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

I enjoy PTA’s seemingly central concern with the relationships of emotionally stunted monomaniac weirdos

Anyway since I’m a weirdo I thought this was the most romantic thing I’ve seen since the Mad Max Fury Road blood donation scene

Johnny Greenwood exceeded himself here I think.

Quite a remarkable film. Per Morbz's comments earlier, you sense the cinematic bedrock but it doesn't stay there. Score, costume and cinematography all standouts but the shifting dynamics between the central three actors carried them all even further.

I liked that despite being a “period piece” this could easily have taken place in the future

Yeah the trappings and setting are far from unimportant, but this isn't a _Crown_-style hyperfetishization and formalism.

Has anyone here yet seen it in a 70mm screening? If yes, is it worth a surcharge? (Will probably see it tomorrow in 70mm.)

Yeah that was the screening we saw -- it looked great and the brochure's nice, but make or break, I dunno. There's enough gorgeous shots happening to make it all work in that format, though.

i didn't pay a surcharge... however, by the 10th day of projection, there were already hairline scratches in the print.

PTA actually shot it in 35, it was blown up to 70.

I absolutely loved this and plan to see it again ASAP.

Going for round 2 tomorrow

excuse my ignorance but what would be the advantage of seeing it on 70MM rather than on digital which, presumably has the same ratio and will be projected at the same size? will it be discernably different?

texture, babe

grain

scratches

PTA's best film.

very possibly!

I can't tell whether the gowns are any good though.

I didn't expect the last 15 minutes, I gotta admit. I'm still thinking about it.

I'd say the opening sequence, first breakfast scene, Victoria Hotel (rarebit!), and through Alma's full integration in the business is the most sustained, exciting of PTA's career. I was holding my breath.

"chic"

FILTHY littlte word

Manville as Cyril smoothing her hair over her temples was great throughout.

Every time PTA held Manville's face in close-up I froze. What a marvelous camera object. She gave the best performance.

I liked that despite being a “period piece” this could easily have taken place in the future

― The Bridge of Ban Louis J (silby

like A Quiet Passion, it shows the Archers' influence.

Every time PTA held Manville's face in close-up I froze. What a marvelous camera object. She gave the best performance.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, January 20, 2018 4:00 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed, she is quite something.

I may go to Memphis next week to see this on a large screen. There's no way it will come to my little rooty-poot town.

seeing this tomorrow morning, v excited

me too. can't wait!!!

I really liked it. Nevertheless I'm not sure I'd rate it higher than Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, Inherent Vice, or The Master. I loved There Will Be Blood at the time but its meme saturation in the decade since its release has diminished my memories of it. Magnolia was my favorite movie when I was 11 and I don't think I've sat it thru the whole thing since, so I'll reserve judgment. Still, this was a fantastic film. Unfortunately Sofia Coppola beat PTA to the punch with the poisonous mushrooms device in The Beguiled last summer. The "arthouse 50 Shades of Grey" comment ended up being pretty otm! Their tastes were indeed unconventional. Love wins.

spoilerz!

The Beguiled is actually from 1971 btw

in the last cooking scene, during which DDL chews so meticulously, I thought his much-loathed butter would knock him over.

oh hoy haw, you know what I mean. lighting & atmospherics of PT & Coppola's movie were very similar, especially in the mushroom scenes. not a knock, just an unfortunate coincidence. took some of the dramatic edge off for me, but didn't matter in the end when it was just a kink for them.

"I'm hungry"

I can't tell whether the gowns are any good though.

They're gorgeous. I'd say they were true to the period, but do they ever specify when in the 1950s this is supposed to be?

And I was reminded of The Dragon Painter (1919), regarding the relationship between an artist and his muse...and the idea that it may be the muse's responsibility to shake up the artist's life in one way or another.

do they ever specify when in the 1950s this is supposed to be?

No, and I was trying to make out details in the New Year's Eve radio address, no luck.

If you like the dressmaking part of this, definitely worth seeing the Dior & I documentary from a few years ago about Raf Simons putting together a couture collection over two weeks. Many resemblances, and also time spent with all of those lifers doing the sewing.

ughhhh i loved Dior & I, gorgeous doc that

I think decoding the climax requires thinking of it as a "mother" movie to the core (hence the explicit Norman Bates peephole quote). I don't entirely buy it, but close enough. Plus, people are fucking weird.

I still haven't seen it, but intrigued by the idea that it's a mother! movie

The mother material was unnecessary, an attempt to flesh out a man who needed no fleshing -- the man loved work and was his job. Goodness knows we know plenty of people like him.

I still haven't seen mother!, but don't be sassy, Simon.

Almost everybody I know hates their job afaik.

This is a vocation.

well sure, and one that could plausibly be traced to Momism.

and PTA's shortest since Punch-Drunk Love.

― Badmotorfinger Debate Club (MFB)

ha yeah by 35 minutes

Def gonna see this again, sitting really well with me. Really feel my opinion of it will only go up.

~spoilers~

.

I had one of those hypnotized, out of body movie theater experiences when Alma gave the "i'm going to make you sick, and i'm going to take care of you" speech in closeup in the final minutes.

I'm unnerved by the universal acclaim. I'm afraid to look up to see if Armond has reviewed it.

can't wait for that!

Here it is!

Here’s where Anderson reveals the essence of his indie revisionist sarcasm. Phantom Thread is essentially a smart-ass retort to Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958), repeating Hitchcock’s basic plot of a psychotic male making over a common girl (James Stewart selfishly “correcting” Kim Novak) into his erotic ideal. But Anderson denies viewers the complex pleasure of Kim Novak’s beauty-to-beauty transformation for something that’s even uglier morally — and does so with a self-satisfied sneer. Hitchcock’s film relayed a private tragedy that explored timeless anxieties; Anderson’s revision deliberately counters those conventions with a fascination for modern decadence.

Well, Mr. Anderson, if that’s your indie definition of love — or cinema — I don’t want it. ***

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454995/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-downsizing-alexander-payne

Saw it with my woke girlfriend who didn’t connect with the toxic male protagonist and the world he was able to create around him, and that was a bit how I felt despite the acting, cinematography, and dialogue all being extraordinary. Up for giving it a second watch.

if that’s your indie definition of love — or cinema — I don’t want it.

If there's a remedy, I'll run from it, from it.

I thought PTA's POV was Olympian in seeing the roundedness of things.