PHANTOM THREAD: Paul Tomas Anderson, Daniel Day-Lewis, Fifties London

I missed the whole Alma/Holocaust connection, hadn't heard or read anything about that.

You can always use google for jargon.

I agree with most of the arguments; it's that sentences like these are ungainly:

The Phantom Thread is a morbid depiction of social reproduction, where the gender division of labor appears as a toxic metabolism or circuit of necrotic value. The brutal poison of reification flows forth from Reynolds, attacking Alma’s body, and returns back again in the form of a deadly mushroom, penetrating Reynolds.

yeah no

I like the shapes you get into when the unfamiliar concepts are used. Leading to that last sentence.

Read it yesterday and iirc (and for someone who hasn't seen it) that bit is possibly the toughest xp

wtf

lol it definitely does seem like it's coming directly from the polar opposite of how you approach and enjoy movies, Veg!

I can appreciate a lot of approaches but there were a few passages in that review where I was thinking the interpretation of the film's narrative was being stretched a little far in service of the points being rationalized

does he get paid by the syllable or

*she

That's a good review although yeah that para reads like parody - haven't read any other reviews but are they really not touching on that stuff at all? I somehow don't believe that

I was instantly drawn in by until today I didn’t know who PT Anderson is

That review is glorious. I think the writer is aware of its academic excess, but keeps throwing those concepts out just b/c the review so readily lends itself to them. Her review has the same jaded sense of humor about itself as the film does.

there's an author bio on the 'about' page for the site if you're curious

Loved this - though I can see why some might gripe. I generally agree with David Cairns take on it https://dcairns.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/needling/

Ach, I can't believe I didn't consider the Hitchcock-Alma angle before...

thread

Few notes on third viewing of PHANTOM THEAD:

35mm is clearly the best viewing format for this. Less grain creates a bit more softness that gives it that late 1950s Eastmancolor that's more appropriate given the time period. (The intensity of the 70mm makes it a bit too 60s).

— Peter Labuza (@labuzamovies) February 15, 2018

Could go for a third viewing of this. Maybe I already posted this. But it’s sitting really well with me. And word of mouth is really great for it, hearing quotes from it regularly around town

The blindfield review is very interesting. I have a slight problem with the framing of it - that she saw it by accident, didn't know who this and that even were etc. It maaaay be true, of course, I just find it unlikely. Regardless of that, the review is perceptive and funny. I think it's more likely that she saw it because she thought it might be of use to illustrate an essay she had an inkling to write which, indeed, it did but it did so in ways that she didn't expect at all.

a friend tonight made a very good point by comparing the film to various Henry James stories. By halfway through she was convinced that she was completely in a Jamesian world - The Beast in the Jungle or The figure in the Carpet - the problem being that those James tales never give up their secrets, so that every detail (or clue) may be relevant to the solution that the reader devises or projects onto the story. If you release The Beast, as this film does, you risk exposing the scaffolding as being too flimsy to bear the weight of the conclusion or, conversely, too elaborate. If you don't provide the solution then no detail is extraneous or irrelevant, It just enriches the mystery.

Perhaps that's the point. That the film's conclusion just leaves a lot of dangling/phantom threads.

Totally got Jamesian Osmond/Merle vibes from Reynolds and Cyril.

deffo

has the colossal NYE party been discussed? that struck me as one of the most OTT moments (the extras/costumes alone) and i am not quite sure what to make of it. is this a typical NYE party for 1950s England?!

― weird woman in a bar (La Lechera)

LL, came across this last year after a reference in some novel, several years up on yt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQ4Nis3Eyc

a friend tonight made a very good point by comparing the film to various Henry James stories. By halfway through she was convinced that she was completely in a Jamesian world - The Beast in the Jungle or The figure in the Carpet - the problem being that those James tales never give up their secret

yes OTM...I mean, the point of "The Figure in the Carpet" is that the protagonist never knows what the "figure" is (it's not a favorite of mine; I'm not a fan of his stories about writers and what we call now The Creative Process).

LL, came across this last year after a reference in some novel, several years up on yt:

― by the light of the burning Citroën, Friday, February 16, 2018 9:14 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

whoa thanks for posting this, incredible.

Hitch and "Rear Window" confirmed sources in this recent interview with PTA at the Cinématheque Française.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn0jUdBxKlo

does he get paid by the syllable or

― Squeaky Fromage (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, February 15, 2018 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Just a different level of exploitation lets be cool.

I have a slight problem with the framing of it - that she saw it by accident, didn't know who this and that even were etc. It maaaay be true, of course, I just find it unlikely. Regardless of that, the review is perceptive and funny. I think it's more likely that she saw it because she thought it might be of use to illustrate an essay she had an inkling to write which, indeed, it did but it did so in ways that she didn't expect at all.

I bought it because its a review of someone who isn't really a film-reviewer, that very much comes across.

when will you watch it?!

Been way too busy - maybe next week.

oh wow!! that looks like the same party!!
thank you for posting!! i'd have had no idea. glad i asked :)

"if you wish to have a staring competition with me, you will lose."

Ach, I can't believe I didn't consider the Hitchcock-Alma angle before...

Should you want to hear PTA's and Vicky Krieps's (competing) origin stories for the choice of the name Alma (she was originally going to be Agnes) then I recommend the PTA interview on this episode of BBC's The Film Programme. Also interesting to hear him wholeheartedly agree with interviewer Francine Stock that Cyril and Alma are the two main protagonists of the film: on the Phantom Thread edition of the generally excellent Last Picture Show podcast, I was surprised to hear them all call Cyril a supporting character.

don't know if I mentioned but I watched Suspicion last week and it definitely reminded me of this. more so than Rebecca actually, since Cyril doesn't have the expected blowout/vengeance moment that Ms. Danvers does. but in Suspicion we're (similarly) led to expect an obvious outcome that turns out not to be true, and only in the film's final minutes.

Saw it again and loved every second of it (save for the scene where Cyril smells Alma... that seemed too insidious and over the top). I could see it several more times in theaters, if only for the joy of taking in the audience's response to it (lots seem to hate it, but it's fun watching shocked crowds).

This is my favorite movie in years, probably since It Follows, but I'm actually hoping it doesn't win best picture and attract all the scrutiny that invites. Just let the people who love it have this one.

what? why? you think it can't withstand "scrutiny"? it's a great movie, i'd be thrilled if it wins best picture, doesn't look like it but i would never want to keep a great movie to myself or something

the ability to not read the criticisms or dissections of others is necessary imo

on the other hand, having something gain enough cultural currency that you hear it discussed in dumb terms in public can be irritating

Yeah, it's brilliant art, so it can withstand the scrutiny. I just think it's a much more niche movie than almost any other best picture candidate. I've seen most of them, and this was by far the one audiences seemed to find most objectionable. It just seems more appropriately positioned as an eccentric underdog (it stands no chance of winning, as I understand it) than as a popular crowd pleaser. I can just imagine how horrid the takes would be if it won.

the fact that J-Law turned it off 5 minutes in is probably a bad sign for its prospects

Unfortunately, when you're online all the time you can not read criticisms but still be exposed to them all the time. Like, you don't have to read thinkpieces to understand the general convo around Three Billboards.

Everyone I've talked to who likes film finds Three Billboards much more objectionable

they've actually seen it, though. I'm trusting their judgment

idk if J-Law is a good barometer of film criticism, but might be indicative of some Oscars voters

The internet finds Three Billboards much more objectionable (b/c it is). But general audiences seem to really enjoy Three Billboards, which is amazing, given what a hateful movie that is.

Lawrence's comments do sum up one of the most common objections to the movie ("Another tortured male artist? PASS.") even though that criticism really doesn't hold if you watch the movie.

xp the way jennifer lawrence described what she thought Phantom Thread was - "a narcissistic sociopath 'genius' who humiliates women for his art" - is a pretty apt description of mother! and she said "yeah i don't need to watch that i've been down that road before"

idk if J-Law is a good barometer of film criticism, but might be indicative of some Oscars voters

yeah this is what I meant

I am trying not to mention that J-Law never finished high school because she does seem reasonably intelligent and likeable, buuuuut

i took her comments as either a) salty that mother! was completely shut out of awards season b) she's pissed at aronofsky

tbf mother! did deserve sound noms

Phantom Thread is basically the anti-mother! when it comes to the genius-creator trope.

yeah exactly, her description fits mother! completely. god what a shit movie

b) she's pissed at aronofsky

why would she specifically say that she wasn't talking about him and then go on to discuss dating non-famous people for several minutes afterward then

J-Law doesnt like B&W or silents either; she's a discriminating artiste. (or a mall betty who hasnt made a good film since Winter's Bone)

salty that mother! was completely shut out of awards season

yes, 'transgressive' movies that pancake at the b.o. have such a steady awards track record