Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
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 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.
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.
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
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
1. MagnoliaQuote:
Originally Posted by ledfloyd
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.
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
****
Boogie Nights
Magnolia
There Will Be Blood
*** 1/2
Punchdrunk Love
***
Phantom Thread
The Master
** 1/2
Hard Eight
* 1/2
Inherent Vice
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
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
DavidSeven and I are in complete agreement, lol.
They're all masterpieces.
Next.
Excellent:
Everything but Inherent Vice
Crap:
Inherent Vice
COMPLETE AGREEMENTQuote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
What's wrong with Inherent Vice?
Yeah, I'm not getting the Inherent Vice hate either. :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
My nay is articulated well by this article. I agree with DavidSeven that the filmmaking is insular.
Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
Ah yes, assessing a film with The Way We Live Now mindset, my favorite kind of criticism.
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peng