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

Genteel loutishness, bad clothing, (note following shot up stairway), "she seems nice", TOAST!, mince, (wait for it), punchline.

Personally, I loved the part where the villain, an exceedingly well-starched linen handkerchief, staggers through the climactic reel of La Dolce Vita in a desperate attempt to wrest his beloved from the clutches of human happiness. Amazing scene, all bullshit aside. And the daring resolution by vomit fetishism clearly thrilled the audience with which I saw the film. As comprehension dawned, we all tightened our lips for a moment while nodding slightly. I couldn't see this, of course, but the leathery creaking of delighted flesh was unmistakable.

Strongly recommended to fans of sitting very still while eating precisely one third of a saltine.

Feel bad for anyone who saw this in an audience unwilling to laugh out loud.

I found this piece on the New Yorker website, Why Phantom Thread is Propaganda For Toxic Masculinity by Aleksandar Hemon, to be rather astoundingly stupid.

It appears to rest on the idea that the movie condones everything the main character does, and also contains a pretty shocking misreading of the relationship between Reynolds and Cyril, for which I can think of no justification except that the author needed it to make his point.

I'm actually wondering if that review is a prank by the author on the publication or something.

maybe they were checking their phone during the "i'll go right through you" bit

haven't seen it mentioned anywhere but there's a man who's often at dinner with the trio who i read as being Cyril's lover

That piece is the first I’ve read to get at what kept me from being more engaged with this film, while always in awe of the quality of the shots, dialogue, performances, etc.

“Phantom Thread” might appear to some as a critical exploration of male power, but for that to be the case there would have to be alternative positions that are not dependent on the hero’s centrality. The scene in which Alma arranges an intimate dinner seems to provide space for such a position, as she litigates against “all your rules and your walls and your doors and your people.” And yet she remains desperate to remain in the House of Woodcock, where she can be the well-dressed mannequin muse, replenishing with her emptiness the great man’s inner life and creativity.

The second and third sentences undercut the first.

lots of people who use "toxic masculinity" like table salt are... nah, i'm not gonna

That “toxic masculinity” critique is so forced it feels like a deliberate misreading of the film. It’s like saying Leaving Las Vegas was propoganda for alcohol, or Schindler’s List was promoting the holocaust. Like, how is it possible for anybody to leave that movie thinking it’s condoning Reynolds’ abusive (also childish and petty) behavior? And how did so many critics somehow even arrive at that obviously contrarian conclusion?

haven't seen it mentioned anywhere but there's a man who's often at dinner with the trio who i read as being Cyril's lover

This is awesome and enhances the movie greatly for me. I understand that Cyril’s personal life is well outside the scope of the movie, but it’s still important to establish that she at least has one. (Early in the movie Reynolds laughs off the question of whether his sister is married, which I took as kind of a cruel, “no of course she’s not a sexual being” dismissal, but I think it makes more sense that she would conduct her relationships with the same practicality and detachment as Reynolds).

I had assumed that guy was a financier or partner in the business but this reading is much more fun

That “toxic masculinity” critique is so forced it feels like a deliberate misreading of the film. It’s like saying Leaving Las Vegas was propoganda for alcohol, or Schindler’s List was promoting the holocaust. Like, how is it possible for anybody to leave that movie thinking it’s condoning Reynolds’ abusive (also childish and petty) behavior? And how did so many critics somehow even arrive at that obviously contrarian conclusion?

xp Fun fact about that guy: He's played by a shoemaker who's friends with Daniel Day-Lewis: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/a-shoemakers-acting-debut-in-phantom-thread

They cobbled together a role for him

It’s like saying Leaving Las Vegas was propoganda for alcohol, or Schindler’s List was promoting the holocaust. Like, how is it possible for anybody to leave that movie thinking it’s condoning Reynolds’ abusive (also childish and petty) behavior? And how did so many critics somehow even arrive at that obviously contrarian conclusion?

Herman's piece works its way into this by suggesting

One might argue that a similar ideology is at work in American cinema—that “Apocalypse Now” is just as loaded with imperialist racism as is John Wayne's openly propagandistic “The Green Berets”; or that “Zero Dark Thirty” is drama-coated torture advertisement, just as “The Hurt Locker” is a war-recruitment movie; or that the preponderance of superhero movies contributes more to this country’s self-image as a superpower than does the deployment of U.S. troops around the world.

Which is audacious, but after a few decades of "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" jokes...

*Hermon. F-ing autocorrect

What a magnificent film. I sorta love the subtle transformation of Woodcock from the first half ("DDL really is stunningly handsome, huh?") to the second (the post-surprise party argument scene, in which DDL resembles nothing so much as Mr-Burns-as-vampire in that one Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons)

Favorite scene I haven't seen discussed on this thread: Woodcock's demanding of the return of the dress, Alma's retrieval of it, and the subsequent intoxication of that act apparent when they're all googly-eyed with each other afterward

I agree it's Manville ftw though

Can't wait to see this again

pic.twitter.com/8EkjeTrx5j

— Eric Allen Hatch (@ericallenhatch) April 29, 2018

think about this film every day, hope pta just writes films for manville from now on

what an incredibly strange little film. marketing was 100% off base on this.

He cuts his own trailers iirc

The trailers for this and for The Master both contained lines that didn’t make the final cut of the movie. Alma in the trailer is heard (only in v.o.? I don’t remember) admonishing Reynolds for acting “cursed”, which doesn’t happen in the film; the legend “never cursed” in the hem of the princess’ wedding dress is the only direct reference to the curse that survives i think.

only saw the trailer and read a bit of the synopsis on wikipedia but was waiting for daniel to go pyscho on the waitress

music sounded interesting. looked it up. of course jonny greenwood

pic.twitter.com/78Emi5IG8P

— phantom thread out of context (@andsomesausages) August 24, 2018

Thought this was great and the short film of deleted scenes is really nice, I really like that PTAnderson always seems to make something like a proper little film from his deleted scenes.

I initially thought Alma was crying for the emotional trainwreck woman in the green dress but she was actually crying for the dress. Did anyone else make this initial mistake? Was this a deliberate mislead? Funny either way.

lol iirc the DVD of "Anchorman" came with a whole 90 minute second film cobbled out of deleted scenes, with a different plot and including an entire subplot starring Chuck D.

Whaaaat ? Is it any good ?

No, it is bad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up,_Ron_Burgundy:_The_Lost_Movie

Ahah Malcom Y, though !

Also lol derailing the Phantom Thread thread with... Anchorman !

I've heard that the European-only Blu Ray of The Science of Sleep has a "B-Roll Version" of the film made from deleted scenes and alternate takes.

What a fucking masterpiece this film is

Yeah btw it’s a great looking movie

enthralled and enraptured by this

fave scene was the surprise party argument, his pleasure in his cruelty and her being fit for him in it making him regressively more childish

he really has to play yeats tho, ill say it again

Yeah, that's the scene I think of most.

i get the love for manville but for me its utterly almas film, what a great character, what a turn.

movie it brought to mind, aside from those mentioned upthread- perfume

I watched this again the other day too (that it's just been added to Netflix is maybe the reason we are discussing it. I still love it but still find that the denouement kinda comes out of nowhere.

I assumed that Vicky Krieg would become a massive star after this and I'm surprised it never happened.

his submissions to her throughout the story signal the ending fairly enough imo

once he let her drive it was all over

I think it's just me then.

xxp I was just thinking about her the other day.

Krieps hasn't made a similarly 'big' movie, whether that's her choices or not... soon to be seen as Marvin Gaye's girlfriend in a biopic, directed by Julien Temple.

lmao @ all the "this looks boring" posts upthread

really perfect film, i started to think it was more linear than inherent vice or the master and then there was the scene where he saw his mother in the corner of the room.

the shots of him starting to make a dress for alma on their date, the intoxicating shots of the pinning of fabric, juxtaposed with the weird sudden juddering impositions of control when he starts measuring her... there's so much below surface tension in this movie, which is staggering when thought of next to pta's early films, which are pretty much all surface tension

Variously put me in mind of The Archers

i am a complete film idiot but i'm glad i shared this association with morbs

inherent vice > phantom thread > there will be blood = magnolia = the master > punch-drunk love > boogie nights

idk, that was really frustrating to put together. pta's fuckin great. can't believe my favorite director in high school is having such a rich mature period

I love movies about work.

Alfred I got this new book but haven’t started it yet, looks good though https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-process-genre