didn't mean the writer in my first two sentences, simply because I don't read the whole review; those are just my sentiment against those kind of little-nuanced, specifically zeigesit-y, present-fixated take on films that have been very much on the rise, so much that The Way We Live Now becomes kind of a jokey meme phrase itself (and so much that there's some push-back (http://filmmakermagazine.com/101541-anti-art-criticism-in-the-age-of-trump/)). And for the twice assumptions that PTA is my Great Artist: thanks, but he's not. Both not my favorite and not the definition of what might constitue as my great, with half his filmography inspiring admiration more than passion, but I do consider this among his best.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I didn't really see how Alma loved him after the New Year's event. Maybe she liked the free housing and food.

[Dillard]

I didn't mean the writer in my first two sentences, simply because I don't read the whole review; those are just my sentiment against those kind of little-nuanced, specifically zeigesit-y, present-fixated take on films that have been very much on the rise, so much that The Way We Live Now becomes kind of a jokey meme phrase itself (and so much that there's some push-back (http://filmmakermagazine.com/101541-anti-art-criticism-in-the-age-of-trump/)).

I don’t agree with you, Peng, that this type of criticism is zeitgeisty. Feminist literary criticism has been around for decades and it’ll be around long after we’re gone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_literary_criticism

[Peng]

Again, not what I wrote. Or to be precise, I never specifically mean any particular reading (in which you specify feminist) and if I do I will not blanketly include such a large valid criticism movement. It's tying to the very specifics of a narrow time period, above all else, that I object (and in which that article articulates much more eloquently, although that pertains more to movies and in-vogue criticism trend at 2016's end/2017's start).

[Dillard]

Again, not what I wrote. Or to be precise, I never specifically mean any particular reading (in which you specify feminist) and if I do I will not blanketly include such a large valid criticism movement. It's tying to the very specifics of a narrow time period, above all else, that I object (and in which that article articulates much more eloquently, although that pertains more to movies and in-vogue criticism trend at 2016's end/2017's start).

Hi Peng, sounds like we’re not connecting. I don’t follow your objection to the article I posted.

[Pop Trash]

Word to the wise: this was much better the 2nd time around. It's too early to tell if I like it as much as The Master and TWBB, but after a 2nd viewing, it's certainly in the realm of possibilities. I can't stop thinking about how deeply weird the ending is without ever diving into outright surrealism like David Lynch or something like mother! or The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

[Dillard]

Word to the wise: this was much better the 2nd time around. It's too early to tell if I like it as much as The Master and TWBB, but after a 2nd viewing, it's certainly in the realm of possibilities. I can't stop thinking about how deeply weird the ending is without ever diving into outright surrealism like David Lynch or something like mother! or The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

Intriguing, Pop Trash! Hmm.... maybe I'll have to watch again.

[Izzy Black]

As for philosophical depth, I've never understood why people expect talented filmmakers to also be great thinkers. Surely, if we continue to value, say, Krzyzstof Kieślowski's films it's not because the ideas in them are especially profound but because he was a master storyteller who could dramatize his ideas in a compelling fashion.

I take your point, I don't think filmmakers need to be great thinkers either, but I find this example pretty odd. Kieslowski, I thought, is famously one of cinema's most philosophical filmmakers. It's even a bit on the nose at times. Is your point rather that he attempts to be philosophical, but his ideas aren't especially profound, despite being a great storyteller?

[Milky Joe]

White's hate-boner for PTA never fails to disappoint.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454995/phantom-thread-downsizing-two-new-movies-mock-western-values

[Milky Joe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A04YonXe200

[baby doll]

I take your point, I don't think filmmakers need to be great thinkers either, but I find this example pretty odd. Kieslowski, I thought, is famously one of cinema's most philosophical filmmakers. It's even a bit on the nose at times. Is your point rather that he attempts to be philosophical, but his ideas aren't especially profound, despite being a great storyteller?Let me put it this way: If White is the least interesting film in Kieślowski's "Three Colours" trilogy (and there seems to be widespread agreement that it is), it's because the plot and characters only exist to demonstrate the director's thesis about post-communist Europe. To be sure, the thesis is a bit on the nose, as you say, but the film wouldn't be any less schematic as an experience if the idea behind it were more profound.

[Izzy Black]

Let me put it this way: If White is the least interesting film in Kieślowski's "Three Colours" trilogy (and there seems to be widespread agreement that it is), it's because the plot and characters only exist to demonstrate the director's thesis about post-communist Europe. To be sure, the thesis is a bit on the nose, as you say, but the film wouldn't be any less schematic as an experience if the idea behind it were more profound.

I see. The point seems to be that, at the end of the day, what would really elevate White (or what in fact makes Kieslowski special) is great storytelling. I think I agree with that to an extent, but I think his ideas also contribute to why Kieslowski is beloved. I suppose I was expecting an example of a director who clearly isn't especially ideas heavy but nonetheless is a great filmmaker because of their stories. Thanks for the clarification though. I think I have a better sense of what you meant.

[Izzy Black]

A few observations on the film -

I take Phantom Thread to be a film ultimately about seduction, manipulation, and exploitation. In this sense, it's a companion piece of sorts with The Master. You can see elements of these themes throughout PTA's career, but The Master is its closest kin, I think. It's also properly of piece with the films I consider among his mature era beginning in '07 (and so after what I would call his "film school" era of his earlier films).

The film revolves around games and formal structures. PTA's obsession with procedure and process is at a maximum here, and the concept of a manipulative game for PTA is explored with considerable depth in this film. For PTA, games are devices for power and control. A game is a way of streamlining and manufacturing intimacy between two subjects: "the master" and "the pupil".

Consider Freddie's interrogation scene (his "processing") in The Master. It's a series of questions designed to target the most personal aspects of Freddie's life, mining him for his fears and insecurities. We have a kind of machine-like structure with a set of rules that help facilitate Freddie's participation and his confessions, and then there's a promise, a promise of becoming part of some larger "Cause". We might call this game "religion" (I emphasize here the deliberate scare quotes). There are numerous other examples of such games throughout the film.

Now consider the rigid rules and game-like pretenses of Reynolds' interactions with Alma. We see it first with the seduction and flirtation in the opening scene. It starts as a food game. Talk about food is a device (or diversion) to facilitate further intimacy and interaction. Then we move to Reynold's home. Here the game is "fashion". Consider how Reynolds' dressing Alma in elegant clothing, measuring her dimensions, and stitching in various areas on the most intimate parts of her body is a form of immediate intimacy between strangers not ordinarily reached outside the structure of such a game.

The game in each case, of course, is inherently artificial. It is constantly disrupted by impersonal devices, and any intimacy exchanged in the game can never substitute for genuine emotional connections and bonds. So the victim in the game is always kept at a certain emotional distance or objective remove. This has the effect of (1) keeping the victim unsatisfied, transfixed by the allure of the "master" and (2) keeping the victim in a certain state of emotional pain and vulnerability. This makes them easier to control and exploit for the purposes of the "master's" own ends. This is further enabled by the fact that, as we see in the beginning of each film, the victims appear aimless and lonely. They seem to be relatively naïve individuals who appear to be in some sense lost and in search of something. This makes them more easily seduced by the allure of the beauty, status, and structure that is offered to them. Most of all, however, it makes them more easily seduced by the false promise of genuine emotional connection and intimacy. Both films, in different ways, explore how the subjects in the game attempt to assert their agency against those who would manipulate them.

[Kirby Avondale]

Good points all around, Pop Trash. And maybe I’m projecting my naive romantic ideal onto the real world in which mismatched couples weirdly fall in love. ALL. THE. TIME. In spite of unfortunate power dynamics. That’s a great point. I just want so much more for Alma and I want so much more for her characterization because I was taken with the fantastic acting. And Anderson made the movie before the #metoo movement exploded this Fall. Does he get a pass because of that? I do think it’s a good thing if male writers feel pressured in the future to be more sensitive to the stories and perspectives of women in their writing. Or hell, just #morefemalefilmmakersinhollywo odgettingfunding.
I don't see how he needs a pass, really. Of all the characters in the movie, the perspective is weighted most strongly towards her and she gets the lion's share of whatever sympathy there is to be had. But she isn't simply and easily sympathetic. She's not a role model and she's not meant to be. She's flawed, confused and caught up in his delusions. A large part of #metoo is about shedding light on dysfunctional gender dynamics, so the notion that it would dissuade us from depicting a character like her or a relationship like theirs seems to speak right past the movie and the movement.

Their motivations aren't always easy suss out, but that's late-PTA's mushroom omelette. He likes characters with ambiguous, contradictory psychologies and weird dependencies. He likes throwing them into charged moments where they aren't clear to each other or even themselves, where little accidents in the performance carry a lot more weight and, I'm guessing, surprise him. This might leave the audience in an uncomfortable lurch, but that's the omelette. We might not ever fully know why she stays with him, but we might not ever fully know any number of people who end up in any number of weird relationships. Still, we know enough to make our way around, and when she does something we wouldn't have expected and that we don't want from her, that's a sign that we're pushed out of the boxes we've made for her to make a more comfortable, consumable person. That she stays with him after the disastrous dinner she plans for them is ridiculous to us, but it's revealing of her character and of the unhealthy investment she has in the myth of Woodcock and in her picture of what their relationship could be. By the time she escalates the situation into full-bore psychopathology, it's clear she'll do whatever she can to make him vulnerable and dependent. Even if that was the extent of understanding her character (and I don't necessarily think it is), that would still be ok by me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Most interesting element of this film is how I wasn't too invested in Alma initially because the film really only saw her through the prism of Woodcock, but then, as the film develops, she gains more and more agency and becomes a formidable "opponent."

Her motivations seemed to be the pursuit of a man who can be intimate and free-spirited, and she's fallen for someone uniquely incapable of that. He's so fussy and precise that he's emotionally stifling and borderline unreachable - it's only after she takes the surprising step of drugging him that he starts to open to her. There's a weird thing going on here, where they can't love each other as they are, so instead they're agreeing to a sort of seesaw game where she endures his emotional distance until it's time for him, drugged, to endure her love. Which makes this a suspense film for a time, as you wonder how far their warring emotions will take them, before finally settling on a sort of mutual manipulation. It's all very sad, that this is the closest they can get to intimacy. It's more like they've found ways to paint loving murals of each other on the psychological walls they've erected.

Sure, the major touchstone is Hitchcock, with the seeming nods to Rebecca, Notorious, and Psycho (the peephole, the mother issues) - there's also going to be a lot of Vertigo in a story where two people are trying to "make" the other person into a lover they can accept. But this operates on its own wavelength, exploring the quiet emotional tensions of the relationship while skipping the more obvious potential thrills. For all the talk of his earlier work having more youthful vigor (and a more outsized indebtedness to his favorite directors), PTA seems to be proudly forging toward his own sort of style, a combination of classic Hollywood formalism (those lush cross-fades, those wide masters) and a more European satisfaction in simply studying his characters (people mentioned Kieslowski - not a bad call at all).

A fantastic film, either way.

[FUCK, I'm so stupid, the screener started replaying while I was typing, and I saw her name "Alma" on the note, and duhhhr, of course it's Alma, the name of Hitchcock's wife. God. I'm just happy I was able to notice this on my own - it sorta broke my heart when other people had to point out to me that the hero in Get Out saved the day by picking cotton.]

[Rico]

I found this incredibly boring and I still can't figure out why anyone likes this drivel. It must be because of the big names attached. These guys are geniuses, everything they do must be great, right?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I found this incredibly boring and I still can't figure out why anyone likes this drivel. It must be because of the big names attached. These guys are geniuses, everything they do must be great, right?

Why would you antagonize viewers instead of the film?

[Peng]

Funny to read that too because his last film Inherent Vice has double (triple?) the big names and it's received in much more mixed way, with many saying it's one of PTA's worst (me included).

[Rico]

Why would you antagonize viewers instead of the film?
My inner Woodcock got the best of me.

[Milky Joe]

I found this incredibly boring and I still can't figure out why anyone likes this drivel. It must be because of the big names attached. These guys are geniuses, everything they do must be great, right?

Wow, you figured it out. What a stunning insight. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I posted it in another thread but this is a great technical discussion about the film with PTA and Alan Parker:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3bKoDKPEVc

[Grouchy]

I thought this was incredible. I'm a huge fan of everything PTA except perhaps Inherent Vice which was way too long and unshaped for me, but this hit all the right notes for my sensitivity. I think it's amazing how the movie keeps us at bay or perhaps only half informed about the characters and their motivations at times, yet they come alive like few characters do in modern cinema. By the closing scenes their relationship has a complexity that's not easy to communicate in 120 minutes. And by the way, was it even explicitly stated that Cyril and Woodcock were brother and sister? I have to watch it again but I think we got that piece of information through the actors and not a specific line of dialogue.

There are too many great aspects or scenes in this film to mention. I love the ambience because it manages to make a period and a setting that have been explored to death seem new and exciting and it's the same feat Anderson managed with There Will Be Blood and The Master.

As usual I don't understand the lame pseudo-feminist inquisition, specially applied to a film that depicts a certain opressive attitude towards ladies. For me feminism is a struggle for equality and against injustice. It doesn't mean movie plots should be rendered stupid and inoffensive. I don't go to the cinema to learn life lessons from the exploits of virtuous heroes. I've enjoyed movies about gun-wielding sociopaths (Taxi Driver), obsessive dreamers (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) and hopeless addicts (Trainspotting). Why couldn't any human find traces of themselves in flawed characters like Woodcock and Alma? I find that line of criticism arrogant and hypocritical.

I think with a rewatch this could become my new favorite Anderson.

[Morris Schæffer]

The dialogue established they were siblings.

[Milky Joe]

Great thoughts Grouchy.

But haven't you heard??

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/why-phantom-thread-is-propaganda-for-toxic-masculinity

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Grouchy]

Alma certainly does manipulate him back, but that leads to another problem I have with the film: I have no idea why she stays with him. I didn't find it convincing at all. There were a couple of obvious moments where I was thinking: just leave! This is ridiculous! This "love" Anderson writes into her character came out of left field and is completely unbelievable!
I didn't think it was unbelievable. First of all, you have to realize this takes place in another time period and separations or divorces weren't as easy for the woman. Second, the script doesn't give us any information about what she did before being a waiter. Becoming Miss Woodcock gives her economical stability and social position that she obviously craves. Her deal would be perfect if Woodcock wasn't emotionally unattainable.

And third and most important, she's in love. I think the scenes of their first date are key to understanding this. Woodcock obviously behaves strangely as early as that, delaying any sort of kiss or normal intimacy until he finishes the dress. And she enjoys the fetishistic and ritualistic process until the sister comes in, at which point it becomes awkward.

[Grouchy]

Great thoughts Grouchy.

But haven't you heard??

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/why-phantom-thread-is-propaganda-for-toxic-masculinity

This is why we can't have nice things.
That article carelessly conflates political propaganda in war movies with the psychological trappings of the protagonist of a drama.

[Milky Joe]

I can't wait for the think-pieces about how The Shining is a celebration of toxic masculinity too. Let's not even speak of A Clockwork Orange.

[Kirby Avondale]

Great thoughts Grouchy.

But haven't you heard??

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/why-phantom-thread-is-propaganda-for-toxic-masculinity

This is why we can't have nice things.
Phew, what a crap essay.

The first 40% isn't even about the movie: "I saw a propaganda film once that I won't compare this film to in any substantive way...[hint: it, too, is propaganda]", "One might argue several claims about prominent films, but I won't be, because now I want to talk about this other movie sort of..."

The notion that because Woodcock is a dominating presence in this movie that it's uncritical of him is pretty baffling. Yes, the "I'll give you breasts" comment was creepy as fuck. That's the cherry on top of a scene chocked full of purposefully creepy shit. You haven't hit on some nefarious, unexamined subtext. You're describing the very obvious and discomforting intonations that literally everyone else in the audience was feeling.

[Yxklyx]

I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes of this.

[Henry Gale]

I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes of this.

This is a common, even understandable, reaction. I've heard people who've end up loving it say the same thing.

Just keep going.

[StuSmallz]

I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes of this.Was it too low-key on the whole for you? If so, then I admit that I felt somewhat similarly (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/phantom-thread/) about it in the theater, but it did get more eventful as the central relationship developed, and was still ultimately worth watching, so you may want to give it another go sometime, if you can.

[Peng]

First time feels like watching a captivating, impeccably crafted battle of wills between two uncompromising people, until a most delightfully unusual compromise is reached. This second time, with the whole arc known, the film keeps ping-ponging its tone between romantically perverse and perversely romantic, until it just plain becomes one of the most romantic films I've ever seen. Need to rewatch Magnolia, a film I watched so long ago in my formative years, to be sure, but this is edging closer to being my favorite PTA film now. 9/10

And I so want Maya Rudolph's commentary of this film, in the same vein as Chelsea Peretti's reply (https://twitter.com/chelseaperetti/status/849103175088865280) on Get Out

[Yxklyx]

This is a common, even understandable, reaction. I've heard people who've end up loving it say the same thing.

Just keep going.

I tried again and got through less than before. I just don't want to watch a film about a "haute couture dressmaker". I mean if you were to rank all the millions of professions on the planet this one would definitely be at the very very bottom of the list of interesting ones. Also, I think that Daniel Day Lewis overacts a lot so I a have pre-disposition to not like films where he's the lead. It feels like some rich billionaires who love haute couture dressmakers want us to feel with them - like a total disconnect between the producers and us lowly folk.