XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Paul Thomas Anderson => Topic started by: matt35mm on November 24, 2017, 07:59:23 PM

Title: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: matt35mm on November 24, 2017, 07:59:23 PM
It's a very lovely and weird film, just as we've come to expect. Gorgeous. Full on indulgence in film looking like film, the opposite of digital. A bit of a sister film to THE MASTER, I feel, without being quite as intense. But there are many parallels. The score is indeed very good and front and center. Don't want to say too much more at the moment, and am still processing, but I am pleased and feeling that cinema high. PTA, Vicky Krieps, and Lesley Manville were there for a Q&A, which was wonderful, although most of it covered info that we all already know.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: FilmCell on November 24, 2017, 08:13:29 PM
Someone who saw it did an AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/7fbruz/i_got_to_see_an_advanced_screening_of_paul_thomas/?sort=old (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/7fbruz/i_got_to_see_an_advanced_screening_of_paul_thomas/?sort=old)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Vicko99 on November 24, 2017, 08:20:35 PM
It's a very lovely and weird film, just as we've come to expect. Gorgeous. Full on indulgence in film looking like film, the opposite of digital. A bit of a sister film to THE MASTER, I feel, without being quite as intense. But there are many parallels. The score is indeed very good and front and center. Don't want to say too much more at the moment, and am still processing, but I am pleased and feeling that cinema high. PTA, Vicky Krieps, and Lesley Manville were there for a Q&A, which was wonderful, although most of it covered info that we all already know.
Does it have any "outrageous" moment?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: KJ on November 24, 2017, 08:51:39 PM
i'm getting confused by the running time. the guy in the reddit thread says it's 2 and a hour, despite the previously report that it's very short.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 24, 2017, 08:51:50 PM
I saw the film today, too, and just posted my fairly spoiler-free thoughts here (https://www.reddit.com/r/paulthomasanderson/comments/7fble2/could_someone_who_went_to_the_advanced_screening/dqavy5l/).  I'm willing to answer any questions, as well, I guess.  Like Matt35mm, I'm still kind of vibrating (only got home about 30 minutes ago) from the experience.  As with most PTA films, a second viewing would make a tremendous difference in helping to process our thoughts and feelings about it.   

[edit] fixed bad link.  Sorry 'bout that.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 24, 2017, 08:52:53 PM
i'm getting confused by the running time. the guy in the reddit thread says it's 2 and a hour, despite the previously report that it's very short.

I informally clocked the version we saw today at 125 minutes, with another 5 minutes of credits.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: BigSock on November 24, 2017, 09:07:17 PM
I saw the film today, too, and just posted my fairly spoiler-free thoughts here (https://www.reddit.com/r/paulthomasanderson/comments/7fble2/could_someone_who_went_to_the_advanced_screening/dqavy5l/).  I'm willing to answer any questions, as well, I guess.  Like Matt35mm, I'm still kind of vibrating (only got home about 30 minutes ago) from the experience.  As with most PTA films, a second viewing would make a tremendous difference in helping to process our thoughts and feelings about it.

Link doesnt work

And there are massive spoilers out there, so beware
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 24, 2017, 09:40:23 PM

Link doesn't work

Fixed it.  Should work now. And I tried to be as spoiler-free as possible at that link.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: FilmCell on November 24, 2017, 10:00:12 PM
Post the audio you recorded from the discussion.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 24, 2017, 11:45:19 PM
Post the audio you recorded from the discussion.

I'll take a listen in the next couple of days, see if I can boost some levels, etc.  In the meantime, here's a good recounting of some of it:  https://theplaylist.net/paul-thomas-anderson-says-phantom-thread-script-real-collaboration-daniel-day-lewis-20171124
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: FilmCell on November 25, 2017, 02:08:59 AM
Wait, so you "HATED" inherent Vice?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on November 25, 2017, 03:06:53 AM
Wait, so you "HATED" inherent Vice?
Quote from: wilburfan on reddit
will probably never be able to get thru Inherent Vice a second time.

(http://drunksunshine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/o-INHERENT-VICE-facebook.jpg)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 25, 2017, 12:04:52 PM
Wait, so you "HATED" inherent Vice?

Sadly, yes.  I was as surprised as you are.  (Or Doc, in the previous post.)  How could it have not worked for me on almost every level?  (Performances were excellent, I'll concede.)  I'm the only one in most PTA-flavored environments.  [shrug]  It's my burden, I guess. 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Tdog on November 25, 2017, 02:42:51 PM
I really wish the orchestral music was mixed louder in IV. It might make things truck along a bit smoother.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Vicko99 on November 25, 2017, 10:14:53 PM
i'm getting confused by the running time. the guy in the reddit thread says it's 2 and a hour, despite the previously report that it's very short.

I informally clocked the version we saw today at 125 minutes, with another 5 minutes of credits.
Does the flick qualify as "dark and twisted"?? (Details, pleaase)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 25, 2017, 11:30:40 PM
SPOILERS

Well it’s fucking beautiful, no surprise. A study in passive aggression and petty cruelty. Every scene asks: Who’s on top? Who can best exploit the other’s vulnerabilities? The dresses as emotional bondage...all the snips and cuts and pointed needles echoing the verbal weaponry used by the leads. Sex is conspicuously absent, but the power games and resulting domination replace any need for it. Like Jack Horner, Plainview, and Dodd before him, Woodcock molds others to his vision of life, with cold indifference to anyone's desires but his own. This character is darker than PT’s previous ones, though - he gets off on invoking humiliation and fear. Like in Blood, there's a sorrowful impossibility of reconciliation, because his essential nature cannot be changed. Reality must be twisted toward him, and twist Alma does. Luckily it’s darkly funny, too, the humor stemming from the absurdity of Woodcock’s self-seriousness. He just cannot. stand. not to be. in. control. Haha.

Maron relayed an insight into the narcissistic personality, once: “you’re either feeding their ego, or you’re a threat.” That partially sums up Woodcock, but then the pain that he inflicts as a result of his moodiness also becomes his pleasure. The ending is sick, but in a way, inevitable.

PT’s best. My new favorite.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 26, 2017, 12:09:37 AM
PT’s best. My new favorite.

Whoa.

I will try to forget the other things I read in your post...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 26, 2017, 03:20:23 PM
Quote
When love comes your way...it gets pretty complicated and peculiar...as love does.
   
--PTA on "Phantom Thread"   [from the post-screening discussion, Nov 24, 2017, Beverly Hills, CA]
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 26, 2017, 04:27:36 PM
Post the audio you recorded from the discussion.

Without meaning to be cute, (or a tease), I think I'm going to wait to post my full audio recording of the discussion following the Nov 24th screening I attended.   I think it will spoil less (and mean more) if you hear it after you've seen the film.  But to show good faith, here are a couple of moments that I particularly enjoyed.

In the first excerpt, Paul has just addressed a (not)-serving-as-his-own-DP question, when  Vicky volunteers what that was like from her perspective  (https://mega.nz/#!m4Z3CRKL!1tO9aroKRYjMbShtrHFbtwUjtswVhMtRnx3oT67RyBo).

The second is whether Paul is concerned about how a new film is received by audiences (https://mega.nz/#!fpB3RCLZ!8pujq_YUH29cMR41wCu5pyaHxUDjqEK6iJSRyp0uXrA).
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 26, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
i'm having problems with a lot of cinema these days...

Let me just say that if this isn't a thread somewhere else yet, it should be.  I've been having the same Dark Night of the Cinematic Soul for the last few years... I really liked Phantom Thread (thank God!), but really disliked things like Inherent Vice, Hateful Eight, Whiplash, La La Land, Get Out, Dunkirk, etc, etc. (It's an extensive list.)  So many films with "universal acclaim".  (It may have started when The Artist won Best Picture.)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 26, 2017, 09:42:50 PM
Not contesting your opinion, to each his own. Just some additional thoughts:

One thing I really liked about Woodcock vs the megalomaniacs Plainview and Dodd was that there seemed to be actual stakes limiting Woodcock’s selfishness. In There Will Be Blood and The Master, the characters exhibit the prowess they hold in their minds through monologues or grand actions (standing on and hammering a railroad stake through a table, relaying an embellished story about wrestling a dragon), but there’s less actually pushing up against them in these moments. These are large overtures for large overtures sake rather than a need to dominate something else in the scene. Salesmanship and theater. To put it another way: if the characters didn’t act this way, nothing story-wise would change. I know this is a bit of a false equivalency because Plainview has Eli to contend with in terms of furthering his oil enterprise, and Dodd has a growing base of followers, or not, but what I'm trying to say is that the stakes of domination in those scenes are not as central to the plot as I think they are in Phantom Thread. Phantom Thread seems the inverse where dressmaking is an incidental profession, a symbol of the artist's life, but it serves more to create an engine for the hierarchical interpersonal relationships, which are the real meat of the film.

Reynolds’ lack of accountability nearly costs him one of the most monied patrons of the House of Woodcock, and he has to swallow his pride temporarily in order to operate in reciprocity with the world. At the dinner party scene, when Alma’s seated next to the man who invites them to the New Year’s Eve party, he attempts to sell her on it by saying it’ll be the “the time of her life.” Alma responds challengingly “How do you know what my life has been?” and the man says plainly, “I don’t. But I think you’ll have a very fine time.” This grounded reaction is in sharp contrast to all other conversations in the film, which can only be approached by Woodcock as battles to be won or lost. It reminded me of the moment in The Master when Dodd is confronted by the apartment gathering attendee who questions whether or not The Cause has the makings of a cult, but here that foil is deflected and buried more invisibly by having the contrasting conversation take place second-hand through another character. You still see the difference in humility but it’s not as bluntly in your face as before.

So the emotional transactions felt more literally like transactions to me here than in the past, where there had been a lot more telling and expository dialogue moving things along in linear fashion. Phantom Thread felt structurally more like a spiral that deepens as the story moves forward. That seemed like a real evolution in his writing, to me.

I’d taken this post down because I didn’t want to steer this thread into an uninteresting debate about which of his films are better, but do think that the movies he's made previously help illuminate where this one's heartbeat lies.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on November 26, 2017, 11:32:46 PM
Thanks for posting your thoughts, everyone. I'm enjoying the discussion so far and I'm happy to see some people suggest that it's a sort of strange or curious film with lots of varying music.

Wilberfan, I am a mastering engineer. I spend most of my days listening to and massaging audio files, and testing out audio tools. If you'd like, I can take a look at the Q&A recording for you at some point and do a bit to smooth out the dynamics, get it to a comfortable playback level, bring out the speakers' voices and filter out unwanted noise. It probably wouldn't take a lot of time to get it to an acceptable point, so let me know. I'm likely busy with work the coming two days, but I'd have some time soon after. But if you think the file is already fine, that's all good. :)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 27, 2017, 12:13:58 AM
Wilberfan, I am a mastering engineer. I spend most of my days listening to and massaging audio files, and testing out audio tools. If you'd like, I can take a look at the Q&A recording for you at some point and do a bit to smooth out the dynamics, get it to a comfortable playback level, bring out the speakers' voices and filter out unwanted noise. It probably wouldn't take a lot of time to get it to an acceptable point, so let me know. I'm likely busy with work the coming two days, but I'd have some time soon after. But if you think the file is already fine, that's all good. :)

The file already fine?  Pfff!   I took a real quick-and-dirty swipe at it for an hour or so this afternoon.  I don't really know what I'm doing (as you can probably hear).  I just increased the gain on the quiet parts, and hit it with an equalizer setting that sounded...better somehow.   I can let you finese it, sure.  If you're not worried about spoiling the film for yourself...  What I'd REALLY enjoy is watching you actually work on it.  You're not L.A.-based by any chance, are you...?  ;-)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 27, 2017, 12:53:36 AM
like when he jumped from Magnolia to Punch-Drunk Love, in terms of the narrative dynamics of Inherent Vice versus Phantom Thread. this is straight forward as hell, even more so than Punch-Drunk Love, since Vicky Krieps explains what Phantom Thread will be about in her opening remarks. and then the entire movie is about what she said. also, what she describes, love, is the Phantom Thread. of course, love was the phantom thread. of course!

DDL is DDL good, which is great, and perfectly tuned. but i was surprised by his character's lack of range. here is the thing: DDL acts DDL good, but Vicky Krieps has the DDL character. the big character is Krieps. it's made clear that this is her movie, and she shreds. totally. every time i looked at her face i knew what was going on in the movie. sometimes i had to look across the room to see her face. but i would do that. because that was how i would know what was going on in the movie. in order for DDL to be spot on for his character, which he was, he had to be restrained. so there's less complexity to his acting frustrated in running jokes related to breakfast. her face's reaction to him becoming upset was always the more interesting face.

when he meets her she's a waitress. which is low culture. later he tells her ~, "Maybe you have no taste." but then at the wedding, when she takes the dress off the lady sleeping! then they kiss on the sidewalk! oh man. that was their Running in the Rain moment. the green dress had been the Ouija board.

that's because they're in love. it's maybe mysterious why they're in love, but i don't think Phantom Thread is a mysterious movie. i adore that PT adores the theme of people needing people. Phantom Thread is like a Paul Verhoeven love story. perfect high culture shittalking. and the women bonded by the end. this was as interesting as any other PT movie, they're all interesting, really i think way too many of you are way too hard on Hard Eight.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on November 27, 2017, 12:58:40 AM
Wilberfan, I am a mastering engineer. I spend most of my days listening to and massaging audio files, and testing out audio tools. If you'd like, I can take a look at the Q&A recording for you at some point and do a bit to smooth out the dynamics, get it to a comfortable playback level, bring out the speakers' voices and filter out unwanted noise. It probably wouldn't take a lot of time to get it to an acceptable point, so let me know. I'm likely busy with work the coming two days, but I'd have some time soon after. But if you think the file is already fine, that's all good. :)

The file already fine?  Pfff!   I took a real quick-and-dirty swipe at it for an hour or so this afternoon.  I don't really know what I'm doing (as you can probably hear).  I just increased the gain on the quiet parts, and hit it with an equalizer setting that sounded...better somehow.   I can let you finese it, sure.  If you're not worried about spoiling the film for yourself...  What I'd REALLY enjoy is watching you actually work on it.  You're not L.A.-based by any chance, are you...?  ;-)

I'm way across the continent but not close enough to NYC to catch an advanced screening, unfortunately! L.A. sounds cool and, if I dare say, strange (no offense to the inhabitants!), and I need to make it out there for a visit soon. Anyway, the source recording is the biggest factor in an audio file being clean and high quality (sort of obviously). That said, there are a few ways that would hopefully highlight the voices more and get rid of unwanted noise as I mentioned .... I can send you a PM afterwards and give you a description of everything I did if you're interested in audio manipulation.

I'm not one who's too worried about spoiling things. As far as I'm concerned, the actors and director talking about filming and some of the scenes and such doesn't ruining the experience of actually being immersed in the film for me. As long as there's not some point where they say, "THAT BIG SCENE WHERE TWIST X HAPPENED AND IT WAS REVEALED THAT MAIN CHARACTER Y WAS Z AND THE WHOLE PLOT HINGES ON THAT ONE MOMENT," I'm fine.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 27, 2017, 01:39:08 AM
 Here (https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/11/27/daniel-day-lewis-makes-rare-appearance-new-york-final-film-phantom-thread/896668001/) is a write-up on the NYC post-screening discussion.

Quote
Anderson says he was inspired to write the script while laying in bed with his wife, Saturday Night Live veteran Maya Rudolph.

"I was very, very sick one night and my wife looked at me with a love and affection I hadn't seen in a long time," Anderson remembered. "So I called Daniel the next day and said, 'I think I have a good idea for a movie.' "

In reality, "Paul just needed an old man and I seemed to fit the bill," joked Day-Lewis
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on November 27, 2017, 10:02:42 AM
I loved it. Flew right by. He’s really moving the camera around again! Seeing it a second time tonight so more interesting, detailed remarks to come, but after having sat with it for 16ish hours, it definitely ranks pretty high overall for me. The ending is bizarre and coyly kinky. And the score! Wall-to-wall and utterly hypnotic.  I think this may help alleviate any remaining sting for those who felt burned by Inherent Vice.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 27, 2017, 09:33:21 PM
[Nodding my head]

https://twitter.com/ErikDavis/status/934978136369958912

building from this, and outside thread conversations, i wish to further the explore the concept of love as portrayed by Phantom Thread. it isn't that the title can't refer to anything else (i know how you PT people get), but rather that a full meaning is obtained from the idea of the title as a reference to love, based on the movie, Vicky Krieps's opening statements, and here are PT and wilberfan again --

Quote
When love comes your way...it gets pretty complicated and peculiar...as love does.
   
--PTA on "Phantom Thread"   [from the post-screening discussion, Nov 24, 2017, Beverly Hills, CA]

i'm about to get sooo spoilery

second warning about how spoilery i'm about to become

DDL tells Lesley Manville he's made a terrible life mistake and things are fucked, he needs help. that's a terrific scene because it solidifies the female/female relationship, but let us also consider what type of statement DDL makes. that is a very non-love statement. he's wanting to escape his marriage. and although i can't currently recall the exact order of the subsequent scenes, i know this is close to the end. the end i shall not mention, since i don't have to, and out of respect for people who haven't seen it. but those who have seen it you know what i mean.

how would it be logical for him to say that, and for the movie to end as it does? you see, it's not logical. it's love, which doesn't mean one thing. as i've mentioned before, a phantom thread is an imaginary one. and here the audience sees: we imagine for ourselves what we need to stitch our lives together when we do and how we do.

and that is true and tricky and difficult, and that is what we do. PT could've portrayed this a different way, sure, but i think the movie demonstrates this in a full way.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 27, 2017, 09:41:12 PM
I like your interpretation and I'm bound to agree with it.

I also think it's tricky in that specific turn and wonder how much it's love and how much it's Alma bending to his gravitational force. If love is self-sacrifice Alma is certainly in it, but is Reynolds in the same exact boat? Hmmm. I don't know. He's giving up his solitude. Maybe love isn't necessarily a balance, an equal two-way street, which is a bold thing for the film to say.

I think it's a bit more mysterious than you're willing to let on.

Still can't stop thinking about it.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 27, 2017, 09:46:14 PM
i also believe that scene between DDL and Lesley solidifies DDL's interior weakness and dependency upon others. i don't believe he's a man who could win his fights alone (there isn't evidence of that). i know you know that by the end he willingly self-sacrifices in order to preserve an environment of love.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 27, 2017, 09:52:24 PM
i don't believe he's a man who could win his fights alone (there isn't evidence of that).

This is a great point. Launching pad for a different conversation I want to think more about.

i know you know that by the end he willingly self-sacrifices in order to preserve an environment of love.

I know, but I'm thinking there's also an argument that Woodcock needs an audience, a target for his arrows, in order to feel satisfied by firing them. Like the old saying goes, if a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, did it make a sound? Alma proves herself loyal in her submission, a willing punching bag for his outbursts. He could be going along with her plan in twisted desperation to preserve that.

Woodcock also loves to be infantilized, with Cyril constantly looking over his shoulder and replacing his (dead) mother's role. Alma's enthusiasm to take part in that odd dynamic certainly plays into it. Is the want to be mothered the same as the want to be loved?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 27, 2017, 10:06:31 PM
just warning you guys again about major spoilers, in fact i'll make the text white

following upon your last statement, and building from the conversation, how much of their love is for each other, and how much of their love is for themselves? does she not enjoy how great she looks in his dresses, which everyone would like to wear? she gets jealous asap. she fears losing him, but is it because she fears losing what he represents? i was hard on her first because he's easy to be hard on. in an overall sense i think most loves are impure. he seems to love himself way more than he loves her or anyone. the harder part with him is identifying how he lovers her for her.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 27, 2017, 10:12:15 PM
^ Mic drop
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 27, 2017, 11:20:54 PM
Just so I understand clearly, I thought this thread was for spoilers and the other thread was not.  Does it not work that way?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on November 27, 2017, 11:22:28 PM
It is, some people who haven't seen it are popping in and stealing glances because curiosity's a bitch. We're just being extra cautious.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on November 28, 2017, 12:57:38 PM
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/exclusive-daniel-day-lewis-giving-up-acting-phantom-thread?mbid=social_facebook

Daniel Day Lewis on Phantom Thread and his "retirement". Surprising tidbit: He has not seen the film and apparently has no plans to.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Rooty Poots on November 28, 2017, 01:04:41 PM
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/exclusive-daniel-day-lewis-giving-up-acting-phantom-thread?mbid=social_facebook

Daniel Day Lewis on Phantom Thread and his "retirement". Surprising tidbit: He has not seen the film and apparently has no plans to.

Quote
I do know that Paul and I laughed a lot before we made the movie. And then we stopped laughing because we were both overwhelmed by a sense of sadness. That took us by surprise: We didn’t realize what we had given birth to. It was hard to live with. And still is.

…and…

Quote
Paul and I spoke a lot about curses—the idea of a curse on a family, what that might be like. A kind of malady. And it’s not that I felt there was a curse attached to this film, other than the responsibility of a creative life, which is both a curse and a blessing. You can never separate them until the day you die. It’s the thing that feeds you and eats away at you; gives you life and is killing you at the same time.

Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 28, 2017, 01:09:44 PM
Quote
Although there have been rumors that Day-Lewis is going to become a fashion designer, he laughed when I suggested that career. “Who knows?” he said mischievously. “I won’t know which way to go for a while. But I’m not going to stay idle. I don’t fear the stony silence.” He has always had a variety of passions: He once wrote a comedy script with Rebecca; he paints well; he makes furniture; and he is a fan of MotoGP, the competitive motorcycle tournament. But he also has a deep love of film, and it is hard to imagine that he will not continue to contribute to movies in some way.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on November 28, 2017, 01:12:14 PM
"Not wanting to see the film is connected to the decision I’ve made to stop working as an actor. But it’s not why the sadness came to stay. That happened during the telling of the story, and I don’t really know why.”

I should not hang in the Spoilers thread but...whaaaat? I don't know if he hates the movie or if it overwhelmed him. It was weird at the last Q&A the way he kept repeating how awful shooting the movie was.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 28, 2017, 01:34:51 PM
I know you guys get this, but this is something I constantly have to explain to the great-unwashed about PTA's films:

Quote
Phantom Thread is one of the most beguiling portrayals of fashion in the history of film, but in the end, it’s not a film about fashion.

"But Boogie Nights is not about porn.  There Will Be Blood is not about the oil industry.  The Master is not about Scientology..."


Back to Phantom Thread for a second.  SPOILER

I was just meditating when the following thought wafted by:   The driving scenes in Phantom Thread had a very 40's/50's look about them.  There's one especially driving down a dark lane with the shrubbery on either side illuminated rather awkwardly (so we can see the car).  Very much reminded me of all of those rear-screen projections from the era of Rebecca, etc.    I can only hope it was a deliberate attempt to invoke that period of film making.   

And have we discussed Reynolds' aggressive style of driving yet?   I'm taking it as a 'release' for him.  A way to (unconsciously?) blow off the contained, controlled environment of the House of Woodcock.  Other thoughts?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Vicko99 on November 28, 2017, 10:47:38 PM
I read on twitter that the ending is a direct homage to blood meridian :shock: :shock: :shock:. Can someone spoil it for me, I'm not watching this until march
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 29, 2017, 10:18:36 AM
spoiler: it's not a direct homage to Blood Meridian.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on November 29, 2017, 06:17:11 PM
I know you guys get this, but this is something I constantly have to explain to the great-unwashed about PTA's films:

Quote
Phantom Thread is one of the most beguiling portrayals of fashion in the history of film, but in the end, it’s not a film about fashion.

"But Boogie Nights is not about porn.  There Will Be Blood is not about the oil industry.  The Master is not about Scientology..."


Back to Phantom Thread for a second.  SPOILER

I was just meditating when the following thought wafted by:   The driving scenes in Phantom Thread had a very 40's/50's look about them.  There's one especially driving down a dark lane with the shrubbery on either side illuminated rather awkwardly (so we can see the car).  Very much reminded me of all of those rear-screen projections from the era of Rebecca, etc.    I can only hope it was a deliberate attempt to invoke that period of film making.   

And have we discussed Reynolds' aggressive style of driving yet?   I'm taking it as a 'release' for him.  A way to (unconsciously?) blow off the contained, controlled environment of the House of Woodcock.  Other thoughts?

I was thinking this same thing while I was watching the trailer. There's that quick shot in which DDL and Vickey Krieps are driving in a car. Totally Hitchcock vibes to it ... and the score over top is bliss.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on November 29, 2017, 11:23:38 PM
Some sadly lo-res snaps from the DGA screening:
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on November 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM
I read on twitter that the ending is a direct homage to blood meridian :shock: :shock: :shock:. Can someone spoil it for me, I'm not watching this until march

In regards to thematically similar films (and potential but unconfirmed influences):

@NickNewman (https://twitter.com/Nick_Newman/status/936062289568059392): They said “art house 50 Shades of Grey” because they haven’t seen La Belle Noiseuse, Buñuel’s Diary of a Chambermaid or The Heartbreak Kid.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on November 30, 2017, 02:30:38 PM
Yeah, hearing "Arthouse Fifty Shades of Gray" a couple of months ago made me sad.  I hadn't seen 50 Shades at all, but referring to PT this way made me sad anyway.   Is that description even remotely close to being valid??
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on November 30, 2017, 02:36:23 PM
No. It is not even remotely close to being valid.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on November 30, 2017, 02:43:06 PM
it's also not like any Mike Leigh movie. basically all the rumors were false, pretty much every one maybe.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: KJ on November 30, 2017, 07:58:16 PM
b-b-but I wanted 50 shades )):
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on December 01, 2017, 04:30:44 PM
I may be wrong, but I don't remember two of the shots from the trailers ever appearing in the film: the quick push in at the restaurant where Reynolds looks up from a piece of paper he's writing on, and the other slow push-in on Reynolds with his arms crossed as he says "There is an air of quiet death in this house."

Did I just miss these shots in the final film?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: boogienights on December 05, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
I may be wrong, but I don't remember two of the shots from the trailers ever appearing in the film: the quick push in at the restaurant where Reynolds looks up from a piece of paper he's writing on, and the other slow push-in on Reynolds with his arms crossed as he says "There is an air of quiet death in this house."

Did I just miss these shots in the final film?

Did not see the push in, but I think thta my have been left on the cutting room floor as I think that's from the post wedding scene which pushed out, but he didn't put his glasses on or off like in the trailer
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on December 07, 2017, 07:38:17 PM
Here's a great, in-depth, very spoilery interview with PTA about the film.


http://emanuellevy.com/review/featured-review/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-about-his-collaboration-with-daniel-day-lewis/ (http://emanuellevy.com/review/featured-review/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-about-his-collaboration-with-daniel-day-lewis/)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 07, 2017, 09:41:41 PM
Here's a great, in-depth, very spoilery interview with PTA about the film.


http://emanuellevy.com/review/featured-review/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-about-his-collaboration-with-daniel-day-lewis/ (http://emanuellevy.com/review/featured-review/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-about-his-collaboration-with-daniel-day-lewis/)

I suspect that was cobbled together from the several post-screening discussions he attended.  A couple of the quotes I recall from the screening I was at.

I still don't understand why DDL doesn't get a co-screenplay credit, though, after reading that. 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: matt35mm on December 10, 2017, 12:08:13 AM
I finally feel like I can say some real thoughts on the film now that I've seen it three times. The whole thing feels like a symphony, and there's only about 10 minutes of it that doesn't have score. Like it's one movement into another and into another. The editor, Dylan Tichenor, told me he was a little embarrassed by how much music there was, and I understand where he's coming from as music is so often a crutch, but here I feel like that symphonic idea is central to the DNA of the thing, and the music is the loveliest.

One major thing that I clocked onto this time was the idea (shared with THE MASTER) that these are two souls that are meeting again and again in different lives. I mean, I clocked onto that the first time when Alma literally says so toward the end of the film, but I thought about it in relation to the rest of the film, and in particular, with the idea of Alma's impulse to want to take care of Reynolds, and to have him be helpless. There is the scene when he is sick and hallucinating his mother, and Alma walks in and past the mother, and then walks by again and the mother is gone. His mind/heart begins to conflate Alma with his mother, who he misses very much.

Just before Reynolds meets Alma, he speaks of having an unsettled feeling that his mother is near him, watching over him. Then he meets Alma and takes her on a date then to his country home. He tells her that his mother is the first woman he dressed. He then dresses Alma, perhaps much the way he would've dressed his mother. Soon after, on the hill overlooking the sea, Reynolds says, "I feel as if I've been looking for you for a very long time." Alma: "You found me."

Without taking things QUITE literally, I do like to let some part of my brain take these things at face value when a character says, as Alma does here, and as Master does, that they are fundamentally connected with Reynolds/Freddie in past lives and future lives. The two balloons with messages that found their way to their intended destination (the beautiful poetic image from THE MASTER). And so I think about how very probably, Alma was born around the time that Reynolds' mother died, and the thing that he needs in Alma is subconsciously related to a feeling that he has found his mother again. Right after his hallucination of his mother blending with Alma, he proposes to Alma, having been previously so sure that he would never marry.

Their relationship is clearly more complicated than this, just as Freddie and Master's was, but there is this central recognition of each other, something that transcends the visible, moment to moment world.

The second-to-last image is Reynolds with his head in Alma's lap, as he must've done with his mother, this feeling of the ultimate homecoming and sense of peace. The final words spoken, spoken like a child to his mother, "... and I'm getting hungry."

What a lovely film.

An interesting tidbit from when I talked to PTA at a reception for the film (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=73.msg350890#msg350890):

People kept asking PTA how Reynolds knew that Alma was poisoning him in the climactic scene. He said he meant for it to be very clear that Alma is doing this in plain sight of Reynolds, so there's no guessing on his part. They both know what's going on, but it's a staring contest ("If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose"). PTA didn't mean for this to be ambiguous. He felt a little bad that this wasn't clearer.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 10, 2017, 12:16:18 AM
I finally feel like I can say some real thoughts on the film now that I've seen it three times.

Fascinating.  With only one viewing (so far), I hadn't made the connection between his Mother and Alma.  That's definitely something to watch for next time. 

Curious, was this a DCP or 35mm print you saw this third time?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: matt35mm on December 10, 2017, 12:18:32 AM
I finally feel like I can say some real thoughts on the film now that I've seen it three times.

Fascinating.  With only one viewing (so far), I hadn't made the connection between his Mother and Alma.  That's definitely something to watch for next time. 

Curious, was this a DCP or 35mm print you saw this third time?

DCP this time, on the mixing stage where it was mixed!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 10, 2017, 12:41:12 AM
It will be interesting to see if this rather extensive screener/working-the-guild-crowd will pay off in nominations/awards.  It's probably a reasonably smart way to get the film in front of the eyes that need to see it for positive awards outcomes.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 10, 2017, 01:15:52 PM
I finally feel like I can say some real thoughts on the film now that I've seen it three times. The whole thing feels like a symphony, and there's only about 10 minutes of it that doesn't have score. Like it's one movement into another and into another. The editor, Dylan Tichenor, told me he was a little embarrassed by how much music there was, and I understand where he's coming from as music is so often a crutch, but here I feel like that symphonic idea is central to the DNA of the thing, and the music is the loveliest.

It will be interesting to see if this rather extensive screener/working-the-guild-crowd will pay off in nominations/awards.  It's probably a reasonably smart way to get the film in front of the eyes that need to see it for positive awards outcomes.

Is the purpose of the limited release in major cities to have critics view it and generate some buzz for awards season in hopes that the awards buzz will bring in audiences upon a wider release? I understand the natural cycle of these sorts of releases (vs. big studio releases), but it sucks that some can see a film such as this three times while others in my sort of position won't have access to it for at least a month and maybe not at all until it's released on Blu Ray while I can go see Justice League or Thor or The Avengers very easily. (I'm not trying to point a finger at those who've seen it multiple times by now. Obviously they're not at all at fault and I'm totally happy that they took the opportunity; I would of course do the same. I'm just irrationally complaining about the way that movie distribution has to be.)

Maybe I'm projecting an unjustified sense of entitlement here. It's not like I'm talking about the fairness of access to food or housing or something. I guess I'm just letting out a sigh at the state of film distribution.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 10, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
it sucks that some can see a film such as this three times while others in my sort of position won't have access to it for at least a month and maybe not at all until it's released on Blu Ray...

In a weird, twisted, unfair way the campaign is having it's desired effect:  It's building up buzz, getting people even more excited to see it.  (And there is no hesitation for stories/articles/posts to emphasize the "DDL's-last-role!" angle--which I never really think about, to be honest.  To me, this film represents "PTA's Latest Feature" and not "DDL's Last".
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 10, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
it sucks that some can see a film such as this three times while others in my sort of position won't have access to it for at least a month and maybe not at all until it's released on Blu Ray...

In a weird, twisted, unfair way the campaign is having it's desired effect:  It's building up buzz, getting people even more excited to see it.  (And there is no hesitation for stories/articles/posts to emphasize the "DDL's-last-role!" angle--which I never really think about, to be honest.  To me, this film represents "PTA's Latest Feature" and not "DDL's Last".

In a weird, twisted, unfair way the campaign is having it's desired effect:  It's building up buzz, getting people even more excited to see it.  (And there is no hesitation for stories/articles/posts to emphasize the "DDL's-last-role!" angle--which I never really think about, to be honest.  To me, this film represents "PTA's Latest Feature" and not "DDL's Last".

Yep, and I can't fault it for that. I don't mind the major-city-limited-release thing to generate buzz. I guess I'm just more or less complaining that the wide release status is unforeseeable in the meantime. Will it come to a city near me at all? I don't know at this point. I'm starting to think it won't. Meanwhile, the Justice Leagues, Thors, and Daddy's Homes will go on rolling at the theatre in my city. It sucks that there's not a big demand for visionary, artistic content like Phantom Thread. It's not like the plot or the shooting or the acting is that weird or unconventional or experimental anyway. Why don't the masses appreciate this stuff?

I was having this conversation with a friend last night. He was talking about how he's excited to see Justice League. I said that superhero movies don't interest me. He suggested that they're about the only thing that gets people out of their homes and into the theatre seats. People apparently want to see these larger-than-life spectacles in the Baudrillardian sense.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 10, 2017, 04:49:04 PM
Why don't the masses appreciate this stuff?

There's the crux of the issue, right there.   Subtle, thought-provoking, nuanced...those are qualities that will never appeal to the masses. 

As H.L. Menkin once wrote,

Quote
No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 10, 2017, 04:59:22 PM
looking forward to your list of art house favorites from 2017.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 10, 2017, 06:05:22 PM
I'm late, I'm sorry. I was fortunate enough to see this twice so far and have just not had the time to write something organized so here goes with some random thoughts.

First, some non-spoiler stuff for any lurkers brave enough to enter this thread.

Firstly: For anyone concerned at all, PTA has not dropped the ball. Phantom Thread is another worthy entry in PTA's filmography. And the thing I've learned from watching the lists come in ranking his filmography is that it really doesn't matter if it's your first or 8th favorite film of his, because they're all great in their own way. What's your 6th favorite Kubrick film? Who cares. Because each one says something different and whatever your preference is says as much about you as it does about any objective quality of the film itself.

This feels like the beginning of a new era for PTA. In my own head I kinda break his career into 3 bits (Developing his style: Hard Eight > Boogie Nights > Magnolia, Throwing everything out the window: PDL, TWBB, the difficult Joaquin period: Master, IV) and now Phantom Thread which seems unlike anything else he's made to date. And yet... would make a fascinating double-feature with Punch-Drunk Love (his two oddball films about love), with The Master (50s setting, master/servant relationships) or TWBB (a study in contrasts for DDL). Like The Master it seems at times it could be a film actually made in the 50s, the score especially pushes it to places that feel very period, but PTA's voice as a filmmaker always shines through brighter and keep it from ever becoming a recreation (a la Soderbergh's Good German or Haynes' Far From Heaven).

If you were concerned by the trailer (as I was, a bit) that this might be more of a buttoned up Merchant Ivory film for PTA, you can alleviate those concerns. The movie is pure PTA through and through. In retrospect, having seen the film, the trailer feels like a compromise between showing that it’s a PTA film but also a film that a regular people might go see. To me, the trailer sells a more straightforward movie, not a bait and switch exactly, but only hints at the places it goes.

I spent much of my first viewing (as I tend to do with his films) just noticing all the little ways the film is different from anything PTA has made before (the camera shake on the hood of the car, ooh!), and the second viewing just taking in the details and picking up on all the ways it actually fits into his filmography.

Phantom Thread is a much more immediate film than Vice or The Master. And I chalk that up to two major factors: DDL is a more charismatic actor than Joaquin (who is incredible but can also repel audiences) and Dylan Tichenor back as editor. For all its eccentricities and turns, by the time the lights come up on Phantom Thread, I think most people will leave the theatre without asking themselves what the hell it was about (which was not the case for Vice or The Master, where multiple viewings could reveal new truths but the films would never be 'solved.'). PTA's most experimental/difficult films for normal audiences are (to my mind) PDL, Master and Vice, all of which were edited by Leslie Jones. Dylan Tichenor is back in the saddle for this and for me it shows. (Not saying any of these films are better or worse, just that some are more wandering and elliptical, and some more direct.)

I'm terrible at estimating what general audiences will go for (when I first saw TWBB I thought it was PTA's most difficult film and would not make any money) but it feels to me like between DDL's performance and a few outrageous moments, this could have a chance at breaking through with the masses more than his last few films. But again, who the fuck knows. So far so good on critical notices and year-end stuff.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

These have been reiterated elsewhere but the keys to unlocking this film were 1.) PTA's reveal at the Q&A about how the genesis of Phantom Thread occured when PTA being sick as a dog and saw Maya look at him with a kind of love he hadn't seen from her in a long time. And 2.) PTA and DDL admitting that Woodcock could have been in any creative profession and it was almost arbitrary that it became fashion (though obviously after it was decided, they all dove in head-first). This is absolutely a film about these three characters, not about dressmaking or Charles James or whatever else.

This is PTA's most intimate film to date. After the huge epic scope of TWBB which is an epic about capitalism, greed, oil, religion, it’s surprising (for me anyway) to see them reteam for this much much smaller film, an interior epic about relationships and the fucked up things we do to the ones we love most.

I thought it was interesting how in both this and TWBB, how much they reveal about the lead character through showing the process in which he does his job. TWBB spends a ton of time showing you the process of getting oil up out of the ground, buying land, the lengths that Plainview will go to succeed at both, and likewise Phantom Thread spends an equal percentage of screen time immersing you in the world of dressmaking to show how Woodcock’s character ticks through the obsession of his pursuits.

The New Years Eve scene is the major set piece of the film. For me, it's the oil derrick on fire sequence of Phantom Thread. Beautiful, gorgeous, huge. Compared to how much time we spend in that townhouse, it’s just incredible to see it opened up like that for just a brief few minutes, but wow. (I wonder how much of the film’s budget just went towards wrangling all the extras, costumes, elephants just for that scene?)

The mother scene is interesting. As has been mentioned it’s definitely part of Woodcock’s interest in Alma, that it makes him feel closer to mother, or the feeling that she gave him as she cared for him, and in his weakened, near-death state, almost gets back there. I believe that seeing his mother there is part of what binds him to Alma. It’s also interesting because I believe it’s the second fantasy sequence in PTAs career, after the nude dance scene in The Master. In both cases we see a character lying down envisioning something that is not happening.

There are weddings in so many PTA films! Boogie. Blood. Master. Phantom. And offscreen marriage in Hard Eight too, I believe. I don’t know what this means, but I doubt he realizes he’s doing it.

Like Katherine Waterson in Vice, Krieps is a real discovery here. She's incredible going toe-to-toe with DDL and I'm excited to see where her career goes in the next couple years after she gets snatched up by tons of other directors.

It’s still CRAZY to me PTA didn't use a DP. Phantom Thread looks great but feels a bit looser and less precious in its framing than his previous work. Though it moves a ton compared to the locked off style of Master and Vice, which probably allowed for a lot more improvisation. I would be curious to know if there was as much fucking around off-script as there seemed to be during those films. I would guess not. Or in any case, if there was, it feels like there wasn’t as this feels tighter, but again that could all come down to the editing.

I have tons more thoughts and can’t wait to see it again to keep discussing and thinking about it. It’s definitely my favorite of 2017 though much too early to say where it ranks in my personal PTA list, as I’m having a hard time imagining anything in the Top 3 or 4 ever being unseated.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Ghostboy on December 10, 2017, 07:24:52 PM
Only seen it once so far but man was this delightful. Intimidatingly good as always and (also as always) like nothing else out there. Can't wait for the Xmas to see it again.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 10, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
That was an excellent read!  Thanks for taking the time.

There are weddings in so many PTA films! Boogie. Blood. Master. Phantom. And offscreen marriage in Hard Eight too, I believe. I don’t know what this means, but I doubt he realizes he’s doing it.

A fascinating observation.  Of course, PTA has never had a wedding in his own personal life...  And his Dad was married twice.  Not sure what any of that means, but...

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on December 13, 2017, 10:04:01 AM
I'm not looking... I'm not looking... Just stumbling blindly in here to share this:

Lovesick: The Complicated Relationship of "Phantom Thread" (https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/lovesick-the-complicated-relationship-of-phantom-thread)

I haven't read it either, obvs.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 13, 2017, 10:55:36 AM
I'm not looking... I'm not looking... Just stumbling blindly in here to share this:

Lovesick: The Complicated Relationship of "Phantom Thread" (https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/lovesick-the-complicated-relationship-of-phantom-thread)

I haven't read it either, obvs.

That was very insightful, but Jesus, do NOT read that until you've seen the film. Seriously.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 13, 2017, 01:23:44 PM
That review was so beautifully articulated. Wonderful read.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on December 13, 2017, 02:03:36 PM
How did you guys read the ending, in terms of tone? I found it to be sinister and unsettling (as did the friend I saw the film with) but many reviews and reactions that I have read seem to have seen it differently, with the resolution being sort of a "isn't love strange" type of thing.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 13, 2017, 02:16:29 PM
I had a similar reaction on my first viewing, Pringle, and I’ve only seen it once. The ending has become an active debate in my mind. Thinking I probably read it a bit too b&w initially, as the ideas about Reynolds wanting to be mothered weren’t as clear to me. As it continues to brew, I’m thinking that it probably comes down to the individual watching and their personal perspective, as every love is different. What may be toxic to some can work for others, what may be serene for some for others may be too tame. And even if not traditionally healthy, the illogical, overriding nature of love can make static ideas like “healthy” irrelevant, anyway.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 13, 2017, 02:46:38 PM
How did you guys read the ending, in terms of tone? I found it to be sinister and unsettling (as did the friend I saw the film with) but many reviews and reactions that I have read seem to have seen it differently, with the resolution being sort of a "isn't love strange" type of thing.

It's been almost three weeks since I've seen it, so it's begun to fade a little...but I recall having a really big smile on my face having realized what was really going on between them.  I don't remember having any sense of judgement, etc, towards them, more of a "Oh, good for you two to have discovered something that makes you both so happy..."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on December 13, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
What a wonderful, rich film we've been given to digest!

I think the mother bit has a huge deal to do with it. Part of what disturbed me about the film was my interpretation of why Reynolds agreed to eat the mushrooms: the image of his beloved Mother only came to him when he was in his fever dream poison trip, and his desire to return to his Mother again is directly tied in his mind to the eating the mushrooms. Which leads to another, probably obvious reading of the film as an allegory of some sort about artists who become dependent on self destructive substances, and the people around these artists who feed them these substances for their own gain. Alma seemed less like "the one person on Earth who really understood him" than she did like an addict's spouse who enables the addiction in order to maintain the security of the relationship. After all, Alma clearly got off on the power of being Mrs. Reynolds Woodcock. Clearly, ingesting these mushrooms is very unhealthy and, while they may not kill Reynolds now, the repeated ingestion of them can not lead to anything good, and how sustainable is this situation they're in?

I couldn't help but think of people like Prince and, yes, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 13, 2017, 07:19:36 PM
the mother philosophy has been very on point.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 14, 2017, 01:21:18 AM
I read somewhere that there are lots of cross fades in the film. Anyone care to confirm who's seen it?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Tictacbk on December 14, 2017, 03:55:54 AM
We were very specifically asked not to reveal anything about crossfades at our screening. Sorry, you'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 14, 2017, 10:57:38 AM
We were very specifically asked not to reveal anything about crossfades at our screening. Sorry, you'll just have to wait and see.

By whom? The staff? PTA? You don't have to answer. I don't know if you're wholly serious, but I'll buy it. That's interesting that they were specific about it. Your response kind of confirms it, anyway .... :P
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on December 14, 2017, 11:04:00 AM
He’s totally kidding. And I can’t remember anything specifically about cross fades except maybe in a couple instances.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 14, 2017, 11:40:06 AM
He’s totally kidding. And I can’t remember anything specifically about cross fades except maybe in a couple instances.

I've been had. I pictured PTA standing up there, saying, "and don't mention anything about all those cross fades throughout the film."  :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 14, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
I've been had. :\

Indeed.  There's a lot of that (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=73.msg350155#msg350155) going around.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Tictacbk on December 14, 2017, 02:09:17 PM
Haha sorry, dumb joke.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 15, 2017, 07:13:15 PM
Haha sorry, dumb joke.

Heh, no problem at all. I am a just a gullible goose!  :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 16, 2017, 10:39:35 PM
Molly Haskell's Film Comment quote from the Best Films list. is this comment a spoiler? i'd actually place it in the non-spoiler thread after the current post, but the guy is sending messages about preserving his virginity as well so it's like, do i touch him or not

there couldn't be a movie that made anything near lick a sense if not for Vicky Krieps, i think, i agree with Molly Haskell

Quote
Opposite Daniel Day-Lewis as Reynolds Woodcock, Vicky Krieps’s Alma emerges as the perfect figure for Woodcock’s purposes (and designs)—embodying the freshness of youth, while stolid enough to withstand his frenzies. Intriguingly, and for the first time in Anderson’s career, the woman becomes the real protagonist.

maybe everyone said that, i don't actually read the critics. i looked at year-end lists this year, as sort of like a summary about how the critics felt this year.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 16, 2017, 10:50:31 PM
Molly Haskell's Film Comment quote from the Best Films list.

Today I learned Molly Haskell is still alive and still reviewing films.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 17, 2017, 06:38:08 PM
[Rolling my eyes]

P.T. Anderson’s Phantom Thread Couldn’t Come At A Worse Time (http://www.riotmaterial.com/p-t-andersons-phantom-thread-couldnt-come-at-a-worse-time/)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 17, 2017, 07:27:32 PM
don't be surprised when PTA gets run through the 2017 Woke Filter.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Punch Drunk Hate on December 17, 2017, 07:32:44 PM
Many skeptics I know of is due to the film relationship between the dominant older male-younger female relationship. As screwed up as Hollywood films are on these ridiculous pairings, there's something more deeper beneath the surface that isn't all glamour and romantic, with PTA at the helm. I won't discussed further until I see the film for myself, so make of that what you will.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 18, 2017, 02:44:29 PM
Glenn Kenny at rogerebert.com with a 4-star review:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/phantom-thread-2017

Quote from: Glenn Kenny
But this is not a film that has a conventional climax; the war of wills between the two characters does not have a tidy resolution. We don’t even know just what it is that Alma wants, let alone what she gets. Her background is shrouded. Beautifully portrayed by Vicky Krieps, she speaks with a slight German accent. There’s a scene set at a press conference, where a vulgar dowager for whom Woodcock has made a wedding dress is discussing her impending wedding to a Dominican politician. A journalist asks the man about whether he “sold visas to Jews during the war” and Anderson cuts to a close-up of Alma, her face neutral. This is a movie of confrontations, of dreamlike moments dissolving into micro nightmares, but it is hardly a conventional “battle of the sexes” story.



Edit - From this (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/vicky-krieps-phantom-thread-1201906406/) interview with Krieps:

Quote
Her focus always returns to the work and its effect on her — even if some of it was left on the cutting-room floor. “It’s not in the movie anymore, but there’s a scene that was very strong where Alma goes and wanders off on her own in the country house and finds the wedding dress of their mother,” she said. “She takes it out and actually tries it on; she’s discovered by Cyril [Manville]. And that was a scene that was just unlike anything I’ve ever done — it was like there was a ghost in the room the whole time. It really was.”
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Tictacbk on December 20, 2017, 01:41:05 AM
I just came home to my screener of this (finally) and immediately had to put it on for a second viewing. It's just so great. I'm immediately welcomed back into this world that I never even knew existed, but I love it. The score, the richness of the images, everything just draws you right in. I'm weirdly reminded of PDL in how quickly it works. It feels like between PDL and this, I grew up with PTA.

Anyway, does anyone have any recommendations of classic films to pair with this? I'm not so familiar with gothic romance stories. I'd love to dive in.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 20, 2017, 04:00:50 PM
I just came home to my screener of this (finally) and immediately had to put it on for a second viewing.

Today I learned they're actually sending out screeners of this gem.  Wonder if we'll get one...?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: KJ on December 20, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
I just came home to my screener of this (finally) and immediately had to put it on for a second viewing.

Today I learned they're actually sending out screeners of this gem.  Wonder if we'll get one...?

Well, I met Paul at a grocery store and...eh, nevermind, I'm just gonna leave this thread for now because I haven't seen it yet. Bye bye, spoilers.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: JG on December 21, 2017, 11:58:47 AM
Nice film! I'll gush without really saying anything at all... still throwing it in the spoiler thread cos i'm scared of upsetting someone!

Up until Inherent Vice, all of PTA's films left me breathless and held me in a way that few other films/filmmakers do. I had a lot of trouble with Inherent Vice, but I'm happy to say that this one brought back all those old feelings. There are moments that felt like absolute magic to me - unusual cinematography, beautiful music, captivating performances. Krieps face guides us through so many of the scenes - she's amazing to watch and perfectly cast.

Its perhaps the most linear and straightforward of his movies (at least since PDL), but its consistent with his recent work in that its not really concerned with traditional three-act plot mechanics... Its episodic and free. Like the Master and Inherent Vice there are portions of the film that might be described by some as "meandering" but it always recenters itself... pta seems aggressive with theme here. there's a kind of repetition to the plot, and as the scenes go on, the editing seems to hone in on a few key ideas on the nature of relationships. in that way it doesn't feel far from what mother! was trying to do. but aronofsky's approach is so, so different from from PTAs. everybody's got worlds inside of them and its fascinating to see how different two visions can be!

i''ll admit - there are several movies i saw this year that i like more than phantom thread, but phantom thread contains some of the most inspired bits of filmmaking I've seen in years... i don't think that's a bad thing at all..
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 21, 2017, 02:12:04 PM
Nice film! I'll gush without really saying anything at all... still throwing it in the spoiler thread cos i'm scared of upsetting someone!

Up until Inherent Vice, all of PTA's films left me breathless and held me in a way that few other films/filmmakers do. I had a lot of trouble with Inherent Vice, but I'm happy to say that this one brought back all those old feelings. There are moments that felt like absolute magic to me - unusual cinematography, beautiful music, captivating performances. Krieps face guides us through so many of the scenes - she's amazing to watch and perfectly cast.

Its perhaps the most linear and straightforward of his movies (at least since PDL), but its consistent with his recent work in that its not really concerned with traditional three-act plot mechanics... Its episodic and free. Like the Master and Inherent Vice there are portions of the film that might be described by some as "meandering" but it always recenters itself... pta seems aggressive with theme here. there's a kind of repetition to the plot, and as the scenes go on, the editing seems to hone in on a few key ideas on the nature of relationships. in that way it doesn't feel far from what mother! was trying to do. but aronofsky's approach is so, so different from from PTAs. everybody's got worlds inside of them and its fascinating to see how different two visions can be!

i''ll admit - there are several movies i saw this year that i like more than phantom thread, but phantom thread contains some of the most inspired bits of filmmaking I've seen in years... i don't think that's a bad thing at all..

Very nice. What films did you like more this year, if you don't mind me asking?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 21, 2017, 02:17:14 PM
New sneak preview trailer! I love the camera movement. Just gorgeous!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KpHxWwZaU
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: JG on December 21, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
i''ll admit - there are several movies i saw this year that i like more than phantom thread, but phantom thread contains some of the most inspired bits of filmmaking I've seen in years... i don't think that's a bad thing at all..

Very nice. What films did you like more this year, if you don't mind me asking?

some of the movies at the top of my list this year:

the other side of hope
the day after
good time
ex-libris
blade runner 2049
twin peaks: the return

but then, it feels so silly to rank any one of these movies over the other..  all are wonderful in very different ways!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: KJ on December 21, 2017, 04:58:15 PM
New sneak preview trailer! I love the camera movement. Just gorgeous!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KpHxWwZaU

why did I tear up watching this? I want this film so bad :(
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: ono on December 21, 2017, 05:10:45 PM
I can't make out what is said at :43.  Anyone?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 21, 2017, 05:17:36 PM
I can't make out what is said at :43.  Anyone?

It sounds like a woman's name ("Helen" "Eileen"?) and then "...ready?"   But I'm not really sure about that.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 21, 2017, 05:32:21 PM
This is a scene that’s interesting to compare stylistically to what’s come before - there being the similar part in the department store in The Master. Here, Alma isn’t modeling this dress so much for the patrons as she is for Woodcock...the camera’s straddling the line between being Alma’s POV of the people she’s showing to while keeping enough distance so we can simultaneously look at her. It’s like a culmination of a lot of the things said in the partial commentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvSTB9yBdcw) for Madame de... In the earlier department store scene, the girl seems more beholden to the blocking, hitting marks so she can interact with the customers, whose positions have been pre-decided. Here, Alma’s movements are controlling the frame, and the camera’s going to go where she goes, keeping the story about Alma and Reynolds’ interior world even when they’re not physically together.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Riley Jonathawinn Drake on December 22, 2017, 03:36:36 AM
Vicky Krieps mini interview with a new clip starting at 1:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJXj-J8TX4A
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Riley Jonathawinn Drake on December 22, 2017, 05:12:19 PM
Here is an 8 minute radio interview with PTA + some new scenes from the film but sadly, only audio is available.
Thought about posting this in the interviews thread but,I think the interview is a little spoilerish.



https://knpr.org/npr/2017-12/phantom-thread-director-paul-thomas-anderson-offers-audiences-intimate-film
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 22, 2017, 06:50:12 PM
It’s been said that the protagonist of a movie is the character who changes most. Both Alma and Reynolds change, to different degrees, but it seems like people’s liking or disliking the movie is based partially on whose story they primarily see it as, and if they perceive one of them controlling the leash by the story’s end, vs. that leash continually and cyclically changing hands. The question "Who changes more?" is a hard one to answer here. One fascinating aspect of the movie to me is whose story it is continues to shift back and forth in my mind, and how the one you choose maybe says more about you than the movie itself.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on December 22, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
great post with a great close. great overall perspective. the bare minimum should be Vicky Krieps in every conversation, has been what's been on my mind. Paul and Jonny and Dan, i know i know, i agree. Vicky Krieps brings it is what i've said will say. she's the emotional thread in the movie you watch. how quickly everyone wants to discuss the mother! Vicky in relation to Dan, not Vicky on her own. and Jonny's score. and PT's direction. for sure the guys did a great job. but Vicky Krieps did a great job too.

although i believe the above post was referring to other conversations taking place regarding toxic relationships and whatnot, like i said that was a great post and a great overall perspective.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on December 26, 2017, 12:14:39 AM
head still spinning, and im debating going to see this again in an hour, but i absolutely loved this.  all i’ll say right now is that my initial impression is that the film is a resolutely romantic one (and instantly one of the greatest movie romances of all time), and the most incisive and challenging essays about romantic love since certfied copy.  film of the year after twin peaks.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 26, 2017, 09:43:26 PM
Anyway, does anyone have any recommendations of classic films to pair with this? I'm not so familiar with gothic romance stories. I'd love to dive in.

Quote from: The NY Times
Mr. Anderson is an admirer of suspenseful romances like “Rebecca” (1940) and “Gaslight” (1944) and pictured Mr. Day-Lewis as a darkly debonair leading man in the mold of Laurence Olivier.


And (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13512.msg349979#msg349979)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on December 26, 2017, 10:10:09 PM
ended up seeing this a second time less than six hours after getting out of the first go.  repeat viewings (well, at least two) are rewarding, if only to luxuriate in the film's expert craft by everyone involved, especially jonny greenwood's score for the ages.  his "house of woodcock" piece is one of the single greatest pieces of [movie] music ever written.  the world it creates is so alluring and utterly pleasurable to spend time in.  this is his best film.

having gone through the thread, i agree with a lot of what's being discussed, and not sure i have much else to articulate except to say that, as aforementioned, the exploration of romantic love is the context with which i personally view the whole thing, and to that end find the ending to be a wry, lovely, perversely hopeful send-off.  the film strikes me as the inverse of the duke of burgundy, which used outwardly kinky sexual proclivities to explore the mundanity of relationships.  phantom thread takes the form of a traditional prestige romance to explore the thornier subtext of what brings and keeps two people together, and as such appropriately defies categorization, is ineffable, and at times completely fucked up.  the portrayal of a creatively burdened individual consumed by their work is the most hypnotically mundane it's been since rivette's la belle noisseuse, but i think as most people are pointing out, that aspect of it isn't as pertinent as the personality traits that come with being that kind of person that inform reynolds's character.

is there are more exquisitely understated first meeting of two lovers in all of cinema?  as for exquisitely understated, my second viewing gave me a deeper appreciation of ddl's performance.  the way his micro expressions bely how he actually feels versus what he's saying is a thing of humbling beauty.  vicky krieps and lesley manville are equally staggering. 

still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again. 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: boogienights on December 27, 2017, 01:42:19 PM


still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again.

go for it, I love seeing good films several times. I've been busy with family stuff so I haven't gotten a chance to rewatch it since the guild screening I've been too.

Debating 70mm at the Arclight or DCP at the Landmark. Would like to see the DCP since I already saw it projected on 35mm, but I also want one of the 70mm programs haha
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 27, 2017, 08:36:12 PM


still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again.

go for it, I love seeing good films several times. I've been busy with family stuff so I haven't gotten a chance to rewatch it since the guild screening I've been too.

Debating 70mm at the Arclight or DCP at the Landmark. Would like to see the DCP since I already saw it projected on 35mm, but I also want one of the 70mm programs haha

Go see the 70mm first! It's a unique opportunity to see it on that format (even if it's just blown up from 35mm) and get the program. You can always see the DCP after. I will only have the opportunity to see the DCP and nothing else.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: boogienights on December 27, 2017, 09:53:47 PM


still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again.

go for it, I love seeing good films several times. I've been busy with family stuff so I haven't gotten a chance to rewatch it since the guild screening I've been too.

Debating 70mm at the Arclight or DCP at the Landmark. Would like to see the DCP since I already saw it projected on 35mm, but I also want one of the 70mm programs haha

Go see the 70mm first! It's a unique opportunity to see it on that format (even if it's just blown up from 35mm) and get the program. You can always see the DCP after. I will only have the opportunity to see the DCP and nothing else.

I just got back, looked amazing, they did a great blow up, the presentation was great.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on December 27, 2017, 10:58:13 PM


still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again.

go for it, I love seeing good films several times. I've been busy with family stuff so I haven't gotten a chance to rewatch it since the guild screening I've been too.

Debating 70mm at the Arclight or DCP at the Landmark. Would like to see the DCP since I already saw it projected on 35mm, but I also want one of the 70mm programs haha

Go see the 70mm first! It's a unique opportunity to see it on that format (even if it's just blown up from 35mm) and get the program. You can always see the DCP after. I will only have the opportunity to see the DCP and nothing else.

I just got back, looked amazing, they did a great blow up, the presentation was great.

Awesome! I'm glad it turned out well. I hope the program is cool too.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: boogienights on December 28, 2017, 12:02:20 AM


still mulling, still basking, still fighting the urge to jump in my car and go see this again, and again, and again.

go for it, I love seeing good films several times. I've been busy with family stuff so I haven't gotten a chance to rewatch it since the guild screening I've been too.

Debating 70mm at the Arclight or DCP at the Landmark. Would like to see the DCP since I already saw it projected on 35mm, but I also want one of the 70mm programs haha

Go see the 70mm first! It's a unique opportunity to see it on that format (even if it's just blown up from 35mm) and get the program. You can always see the DCP after. I will only have the opportunity to see the DCP and nothing else.

I just got back, looked amazing, they did a great blow up, the presentation was great.

Awesome! I'm glad it turned out well. I hope the program is cool too.

It is, very meaningful since PTA's my favorite director, my friend got one for his brother.

Sorry that you can't see it projected on film or get a program, I'm sure the DCP is great though, he has a long history of great transfers, and I'll look forward to the medium myself.

Anyway you see it, it's a great film
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on December 28, 2017, 07:15:49 PM
saw it again.  i'm addicted.  my affection, appreciation, and obsession for this movie has deepened with each viewing.  looking forward to many more visits when this is playing at a moviepass eligible theater. 

the thing that really struck me this third time is the film's leanings toward screwball comedy among its many many facets, and how ardently pta refuses to judge his characters.  reynolds woodcock is revealing himself to be one of his and day-lewis's greatest creations, with krieps and manville equally holding down their ends of the triangular character study that's as beguiling and richly humane as cinema gets.  this is no small feat.  suffice it to say this movie plays HARD into my sweet spot.  i literally love everything about it.

gotta run, more later.  it's nice to fall so madly in love with a movie again. 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 31, 2017, 05:44:07 AM
Had an affair with the 70mm version tonight. Some things became clearer.

-Everyone acts with their whole faces and posture. I bet you could run this thing like a silent movie and just watch the juxtaposition of faces and retain the story. Do they match? What do they want? How is each face reacting to the other? It’s amazing how much the faces express in this film. They speak as loudly as the lines. It reminded me of Chaplin, that way. This all comes to a crescendo during the New Year’s Eve party when Reynolds goes to retrieve Alma. They exchange no words. It’s all beautifully played out as if in charades, and burns its images into your mind's eye like the movements of a ballet.

-The sound effects are also mixed LOUDLY, and most often have the effect of grammatical punctuation, becoming an added way for each character to express his will. And they all act out their emotions as if with props. Most obvious example: the final scene after Alma has served Reynolds his omelette. She pours two glasses of water - a slow, medium-height pour for Reynolds, and a longer, even higher pour for herself, establishing dominance. The communication with sound effects is so rampant I’m wondering if you could run the film without the image and still follow along, just listening.

-Foreshadowing for the later evolution of their relationship happens early on, as does a veiled allusion to what’s going to happen with the mushrooms. Was surprised how early the mother element is woven into the narrative. It’s literally the second conversation Reynolds and Alma have, and it occurs on their first date, underlining the romantic context of his maternal feelings.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bsj952p.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9jpA2QB.jpg)

And this, I believe the first time they’re having dinner out with Cyril:

(https://i.imgur.com/ANpN6z3.jpg)

-We often see Reynolds from the point of view of Alma, but not Alma from his own. She often secretly admires him while his attention is directed elsewhere, but he almost never looks at her the same way, the exception being when Alma is seated next that socialite’s son (Dr. Hardy), and Reynolds is made privy to what a good time the two of them are having talking to each other. Here we see Alma from Reynold's point of view on the far end of the table, but it’s under the auspice of ownership, or desire coupled with it, at least. I thought this was telling. The movie is still about them both, not purely from Alma’s perspective. We see Reynolds alone as he readies himself in the morning, and then also when he’s sick, hallucinating. When Reynolds is alone, he concerns himself with himself, whereas Alma always behaves (or is shown) relationally.

-When Alma poisons Reynolds the first time and he falls ill while examining a dress, his shoe polish ruins the fabric during his fall. As Reynolds falls sick, his work is sullied as well, his art being an extension of himself, intrinsically connected.

-The shot structure is so varied and creative. How many ways can one shoot inside the same rooms?


And have we discussed Reynolds' aggressive style of driving yet?   I'm taking it as a 'release' for him.  A way to (unconsciously?) blow off the contained, controlled environment of the House of Woodcock.  Other thoughts?

Probably true. It’s also pretty clear that this is an on-the-button metaphor for who’s “steering” (COUGH) the relationship. When Reynolds is feeling weak/exhausted following the showing of his dresses to the social elite, Alma insists she drive (they get in the car in their “original” positions and then switch places), coinciding with her gaining agency, learning the ropes of his business, ascending within his company to a role of helping assemble the dresses (taking over his life).

(https://i.imgur.com/Q9pMgg9.jpg)


i don't believe he's a man who could win his fights alone (there isn't evidence of that).

One thing that was front and center this time is how Cyril is always on top because Reynold’s mother was always on top and continues to be in his own mind, and upon her death she (Cyril) immediately stepped into his mother's shoes. Then Alma comes along and the torch is again transferred. Towards the end, when Reynolds becomes sick and the doctor visits the house, upon leaving, Cyril and Alma walk him to the door. “Goodnight Mrs. Woodcock” he says, and “Goodnight Dr. Hardy” both Cyril and Alma reply in unison. The dots connecting. Cyril never loses an argument, either. The one time she relents, when Alma requests time alone for her surprise dinner, it's to let Alma see she was right all along.


as aforementioned, the exploration of romantic love is the context with which i personally view the whole thing

Yes, this was more evident this time.

the thing that really struck me this third time is the film's leanings toward screwball comedy among its many many facets

Double yes.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 31, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
Well, that was insightful!  Will definitely inform my 2nd viewing.   And pray, tell:  From whence came the screenplay pages...?  (And how hearty is your scanner?)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on December 31, 2017, 03:31:04 PM
Ha, I don’t have a scanner (it’s bound, anyway). There are some awards consideration copies up for auction. If you don’t want to go that route, I’m sure a PDF will surface online eventually.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on December 31, 2017, 07:22:28 PM
Ha, I don’t have a scanner (it’s bound, anyway). There are some awards consideration copies up for auction. If you don’t want to go that route, I’m sure a PDF will surface online eventually.

And you're unwilling to start an informal lending library, sir?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on January 02, 2018, 09:11:47 PM
^ Happy New Year

Saw it a third time. A couple more thoughts and then I promise I’ll shut the fuck up for a while.

The whole thing feels like a symphony. Like it's one movement into another and into another.

It really does. It’s as if scenes are conceived starting from a place of “up” or “down”, born from the emotional place the relationship is at at a specific point in time instead of being traditionally linear setup and payoff sequences. The sort of arbitrary order of those moments of joy (modeling Reynolds’ dress for the first time) or annoyance (interrupting with tea) mirror the unpredictable pattern of Reynolds’ moods, making the movements of the relationship feel very true to life, not necessarily a logical (which would be unnatural) progression.

The overall story is big but the individual scenes are built around exchanges that are extremely small, each character giving and taking in small ways. For example, when there are set ups and payoffs, they often follow micro exchanges that speak to much larger dynamics:

When Princess Mona arrives at the House of Woodcock to have her wedding dress made, she walks down a line of the house staff and shakes everyone’s hand. Alma stands on the right in the middle of the line, waiting to be greeted, but the Princess turns away from her, inadvertently shunning her right before she's reached, and focuses on the other side. The camera slowly zooms into Alma’s face. During the following scene, after the Princess’ wishes for her dress design are recorded by Reynolds, Alma, seething, crosses the room to confront her as she’s being measured. “I wanted to wish you good fortune on your wedding day.” Then: “I live here” (I'm important. Know that).

Two scenes built around these mini moments to convey that Alma is feeling her place in Reynold’s life is threatened, that she’s replaceable, that she’s unacknowledged, that their relationship is precarious and could go to shit. A complete relationship dynamic communicated this way. And it’s a totally relatable, recognizable slight we’ve all gone through at some point or other. Or it’s 'I’ve done something nice for you to show my love for you by bringing you tea' / 'I’m not going to recognize your kindness and berate you for it instead, or make you feel awful about buttering your toast', etc. etc. I suspect the movie feels so naturalistic and lacking contrivance partly because of this, even though the dialogue is stylized. It’s not bending over backwards to make things dramatic, but blows up small dramas as if seen through a microscope.

Also, when Reynolds and Alma are taking their first photographs together against that white backdrop, there’s someone off screen babbling at Reynolds, suggesting he sit on the floor. Reynolds is characteristically not having it, barely audibly mumbling about not wanting to sit on the floor and bend to this guy's will. Bahaha. I was wondering if those buried, sort of throwaway moments rife in so many other PT movies "Change your hair, change your life" were missing here, but I think there are still a few.
 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on January 02, 2018, 11:10:47 PM
^ Happy New Year

I was wondering if those buried, sort of throwaway moments rife in so many other PT movies "Change your hair, change your life" were missing here, but I think there are still a few.

Without a doubt. How about Alma's retort to the 'shifty-eyed' doctor? "How do you know how my life has been?" Sums up the inability to pierce into the dynamic from the outside.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on January 02, 2018, 11:26:05 PM
I love the moment when the Boy-Doctor greets Alma face to face for the first time with smoke spilling out of his mouth.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on January 03, 2018, 12:24:32 AM
The way the score hits on "Kiss me, my girl. Before I'm sick." FLOORS me.
That swell feels like the danger of love.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 03, 2018, 12:46:40 PM
How Phantom Thread undresses our ideas about toxic masculinity

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/02/how-phantom-thread-undresses-our-ideas-about-toxic-masculinity
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on January 03, 2018, 05:30:26 PM
I haven't read it, but I suppose there are spoilers in it. I like the writer.

Love, After a Fashion

https://www.filmcomment.com/article/paul-thomas-anderson-phantom-thread-love-after-a-fashion/
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 05, 2018, 05:01:30 PM
There are a few new/not-shown-before short clips in this segment. The segment focuses on the dress design for the film: https://twitter.com/WhoWhatWear/status/949021189736824832

As a side note, I still haven't seen the film as it looks like it'll open where I am on the wide release date of the 19th. I decided to keep up with the press, trailers, spoilers threads, etc. for this film, so it's been an interesting experience. I've seen the limited shots and scenes from trailers and such, so I've gotten a small taste for the cinematography and feel of the film. I've read and listened to the available articles, interviews, and most of the reviews that don't seem redundant to what I've already read, so I have an idea for the general story and some limited plot details. That being said, I still haven't seen the film, so I just don't know how all the scenes and things that critics have mentioned are actually executed. I've heard it's really funny in a certain way, but I just haven't had the experience of witnessing it yet. I've heard that Vicky Krieps gives a wonderful performance to rival DDL's and Lesley Manville's, and that she may even have the best performance, but again, I haven't seen it, so I have to use my imagination and don't actually have any idea of the execution.

It's an interesting position to know about the performances, have a few short scenes and trailer bits to go off, have a general outline of the story, but still be totally in the dark about how these things will actually be fleshed out on screen. I'm really excited for it and it's not spoiled for me. At this point, I'm wondering how the details will be filled in and how all the plot points and scenes will look and feel. I'm wondering about what the tone of the movie will feel like when I'm watching it.

For The Master, I wasn't yet a major PTA fan and went to see it with a friend because I knew Jonny Greenwood did the score. I had no idea what to expect. For IV, I read a bit about critics' and audience responses during the festival period, but nothing surprised me and I'd already read the book, so the anticipation there was based on how the plot of the book would be adapted to the screen, and I knew what to expect from the comedy because it presumably would come right from the book. Phantom Thread is different than both of those for me. I'm still in the dark about how all the things I've read will actually manifest on screen. For example, I just don't know how PTA and the actors will execute the funny scenes that reviewers have mentioned. I don't know the details and intricacies of the relationships in the story, but only have a very general idea of what it'll be like.

Anyway, I thought I'd share that. Still a couple weeks to go until I see the film. Ugh ....
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 05, 2018, 05:17:46 PM
i read your whole post and got into it. i think you have a good amount of remaining mystery and a healthy perspective. the movie's tone is something that's far easier to experience than describe. the tone isn't like Rebecca or any of the classics he mentions, you know. what i can elaborate upon is its humor, and i'll refer back to a PTA quote, when he said it was obvious to him that PSH was hilarious in The Master, since anybody with that type of perspective is hilarious. what DDL does in PT is he says shit so harsh you can't help but immediately see he goes too far, and overblown people are funny.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 05, 2018, 06:41:33 PM
will you guys help me remember some of the funniest lines? wilder you've got the script lol


1

Cyril
He doesn't like to get upset at breakfast because it ruins his day.

2

Reynolds Woodcock
Something about taste.

Alma
Likes her taste.

Reynolds
Change.

Alma
Never

Reynolds
Can we not do this now, for real.

3

Reynolds
You came into my house with a gun? You snuck inside my house and hid and now you're going to assassinate me? This has been your plan and that's how you treat a person!

4

[on a balcony during a vacation]

Alma
*makes the sound of a knife scraping against a piece of bread*

5

Reynolds
(The sass he gives the woman at the breakfast table before Alma.)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 05, 2018, 06:45:56 PM
i read your whole post and got into it. i think you have a good amount of remaining mystery and a healthy perspective. the movie's tone is something that's far easier to experience than describe. the tone isn't like Rebecca or any of the classics he mentions, you know. what i can elaborate upon is its humor, and i'll refer back to a PTA quote, when he said it was obvious to him that PSH was hilarious in The Master, since anybody with that type of perspective is hilarious. what DDL does in PT is he says shit so harsh you can't help but immediately see he goes too far, and overblown people are funny.

Thanks for reading the whole thing and the reply. Heheh. Interesting that the tone is not like Rebecca and those others. I'm expecting tone very similar to The Master.

I have read interviews in which PTA describes the humour you've mentioned, so I guess I'm not totally blind there. There was a scene they played during a podcast or radio interview in which Reynolds mentions how he's admiring his gallantry at not scolding Alma for preparing his food with butter instead of his preferred oil. I did laugh out loud at that one. So I suppose I know what to expect there. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how sustained or frequent that humour will be. I also don't know if Reynolds is the only one who exhibits such extreme and ridiculous behaviour. Maybe Alma or Cyril do similar things, but if so, how often? I'm sure you can see what I mean here. I know that A, B, and C general things happen, but of course know nothing about the pacing, editing, exact use of score, and so on, to really have it spoiled.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on January 05, 2018, 06:53:09 PM
[on a balcony during a vacation]

Alma
*makes the sound of a knife scraping against a piece of bread*

That's the best. His nearly uncontrollable discomfort there makes me lose it.



This whole interaction:

(https://i.imgur.com/JbnvmWo.jpg)


Also when he and Alma go to retrieve the dress, Reynolds standing in the doorway holding her clutch...this exchange (which isn't scripted):

CAL
Mr. Woodcock...

Beat.

REYNOLDS
Cal.


And his general pacing and puttering after Alma defiantly leaves the house for the New Year's Party, right before he decides to go retrieve her.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 05, 2018, 06:59:25 PM
the retrieval of the dress is a riot. earlier i mentioned how just after then they kiss, and how great that moment is. based on my memories that's my favorite sequence
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on January 05, 2018, 07:04:46 PM
Yeah agreed. The movie is fully doing its thing at that point... The bit of score that plays through there is my favorite part, and I’m in love with the rhythm of the cuts in the scene when Barbara Rose sways back and forth before passing out face-first at her wedding reception.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 05, 2018, 07:07:23 PM
lol. and from a logic of love the sequence provides foundation and makes you believe in them, has you see them as they see each other.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 05, 2018, 07:43:06 PM
[SPOILERS]

Had my second viewing (70mm at the ArcLight in Hollywood) this morning.  I enjoyed this viewing more than my original viewing, as I think there are more mental CPU cycles available to watch for nuances of story and performance, etc.   Made a bunch of new observations--none of which I can share, as I had nothing to write them on (and which have since evaporated or gone into hiding).

The other two of my party--both women (one a psychologist, the other a medical professional) found the film interesting and impressive from a performance and art direction/cinematography perspective, but "unrealistic".  The psychologist found fault with the psychodynamics of Alma and Reynolds, the doctor obsessed with the idea that mushrooms provide a horrible death regardless of the type or amount consumed.

I found those two perspectives overly literal.  (I find it hard to believe that there isn't a spectrum of toxicity in fungi, too, for example.)   We'll have to research what kind of mushroom Alma was working with here...  I'm not yet prepared to address the validity of the psychology of the central relationship...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on January 05, 2018, 08:55:33 PM
will you guys help me remember some of the funniest lines? wilder you've got the script lol

Some of my favorites:

Reynolds, to Cyril: "It's comforting to think the dead watch over the living...I don't find that spooky at all."

Alma, to Mrs. Rose's maid: "It is no business of ours what Mrs. Rose wishes to do with her life...but she can no longer behave this way dressed by The House of Woodcock."

Reynolds, to Cyril, after the fawning girl says she wishes to be buried in one of his dresses: "You'd dig her up and sell it again, wouldn't you?"

I love this movie so much.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 05, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
"spooky" is glorious

anybody: what was the thing he became upset about concerning the woman at the breakfast table before Alma?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on January 05, 2018, 09:54:50 PM
I seem to recall she tries to give him something (a pastry perhaps?) and he rejects it, claiming to have told her something about it - “No more stodgy things.” -  and she argues that he must have told someone else, not her...then says something to the effect of, "Where are you Reynolds? How can I get your attention aimed back at me?" (paraphrase) and he claims he cannot "begin the day with a confrontation". I would consult the script if I had my copy on hand, for I recall that scene including some lines that didn't make the final cut...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: BB on January 06, 2018, 10:37:52 PM
Finally saw this at my absolute first opportunity. Had to sit in the front row, which hasn't been the case for anything else this year. Made me feel good sitting in a packed house. The room had great energy too.

Just an overall wonderful experience from beginning to end that lent an enchanted air to the rest of my day. A truly ROMANTIC film in a way that nothing has been in forever. The first time, I would argue, that you can really really sense the influence of TCM and this very specific but also pretty common genre of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I think a lot of people have problems with IV because it too draws on a very specific but also pretty common genre of the late 60s and early 70s (Candy, What's Up Tiger Lily, maybe Hot Rods to Hell, The Acid Eaters, Robert Downey Sr. movies) that not a lot of people are that familiar with or into. But they don't tend to play those movies on TCM. And The Master has a far more modern sensibility.

I read somewhere that there are lots of cross fades in the film. Anyone care to confirm who's seen it?

There is one particular cross fade that stands out on first viewing. When they are at the ski resort and they cross to snow then to the stairway. Such a classic technique. It's so achingly steeped in the period.

Still have a lot to catch up on from 2017 but I doubt anything else is going to be quite like this. He's just such an interesting filmmaker.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on January 07, 2018, 03:36:59 AM
favorite funny moments would include: (in completely random order)

- alma's reaction after cyril says she has the perfect figure because reynolds "likes a little belly."
- cyril's disdainful responses to reynolds acting out: (butchering it) "don't you speak to me that way, i will walk through you and you'll end up right on the ground.  don't pick a fight a me, you will not come out of it alive.", and "no one does, but i don't want to hear it because it hurts my ears."
- dinner
- barbara rose drunkenly taking off her jewelry.  as she goes to place the second earring in the bag, she begins to put it on, forgetting what it was she was doing.
- reynolds: "aren't you two the absolute model of politeness."
- reynolds: "alma, there's a strange boy in the room, can you please do something about him?  fuck off.  yes, fuck off."
alma: "i believe this is clear.  he wants you to fuck off."
- reynolds: "frankly, i'm applauding my own gallantry for having eaten it the way it was prepared in the first place."
- reynolds: "whoever came up with that word should be spanked in public.  fucking chic!  what a filthy little word!  hung, drawn, and quartered, fucking chic!"
- alma: "you will not die.  you may wish you could rather die, but you will not die.  i will take care of you."
- priest: "please remember that when you were saying these vows to look at each other, for it is to each other that you're being wed, not to me."
- approached at dinner by aspiring woodcock dress owners, one of whom would like to be buried in one.  reynolds to associate: "you'd have her dug up and try to sell the dress again."
- reynolds's response to finding out he'd been invited to barbara rose's wedding: "what do you want me to do with that?"/"i find this very disconcerting.  i wish i hadn't heard it until later in the afternoon."

---

something i noticed and found interesting about that "i cannot start the day with a confrontation" scene is that same pastry he got annoyed at makes a reappearance when alma disrupts breakfast.  curious as to whether or not it was an intentional detail... hard to think it isn't, as it communicates so much.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on January 09, 2018, 06:36:41 PM
I posted before about shots from the trailers that were not in the final film, and just saw a YouTube ad/trailer that included shots from scenes that are not in the film: the first is a gorgeous shot of Reynolds and Alma lounging on a yacht as it passes mountains on their honeymoon (which reminded me of the omitted shots of Freddy hanging over the side of the ship from the Master), in addition to another scene of a fitting between Reynolds and Alma, which seemingly takes place at night and ends with a nice shot of Reynolds and Alma nuzzling one another.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 09, 2018, 07:07:30 PM
I posted before about shots from the trailers that were not in the final film, and just saw a YouTube ad/trailer that included shots from scenes that are not in the film..

There seems to be a few new selections on Youtube.  Can you provide a link to the one you're describing?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on January 09, 2018, 07:25:49 PM
I posted before about shots from the trailers that were not in the final film, and just saw a YouTube ad/trailer that included shots from scenes that are not in the film..

There seems to be a few new selections on Youtube.  Can you provide a link to the one you're describing?

I've not been able to find a link to it, unfortunately, but it has appeared as an auto-play ad for me before the 'Right Now' video by Haim. It is about 15 seconds long.

I promise it exists!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on January 10, 2018, 07:43:01 PM
what do you guys make of "never cursed"?

the conversation by the fire towards the beginning of the film is so loaded.  in hindsight it's where the real action happens, where the restaurant love-at-first-sight bit is the foreplay to the scene where they really fall in love.  that slowly growing smile and knowing nods to himself from reynolds when alma delivers that gorgeous line, "if you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose," and the amount of conflict that comes over his expressions as he goes between speaking openly about himself and remaining guarded is so achingly human.  there's a subtle, veiled expression of pain right after he proclaims himself a "confirmed bachelor" (her reaction to this line is gorgeous, too) that immediately endeared me to him.  he's a man devoted to his craft who's also resigned to the notion that his love life has to suffer as a result.  to feel trapped by your shortcomings is a universally tragic phenomenon i think, and so compassionately expressed here.

there's also that absolutely heartbreaking moment during the big confrontation during his surprise dinner when alma says that she's, "waiting for [him] to get rid of [her]."  the way ddl reacts to this line moves me to no end, especially because he follows it by saying rather callously that he doesn't need her.  i revel in the humanity of that moment of contradiction, and the film is rife with them.  when alma leaves to go to the new year's eve party alone and reynolds is left to deal with his insecurities (which greenword's score so gorgeously conveys) then goes after her, it's the kind of movie moment that you would expect to end in some sweeping romantic gesture, and for so long it builds that way.  when they finally come face to face, it turns into a staring contest that reynolds indeed loses, him reacting kinda poorly (i read his expression in that scene to be a "what are you looking at?" gesture) and taking her back home.

which brings me back to "never cursed."  reynolds explicitly refers to the things he sews into garments as secrets that only he would know about, which to me suggested that it's a place where he expresses his vulnerabilities.  "never cursed" then seems to me a well-wish for the new bride but also a wishing well wish cast into the ether that he, in fact, wasn't cursed to a life of confirmed bachelorhood.  there's a longing there that i love so much, especially because alma finds it and, in my mind, comes to the same conclusions i did, which inevitably deepens her love him.

i described this movie as the 2001: a space odyssey of romances to someone to relate how momentous i find this movie to be.  there's a nebulous, all-encompassing quality to what this movie's about in the context of romantic relationships that engages in that kubrickian "bow to the unknown" (as jan harlan once put it) that i find utterly poignant.  movie romances that employ and stretch the faculties of the cinematic form have struck me as being the ultimate expression of cinema for some reason, probably because of the intensity of emotional resonance that accompanies and informs the formalism.  films like sunrise, l'atalante, portrait of jennie (which is the best romance-cum-essay on the creative process until this came along), the new world, certified copy.  this may and well be my favorite of all of them.  the obsession is real.  top five of all time material for me.  i've gone a full week without seeing it and i'm suffering withdrawal.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 10, 2018, 09:32:20 PM
that was a cool post
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on January 11, 2018, 03:34:37 AM
what do you guys make of "never cursed"?

there's a subtle, veiled expression of pain right after he proclaims himself a "confirmed bachelor" (her reaction to this line is gorgeous, too) that immediately endeared me to him.  he's a man devoted to his craft who's also resigned to the notion that his love life has to suffer as a result.

which brings me back to "never cursed."  reynolds explicitly refers to the things he sews into garments as secrets that only he would know about, which to me suggested that it's a place where he expresses his vulnerabilities.  "never cursed" then seems to me a well-wish for the new bride but also a wishing well wish cast into the ether that he, in fact, wasn't cursed to a life of confirmed bachelorhood.  there's a longing there that i love so much

I agree with what you say about the messages sewn into the dresses being expressions of his vulnerabilities. To my mind, Reynolds’ personality disorder is his ‘secret’ curse. A permanent, unsolvable conflict (a “ghost”, “haunting” him) and the real source of his despair. Reynolds is aware of it, but resigned to it, too, as an essential part of himself. My interpretation is that yes his obsession with work is real, a product of his artistic impulse, but also that his answer to Alma’s question is a bit of deflection. To have to explain that you can’t operate in relationships the way most people do is an unacceptable answer. To say “I make dresses”, while true, is a way to veil this.

Whether Reynolds’ personality is tied to his becoming accustomed to being mothered and lavishingly attended to, or something even more disturbed and difficult to alter, as in a deep-seated narcicissm (which is what I see in his character) isn’t fully clarified, but I view it as a combination with an emphasis on the latter (or the former creating the latter, in childhood). Narcissists are incapable of truly selfless giving in love in the way that a more healthily-oriented person is, without also expecting some sort of reward, admiration, or attention, in return. To give to them means a debt is made, and to engage in relationships lacking this vampiric element feels unnatural. So the question the film poses in the beginning to my mind is: can Reynolds yield to anyone else and accept the compromise that love requires? Not will he, but can he. The psychological magnifying glass that follows is an exploration of this. My reading is that he knows that compromise is fundamentally incompatible with his constitution, but he wants it, he wants to know love with Alma. And mentally he may not be able to change, but physically he can be incapacitated. Relenting to Alma this way is Reynolds’ willingness to embrace love acted out, in the only way he’s capable. So the end is not only a bit of sadomasochim, but the road of compromise and love expressed as only the man named Woodcock can. The physical realm is necessary because the other realm is not. I love it as a literary flourish to the story, but I also don’t believe it’s included purely as an injection of literary style.


there's also that absolutely heartbreaking moment during the big confrontation during his surprise dinner when alma says that she's, "waiting for [him] to get rid of [her]."  the way ddl reacts to this line moves me to no end, especially because he follows it by saying rather callously that he doesn't need her.  i revel in the humanity of that moment of contradiction, and the film is rife with them. 

I wonder about this one. Because I don’t believe he needs her, only a woman. This really is the pivotal scene in the film, because later he chooses to act against himself by committing, as if she is really the only one he needs. Alma does match him, though. Tongue for tongue. That sets her apart…

when alma leaves to go to the new year's eve party alone and reynolds is left to deal with his insecurities (which greenword's score so gorgeously conveys) then goes after her, it's the kind of movie moment that you would expect to end in some sweeping romantic gesture, and for so long it builds that way.  when they finally come face to face, it turns into a staring contest that reynolds indeed loses, him reacting kinda poorly (i read his expression in that scene to be a "what are you looking at?" gesture) and taking her back home.

And here, the reason why he makes that choice…she challenges him, fights fire with fire. It’s the only thing that can work with a man of his qualities. And because she can see him for who he is, which is really unique to her. If Cyril wasn't blood and “the perfect size”, maybe he'd marry her, too.

i described this movie as the 2001: a space odyssey of romances to someone to relate how momentous i find this movie to be.  there's a nebulous, all-encompassing quality to what this movie's about in the context of romantic relationships that engages in that kubrickian "bow to the unknown" (as jan harlan once put it) that i find utterly poignant.

Yes yes yes! Beautifully put.

Also…

I came across a mostly negative review on Letterboxd earlier tonight, which, as much as I disagree with its conclusion and criticisms, I thought was generally well-observed. In its describing what it sees as failings of the film, my thoughts of what I love about it become clearer. The thing I think this review fails to see is that Reynolds’ personality precludes traditional compromise and a traditional relationship from the outset, and so the mushroom overture IS a perversely life-affirming and love-affirming notion. If you read it and answer “because he’s a narcissist” to the questions it poses, I think the movie takes more definite shape.

Quote from: Etan Weisfogel
Much like TWBB and The Master, this is a film about a deeply unhealthy co-dependent relationship, but this film lacks the socio-historical context that made the affectations and behavior of the characters in TWBB and The Master easier to accept. Phantom Thread exists in a hermetically sealed universe, in largely one location, and PTA seems to me to have chosen mid-50s London as the time period/social milieu entirely for aesthetic reasons. The clothes and production design and music and so on and so forth are indeed all sumptuous and ravishing, but I don't think he's saying anything of note about fashion culture of the time--that an acclaimed male artist is a fussy asshole and treats women like shit certainly does not feel particular to this era. So, where the strange, almost inhuman behavior of characters like Daniel Plainview and Freddie Quell is explicable when these characters are seen as representative of moments in history (the rise of industry and postwar anxiety, respectively), the similarly odd behavior of Woodcock and Alma can't be explained in the same way.

That's not necessarily a bad thing (I find the way Plainview and Eli are so clearly meant to represent capitalism and religion a little simplistic, though that film needs a rewatch) but PTA doesn't adjust his approach in any discernible manner. So, all we're left with as an audience, then, is a dual study of two characters whose behavior is often incredibly alienating to the audience. We're constantly put in the position of asking "Why do these people act this way? What are their motivations? What is driving them?" and PTA often frames them in tight closeup, as if to search their faces for answers. Why does Woodcock keep the company of women when he seems to so clearly see their presence as a burden? Why does he tread over other women but kowtow to Cyril? What is his obsession with his mother? And for Alma, why does she not just leave? Why does she continue to allow herself to be humiliated, shamed, and treated like nothing? (Let's not assume, for the moment, that Alma is operating within an abusive relationship because, though it may be true, that's not the framework the film ultimately sets forth.)

The answer to these questions, I think, all end up being fairly simply. But then there would appear to be a disconnect between the strain and effort of the aesthetic to understand these people, and the ultimate simplicity of their psychology (e.g., Woodcock has mommy issues, Alma wants to be seen as beautiful, etc). The problem is perhaps that PTA wants to create a sense of mystery, a sense of ambiguity, but that ambiguity is just stalling until an inevitable end rather than being a useful or necessary tool for the narrative, keeping the audience in the dark in order to shock them at the end but not providing any insight. PTA's goal here, in other words, is not exploration but rather obfuscation; preventing us, until the very end of the film, from having all the clues necessary to understand this relationship, then cutting us off from these characters once we have actual material to work with! Like Woodcock playing Alma, or perhaps vice versa, PTA is playing a game with the audience, but I don't think I'm much interested in the nature of his game.

The idea that the end should really be the film's midpoint is an idea I've heard a lot from those who don't like the film, but I think those people like the ending but just find it misplaced, whereas I take issue with the ending! The final montage seems to be suggesting an idea that I simply reject having sat through the prior two or so hours (isn't this relationship beautiful? Nah, sorry, it's an awful relationship). And I think that idea is contingent on Alma having the same power as Woodcock, which she simply does not. For this to be a mutually abusive relationship, or an equally abusive relationship, which is what I think the film pushes us towards, Alma's form of abuse would have to exist as something other than a reaction to Woodcock's constant belittling and mistreatment of her (again, because PTA doesn't explore what the relationship becomes once Woodcock understands what Alma is doing to him, we have no way of knowing if this ever does exist as something other than that). My rabbi Adam Katzman thinks that this is the point of the film--exploring the power dynamics between a man and a woman in this time, and locating the only way in which a woman could assert power over a man in this context--which is a solid interpretation, but for me the fact that Woodcock accepts her revenge at the end dismantles any power she might have had, because her power is necessarily couched in his permission to give her power, and thus it becomes not a revenge at all but rather another form of subservience to him.

Maybe that would be interesting to explore if the film was placed entirely in Alma's perspective, and thus the ending would be her own skewed view of this relationship in which she has no power, but despite her narration the film switches perspectives often (the first twenty minutes is focused on Reynolds), and Dr. Harding never provides any kind of objective counterpoint to her subjective telling of this story, and instead just acts as a sounding board. So all we get is the "this is love!" ending, which just strikes me as disingenuous. For this to work as an allegory about relationships in general (i.e., we all mistreat each other and seek power over one another in different ways), it has to work on the literal level first, and I simply cannot accept that this is a good relationship, even on the characters' own terms, and I certainly cannot accept that this is anything like my relationship or any other healthy relationship I can think of!

This same reviewer wrote something about Cassavetes and Pialat’s relationship to narrative which I find insightful, and think also applies to Phantom Thread. Funny enough, it also explains away some of his critcisms or bewilderment about this movie in relation to There Will Be Blood and The Master, especially in regards to their socio-historical context being integral to their narrative efficacy in his eyes:

Quote from: Etan Weisfogel
I want to expand on some thoughts my good buddy Graham had about Pialat and his supposed American counterpart Cassavetes. I think Graham is right that the central concern of both of their films is emotion, specifically, I would add, how to structure narrative around certain emotions. That may sound like an obvious or not particularly noteworthy aim, but I think it's different from how most people make films, which is to build emotion out of narrative, rather than narrative out of emotion.

I guess many arthouse/independent directors do this, but one reason I think Pialat and Cassavetes are so often associated with each other is that both deal with extreme emotions--not necessarily unrealistic emotions, but certainly outsized, intense, and passionate emotions. They are, in a sense, emotions that might easily lend themselves to melodrama. But while both directors certainly show some affinity for the melodramatic, I think both are interested in finding ways to work around melodrama, to find other ways to portray these emotions. Cassavetes does this at least partially through exaggeration, allowing actors to explore an emotion in full during extensive sequences that tend to go on past the moment where another director might think the actor had gotten across the "point" (most acting is, of course, simply telegraphing narrative information or responses to narrative information). Pialat takes the opposite approach, attempting to find the mundane in the melodramatic. As Graham points out, the former approach lends itself nicely to duration, while the latter lends itself to ellipsis (skipping over moments that might be deemed important to a narrative of melodrama).

My own perspective is that Phantom Thread’s sort of inverted narrative structure, forming plot almost purely out of emotion, was always the inevitable trajectory that began with Blood and The Master (and maybe even Magnolia and PDL, now that I think of it…) The socio-historical contexts in PT’s movies have always been excuses for characters and set-dressing, a way to give visual weight to those “outside, intense, and passionate” emotions described above, and also a way to add aesthetic value and luxuriate in those textural details. While the WWII period may have prompted the narrative scenario that inspired Master and Freddie, ultimately the story revels in the psychology of those characters and the relationship dynamic between them as its main interest, socio-historical comment or contextual relevancy be damned. The launching pad is always abandoned in favor of an all-encompassing, universal truth, as samsong pointed out

I wanted to comment on this specific part of that letterboxd review quoted in full above:

Quote from: Etan Weisfogel
the final montage seems to be suggesting an idea that I simply reject having sat through the prior two or so hours (isn't this relationship beautiful? Nah, sorry, it's an awful relationship). And I think that idea is contingent on Alma having the same power as Woodcock, which she simply does not. For this to be a mutually abusive relationship, or an equally abusive relationship, which is what I think the film pushes us towards, Alma's form of abuse would have to exist as something other than a reaction to Woodcock's constant belittling and mistreatment of her (again, because PTA doesn't explore what the relationship becomes once Woodcock understands what Alma is doing to him, we have no way of knowing if this ever does exist as something other than that).

Etan’s description of Alma’s pushback always being in reaction to Reynolds and not “mutually abusive” is true, but I see it as finally hopeful. Alma doesn’t need to have the exact same power as Woodcock. That’s not why she does it, exactly, and not the point of the end of the film. She could very well leave him for someone else. While there’s some degree of subversion to their roles, I think she pursues the change in power dynamic because she believes in him ("You're not cursed!"). She believes in his ability to love. And I do see the movie as working as an allegory for the push-pull of all relationships in general.

I love that he thought of it enough to talk to his rabbi.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Riley Jonathawinn Drake on January 11, 2018, 12:38:55 PM
Happy New Year  :violin: :violin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNsHSJrn9M&t=1751s
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on January 11, 2018, 02:50:51 PM
You beautiful, charitable soul.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: modage on January 11, 2018, 06:57:40 PM
Finally saw this a third time last night at the Alamo Drafthouse in BK. The screening was Black Tie (suggested (https://drafthouse.com/nyc/show/phantom-thread-black-tie-event-in-70mm)) and in 70mm, which was a fun excuse for a bunch of nerds like myself to put on bow ties and go to the movies. Some more random thoughts about the film from viewing #3.

- For a movie about relationships/love/etc., the film is oddly sexless! For PTA, who never shies away from sex, the film is unusually chaste.

- Related thought: The film is also almost (but not entirely) devoid of passion. The most passionate moment in the film is when they kiss after stealing the dress back. And I think there are really only 3 or 4 instances of anything physical between them (he pulls her into his room, they kiss on the street, holding hands walking around town, and the final denouement) For the most part we're just given the cruelest bits of their relationship (an entirely different sort of passion), but never really allowed to root for them as a couple in the traditional sense. It's a really interesting choice, withholding the part of the story that would satisfy an audience. It's an easy mark so PTA just skips it.

- In the first scene where Woodcock is measuring Alma and he tells her to stand up straight and she pushes back with a "Why didn't you just say that" she is so fiery. I feel like if she were truly in awe of him from the beginning she'd probably shrink like a wallflower instead of pushing back so forcefully so soon. I wonder if Krieps and DDL had any friction on set and these moments display some of that bubbling over? Either way, it's a great performance. Update: Having thought about this for a day I  think it's the first time Reynolds really pushes her and she pushes back just as hard. It's this response that probably endears her to him and why the relationship works.

- The autograph scene at dinner is exactly how I picture PTA to be as he's interrupted by a fan telling him that his films are the greatest. Haha, maybe not true. But that's how I see it.

- Cyril really leaves Woodcock out to dry the scene that Alma opens the door while he's talking shit about her!

- Really noticed how many times Reynolds talks about being hungry. It always corresponds to when he's excited.

- The shot of Cyril at the table with the giant open window behind her reminds me a lot of how PSH is framed at the end of The Master (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAQiAQROi7g).

- When Cyril mentions that Barbara Rose pays for this house, does she mean literally like she pays his rent to work there? Or that she spends so much money it basically pays for the house and gives him more work than his other clients?

- Speaking of the rich old lady, Barbara Rose, she reminds me a smidge of the rich old lady, Mildred Drummond (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-egb2tQGx8_s/URnKhcl4ChI/AAAAAAAACL4/25Gq1win9V4/s1600/7.jpg), in The Master. PTA's characters have a real contempt for high-society ladies in the 50s.

- Seeing the film a second or third time is such a different experience from my first viewing where I kept expecting the film to go super dark with a much bigger finale. After TWBB which ends with the bowling alley pummeling, I spent the last act of Phantom Thread waiting for Cyril to poison Alma (to death) or Alma to poison Woodcock (to death). Once you know it doesn't go that way, you an enjoy it as a dark comedy instead of a tragedy. But the film would play completely differently if the final 5-10 minutes had a different resolution. I wonder if PTA knew this ending when he started writing or if he kinda arrived here after considering other (potentially darker) resolutions.

- This has I'm sure been mentioned but the omelette at the end is a total reprisal of the staring contest. Duh.

- The ending where Alma daydreams into the future and we're shown the baby carriage and things that may or may not happen reminded me of two of my favorites: Raising Arizona and 25th Hour.

- The scene where they're dancing at the New Years place and some of the other guests waltz onto the floor around them is such a great 00s PTA touch. You know that's something he just filmed on the day they did the NYE scene and wasn't sure if they'd have somewhere to put it and it just slides in perfectly as the film is wrapping up. It's not real but it's beautiful.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jenkins on January 11, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
- In the first scene where Woodcock is measuring Alma and he tells her to stand up straight and she pushes back with a "Why didn't you just say that" she is so, so pissed off. It seems like she fucking hates him whenever she's able to shoot these daggers back at him. And I believe that she admires/adores him but harder to believe she loves him. But if she were truly in awe of him from the beginning she'd probably shrink like a wallflower instead of pushing back so forcefully so soon. I wonder if Krieps and DDL had any friction on set and these moments display some of that bubbling over? Either way, it's a great performance.

sometimes Reynolds sounds so, so pissed off,  as if he fucking hates people. it isn't necessarily a personal affront against another person, rather an expression of an interior force. i believe it's fair to say they both have tricky personalities and the movie is about those types of people falling in love. and love is a funny thing that doesn't have to be as obvious as all that.

that's in line with my personal support of Alma, an expression of an interior force, really not so pissed or wanting to express hate.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on January 12, 2018, 04:18:33 AM
Here are 3 new TV Spots (from New Zealand) that feature shots that aren't in the final film, including:

Alma and Reynolds on a yacht, passing a mountain.
Another fitting scene between Alma and Reynolds.
Reynolds stalking through a graveyard.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw5PVcahALY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOv_u-3KyPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebohu4fqvTg
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on January 12, 2018, 05:18:07 AM
wilder, found your articulation of reynolds' narcissism and the focus on power dynamic shifts to be illuminating.  definitely something to hone in on for subsequent viewings.  i'll admit that i've submitted to the film as being a kind of universal allegory of all relationships ("the most beautiful romance in the world.  just to take that a bit further, the most beautiful romance of all time.  or even further still, the ONLY romance that ever was.") and view the power dynamic more as a dance than a fight.  i also do think think in that dinner scene that reynolds does know that he needs alma, or loves her more than he lets on, as suggested by how taken aback he is when he hears her say something as painful as feeling unwanted, but isn't ready to open about it, and he certainly isn't going to concede or let her win that argument.  he'd sooner tell her to fuck off. 

on to etan.  i don't find his oversimplification of character psychology in the film to be in any way cogent.  if anything one of the things pta does so brilliantly is eschew easy psychological character mapping.  there seems to be a common issue with those with negative impressions of the film are an overly literal reading of the film, and broad judgements made about the characters based on said reading.  an older woman asked her friend why anyone would stay with a someone they had to poison in order to tolerate, and my eyes just about rolled out of my head.

obviously i find his rejection of the film's success as an allegory for relationships in general to be misguided, particularly in his insistence that its functionality as allegory is contingent on its success on a literal level.  but it seems to come down purely to the ol' adage, "i couldn't relate to it, so it must be bad."  maybe this says more about me than anything, but i found most of, if not all of it be perfectly relatable.  i've always maintained that human beings are fucking insane, and that at no point is this more evident than when two romantically involved people are alone together.  that this film is decidedly unromantic (in the traditional sense) in its portrayal of a relationship is one of the reasons why it's so goddamn great.  thought matt ross put it nicely in his indiewire blurb where he posits that one of the things the film is about is "the impossibility of understanding a relationship from the outside (that is – if one is not in it)."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on January 13, 2018, 01:39:26 AM
sometimes Reynolds sounds so, so pissed off,  as if he fucking hates people. it isn't necessarily a personal affront against another person, rather an expression of an interior force.

Totally. You see it in the scene when he's "backstage" helping ready the dresses as the girls are exiting and entering, modeling for the members of high society. He even catches himself after losing his temper, almost under his breath "Sorry, sorry..."

i'll admit that i've submitted to the film as being a kind of universal allegory of all relationships […] and view the power dynamic more as a dance than a fight.

The rhythm of the film does sort of play like a dance… Greenwood’s score too kind of paints it like a dark round in a ballroom. I like what PT said in reference to Aimee Mann’s music, on Kimmel, that she makes “upbeat downers”. PT is also so great at combining disparate tones to make you look again at something you might have thought askance about, initially. He just talked about Boogie Nights this way, on the Nerdist podcast. How up until its release the representations of the porn world had swung wildly between the bleak view of Hardcore and the extremely silly, on the other end, with no nuanced in-between. The way he presents this whole scenario has got to be on the top of a list of those that expand the vernacular. It keeps rolling over and over, in me. The first time was very funny but felt darker, the second watch felt bright and prickly, and on my third it went darkly beautiful, again. The film is truly alive.

i also do think think in that dinner scene that reynolds does know that he needs alma, or loves her more than he lets on, as suggested by how taken aback he is when he hears her say something as painful as feeling unwanted, but isn't ready to open about it, and he certainly isn't going to concede or let her win that argument.  he'd sooner tell her to fuck off. 

I can swing with that to a certain extent. He certainly needs her more than he’s willing to let on and isn’t going to present himself as weak to her at this point. Really I agree with the things you said, I just don’t know how deeply/permanently attached he can become, and as Etan pointed out, we don’t see the aftermath enough to know (although that’s a different movie and definitely isn’t necessary, here). I see Reynolds as the type of guy, if Alma and he were to split, to mope and moan for a week and then be over it and onto the next one, because the honeymoon period seems to be what he likes, as is evidenced by every relationship he’s had in the film up til Alma. Once the glimmer wears off, infatuation fades, and there are obligations to another person, I don't know that I can see him sticking around through the thick and thin. Obviously just speculation. The movie wants them to succeed.

on to etan.  i don't find his oversimplification of character psychology in the film to be in any way cogent.  if anything one of the things pta does so brilliantly is eschew easy psychological character mapping.  there seems to be a common issue with those with negative impressions of the film are an overly literal reading of the film, and broad judgements made about the characters based on said reading.

I like the way you put that, and I also completely disagree with his reductive psychological description ("Woodcock has mommy issues, Alma wants to be seen as beautiful") and yet I sympathize with his reading, because the movie is so dense. Jenkins' observation above about Reynolds not being so much hateful towards any one person as just bursting with an unrestrained energy and ruled by his moods is one such example. I certainly relate to aspects of that. That description of him is a fucking sentence though, it takes a sentence long to parse how dense the emotions being portrayed are. He could be described as “moody” or “an asshole” or “obsessive”, or “artistic”, etc., but a word alone doesn’t seem to do the trick. So I’m not sure how easy he is to see into…

Maybe it’s partially that the way romance has been portrayed in so many films and stories as sort of mythical and compartmentalized - distinctions between wonderful times and sad times made achingly clear beat for beat, has trained audiences not to buy this as one. “We tell ourselves stories in order to live”, Joan Didion says. Excise the mud of it. This movie doesn’t really do that at all. There are so many moments in Phantom Thread that ’eschew easy psychological character mapping’, as you said, and blend the positive with the negative - like Alma’s initial fitting. What a thrill, having a dress made by this couture designer! But then also to be subtly cut down? (“You have no breasts”) But then he professes she’s “the perfect shape”? It must be confusing to parse, for her.

The film is brilliant at replicating the feeling of looking back on a relationship you’re no longer in when you’re having difficulty distinguishing the good moments from the bad, wondering if you made the right decision, or if you saw it for what it was. It’s all a blur and something you accepted and embraced wholesale when in it. All the pills had to be swallowed together and you’re not sure what’s causing what feeling. This is devolving into word soup. I want to quote your previous post again:

i described this movie as the 2001: a space odyssey of romances to someone to relate how momentous i find this movie to be.  there's a nebulous, all-encompassing quality to what this movie's about in the context of romantic relationships that engages in that kubrickian "bow to the unknown" (as jan harlan once put it) that i find utterly poignant.

A fish asking 'what’s water?'…it’s soo good at that… and so good at capturing the valley between two people that can’t be quantified. The unknown unknowns. You said it better.

obviously i find his rejection of the film's success as an allegory for relationships in general to be misguided, particularly in his insistence that its functionality as allegory is contingent on its success on a literal level.

Same

i've always maintained that human beings are fucking insane

I just wanted to quote this.

that this film is decidedly unromantic (in the traditional sense) in its portrayal of a relationship is one of the reasons why it's so goddamn great.  thought matt ross put it nicely in his indiewire blurb where he posits that one of the things the film is about is "the impossibility of understanding a relationship from the outside (that is – if one is not in it)."

Abso-fucking-lutely
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on January 13, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
Haven't read it so it might be bad, but putting it here so I'll read when I'll have seen the movie.

The New York Review of Books — The Pattern and Passion of Phantom Thread.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/01/13/the-pattern-and-passion-of-phantom-thread/
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: md on January 13, 2018, 05:30:07 PM
what do you guys make of "never cursed"?

In either the Bill Simmons podcast or the one with Rian Johnson, PTA said he and DDL discussed the idea of family curses and what that meant to them and if they were real.  So maybe that has some meaning or inspiration for the hidden msg. 

Was anyone able to pick up one of the lovely booklets they were giving away at the Arclight 70mm screenings?  A beautiful little treasure.

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Ke8AAOSweBhaTzvD/s-l1600.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/6ZAAAOSw8W5aTzvC/s-l1600.jpg)

PTA always comes through with the goods time and time again.  I walked into the film a few minutes late, sort of thrown into the middle of the scene with Reynolds and Alma in front of the fire.  And the film switch really turned on when he's measuring Alma and he says "25" and its beautifully synced with that nice pan of the tape reel.  Felt very much like a warm PTA smile and all things started going in full motion.  Like the later surveying scenes in TWBB. 

The first act of the film felt so out of place with today's 'standards' of cinema -- the dialogue, the pacing, even the cinematography and staging -- it all felt very foreign and very nostalgic.    I almost needed to check myself in order to get lost in the PTA magic.  Maybe the cynic in me was being tested.  And by the time Reynolds is at the New Years Eve party and there is that long hold on the two of them just staring at each other in silence my emotions are completely gushing. 

For some reason I could not help but think that PTA was making this film for his daughters.  Like a gift down the road that they can remember him by.  Some of the arguments and motivations of the relationship between Reynolds and Alma were so entangled due to the age difference, like a parent scolding their child. 

The handheld scene when Alma is walking in her first fashion show was marvelous and such a great use of handheld (may have been one of the first longer uses of it in the film).  The smokey depth of the scene and the backlight of the window really (if I remember correctly) looked so damn beautiful and unique.  Something that would be close to impossible to capture with digital. 

I loved Reynold's hair throughout the film.  When its slicked back and handsome and when it's a bit ruffled and puffy when he is struggling.  Just a nice attention to detail.

The double take Reynolds does on New Years Eve when Alma walks out the door was funny just like something Barry Egan might due.  Its so idiosyncratic and so PTA.  The second look would most likely get cut in any other studio film, but PTA has this hold on the game. 

The scraping sounds of the toast were so simple and so cinematic as a creation of tension and comedy.  Nothing too to intellectual, just meat and bones filmmaking at its core, executed properly with your favorite cast.  I mean, Alma's accent is so sexy and innocent.  Just love the feeling when your thinking PTA is making something special just for you.  The man is clutch.  Bravo!






Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: martinthewarrior on January 13, 2018, 07:06:20 PM
Holy hell. This one might be his best. It's certainly his most psychologically rich. In the best way, it feels like the first... old man movie he's made. A lot of life had to be lived to come to something so messy, complicated, and true about how men and women attempt to keep loving each other when the dopamine runs out. I agree with whoever said it felt like the beginning of a new period for him. Feels like his most personal since Magnolia, but where that was blood and guts and heart, this one is a brain in a jar, save for a few moments of that young man passion. I love, love, loved it.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on January 14, 2018, 12:09:01 AM

 I walked into the film a few minutes late, sort of thrown into the middle of the scene with Reynolds and Alma in front of the fire.

if that's actually where you came in, then you missed, like, 20 minutes...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: md on January 14, 2018, 10:28:58 PM

 I walked into the film a few minutes late, sort of thrown into the middle of the scene with Reynolds and Alma in front of the fire.

if that's actually where you came in, then you missed, like, 20 minutes...

Yeah, dude....I'm not lying.  LA traffic....
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 15, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
[SPOILERS]

A Relationship Expert Psychoanalyzes Phantom Thread’s Twisted Romance

https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/dissecting-the-twisted-relationship-in-phantom-thread.html
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 18, 2018, 01:54:23 AM
Initial thoughts. Loved the movie of course. It's unlike anything else I've seen. This, basically:

Phantom Thread’s sort of inverted narrative structure, forming plot almost purely out of emotion, was always the inevitable trajectory that began with Blood and The Master

These two characters and all the emotions and THAT MUSIC are still swimming around in my brain, growing...

I've only begun to skim through, but Wilder you've written some truly brilliant stuff here about the film. I fully agree with the reading that Reynolds's personality disorder is his curse.

Some assorted thoughts before I forget. Apologies if these things have been said....

Their romance begins with Reynolds seducing Alma and sort of establishing dominance. But the real story is Alma seducing him. You can see Reynolds being taken by Alma's playful deviousness bit by bit. Something — perhaps the part of himself that's really not himself (his disorder) — prevents him from submitting to her advances. I so wanted him to submit. He wants to. Alma knows he wants to, so she helps him along. And finally he does. Also, what a bold choice to have them actually fall in love after they're married.

Alma suspected that Reynolds wanted to possess her. And then, indeed, he used language to that effect in his marriage proposal, which I think is why she hesitated and then asked the followup question: "will you marry me?"

After Inherent Vice (sorry, have to say this), it's refreshing to have a PTA movie that knows what it wants and is exactly what it intends to be. This may be one of PTA's less ambitious films on the surface, but it's clearly one of his most perfectly crafted and sneakily complex.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: ono on January 18, 2018, 11:48:11 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blewit

That's the mushroom.  So no, not deadly.  So that criticism is wrong.  The mushroom thing is interesting because mushrooms are fabled to give both life and death, depending on the source.

"I'm getting really hungry."  I forget the exact phrasing.  His "I was cursed, alright."  The most sexual line in a sexless movie.  Or thirsty.  Which isn't said.  Take your pick.  So he will be lovesick forever more.  Hey, whatever works.  I kind of lost focus when Alma was daydreaming about the stroll and the carriage and what have you, and then I blinked, and it was over.  It flew by, and I kind of wanted to relive it, just to again soak in her final monologue.

For the first 30 minutes -- maybe the first hour or so -- I just had a stupid grin on my face, getting wrapped up in it all.  The music swells, that ubiquitous score.  Then, things finally settle down.  On one hand, it's nice to come here and read and get a bit more depth out of it, but on the other, I found myself somewhat disappointed by its simplicity.  I wanted more depth.  I'm walking out with the same feeling I left with after TWBB.  That he only scratched the surface of Plainview.  Too much unexplained pettiness, not enough character exploration.  I did love their dinner argument.  Not that they're too similar, but it calls to mind the dinner argument in La La Land.  I think that's one scene where their defenses do get stripped down and you actually do see the humanity of these hurting people.  More of that would have been nice.  Argument against it is anything more my be redundant.  I get that.  Still loved it.  Need to see it again, of course.

Comparisons and parallels: Hallucinations of Reynolds' mother has that same feel of Freddie dozing off while watching Casper, and also the naked dance.  Cyril and Master framing in final scenes.  Said elsewhere.  The models walking up the staircase, just like the soldiers walking to the doctors office at the beginning of The Master.  I really liked how during the breakfast scenes all of the audio was turned up to 11 and then some.  And that's all I've got.  Will look at the thread again later as it's sure to jog more thoughts.  The film's sat with me for about 3 hours now.  Satiated.  Hungry for more, myself.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on January 19, 2018, 01:54:34 PM

when alma leaves to go to the new year's eve party alone and reynolds is left to deal with his insecurities (which greenword's score so gorgeously conveys) then goes after her, it's the kind of movie moment that you would expect to end in some sweeping romantic gesture, and for so long it builds that way.  when they finally come face to face, it turns into a staring contest that reynolds indeed loses, him reacting kinda poorly (i read his expression in that scene to be a "what are you looking at?" gesture) and taking her back home.

And here, the reason why he makes that choice…she challenges him, fights fire with fire. It’s the only thing that can work with a man of his qualities. And because she can see him for who he is, which is really unique to her. If Cyril wasn't blood and “the perfect size”, maybe he'd marry her, too.


If you watch how he scans her when Reynolds first approaches her, it's as if he's worried about the dress-first, alma-second, and Alma wins because "well that's very typical of you"
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 20, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Hooray! I saw Phantom Thread today (well, technically yesterday). I'm going to need some time to process the story and such a bit more, but here are a few random musings:

-Vicky Krieps was wonderful. Really wonderful. She was able to convey so much emotional change from moment to moment in her face and movements. She could show expressions of ambiguity or conflicted emotion, or a sort of playful curiosity and rebelliousness to challenge Reynold's boyish fussiness.

-The whole thing felt more dreamlike than I'd anticipated. The first bit from the beginning to the breakfast where Alma butters her toast loudly had a sort of sweeping feeling to it, carried along by Jonny Greenwood's score and Alma's intermittent narration. It felt like if you took a montage and stretched it out over a period of time, with each bit of it also pulled to proportionately fit the whole. In a sense, that made things further feel like when you recall something in the past, only to realize that its story was more fleeting and transitory than it felt at the time. In this regard alone, I think this is a cinematic achievement alone and one that PTA should be proud of.

-The cinematography: It's interesting that the crew was without a dedicated DP, whether frequent collaborator Robert Elswit or Mihai Malaimare Jr. Gaffer Michael Bauman was credited as "lighting cameraman," which is what John Alcott was credited as for Barry Lyndon (can't remember if this was the case for A Clockwork Orange). The look of the film was very interesting when considered purely from a photography and lighting standpoint. They pushed the film stock a lot to bring out grain and had lots of fog in the house at times. There was a soft look to lots of the outdoor scenes (I'm specifically thinking of the shots in front of the London townhouse). All this added to the dreaminess and feeling that things are "floating along." Add this in with the general talk of ghosts and curses from the Woodcocks, and things seem sort of spectral in this wonderful way.

-DDL's performance was interesting. On the surface, his character appears a bit two-dimensional: He's obsessive and fussy about his work and needs everything to be in its right order, just like a child (and has outbursts when things don't go his way, just like a child) -- but on the other hand, there's this longing to be loved and deep-seated fear that those who love him will disappear. This is evidenced in his longing to reunite with his mother, but that special dress he made for her is lost, just like she is, and he can simply never get any of that back. So he puts up this defense against the possibility that those who he loves might leave him forever -- turn into ghosts who might haunt him deeply -- and instead focuses on what he can have most personal control over, which is his dressmaking. What might appear like emotional immaturity and pettiness on the outside could be the indicator that deep down, he's hurt and very afraid of exposing himself to vulnerability and he's trying to any threats to that at a distance.

-Lesley Manville brought a steadying and clarifying presence to the story. Her character is very terse and to-the-point, never getting overly emotional and always making sure things get done in the house.

-The sound mixing was great. What an ingenious move to make certain things very loud and apparent. These sounds, such as the Alma buttering her toast or pouring water, actually convey what the characters are experiencing and become a part of the story. I love that sound was used as sort of another dimension to the story.

-There were tons of very close shots of characters' faces. Not that I didn't expect it, but I'm just always thrown off by how much of these shots are really there in PTA movies from The Master on. The aspect ratio is really something on a big cinema screen. The framing totally fit the projection screen, so those close shots make the actors visually massive. You can see details in facial movements, and when you have actors like DDL, Lesley Manville, and Vicky Krieps especially, it can be a storytelling advantage and tool. The other thing is that camera movement looks different in this aspect ratio. The wide frames from PTA's anamorphic days really change the whole feel of things for me: Things feel less panoramic in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. There are advantages to both ratios, and PTA has really been able to capture these stark closeups in 1.85:1 from The Master on that I've had to learn to embrace.

-I loved how the film oscillated from hilarious parts to very eerie, ghost story-esque/Hitchcockian parts (i.e., the mushroom and hallucination scenes). It was great how the film was not afraid to show a non-cliche relationship with all its dark and ambiguous undertones. Partnerships are often full of strange and subtle occurrences, and this film embraced that and didn't shy away from that (it was basically what the movie was about). It wasn't a "Hollywood romance/relationship arc" thing, which was precisely what La La Land was and the reason that I hated La La Land (that is, that La La Land depicted such a tired relationship arc with shallow dialogue and characters). In the bit where Alma is first preparing the mushrooms, there was this very low sub bass (a deep rumble), and things felt like they suddenly took this unexpected and very eerie turn. I absolutely loved that. I wanted this sort of thing to come out just a little bit more in what proceeded, but I felt it was there enough and I was satisfied in the end with it. (Another very eerie scene -- yeah, I keep using that word -- happened when Reynolds hallucinated and his mother was just standing there.)

That's all for now. It's late and I'm getting very sleepy, but I'll probably come back within the next couple days and write a bit more, probably things leaning more towards my experience with the lead-up to this film and then the release. I will say that I am experiencing a great sense of relief at the moment -- relief at finally having seen this movie I've totally fanboyed over for months now. But I'm glad it was different than what I'd expected and I feel satisfied and happy with what the film was.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 20, 2018, 08:55:43 PM
-The sound mixing was great. What an ingenious move to make certain things very loud and apparent. These sounds, such as the Alma buttering her toast or pouring water, actually convey what the characters are experiencing and become a part of the story. I love that sound was used as sort of another dimension to the story.

More on the sound design of the film:

How Phantom Thread Made Toast Irritating

http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/how-phantom-thread-made-toast-irritating.html
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on January 24, 2018, 03:37:02 PM
Three viewings deep and suffice to say this movie sits far above that crowd, perched as spirits, not beasts, as Lancaster Dodd would say. Wanted to emphasize the potency of PTA’s knockout punch during that omelet preparation stare-down, Catherine Keener might as well have been stirring a clinking teacup one seat over because that shit threw my ass right down the “sunken place”. Couldn’t believe what I was watching, basically the perfect conclusion to a damn near perfect movie. Was so taken by that scene I barely acknowledged the next few minutes and had difficulty comprehending why the end credits were rolling, how can a viewer be expected to recover from a line like “Kiss me my girl, before I’m sick.”

On the second go I was able to fully take in Alma’s final voice-over, which turned out to be the most overwhelming thing in the movie and got the waterworks going. Have to gush, that was just stunning, her love of Reynolds, how much she wants to take care of him, keeping his dresses free from dust and ghosts. As stated by most, ghosts play a very strong role in the background throughout, being mentioned several times, especially in Alma’s last speech where she says that even if Reynolds were to die all she would have to do is wait until the afterlife or whatever comes next for them to be reunited. This must be the Rebecca reference. Haven’t seen that movie in half a lifetime, remember the ghost of the old lover, though. Very deep, moving stuff.

It’s amazing how PTA manages to discard all the ploys and plot-points we’ve seen countless times before and focus on scenes that would be edited out of most flicks. For instance, in a conventional movie I can imagine a lengthy subplot involving the employees of the House of Woodcock feigning jealousy towards Alma because she’s only working there due to her affair with the boss. The focus in always on the triangular relationship of the three leads.

Did the mother apparition spook anyone? Certainly did here, freaky moment turned beautiful with Reynolds’ dialogue.

Also, while there were some really funny lines, I did not find it all too funny, more so gravely stern. Think the humor was lost on me, a lot of the aforementioned lines felt either sad or sweet. Also didn’t feel much of the claustrophobia that’s previously mentioned here and in reviews, especially with the amount of camera movement involved. The Master felt much more claustrophobic. Speaking of The Master, that scene when Reynolds and Alma retrieve the Barbara Rose dress reminded me a lot of Freddy and Clark paying Mr. John Moore an unexpected after hours visit.

Anyway, not much else I can add as just about every base seems to have been covered here. Just wanted ya’ll to know I’m with ya’ll on how great this film is. I can go on all day. Hope Greenwood wins the gold next month, that track “Alma” that starts to play after she leaves to the NYE party and Reynolds peeks out the peephole is one of the most haunting piano pieces I’ve ever heard. Sad as hell, too. Sheesh, what a film.

P.S. Reynolds has a stoner's appetite for being so rail-thin. Welsh Rabbit WITH bacon and some sausages, thats overkill dude.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: HACKANUT on January 24, 2018, 06:59:06 PM
Welsh Rabbit WITH bacon and some sausages, thats overkill dude.

I thought that was a lot of meat too, but googling makes it seem like its actually Welsh Rarebit, which is like cheese and toast.
All that to say: purdy gud breakfast order methinks. sounds like a fine meal!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 24, 2018, 07:15:31 PM
Three viewings deep and suffice to say this movie sits far above that crowd, perched as spirits, not beasts, as Lancaster Dodd would say. Wanted to emphasize the potency of PTA’s knockout punch during that omelet preparation stare-down, Catherine Keener might as well have been stirring a clinking teacup one seat over because that shit threw my ass right down the “sunken place”. Couldn’t believe what I was watching, basically the perfect conclusion to a damn near perfect movie. Was so taken by that scene I barely acknowledged the next few minutes and had difficulty comprehending why the end credits were rolling, how can a viewer be expected to recover from a line like “Kiss me my girl, before I’m sick.”

On the second go I was able to fully take in Alma’s final voice-over, which turned out to be the most overwhelming thing in the movie and got the waterworks going. Have to gush, that was just stunning, her love of Reynolds, how much she wants to take care of him, keeping his dresses free from dust and ghosts. As stated by most, ghosts play a very strong role in the background throughout, being mentioned several times, especially in Alma’s last speech where she says that even if Reynolds were to die all she would have to do is wait until the afterlife or whatever comes next for them to be reunited. This must be the Rebecca reference. Haven’t seen that movie in half a lifetime, remember the ghost of the old lover, though. Very deep, moving stuff.

It’s amazing how PTA manages to discard all the ploys and plot-points we’ve seen countless times before and focus on scenes that would be edited out of most flicks. For instance, in a conventional movie I can imagine a lengthy subplot involving the employees of the House of Woodcock feigning jealousy towards Alma because she’s only working there due to her affair with the boss. The focus in always on the triangular relationship of the three leads.

Did the mother apparition spook anyone? Certainly did here, freaky moment turned beautiful with Reynolds’ dialogue.

Also, while there were some really funny lines, I did not find it all too funny, more so gravely stern. Think the humor was lost on me, a lot of the aforementioned lines felt either sad or sweet. Also didn’t feel much of the claustrophobia that’s previously mentioned here and in reviews, especially with the amount of camera movement involved. The Master felt much more claustrophobic. Speaking of The Master, that scene when Reynolds and Alma retrieve the Barbara Rose dress reminded me a lot of Freddy and Clark paying Mr. John Moore an unexpected after hours visit.

Anyway, not much else I can add as just about every base seems to have been covered here. Just wanted ya’ll to know I’m with ya’ll on how great this film is. I can go on all day. Hope Greenwood wins the gold next month, that track “Alma” that starts to play after she leaves to the NYE party and Reynolds peeks out the peephole is one of the most haunting piano pieces I’ve ever heard. Sad as hell, too. Sheesh, what a film.

P.S. Reynolds has a stoner's appetite for being so rail-thin. Welsh Rabbit WITH bacon and some sausages, thats overkill dude.

I've seen it twice now (I did back-to-back nights last weekend) and I'm thinking about a third viewing tonight. Trying to hold out though so that I don't grow too used to it. But it's still very fresh and exciting, so I don't think another viewing will hurt. I'm just worried about the 8th viewing and beyond when it comes out on blu ray.  :yabbse-grin:

During the second viewing, I was able to focus more on the cinematography, camera movement, and editing, as well as totally engross myself in some of the individual scenes. That last one is indeed powerful. "Kiss me, my darling, before I'm sick!" and then the big orchestral score comes in with the thundering timpani. I did notice that the scene before it was oddly juxtaposed; it's Reynolds' "chic" freakout scene where he yells and denounces Alma's presence in the house. And then the omelette scene directly after. What's this telling us? Is it that the poisonings happen to relieve him when he gets too stressed? Obviously there's a mutual understanding about the poisonings, but maybe there's also a mutual understanding that he gets really worked up and it's his temperament, and the poisonings will relieve him.

Alma's voiceovers are so so great, aren't they? They lend a particular effect to everything.

I was definitely one of those who said it feels claustrophobic. You're right: There's tons of awesome camera movement, and I was able to pay close attention to it on the second viewing. Really masterful camera work. The feeling of claustrophobia for me comes from two things: the many close shots on the actors' faces, and the tight spaces in houses and the restaurants. Granted, there are some outdoor scenes and driving scenes, but on the whole, there aren't a lot of "wide open" shots where there's a lot of space in the frames. There aren't any shots, for instance, of the characters walking around London. The townhouse is in London, of course, but the only real outdoor space we ever really see is just outside the house and nothing beyond in London, except some streets in the driving scenes and the park scene when Alma has the stroller (we also see outside of the restaurant just a tiny bit, I think). This sort of thing doesn't make the movie worse for me at all, but I guess it makes things feel "contained," I guess, albeit with free-flowing camera movement at times within the contained settings. I hope that makes some sense. Does the movie need "wide open spaces" or wide shots with a bunch of stuff in the frame?" No, I really don't think so. It's does its thing, and I'll take it as is.

Oh yeah, there is the New Year's scene where there's a lot happening in a large hall. The way the music changes to and the ambient noise cuts out is pure bliss. Loved that.

Yes! The mother scene was sooooooo spooky. I almost cried during that scene the second time around. The way that Reynolds' mother stands there, emotionless and still, while Jonny Greenwood's "Never Cursed" track plays, is sublime. The mother's dress looks vaguely old in style (Egyptian?). Couple that with Reynolds' voiceover and longing and the scene seems to have the effect of reaching back in time and encompassing more than what's going on at the moment (obviously). There's this intense dread about how we can't quite reach what's been lost to time, and Reynolds seems to be deeply hurt at losing someone he loved. He seems to be afraid to put himself into a vulnerable position, relationship-wise, and instead focuses on dresses, all the while bearing a sort of solitary loneliness and longing that sometimes frustrates him. Maybe. (He clearly gets frustrated when there are interruptions to his maintenance of control.) At least that's how I interpret it. Anyway, that is my favourite scene in the movie.

I definitely didn't find it too funny the second time around. There's a bit of a sadness to the characters' (especially Reynolds') outbursts, as they're clearly coming from a place of frustration or experiences and strange situations that have given rise to them. Or maybe I'm just a bit too much of a pessimist and cynic to find these things funny. I think they're funny at face value, but extreme behaviours often come from places of pain or experiences that have shaped personalities in that way (coupled with temperament, of course). I found myself thinking in this sort of way about the outbursts and rude lines more the second time.

I'll say that I think Dylan Tichenor is a fantastic editor. Credit to PTA and all those involved in the production as well. The way the movie flows with all the music and voiceovers gives me the feeling that it is fluttering by, which I love.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on January 25, 2018, 10:10:56 AM
Welsh Rabbit WITH bacon and some sausages, thats overkill dude.

I thought that was a lot of meat too, but googling makes it seem like its actually Welsh Rarebit, which is like cheese and toast.
All that to say: purdy gud breakfast order methinks. sounds like a fine meal!

you're right, but in that case its carb city with the scones and i think additional toast ordered.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: HACKANUT on January 25, 2018, 10:33:20 AM

you're right, but in that case its carb city with the scones and i think additional toast ordered.
[/quote]

I think we all owe ourselves this breakfast, at some point in our lives
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on January 25, 2018, 11:21:53 AM
Has anyone who's seen the film more than once been able to place where it is in the film that Greenwood's 'Puck Beaverton's Tattoo' music cue comes in?

BTS Photos from Women of Woodcock's (upcoming photobook) photographer. (https://www.instagram.com/laura_hynd/)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: valhalla on January 25, 2018, 12:50:34 PM
Has anyone who's seen the film more than once been able to place where it is in the film that Greenwood's 'Puck Beaverton's Tattoo' music cue comes in?

BTS Photos from Women of Woodcock's (upcoming photobook) photographer. (https://www.instagram.com/laura_hynd/)

[SPOILERS]

On the album, the track "Boletus Felleus" is an orchestral variation of "Puck Beaverton's Tattoo". The orchestral variation and the "Puck Beaverton's Tattoo" version appear three times throughout the film. The first is the opening logos/Alma fireplace scene (which I'm pretty sure is the Tattoo version). The second time is during the first poisoning scene. Then the third time is when Alma sits at the table with Reynolds before she leaves to go to the ball.

It's a great little track from Inherent Vice that never made the soundtrack sadly. It appears in Inherent Vice though, when Doc is handcuffed in the room.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on January 25, 2018, 01:01:46 PM
YES!!! PCP + Mushroom concoction. Figured it was the first mushroom scene but now that you mention it's the first audio we hear  :doh: you're totally right and gosh it's a great callback.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on January 25, 2018, 01:20:32 PM
Has anyone who's seen the film more than once been able to place where it is in the film that Greenwood's 'Puck Beaverton's Tattoo' music cue comes in?

BTS Photos from Women of Woodcock's (upcoming photobook) photographer. (https://www.instagram.com/laura_hynd/)

[SPOILERS]

On the album, the track "Boletus Felleus" is an orchestral variation of "Puck Beaverton's Tattoo". The orchestral variation and the "Puck Beaverton's Tattoo" version appear three times throughout the film. The first is the opening logos/Alma fireplace scene (which I'm pretty sure is the Tattoo version). The second time is during the first poisoning scene. Then the third time is when Alma sits at the table with Reynolds before she leaves to go to the ball.

It's a great little track from Inherent Vice that never made the soundtrack sadly. It appears in Inherent Vice though, when Doc is handcuffed in the room.

Coooooootie food, you're right! Didn't make this connection myself but now that you've pointed it out, it's unmistakable. Nice work!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: tpfkabi on January 27, 2018, 01:28:41 AM
Finally came to my area. Definitely want to see it again. Hopefully without annoying audience members and action movie low end bleed. Man, do I hate when I go to this type of movie and there is a dialog/quiet scene and you can hear low end action movie sounds. Then you are not always sure if it is part of the movie or bleed from another.

3 shots that come to mind
-stairs when the workers arrive
-circling shot around workers - I think this is when they have to repair the dress after he gets sick
-the shot up through the water as she adds the mushroom

I'm like Reynolds in a movie theater in regards to annoying sounds made by others.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on January 27, 2018, 06:46:24 AM
Re-watching Rebecca for the first time in 14 years, its influence on Phantom Thread is clearer. Both films feature a young woman seduced by an elderly debonair gentleman of stature into a demanding, luxurious lifestyle she is unaccustomed to and has difficulty assimilating. Both take place primarily within a mansion, House of Woodcock and Maderlay. Woodcock and Mr. de Winter have similar idiosyncrasies as far as food routines, etc. The relationship in both films always seems to be hanging on a thin thread, with the female walking on eggshells so as not to upset her man’s peculiar habits. Rebecca is more of a jumping off point to meld with all of PTA’s other ideas and Phantom veers away from the murder-mystery, doing its own thing; similar to how Hard Eight used the first act of Bob le Flambeur as a jumping point for its own central relationship then veered away from that film’s heist ploy and did its own thing. PTA is really amazing with taking an existing idea that strikes his fancy and morphing it into something wholly new and original (similar to Tarantino, but not really , much more innovative), like using the beginning of Oil!, the basic premise for his needs, or the Time magazine pudding article for Punch-Drunk, Let There Be Light for Master, John Holmes’ career for Boogie Nights and so on.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 27, 2018, 11:47:27 PM
Finally came to my area. Definitely want to see it again. Hopefully without annoying audience members and action movie low end bleed. Man, do I hate when I go to this type of movie and there is a dialog/quiet scene and you can hear low end action movie sounds. Then you are not always sure if it is part of the movie or bleed from another.

3 shots that come to mind
-stairs when the workers arrive
-circling shot around workers - I think this is when they have to repair the dress after he gets sick
-the shot up through the water as she adds the mushroom

I'm like Reynolds in a movie theater in regards to annoying sounds made by others.

I went for a third screening tonight and had this exact low end bleed problem. Man, how annoying! Throughout the whole movie, there were bursts of sub bass bleed from the other theatre about every 10 to 20 seconds, I kid you not. Every freaking quiet dialog scene ... there it was. Since it was my third watch, it wasn't too distracting and I didn't care a ton ... but it was still a bit of a nuisance. Actually, I read your post earlier in the day and then thought about it while I was watching the movie. I hope you don't get that bleed again!

As a more general comment, I really liked the use of longer lens focal lengths for the long shots. For example: the pan down from the top of the town house to its front early on; following the duchess (I think that's her title) down the marble steps early on as well; the long shot in front of the townhouse when the princess and her posse get out of their cars. These longer focal lengths don't have the barrel distortion you get with a wider lens, and they also have a different sort of size ratio for things that are closer and further in distance. It's a subtle thing, but I could feel myself thinking about the choices Paul and co. made and going, "Uh huh, uh huh."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: giodashorts on January 29, 2018, 03:28:23 PM
The shot that begins under the table, slowly pushing in on Reynolds waking Alma and asking if she would like to marry, is quite nice. Looks like it was done on a slightly longer lens. A 50mm maybe. He did similar things in 'Inherent Vice'. That shot of Doc talking to Sortilege while the others eat pizza. That shot of Doc and Bigfoot -- Adrian saying, "fuck you, and fuck your banana."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:59 PM
The shot that begins under the table, slowly pushing in on Reynolds waking Alma and asking if she would like to marry, is quite nice. Looks like it was done on a slightly longer lens. A 50mm maybe. He did similar things in 'Inherent Vice'. That shot of Doc talking to Sortilege while the others eat pizza. That shot of Doc and Bigfoot -- Adrian saying, "fuck you, and fuck your banana."

I was sitting around last night and thought it would be fun to watch Inherent Vice from the perspective of having seen Phantom Thread, so I put it on. I've got to say that I enjoyed it more than ever this time. It continues to get better with each viewing for me, which is good news. Anyway, he does a lot of super slow push-ins in the movie, like the scenes you mentioned: There's the scene with Coy Harlingon and Doc sitting in the kitchen at The Boards' house in Topanga, the scene with Penny and Doc sitting on a bench outside, and probably more I'm forgetting now.

I've got to say, PTA did a great job with the film. I just come at it from a weird position of being a Pynchon uber-fan, so of course I have my preconceptions about what it should be like based on having read the book a bunch. But now that I'm a few years removed from the release and Phantom Thread has cleansed my PTA palette, I do appreciate it even more. There aren't many films released these days like it, if at all, and that's a testament to Pynchon's writing and PTA's cinematic style and influences. The cinematography is delightfully different from the norm as well. My biggest regret for the film is that there just wasn't room for a lot of Pynchon's jokes, such as when Pynchon describes everyone to say Denis' name so that it rhymes with "penis," or when Sauncho Smilax is musing about how Daisy is laying some grooming demands on Donald when he notices that Donald grows whiskers in an episode where he's stranded on a boat for a bit. Little things like that that just come alive in the book and make me laugh and emphatically nod, thinking, You go Pynchon! I still think @wilberfan should come around to it! Can't force someone, though.  :yabbse-grin:

However, my biggest regret for the film is when Doc walks into his office to see Tariq Khalil and says, "What it is, my brother" and Tariq respons, "Peace!" In the book, black guys are described as being seen rarely out near the ocean, so Doc tries to act cool and says, "Say, what it is, my brother." Tariq replies, "Never mind that shit," and stares at Doc's white guy afro. That bit gets me every time, and it was a sad omission for me from the movie when there was no reason to stray from the source.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on January 29, 2018, 10:18:26 PM

I was sitting around last night and thought it would be fun to watch Inherent Vice from the perspective of having seen Phantom Thread, so I put it on. I've got to say that I enjoyed it more than ever this time. It continues to get better with each viewing for me, which is good news.  I still think @wilberfan should come around to it!

I am recently on record having pledged to watch the Vice again the next time it's playing on the big screen somewhere geographically reasonable in the L.A. area.  I trust that when that happens, several of you will arrange to sit in the row directly behind me to ensure I remain alert and awake.  We can then--depending on collective mood and temperament--retire to a local ice creamery for treats and civil conversation.    Those of you who are L.A.-based, please help me scan the cinema horizons for screenings "...at a theater near [me]."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on January 30, 2018, 12:30:02 AM
I am recently on record having pledged to watch the Vice again the next time it's playing on the big screen somewhere geographically reasonable in the L.A. area.  I trust that when that happens, several of you will arrange to sit in the row directly behind me to ensure I remain alert and awake.  We can then--depending on collective mood and temperament--retire to a local ice creamery for treats and civil conversation.    Those of you who are L.A.-based, please help me scan the cinema horizons for screenings "...at a theater near [me]."

That sounds fun. Too bad I'm in the northeast of the continent .... Maybe one day I'll pack it in and move out to LA like Neil Young sez.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on January 31, 2018, 07:34:20 AM
Glimpses of impressions here, I saw it yesterday...

I had a teacher who said that there is a cost to innovation for the public. When you watch something you haven't quite yet seen before, you're in a position of discomfort at first. We often write here that the first viewing of a PTA movie can be an experience of discomfort. Even when I watched The Master, after having seen every trailer and clip I could, the movie itself was something I could not have predicted in the way it worked and flowed.

Despite all the influences of Anderson, he's very much interested in how you can tell a story in a new way. How? He shows that the base of the story doesn't even need to be all that new—but he offers storytelling, emotions, moods which are his own, special, rare, and that I often find overwhelming, especially in this one...It can be more oblique than The Master at times and, yet, more direct...? I don't know. He avoids a lot. All the backstory for Freddy in The Master: gone. We've heard about the backstory for Alma. The first thing we saw, footage of a soldier meeting Alma at a beach, cut...But the characters are alive, complex, even if the information we generally need—in the sense that we are needy—and I don't know how that works—cutting past all the usual ways doesn't necessarily makes a more interesting work.

The rythm. Some of my friends are not happy with the fact that he doesn't do long takes like he used to in Magnolia or Boogie Nights. The thing is: Magnolia isn't great because he follows characters in hallways. One of the best thing in Magnolia is its rythm. It just flows, man. It goes big, quiet, calm...one scene building into another, for a different character, which creates the link between them and the night.
I saw that you talked about this movie being like a symphony. It's exactly like that. The rythm creates emotions and meanings. It's also connected to the sense of memory. Inherent Vice as a faded postcard, you remember...? The quietness yet vibrancy of the past. How it comes back. All that...

You can especially see how he's interested in the quietness after the wedding. I mean, one of the best scenes of this movie, one of his best scenes, is almost wordless. It's a staring contest. They both win. And the New Year's scene...I expected them to kiss, I waited for them to kiss, I needed...? them to kiss and instead I got another staring contest...and I entered in the movie even more.

As cold as this movie can appear it is very tactile, full of sounds and shapes, faces and bodies.

The scene with the mother knocked me out. Totally cried. And it made me think of Magnolia—remember how it quiets down when Tom Cruise says "I'm quietly judging you" or this weird moment when Gattor talks about Chopin before falling down...? There, you have Reynolds finally calming down, talking to a ghost, just saying simple things in such a vulnerable way...and I could feel the mood he was in, how weird it was for him to be in that position, and how good, ultimately, it was...

There's a lot more, but I'll stop here.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: jviness02 on January 31, 2018, 10:56:08 PM
I've seen this three times, now. I don't really have anything meaningful to add to the conversation except DDL is such a treasure in this. He could have easily Plainviewed this performance and made Woodcock really nasty, but there is a lot of tenderness in this performance that makes it believable Alma would fall in love with him, despite his rough edges.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on February 01, 2018, 11:03:06 AM

I was sitting around last night and thought it would be fun to watch Inherent Vice from the perspective of having seen Phantom Thread, so I put it on. I've got to say that I enjoyed it more than ever this time. It continues to get better with each viewing for me, which is good news.  I still think @wilberfan should come around to it!

I am recently on record having pledged to watch the Vice again the next time it's playing on the big screen somewhere geographically reasonable in the L.A. area.  I trust that when that happens, several of you will arrange to sit in the row directly behind me to ensure I remain alert and awake.  We can then--depending on collective mood and temperament--retire to a local ice creamery for treats and civil conversation.    Those of you who are L.A.-based, please help me scan the cinema horizons for screenings "...at a theater near [me]."

I will be keeping track & in touch and if it's fine by you, whenever this day comes, I'll be sitting front row, as close to Sortilege and Gordita Beach as i can be.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 03, 2018, 12:45:52 AM
2 February 2018 (movie just released in UK)

General points on Phantom Thread, in no particular order:

Gold standard of movies nowadays.

Boiled down to its essence (a): a woman wants attention.
Boiled down to its essence (b): a man realises he needs more in his life than just work.

He eats the mushrooms willingly because: (a) He can be coddled when ill as if by his beloved mother; Alma brings his mother back to him. (b) Through illness he can escape the ongoing merry-go-round responsibility of creating his art. (c) (Twistedly,) he can get closer to the woman he “loves”. (d) Possibly via (c) he can distance himself somewhat from his sister?

A. One possible dramatic flaw: the sister is set up through the entire film, but her character culminates in no proper scene of resolution by the end. In fact, she seems to be discarded.

B. [But now I am beginning to think differently about this so-called potential “dramatic flaw”. In Wonder Wheel, Woody Allen intentionally gives Kate Winslet a banal, forgettable final line; in doing this the writer is commenting on and encapsulating her character. Similarly, by reducing the sister at the end, by not giving her that “one final major scene”, PT is, so to speak, humiliating her.]

The general plot: a woman manipulates a man to get attention. (Think Fatal Attraction, for one.) The twist, of course, is that the guy ends up welcoming the intrusion (of mushrooms). If a writer cannot create a completely new or newish structure (e.g., Ulysses, or even Dunkirk), then the next best plan of attack, in my estimation, is to take an established form and twist it in a surprising way. (The worst thing a narrative artist can do, of course, is to follow an established plan by the numbers without any innovative deviation.)

Very obviously the lensing is magnificent. PT is one of the best advertisements for celluloid that anyone can offer nowadays. I don’t mean the framing; I mean the colour and texture and softness of the imagery (which, of course, is not solely the creation of the camerawork, but also the production design).

The music is also now the gold standard of movie music for our generation. To my ears no better movie music can be written nowadays (I mean, with an orchestra; this was as good as John Williams, I guess). Greenwood should chuck in Radiohead and try a symphony. That said, movie composers, for some reason, are simply unable to make the leap into the pure symphonic form divorced from movie imagery. (There are exceptions to this reflection, somewhat.) But Greenwood should try. Someone has to, nowadays.

It seems obvious to me, keeping Punch Drunk out of it, the best movie PT has ever made, because of his command of character. What do I mean? Throughout the entire film the characters, specifically (a) the relationship between characters and (b) the relationship between the characters and the audience, keep shifting. PT has given us a very sophisticated presentation of character (for a movie). That said, it cannot be compared to the playwrights mentioned above because PT is writing in the modern idiom in which character can be ambiguous rather than perfectly, clearly defined. (E.g., is Alma evil or helpful? Does she do what she does out of love for him, or out of self-need? Maybe it’s not entirely either/or, but still.) Anyway, this shifting of character perspective is what a writer should aim for (in my estimation). PT really hit the nail on the head here (well, except for the problematical lack of sister-resolution scene).

[“Modern idiom” may be gobbledygook on my part; it has just struck me like a thunderbolt that Alma is very much an Eve Harrington character. All About Eve is an absolutely perfect companion piece to PT!]

[Or possibly not total gobbledygook, because the Eve Harrington character is completely resolved—her inner life revealed—by the end of All About Eve. Alma, in contrast, will remain forever mysterious, unresolved.]

We are told that the guy is a serial womanizer. What makes Alma different from the others? This is never explained.

I have a book of all of the Dior collections leading back to the first in 1947. The reproduction of the fashion show was so perfect a reproduction from the Dior photographs that I was literally stunned; I think my jaw dropped. Kubrick couldn’t have reproduced the fashion show one iota better. It literally seemed to be as if the photographs had come to life. In short, perfection.

Why mushrooms? There is going to be a thematic/expressionistic link between fashion and mushrooms (the natural world). I’ll say just one general word here: delicacy. I don’t wish to explore it further just now, but I will point out, as an “advance thought”, that one of Alexander McQueen’s fundamentals throughout his career was an intersection between the natural world and his fashion creations.

Interestingly, one scene seems to be missing (purposefully): the scene in which the sister berates her brother for Alma’s lowbrow situation (e.g., she’s a waitress). In most every other treatment of this movie written by anyone else, this scene would most likely have been incorporated. (This thematic matter is handed over, instead, to another character.)

At first I thought, “why would general audiences care about the problems of an artist?” But then I realized that the film can be boiled down beyond that to the essential: characters who need/want love, loving care, attention. (I could add other words but they require annotation.) This is the “bottom,” the fundamental of the story.

The gender of the two lovers can be switched, theoretically, without much change to the movie. Except, if someone points out the concept of the “nurturing” aspect of a female. (“Security and commitment . . . and whatever the f**k else.”) So, possibly, someone might argue that the gender roles are better assigned as they are in the screenplay.

One shot of the sister, looking down from a high staircase, could have come straight out of Hitchcock’s Rebecca. (Or any 1940s movie.) Loved it. (I need not even mention the shot from Psycho; it is so obvious.)

The sequence when the dress is recovered from the ugly woman: some might argue that this sequence is not entirely necessary for the movie. (At first thought, it’s kind of kooky, for more than one reason.) My theory, nothing more than a theory, is that this sequence may have been inspired by a true anecdote which I do not know.

[Also: isn't that a major offense? Or even more than one? 1. They are stealing an item worth a tremendous amount of money. 2. Breaking and entering, perhaps? (Or something similar.) 3. Assault, perhaps? (Removing the dress from the sleeping woman.) The two of them could have gone to prison!

As an addendum to this, Alexander McQueen refused to create items for women he thought "beneath" his art. Victoria Beckham (when she was "Posh Spice") was one.]

[Also, that "kooky" sequence reminds me of 1930s screwball comedies, or something from those wonderful Fred and Ginger flicks.]

[There is, come to think of it, a kooky element to the breakfast scene during which Alma disturbs the artist’s composure by making excessive noise. Such a situation can easily be imagined for a screwball comedy of the 1930s.]

A friend of mine said that the ending of the movie is not particularly hopeful, though it may seem that way to some. I can back up my friend’s view with two reflections: (1) That Alma discovers a secret message in a dress and removes it suggests something very, very evil. No respect for her lover, or for the art. But this slots into her character: she wants his full attention in the manner of Fatal Attraction; (2) at the very end of the end credits, the music hits, intentionally, one ambivalent chord before the final resolution, and I found that very, very ominious (I said to myself, “Oh s**t”).

It annoyed me benignly that when the guy doesn’t like the wedding dress, he doesn’t explain why.

The concept of the fashion designer having had enough of his career because of all of its pressures is very, very relevant. Here’s a paragraph from a recent, very good book on Galliano and McQueen: “The go-go pace [of the 1990s-early 2000s] was unsustainable and the wreckage it caused astounding. Marc Jacobs wound up in rehab, twice; Tom Ford was pushed out of Gucci—in part because board members felt he was running out of ideas—and suffered a bout of depression; French designer Christophe Decarnin reportedly abandoned his post at Balmain after being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown; Galliano’s trusted assistant Steven Robinson died of a cocaine-induced heart attack at thirty-eight; Galliano became a severe alcoholic and prescription pill addict who inevitably imploded; and McQueen killed himself.”
   And there are a bunch of other stories that I have gathered in the past year. An up-and-coming talented British designer (who, say commentators, inspired the early Galliano in a prominent manner) named John Flett died at 27, ostensibly from a heart attack most likely brought on from drug abuse apparently inspired by the hassles and pressures he was experiencing while trying to get noticed. Nicolas Ghesquiere quit Balenciaga after fifteen years because the corporate bulls**t had piled too high for his taste. Dior died from a sudden, unexpected heart attack at age 52. Saint Laurent panicked when he finally got sick of the pressure of having to create an entirely new collection every six months without pause (he has a famous quote about this). And so on. Unlike other artists who can take their time if they like, fashion designers are forced to create like machines on an assembly line; one pause in their output, or one horrible collection, can lead to corporate doom and personal failure with no way back.

And let us remember that the London fashion scene in the 1950s was about to experience the youthquake of the 1960s. Extravagant couture didn’t go away, of course; it never will—but seemingly all we hear about fashion in the 1960s is the new youth movement and the new, revolutionary fashions that arose with it and which have never left us. So setting PT in the 1950s is kind of like O’Neill setting The Iceman Cometh in 1912 or Thomas Mann setting The Magic Mountain around the same time—right before the upheaval of WW1, which changed the world. By setting the scene right before a major upheaval, a writer can suggest (and I’m going to express this ambiguously) a certain perspective to the characters, situation, and world.

There is a whiff of the concept of suicide in PT, insofar as the guy swallows the mushrooms after Alma explains herself. An artist who lives with beauty day-by-day can get too overwhelmed with it all; weirdly, ironically, curiously, too much beauty and cerebral fertility can lead to mental illness and suicidal thoughts. Too much input.

The movie is an “hallucinogenic creepy fairy tale”.

I wonder, fleetingly at the moment, if the story could have been told even better in a novel.

PT might be described as “a classy Cronenberg film”.

I think the British character will respond to the twisted nature of this film. In its essence it seems a British film, not American. (“Nasty nature”, possibly, if we see Alma as evil, and not helpful.)

After Alma delivers the poisonous mushrooms for the first time, the wedding dress is almost destroyed. Not delivering a wedding dress on time to a high-end client may very well have spelled the absolute end of the fashion house. So with one (arguably lunatic) act Alma could have taken both a life and destroyed the fashion house for all time.

If we choose to believe that Alma is purely benevolent in intentions, then we are led to receive the ending as a happy one. Consider the happy ending of Punch Drunk Love. So the obvious rhetorical question follows: does PT Anderson seem the sort of artist who would want to repeat himself? To end a movie the precise same way? If the answer is no, then we have no choice but to receive the ending as eternally ambiguous. Because we have no idea how their romance will ultimately turn out, what it will lead to.

Is one’s partner helpful or a hindrance? This is an artist’s eternal question. 

[Days and days and days later, PT is still haunting me. Alma is, to me, pure evil, someone who needs to have a stake hammered through her heart. It struck me that the two slapstick moments (Alma making noise at breakfast, which could have come out of a Fred and Ginger movie; and stealing the dress, which is just an absurdity) is PT Anderson attempting a Kubrick sophisticated funny/serious-at-the-same-time fusion. Obviously it's not going to reach the heights of EWS, but I'm still floored by PT's artistry. He really, really nailed it. Too bad it's just so damn uncomfortable. Alma is a movie monster. . . .

At the end of the movie she is a black widow and he is caught in her web. . . . ]

These are some initial, general thoughts for the moment. I’ve only seen the movie once, which is pretty much akin to not much more than a “fleeting glance”. I’ve said very little, but a person has to start somewhere.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on February 03, 2018, 11:49:37 AM
We are told that the guy is a serial womanizer. What makes Alma different from the others? This is never explained.

I think the obvious answer is that she pushes back when none of the others did.  Also, I think she got to stick around longer than the others because Cyril came to genuinely like her (perhaps in part because of Alma's feistyness?).

Great post.  Especially for only having seen it one time!  I especially enjoyed your paragraph about the fashion designers that all crashed and burned...  Fascinating.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 03, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
Yes. She's different because of how she is in the movie and how, ultimately, she manages to make his life better for him. (By poisoning him and making him realize that he should just calm the fuck down sometimes.) The first woman asks for his attention. Can't manage to have it. Alma takes it. Doesn't care. She's fierce.

It makes me think of a movie like The Big Sick (spoilers The Big Sicks) where The One is just a girl he randomly has sex with the same way he randomly has sex with a girl later on in the movie and then she's in a coma and..that's all...What a great girl and chemistry and understanding they have of each other! (The Big Sick is bad.)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on February 03, 2018, 11:27:17 PM
During my first viewing of Thread, in a film full of standout moments, one that really grabbed me was the character of Barbara Rose and her performance by Harriet Sansom Harris.  I think it's a shame that she hasn't gotten more attention, frankly.  (Understandable, though, I guess, given the two (three) leads.)

Apparently the character was based on an actual person.

Here's my attempt to remind the world (well, our microscopic corner of it) of this woman and her performance in this film.

The Strange, True Story Behind One Of The Saddest ‘Phantom Thread’ Characters

https://nylon.com/articles/phantom-thread-harriet-sansom-harris-barbara-rose-barbara-hutton

Quote
Lesley Manville is superlative in Phantom Thread as Woodcock’s forbiddingly controlled sister Cyril, and more than worthy of attention for supporting actress awards.  But Harris is just as worthy in her own much shorter screen time, and her memorable performance as Barbara Rose is an example of that hopeful adage: “There are no small parts only small actors.”
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Riley Jonathawinn Drake on February 04, 2018, 06:23:16 PM
I recently watched the first trailer again after watching the movie twice, and I noticed that there are a lot of scenes and lines in the trailer that didn't make it in the final cut.

So what do you guys think about those deleted scenes and do you think we will get a short film similar to back beyond concerning all the unused material ? 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on February 04, 2018, 09:54:52 PM
I recently watched the first trailer again after watching the movie twice, and I noticed that there are a lot of scenes and lines in the trailer that didn't make it in the final cut.

So what do you guys think about those deleted scenes and do you think we will get a short film similar to back beyond concerning all the unused material ?

Probably on the "Special Edition" Blu-ray a couple of years from now?

There are a bunch of unofficial photos of the production filming in Robin Hood's Bay, and it seems they filmed a bunch of stuff left out of the movie, including stuff at a cemetery (some of these made it into the trailer), Daniel walking outside by a hedge, and some other things. And then there are the scenes that they shot but dropped from the final cut, including the meeting at the church. I'm really hoping these do get included in the regular or special edition blu-ray!

I also noticed that my favourite song from the soundtrack, Sandalwood, wasn't in the movie (it was used for one of the sneak preview scenes when Alma and Reynolds are driving through urban London). I wonder if they used it for deleted scenes.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: d on February 05, 2018, 06:15:35 AM
The one with Alma on steps seen in that early video from the set in Robin Hoods Bay is also missing from the final cut, isn't it? I wonder what it is about as it looks unlike anything we see in the movie plot-wise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y0DtxSWjWg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y0DtxSWjWg)

Since PTA mentioned the audio commentary during AMA, I am curious what kind of extras we will get on bluray. Chryskylodon Blues was cool but I would love to see some more "standard" behind-the-scenes for PT.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Sleepless on February 05, 2018, 09:09:42 AM
For the most part we're just given the cruelest bits of their relationship (an entirely different sort of passion), but never really allowed to root for them as a couple in the traditional sense. It's a really interesting choice, withholding the part of the story that would satisfy an audience. It's an easy mark so PTA just skips it.

It's been a couple of weeks since I've seen it. Hoping to see it again soon. But I've needed some time to let my thoughts percolate. It's a beautiful film. I'm looking forward to watching it more and discovering new things. I've scanned through this thread, but haven't read everything, so apologies. My initial thought at this point is that its an exploration of what love is, as much as anything else. And love has a lot of different aspects and angles. A big part of the ending, for me, was that Reynolds wants to feel the motherly love he has missed - that's why he wants to eat the mushrooms and get sick. Because that allows Alma to give him that kind of love. She can give him all the types of love that he craves, and he does the same for her. Going back to Modage's comment above, I think this ties into the idea of the phantom thread - the hidden pieces inside the garments. Any love story has many sides to it, many things that happen behind closed doors that only those involved know about. You might imagine these two people who have beautiful clothes at the center of their lives have a romance which is equally beautiful. I'm sure they do, but that's just a part of it. And what PTA does choose to show us is just a part of it too. This isn't a case of ironic "oh, yes they have beautiful things in their lives, but their lives are actually really ugly," rather, we only see those parts of it. We only see the chasteness, this side of things. We know there's other stuff that happens. Reynolds pull Alma into his room, and then shuts the door, shutting us out. They go on their honeymoon, but all we see is his irritation at breakfast. It's a selective portrait of this very real, multifaceted relationship, but with the conscious choice made to only include the "ugly" side of things. But the phantom pieces of the relationship are felt loud and clear. It makes it seem like their relationship is far more fucked up than it actually is. It's basically saying that you might think you know these people and the kind of relationship they'd have, but - surprise - it's actually something entirely different, and - surprise - there's actually a whole lot more to it than that too. Like, we're all trying to figure out how this relationship works - who has the upper hand and when, who pushes whom, what exactly are the dynamics - but we're not shown all of the pieces. Love is a beautiful mystery, and unless you're one of the two people in that relationship, you're never going to have all of the pieces.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Riley Jonathawinn Drake on February 05, 2018, 09:14:13 AM
The one with Alma on steps seen in that early video from the set in Robin Hoods Bay is also missing from the final cut, isn't it? I wonder what it is about as it looks unlike anything we see in the movie plot-wise.

Hmm I also don't remember that this scene was in the film.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 05, 2018, 09:57:19 AM
They shot Alma in her little appartment, praying in a church, with her boyfriend (what's in the video with her waiting on the steps), with her brother. It's actually her sister in the scene at the dinner after the wedding.

They thought it would be better if she appeared in Reynold's world.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 05, 2018, 02:14:40 PM
Glad to report that I finally saw Phantom Thread! It definitely made a tremendous first impression -- a romantic and weird and melancholic experience that's majorly surprising both in the context of the film and PTA's overall career. I'm very eager to revisit it. I think I'm going to let it linger for a bit before reading through the thread.

This one features a few moments that are now my absolute favourites from any PTA movie (I mean, not just among my favourites, but actually right at the top of the list).

This isn't necessarily one of those moments, but I'll give a quick nod to the shot of Woodcock blindsided by an empty house and staring up at Alma with this uncomprehending expression. I love how confidently and nimbly the movie sort of switched aesthetic gears there. The desired result had to be to get as unflattering and vulnerable a shot of Day-Lewis as possible. Everything clicked into place in that respect: the lighting, that low camera angle, the acting. Search through that shot and look at Day-Lewis' face throughout; there is not one insincere performative molecule in the whole frame. It's a stunning moment where it's really easy to feel for this character. You can sense the sadness of a life that's been about aggressively sheltering himself into work and routine, and it's gotten to the point that an empty house now fills him with fear. The strangeness and sadness of that experience is so well-communicated.

It's not just DDL, of course. Everyone in this movie seems totally attuned to the script's wavelength. Krieps and Manville exude so much energy in different ways and contribute so much to the mood of the movie. The only other Manville film I had previously seen was Another Year, in which she gives one of my favourite performances from any movie. Her great performance as Cyril is just a totally different achievement, which says a lot. Having both of those very distinct performances secured in my memories just further accentuates her mastery. She's an absurdly good actor.

Much of the film's success rests on Krieps. The varied range of glances she sends out throughout the movie are an indispensable part of the overall magic. Her performance is so full of interest -- just so magnetic and fascinatingly elusive. It's great that DDL and PTA didn't really overcrowd the film with their own energy and that Alma/Krieps was given the opportunity to actually flourish and take the reigns of the screen and the story. On a related note, Alma's dressing down of Woodcock at the table is one of the more cathartic bits in a PTA movie in a long time because, at that point, I imagine many audience members would be growing somewhat weary of Woodcock's manner and the claustrophobia of his life, and then Krieps and PTA offer us this amazing release valve through Alma's eruption.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 05, 2018, 07:13:30 PM
For those who have the script: before they begin to improv, how close is the asparagus scene to the script? And what's in the script that they don't say?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on February 05, 2018, 07:32:58 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/n2rUt21.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/BW3gyeX.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/bE9dRTN.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/vz3oXIo.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/MmYPmKB.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SDS9r8t.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/CPWPsrQ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/KSqt0MM.jpg)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 05, 2018, 08:54:02 PM
Thanks for that! I think they did improv in the middle then came back to the script. I don't remember Alma talking that much about the curse, which is a good thing since she doesn't need to, and I like that she's angry enough that she ditches the nice things she'd like to tell him.

Or she does talk about the curse and I forgot because it was intense.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 05, 2018, 10:00:48 PM
I don’t recall any “curse” talk during that scene, nor the “maybe we don’t go together”, etc. Good cuts.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 06, 2018, 11:50:16 AM
During my first viewing of Thread, in a film full of standout moments, one that really grabbed me was the character of Barbara Rose and her performance by Harriet Sansom Harris.

This character has been on my mind a lot, so I searched "Barbara Rose" in this thread to see if anyone else mentioned her (I probably missed some posts that didn't identify her by name). Harriet Sansom Harris -- who played Frasier's agent, Bebe, on Frasier -- is just so great here. I love that there is now a thread linking Frasier and PTA's work. I wonder if he's a fan? Anyway, I bet so many others have already said this, but I really feel like there is a whole movie in that subplot...

On another note...has anyone else noticed that there's kind of a home invasion theme running through the last few films? Woodcock and Alma showing up at Barbara Rose's door reminded me of Freddie appearing at John More's (Christopher Evan Welch) apartment in The Master. It also sort of recalls Plainview brutally threatening H.M. Tilford (David Warshofsky): "one night, I'm gonna' come to you, inside of your house, wherever you're sleeping and I'm going to cut your throat." You can also include Bigfoot bursting through Doc's door near the end of Inherent Vice. I can't remember if Pynchon came up with that bit in the book or if PTA created it?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 06, 2018, 11:59:35 AM
You can also include Bigfoot bursting through Doc's door near the end of Inherent Vice. I can't remember if Pynchon came up with that bit in the book or if PTA created it?

That scene's a PTA original.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on February 06, 2018, 01:46:30 PM
- The brothers kidnapping Barry / attacking Barry and Lena as they pull in to Barry's garage, Barry bursting into Dean's store
- Jimmy invading Claudia's space sending her into a day-long spinout, Stanley breaking into the library, Donnie breaking into the store, BONUS: Jim entering Claudia's room at the end, but in a wholesome af way
- Rahad Jackson sequence is an attempted home robbery, also Dirk's mom busting in on him in his room, maybe?
- Sydney breaking into Jimmy's apartment to settle their affairs
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on February 06, 2018, 02:04:05 PM
- The brothers kidnapping Barry / attacking Barry and Lena as they pull in to Barry's garage, Barry bursting into Dean's store
- Jimmy invading Claudia's space sending her into a day-long spinout, Stanley breaking into the library, Donnie breaking into the store, BONUS: Jim entering Claudia's room at the end, but in a wholesome af way
- Rahad Jackson sequence is an attempted home robbery, also Dirk's mom busting in on him in his room, maybe?
- Sydney breaking into Jimmy's apartment to settle their affairs

Todd Parker kicks in the bedroom door at Rahad's place in Boogie Nights.  (Pays the price, too...) 

In kind of an opposite way, Eddie's Mom slams the door behind him as he storms out of the house--while Jack opens his door to Eddie...

Is there a thread in all the significance of doors opening in his films?  (Probably any film?)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 06, 2018, 02:25:02 PM
- The brothers kidnapping Barry / attacking Barry and Lena as they pull in to Barry's garage, Barry bursting into Dean's store
- Jimmy invading Claudia's space sending her into a day-long spinout, Stanley breaking into the library, Donnie breaking into the store, BONUS: Jim entering Claudia's room at the end, but in a wholesome af way
- Rahad Jackson sequence is an attempted home robbery, also Dirk's mom busting in on him in his room, maybe?
- Sydney breaking into Jimmy's apartment to settle their affairs

Todd Parker kicks in the bedroom door at Rahad's place in Boogie Nights.  (Pays the price, too...) 

In kind of an opposite way, Eddie's Mom slams the door behind him as he storms out of the house--while Jack opens his door to Eddie...

Is there a thread in all the significance of doors opening in his films?  (Probably any film?)

Barry just walking on in to the back of the D&D Mattress warehouse
Freddie hopping aboard Alethia
Freddie wandering about, stealing some shit from the rich old New York lady's house (Mrs. Drummond?)
Doc sneaking into Sloane Wolfmann's...the mansion The Boards are staying in...Chryskylodon....(these may be stretches)...........
Thom Yorke walking into endless California households in Daydreaming.......


Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on February 06, 2018, 03:30:15 PM
Is there a thread in all the significance of doors opening in his films?  (Probably any film?)

We're getting further away from whatever the point was, which I'm totally down for. I just like listing things that I love. Beyond doors, we can get into instances of characters just simply walking through their environments and how he's always been into that...

- Sydney walking us through the casino, leading us up to John's motel room
- The ensemble taking us through the nightclub, Jack wandering through the porn warehouse, Little Bill and Jack taking us through Jack's house
- The cast and crew of WDKK taking us on a behind the scenes tour of the studio
- Tracking with Barry during a hectic day at the warehouse, Barry and Lena leaving the restaurant and getting into the car
- CMBB is trickier, any thoughts on that? There are some tracking shots of people running to and from the derrick fire but I don't think those count as they are action/plot loaded
- Martha wandering the sales floor, Freddie wandering the pier before finding/boarding the Alethia, Freddie walking back to the hall after beating up Henry Plainview
- Following Doc out to Shasta's car at sunset
- Daydreaming
- Moving with Alma during the dress show, with Reynolds through the New Years sequence
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 06, 2018, 04:43:32 PM
Is there a thread in all the significance of doors opening in his films?  (Probably any film?)

- CMBB is trickier, any thoughts on that? There are some tracking shots of people running to and from the derrick fire but I don't think those count as they are action/plot loaded


Plainview wandering into the Church of the Third Revelation for the first time, Camera picking up with Eli, leading him back out toward Plainview's position, all one shot.... All I can think of.

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on February 06, 2018, 06:04:49 PM
Would you describe the relationship between Woodcock and Alma as abusive when she begins to live with him? He's distant and annoyed and unpleasant, but she never feels like a victim to me. She doesn't take the bullshit for granted and they work in their own way toward reconciliation. He's a prick, but not the monster I see described sometimes. From what I've heard, there is a dimension of manipulation with abusers. Woodcock is simply in his pattern where his protégée slowly fades away...

But this is Alma.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on February 06, 2018, 10:56:32 PM
‘Phantom Thread’ Deleted Scenes: Here’s What Paul Thomas Anderson Cut Out of His Six-Time Oscar Nominee

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/phantom-thread-deleted-scenes-paul-thomas-anderson-cut-out-1201925191/

Quote
The first cut of Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Phantom Thread” was rumored to be around the four-hour mark, which means a lot of footage had to be cut in order to get the romance drama down to its 130-minute theatrical runtime. Recent interviews with stars Lesley Manville and Vicky Krieps shine a light on a much-longer version of “Phantom Thread” that delves further into their characters, Cyril and Alma, and their relationship together.

Quote
Earlier in the film, Reynolds tells Alma that his mother’s wedding dress as been lost (“I don’t know where it is know. It’s probably ashes,” he says), but it turns out Cyril was actually in possession of the garment the whole time and was hiding it from her brother. Alma ended up finding the dress at the Woodcock’s country home, forcing Cyril to explain herself and get Alma to keep the secret.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 07, 2018, 08:34:11 AM
On seeing PT a second time

Watching it for a second time has highlighted a phenomenon which I think is a general one. The phenomenon of assimilating a movie for the first time. The first time I saw it my mind was with it moment to moment, and I was calculating as many details as I could as the film was "unspooling" (as it were); but afterwards, my mind acted as a sieve and most of the data fell away, leaving only, what I intended at the time, the bare essentials, initial thoughts that need to be got out of the way, or initial impressions; one has to start somewhere. But after my opening burst of initial reflections, I wasn't refilled with the data that I had lost. All that was gone. But seeing the movie again brings everything back into the mind; and now a viewer can really get down to business.

But there is an eternal question here. The experience one has the first time one sees it: it that something pure, if imprecise? The experiencing of original expectations and surprises? Or, the best way to assimilate art is to know it intimately, frame by frame for example; so that terabytes of cerebral data can flow from one's experiencing of it. I would say it is the latter, but that is just me. And yet, picking the first way is a traveling back into the past, into the way we saw films as children.

(I suppose either/or doesn't apply here. It's just a question to consider for fun.)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: giodashorts on February 07, 2018, 01:54:47 PM
It's funny how he writes his screenplays. It's as if he's gotten "lazier", in terms of presentation and detail. It's sloppy and stripped to the bone. The way he doesn't capitalize... As he said, I remember, something like; leave the mistakes -- don't correct them -- way back when, in 97', I think. His early scripts; 'Boogie Nights', 'Hard Eight', and 'Knuckle Sandwich', are all well presented, detailed, and clean -- for the person reading it...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 07, 2018, 02:04:59 PM
Yeah they're pretty sloppy from Magnolia on.....always figured by that point he no longer had to worry about the "presentation" as such, not having to get his scripts past "readers" and the like. Learning how to write scripts by reading Magnolia over and over put me at a disadvantage for a few years ha, as if his way was the norm.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: giodashorts on February 07, 2018, 02:18:43 PM
Absolutely! I think that's it, really.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on February 07, 2018, 09:25:30 PM
got a hold of a screener and i have to say, it’s a shame for anyone to see this for the first time this way.  the sound mix is egregious.  the strings dont swell in “house of woodcock” like they should... i noticed this too when it went to wide release and i saw it at an amc.  the first time it happens on that dolly in/tilt up on the stairwell is the most soul-stirring thing ive experienced at the movies in recent memory, and it’s neutered without the proper levels.  the spatial depth of the sound design is gone here too. 

i know there are some on here for whom this is the only option to see phantom thread  without having to wait for the home video release... if you go this route (“whatever you do, do it carefully.”), watch it with a grain of salt and crank the volume as high as you can. 

but now i can have the movie on my tv constantly.  anyone in LA see the 35mm print at the vista?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on February 07, 2018, 09:41:25 PM
anyone in LA see the 35mm print at the vista?

Just noticed the L.A. Cinematheque screening next week has both Thread and Punch-Drunk Love in 35mm.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on February 07, 2018, 09:46:54 PM
sold out already...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: BB on February 07, 2018, 10:04:19 PM
He's a prick, but not the monster I see described sometimes.

I very much agree. As if people want it to be harder than it is. Like it has to be TWBB all over again.

To me, he's a fussy and unpleasant man, but he can also be genuine and generous and charming. While rooted much more in reality, PT most resembles PDL of all his films, in its heart and its whimsy, its softness. Totally it's own thing of course, but if you wanna make comparisons. It's not what anyone was expecting and some folks are trying to squeeze it into the mold they'd constructed. And/or they're trying to be woke and slightly missing the mark. I don't know that he's necessarily a misogynist, more of a misanthrope. Alma doesn't bother him because she's a woman, but because she's human.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: csage97 on February 08, 2018, 09:43:48 AM
got a hold of a screener and i have to say, it’s a shame for anyone to see this for the first time this way.  the sound mix is egregious.  the strings dont swell in “house of woodcock” like they should... i noticed this too when it went to wide release and i saw it at an amc.  the first time it happens on that dolly in/tilt up on the stairwell is the most soul-stirring thing ive experienced at the movies in recent memory, and it’s neutered without the proper levels.  the spatial depth of the sound design is gone here too. 

i know there are some on here for whom this is the only option to see phantom thread  without having to wait for the home video release... if you go this route (“whatever you do, do it carefully.”), watch it with a grain of salt and crank the volume as high as you can. 

but now i can have the movie on my tv constantly.  anyone in LA see the 35mm print at the vista?

I got the screener as well. I feel a bit guilty, but then again, I saw PT three times during its week-and-a-half stay at my local cinema chain, and I likely would've seen it more if it had been there longer. Plus, I'll be the first to get the Blu ray because high quality is a must. Anyway, the sound is pretty degraded, much like the image, so those swells don't sound as great as they would with a higher quality file. Not terrible, but it's not too good either.

I was staying at my parents' and decided to put PT on the TV this morning as I was getting ready. My dad came up and it caught his attention. It was early on during the breakfast and dinner scenes, and he just started howling with laughter. He was all, "Look at this guy! Is he a fucking vampire!?" That response was just great. My sister was around too and said the whole thing was creepy, and she asked if Reynolds was going to murder Alma. All of these responses were highly amusing.

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 08, 2018, 06:18:18 PM
I don't know that he's necessarily a misogynist, more of a misanthrope. Alma doesn't bother him because she's a woman, but because she's human.

I don't think he's a misanthrope, either. Plainview was definitely like that, but Woodcock is seen socializing with many people throughout the film. He seems at least mildly content in some of those scenes (although, he's miserable and cantankerous in other instances). So, I don't think it's quite the same thing as Plainview, who was only ever communicative with others so as to get something for himself. For instance, there's that scene when Woodcock and Alma are back at the restaurant, and Woodcock is engaged in conversation with several other people. This is when Alma, who is looking on in silence, says that he looks thirsty or something?

To be sure, he doesn't come across like a big conversationalist or a people person, but I didn't get the sense that he hates people. Instead, I think he has this absurd idea that he can experience the world and life precisely on his terms. This suggests not so much a dislike for people as an obsession with routine and familiarity and an intolerance for surprises and challenges.

That amazing, and beautifully delivered, line near the end says a lot about his need to keep himself safe and sequestered: "it hurts my feelings!"
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 08, 2018, 08:43:22 PM
"Barbara Rose" is apparently based on Barbara Hutton. Well, on page 176 of her biography, Poor Little Rich Girl, we're told that the FBI had opened a file on her around the early 1940s; the code name of the file was "Red Rose".
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 08, 2018, 08:54:06 PM
"Barbara Rose" is apparently based on Barbara Hutton. Well, on page 176 of her biography, Poor Little Rich Girl, we're told that the FBI had opened a file on her around the early 1940s; the code name of the file was "Red Rose".

Thanks for sharing.

I guess you found the book at a library, right? Seems like it's out of print, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on February 08, 2018, 09:31:17 PM
In the scene that follows Alma offering to drive Reynolds home after the gala, where she tells the doctor that Reynolds needs to settle after giving so much of himself to his work, we see him aching in bed and Alma nestles beside him, I believe that this is a flash forward to one of his poisonings. I always chalked that shot up as something he does after a big show, after giving all he has to give and needing a moment to decompress, but I think otherwise now. He writhes in bed and all that, but what really makes me think this a flash forward is this tuft of white hair on Alma that is not there in any other scene. Am I bugging? If anyone with a screener can confirm,,,,

peace and love. PEACE AND LOVE.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 08, 2018, 09:54:52 PM
Personally, I don't think that moment was a flash forward. I think it's part of the chain of events that leads Alma to begin considering the poisoning and, in that sense, it's almost essential that it's not a flash forward because it helps us to understand her character psychology and her scheme. In other words, witnessing a bedridden Reynolds is what motivates her decision to poison him in the first place.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Something Spanish on February 08, 2018, 10:09:42 PM
Personally, I don't think that moment was a flash forward. I think it's part of the chain of events that leads Alma to begin considering the poisoning and, in that sense, it's almost essential that it's not a flash forward because it helps us to understand her character psychology and her scheme. In other words, witnessing a bedridden Reynolds is what motivates her decision to poison him in the first place.

of course, but why is she all granny like in that scene with an Anna Paquin as Rogue-like streak of white hair?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 08, 2018, 10:29:19 PM
Oh, sorry. I must have missed that bit in your post. I can't recall anything like that, but could it simply be the way the light is falling on her hair in that moment...a few errant wisps set against the light in a certain way? I'm seeing something sort of like this in a few promo pictures (like this (https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/phantom-thread.png)), but it's not actually white hair and not like Anna Paquin in the X-Men movies.

At any rate, since the scene is presented as a straightforwardly chronological event, and has effects on later decisions, I doubt there'd be any purposeful use of white hair.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: samsong on February 09, 2018, 01:20:10 AM
can confirm that the "white streak" is the way the light looks in that shot.  the window behind woodcock's bed is nearly blown out and gives off cold, white light.  when it punches in for the two-shot of them in bed, it has the effect of fading colors.  the narrative runs chronologically in both the framing device and the depiction of their relationship. 

PTAs affection and empathy for his characters reaches renoir-ian heights with phantom thread.  no one label or psychological profile explains away any of the characters or their behavior (though wilder's thesis of woodcock as character study of a narcissist is compelling), and what we get are two human beings figuring out how to co-habitate in an elemental way i've read assessments that describe the relationship as toxic or hold the film up against some sort of imaginary standard of "healthy" relationships, and i never once got the sense from the film that there's an interest in making that judgement.  "everyone has their reasons."

To be sure, he doesn't come across like a big conversationalist or a people person, but I didn't get the sense that he hates people. Instead, I think he has this absurd idea that he can experience the world and life precisely on his terms. This suggests not so much a dislike for people as an obsession with routine and familiarity and an intolerance for surprises and challenges.

well put. 

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 09, 2018, 05:09:27 AM
"Barbara Rose" is apparently based on Barbara Hutton. Well, on page 176 of her biography, Poor Little Rich Girl, we're told that the FBI had opened a file on her around the early 1940s; the code name of the file was "Red Rose".

Thanks for sharing.

I guess you found the book at a library, right? Seems like it's out of print, unfortunately.

I've owned the book for years; it's very interesting. The conspicuous consumption is breathtaking in its, I don't know, audacity. And then her story deteriorates into utter, terrible, gruelling horror; a frail recluse and drug addict, she became a female version of the post-1958 Howard Hughes. One of the richest women in the world for most of her life, by the end she died virtually broke. The book is also a sharp vision of the horrid, sick, twisted world of high society and café society. Sick, sick, sick.

Still and all, you should read it! You can find it for an inexpensive price at Abebooks.com; just enter "Poor Little Rich Girl Hutton".

P.S.

1. ". . . the sale of visas to French Jews at the beginning of World War II" (Porfirio Rubirosa) appears on p. 259.
2. The marriage press conference, pp. 266-67. (There is also a photo of this.)
3. Passing out at the wedding reception, p. 267.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on February 09, 2018, 12:32:21 PM
"Barbara Rose" is apparently based on Barbara Hutton. Well, on page 176 of her biography, Poor Little Rich Girl, we're told that the FBI had opened a file on her around the early 1940s; the code name of the file was "Red Rose".

Thanks for sharing.

I guess you found the book at a library, right? Seems like it's out of print, unfortunately.

I've owned the book for years; it's very interesting. The conspicuous consumption is breathtaking in its, I don't know, audacity. And then her story deteriorates into utter, terrible, gruelling horror; a frail recluse and drug addict, she became a female version of the post-1958 Howard Hughes. One of the richest women in the world for most of her life, by the end she died virtually broke. The book is also a sharp vision of the horrid, sick, twisted world of high society and café society. Sick, sick, sick.

Still and all, you should read it! You can find it for an inexpensive price at Abebooks.com; just enter "Poor Little Rich Girl Hutton".

P.S.

1. ". . . the sale of visas to French Jews at the beginning of World War II" (Porfirio Rubirosa) appears on p. 259.
2. The marriage press conference, pp. 266-67. (There is also a photo of this.)
3. Passing out at the wedding reception, p. 267.

Thanks for this. I'm adding it to my list of books and will hopefully track it down.

I'm assuming that PTA was, at one point or another, considering the idea of making an entire film about Hutton or a character partly based on her life.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on February 09, 2018, 02:05:28 PM
1. ". . . the sale of visas to French Jews at the beginning of World War II" (Porfirio Rubirosa) appears on p. 259.

One of my favorite little bits in the film...."Visas, Jews? Jews, Visas?"
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 10, 2018, 01:07:04 AM
Three points, one about BARBARA HUTTON; one about THE GARMENTS IN PT; and FUN FACTS

1. Generally speaking, at first thought, I suppose Barbara Hutton is included in the film to demonstrate that even if a fashion designer chooses to remain at arm's length from the sick, sick world of high society, he or she has no choice but to participate to some extent. (This is a general theme: the artist in the world and the artist vs. the world.) (When the dress is stolen from an inebriated Barbara in that slapstick sequence, the fashion designer is indulging in a revolutionary act, both as an individual and as an artist.) This is but one initial thought. There are and will be others. . . .

-(Alexander McQueen, arguably the greatest fashion designer of the 1990s-2000s, pretty much hated the fashion industry; quit his post at Givenchy; refused to create clothing for women he thought annoying; and repeatedly spoke of escaping into another career. He finally escaped . . . but in the worst way possible.)

-(Andrew Bolton, a McQueen biographer [Savage Beauty], is thanked at the end of PT; and also at the end it says, "Mr. Day-Lewis' Tailoring Provided by ANDERSON SHEPPARD" -- the Savile Row tailors where McQueen began his adventure.)

-(People in Hollywood who have a sense of history will love the inclusion of Barbara Hutton for many reasons, including her marriage to Cary Grant and her dalliance with Howard Hughes. And I wonder if Wes Anderson has read the book Poor Little Rich Girl, because it mentions, more than once, a European high society woman by the name of Lady Mendl [though, obviously, he could have heard of her from somewhere else!]). My intuition is that all the greats in Hollywood have read this book. Hutton's pampered life leads to a horrible downfall; it's an ultimate cautionary tale. And the ghost of Hutton adds a spice of MGM's Grand Hotel (1932) to PT.)

2. Now what do we think of the quality of the garments in PT? For anyone new to the subject of fashion, I suggest the book, "The Golden Age of Couture: Paris and London 1947-57", edited by Claire Wilcox. (Any fashion book with the name Claire Wilcox is well worth buying.) The book contains close to 200 photographs (Dior, Balenciaga, Lanvin, Givenchy, and so on); moreover, a reader new to the subject will learn a tremendous amount of what goes on behind the scenes. We cannot judge the character and quality of Woodcock's designs until we have seen hundreds of pictures of the work of his contemporaries. Once we are able to better understand Woodcock's designs, we will thereby learn something more about his inner character.

3. Fun facts: When the fashion designer first begins to create a dress for Alma, the process of putting the calico on her body and designing and cutting and pinning it is called DRAPING. The calico prototype is called a TOILE. And that the fashion designer is designing STRAIGHT ON THE BODY (instead of on a mannequin, called a "stand") shows his immense skill in draping and design (I assume he's improvising?). Except for the absolute greats, fashion designers require sketches first, and then draping on a stand second; and only then does the draping on a human body take place. (McQueen was one who could improvise right on the human body without any intitial preparation, to the everlasting amazement of onlookers.)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: HACKANUT on February 10, 2018, 08:09:48 PM
Very interesting thoughts regarding draping. Thanks for sharing, I had no idea doing it on the body was so difficult but I can see why.
In an interview with PT's costume designer Mark Bridges he said he wasn't happy that DDL had learned the wrong way to drape. I'm assuming it was a method that wasnt used in that period? Any thoughts regarding that?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on February 11, 2018, 05:47:13 AM
Very interesting thoughts regarding draping. Thanks for sharing, I had no idea doing it on the body was so difficult but I can see why.
In an interview with PT's costume designer Mark Bridges he said he wasn't happy that DDL had learned the wrong way to drape. I'm assuming it was a method that wasnt used in that period? Any thoughts regarding that?

Yes, indeed. Great question. First of all, I personally didn't see enough of DDL's draping to make a judgment; the short glimpse we saw of it looked very fine to me, however. (The entire film looks very fine!) (Though now that I have seen it again, I see that a prototype has already been created, and it is put onto Alma wholesale, so we don't actually see an initial-draping-from-scratch.)

As for draping straight on the body: the Wilcox book I cited earlier mentions that Dior, for one, towering figure that he was, required initial sketches. But, and this answers your question: Cecil Beaton observed of Balenciaga [in the 1950s] and his ability to work without sketches or stands: "Balenciaga uses fabrics like a sculptor working in marble." Beaton went on to speak of Balenciaga's "practical, hands-on dressmaking" (p. 19).

This fact about Balenciaga is seconded in the book, "The Great Fashion Designers" (Polan and Tedre): "Balenciaga . . . often draped directly on to the body" (p. 87).

If you're interested in draping, a fantastic book is: "Draping: the Complete Course" by Karolyn Kiisel.

P.S.: Woodcock (obviously?) has a TINY set-up. Balmain, for example, at the same time, employed 600 people, as did Lanvin (Wilcox, p. 46). Givenchy opened in 1952 with 22 employees, and had 250 by 1956 (Wilcox, p. 68). Dior employed a workforce of 1,200 in the mid-1950s (Wilcox, p. 56).

As for British designers in the 1950s: "In 1952, leading London couturiers Norman Hartnell and Hardy Amies employed 400 and 200 workers respectively" (Wilcox, p. 92).

FUN FACT! The Dior headquarters in Paris, founded in December 1946, were located right off the . . . Place de l'Alma!

CONNECTION TO SHAKESPEARE'S HAMLET: The structural prototype of the initial development of the mother theme in PT is the first act of Hamlet. Hamlet says "Methinks I see my father" [. . . "In my mind's eye, Horatio"] in scene II before he sees the ghost in scene V. Similarly, DDL says he feels his mother close or something like that before Alma enters.

 . . . and the word "woodcock" is in Hamlet. . . .
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 14, 2018, 12:10:39 PM
For the Hungry Boy! Valentine’s Day Cards Inspired by Phantom Thread (http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/for-the-hungry-boy-valentines-inspired-by-phantom-thread.html)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Alexandro on March 06, 2018, 11:53:24 PM
holy mother of god.
another masterpiece.
I've seen it twice and it won't stop taking more space in my mind. It's like some drug you just want to take. It doesn't feel like a movie, you get INTO it... like in another world.
I'm humbled and elevated by it at the same time. Those actors, all of them, they say so much with not more than a glance. The music... I mean this is the most beautiful score in ages, you can dive into a different kind of consciousness with it. Shit... I have nothing to add here. Just wanted to share my love for it.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Fernando on March 09, 2018, 12:39:53 PM
Finally saw it too.

That score should have won all the awards by a landslide, it's the equivalent of Lubezki's snub for The New World.

Anyway, incredible film, it kept me guessing where the hell it was going which is always great, and that scene of Alma cooking that omelet had me guessing until I finally realize that he's in on it!


PTA is a fucking treasure of Cinema.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on March 21, 2018, 11:13:47 PM
Some of the aspects I appreciated during a second theatrical viewing:

- The Silence of the Lambs connections, which totally eluded me during my first viewing. I'm not just referring to the Demme close-ups, but also Cyril's very precise sense of smell, and maybe Reynolds referring to her as his "little carnivore."

- That crossfade at the beginning. This is after Cyril encourages Reynolds to go off to the country house early. A close-up of Reynolds at the booth fades into a shot of him driving alone, and the initial close-up is suffused with blue for a sustained moment. It looks amazing. This joins other blue classics, like Sportello looking out the window with his binoculars, and the car ride in PDL. I'm really fond of this new one -- it's very pretty, and I like how it links up with Reynolds' state of mind. He feels blue.

- The way Reynolds looks out the window after first seeing Alma. Great moment of private contemplation. There are a few instances of characters looking out through windows in this film, actually...

- The close-up of the yellow drip on the teapot after the first poison mushroom preparation scene. Ominous. Good shot.

- After Alma sends everyone away, she spies Reynolds through the window, and the shot goes out of focus in this very decorative way. It's almost a PDL-esque bit of visual whimsy. That was a lovely way to sort of encapsulate Alma's hopefulness, and the intended magic of the evening, before things take a turn for the worse.

- I realized that both of PTA's movies with DDL feature some kind of conflict between doctor and patient. H.W. writhes about violently when the doctor tries to check his hearing in TWBB, while Reynolds tells off his doctor twice.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: KJ on March 28, 2018, 10:18:04 AM
when he meets her she's a waitress. which is low culture. later he tells her ~, "Maybe you have no taste." but then at the wedding, when she takes the dress off the lady sleeping! then they kiss on the sidewalk! oh man. that was their Running in the Rain moment. the green dress had been the Ouija board.

this was the moment I reacted strongest to. it was perfect. how the music swelled in the exact moment they turned to each other. PTA is so good at kisses (kissing too maybe? please confirm if you are reading this, maya)

I had read some spoilery comments about the ending, but it wasn't at all what I expected. I just sat there with a big smile throughout that scene, watching this huge control-freak finally let lose of everything. "kiss me now before I get sick", and then moments later he just laid there in her lap and got taken care of without any responsibility in the world. yeah, it was fucked up too of course, but that made it even more beautiful. that's love y'all! to let lose of the control you have and surrender yourself to another person like that. it was beautiful to me. 

in the end of the day it just made me happy to be alive, and that there's art like this to connect with. that's the best thing I can say about a movie, really.



Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Pringle on April 03, 2018, 05:32:07 PM
Here's the screenplay, folks!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15ESsz04REiTu5klq5aLO3zG-SVaQwYc-/view
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on April 03, 2018, 06:36:44 PM
Nice find.  Do we know the source?  Shooting script vs "For Your Consideration", etc?   Interesting it's only 83 pages.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilder on April 03, 2018, 06:42:34 PM
It appears to be a scan of the FYC version
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on April 03, 2018, 06:48:34 PM
In the pictures from the set there is a page of the script that doesn't seem to be in the FYC. Lady Baltimore hinting about a past relationship with Reynolds.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on April 03, 2018, 10:41:26 PM
It appears to be a scan of the FYC version

Yep, definitely is.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 05, 2018, 10:37:55 AM
Five reflections out of an infinity:

1. Interesting that P.T. Anderson uses Brahms in TWBB and Schubert in PT: it is as if he is aware that he is working in the shadow of a Beethoven (Kubrick), and like both of the latter composers, Anderson is thoroughly infused with his "Beethoven" (Kubrick) and gains strength therefrom.

2. The juxtaposition between a character's internal headspace and a window revealing a far distance is a common technique in Renaissance art (e.g., the Annunciation of Rogier van der Weyden). And we see it here, this dramatic contrast, in PT. The initial scene of Woodcock and Alma: seen in profile with a wall behind him, as he considers the thought of Alma he bends forward so that he is framed by the window: this is a psychological emblem of Woodcock's "horizons opening" (to put it one way).

3. As in EWS, the background elements of a shot of a sole character can reflect thematic or psychological aspects of that character. For example, when Woodcock and Alma are speaking by the fire in his home ("I am strong"), Woodcock is seen with books beside him; and Alma is seen with alcohol behind her. He is cerebral, she is the chaotic element.

4a. Early on, when Cyril is striding down the front hall to meet the countess, the door leading to the back entrance opens inexplicably: (1) this is a spooky moment, in the manner of The Shining, or Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry [PT is a genre-splice of romance film/horror film/screwball comedy/and so on]; (2) this is a thematic moment, reflecting how Cyril generally "keeps the house in perfect order" (to put it one way); (3) this is a comic moment, in which the director is deliberately sabotaging (somewhat) the "majesty" of the film moment -- adding a "random" glitch-like element to the high pitch of the filmmaking continuum.

This self-opening door is perhaps the most memorable of its kind since the faulty refrigerator door set-up and payoff in Hal Ashby's Shampoo.

4b. There is an addendum to this: (4) Cyril's character is, in a way, "closing off" the whiff of Alma's approaching entrance into the film. [Even as it is Cyril who suggests to Woodcock to leave London, which leads to his initial discovery of Alma. So Cyril is dual in this sense: she both "enables" Woodcock to meet Alma, and yet, with regard to this inexplicable door opening, Cyril is keeping the house "hermetically sealed" from disorder of any kind.

5. Woodcock: "No more stodgy things." -- This reflects his psychology, and is proleptic, and so on: his character, "stodgy", is going to change throughout the film. . . .

These are five reflections out of an infinity of reflections.

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on April 05, 2018, 11:21:45 AM
4a. Early on, when Cyril is striding down the front hall to meet the countess, the door leading to the back entrance opens inexplicably: (1) this is a spooky moment, in the manner of The Shining, or Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry [PT is a genre-splice of romance film/horror film/screwball comedy/and so on]; (2) this is a thematic moment, reflecting how Cyril generally "keeps the house in perfect order" (to put it one way); (3) this is a comic moment, in which the director is deliberately sabotaging (somewhat) the "majesty" of the film moment -- adding a "random" glitch-like element to the high pitch of the filmmaking continuum.

This self-opening door is perhaps the most memorable of its kind since the faulty refrigerator door set-up and payoff in Hal Ashby's Shampoo.


You're the first person, in all of the tonnage of things I've read about PT, that has mentioned this moment in the film.  I noticed it on my very first viewing, and it was so odd and specific (and looked like a random 'mistake' in that take) that I thought it would certainly be addressed later in the film.  It wasn't--specifically, as near as I could tell--but I like your take on it.  It clearly was a deliberate choice to include it (unless they had no other takes to use for whatever reason).
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on April 05, 2018, 11:46:54 AM
4a. Early on, when Cyril is striding down the front hall to meet the countess, the door leading to the back entrance opens inexplicably: (1) this is a spooky moment, in the manner of The Shining, or Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry [PT is a genre-splice of romance film/horror film/screwball comedy/and so on]; (2) this is a thematic moment, reflecting how Cyril generally "keeps the house in perfect order" (to put it one way); (3) this is a comic moment, in which the director is deliberately sabotaging (somewhat) the "majesty" of the film moment -- adding a "random" glitch-like element to the high pitch of the filmmaking continuum.

This self-opening door is perhaps the most memorable of its kind since the faulty refrigerator door set-up and payoff in Hal Ashby's Shampoo.


You're the first person, in all of the tonnage of things I've read about PT, that has mentioned this moment in the film.  I noticed it on my very first viewing, and it was so odd and specific (and looked like a random 'mistake' in that take) that I thought it would certainly be addressed later in the film.  It wasn't--specifically, as near as I could tell--but I like your take on it.  It clearly was a deliberate choice to include it (unless they had no other takes to use for whatever reason).

I noticed it after a few viewings too, and took it to be a deliberate, albeit very subtle and unpronounced, confirmation that the House of Woodcock is indeed haunted.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 05, 2018, 06:59:03 PM
Shakespeare in PT, continued. [One discovery]

Weeks ago I pointed out that Woodcock's initial feeling that his mother is near, a few minutes of running time before he meets Alma, recalls a moment early in Hamlet, when Hamlet feels his father near, before seeing him, in a later scene, as a ghost. ["Methinks I see my Father . . . In my mind's eye."] And the play Hamlet features the word "woodcock" twice. . . .

. . . And at one point Woodcock says "There is an air of quiet death in this house”, which, of course, recalls “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” . . .

In the shot of Woodcock sitting by the fire near a bookcase of books: books uppermost on the bookcase include King Lear, and what looks like Coriolanus, Othello, Twelfth Night, and A Midsummer Night's Dream.

(FUN ADDENDUM: And Titus Andronicus at one point says: "attend the emperor's person carefully." Note the use of the word "carefully". . . )

(FUN ADDENDUM 2: Isn't it apt that Woodcock uses the word "butterflies", considering that Alma will be strongly allied with a nature theme? For example, the mushrooms; but also the wallpaper in her bedroom. And so on. . . .)

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on April 05, 2018, 11:48:16 PM
You should be saving this stuff for a monograph on Phantom Thread.

Since this is the internet, that probably sounds snarky or whatever, but I mean it as a sincere compliment. Thanks for sharing these interesting observations.

I noticed it after a few viewings too, and took it to be a deliberate, albeit very subtle and unpronounced, confirmation that the House of Woodcock is indeed haunted.

I didn't notice the door opening during my two viewings, but I like this interpretation.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 06, 2018, 07:55:02 AM
SOUND moments:

1. Woodcock's shoes scraping along the floorboards while working on the toile with Alma.

2. The table scraping along the floor when Cyril arrives to break up the twosome.

3. The initial scene of Alma and Woodcock meeting: the apparently diegetic music, surprise, "blossoms" into a full-blown classic Hollywood romantic score-overlay. (Recalling the beginning of EWS, but in reverse: the Shostakovich begins as an overlay, then ends as diegetic, when Dr. Bill switches off the stereo.)

4. The music cue "I'll Follow Tomorrow" is an interplay of three elements: (1) the ominous; (2) the ambivalent (searching); (3) the romantic (hopeful). [For example, the first chord is Ominous (at 11:06 in the running time); then immediately transitions to Romantic; then the Ambivalent enters in; and for the rest of the piece these three musical strands work in opposition, or, sometimes, in unison. At 11:44, the cue descends ominously into the lowest register and sounds like utter finality; but, surprise, it isn't; one note (the one perfectly right note?) provides a bridge for the piece to continue. And the closing moments of the piece (at which point the Ambivalent and the Romantic fuse) offer a promise of the oncoming reappearance of the finality of the lowest register, but it does not come; the piece ends in a not-entirely-resolved, "open" manner.]
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on April 06, 2018, 11:04:17 AM
Keep em comin!
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 07, 2018, 06:39:16 AM
General and simple points:

1.  When Alma at the beginning says "Every piece of me", this is as terrifying as it is romantic, because, in short, "all of me" suggests not only the good . . . but also the bad, the very, very bad. . . .

2. Notice the shift in textural mood from the crackling, enflamed fireside of shot one, with the cool grey marble of shot two: dramatic contrast between characters.

3. Notice the painting prominent on the wall to the right of the door in Woodcock's bedroom. How does this painting reflect the mood of his character?

4. At breakfast, we see Woodcock sketching a hat onto a model. Saint Laurent's sketches are the most celebrated fashion sketches of the twentieth century; the YSL Foundation in one of its publications reports that YSL could produce a "few hundred" sketches in a matter of two to three days. The point of this reflection is this: looking through a great deal of YSL's published sketches, it seems that something like only twenty-five percent or so have headwear. Make of that what you will (if there is anything to be made of this at all).

5a. The close-up of the back of the dress at 7:04 shows no less than three different types of fastening in one small space of clothing: a zipper, snap fasteners, and a ribbon tie. This is one indication of the complexity of the garment. . . .

5b. Regarding that particular dress: the many-centuries-old technique of "slashing". [I point this out because of earlier reflections on (a) Shakespeare; and (b) a Renaissance pictorial technique.]

6. Please listen to the first thirty seconds of Debussy's "Images", or the second movement of his Suite bergamasque, and you'll hear a primary inspiration of the main theme of PT. . . .

7. The scene when Woodcock takes Alma's measurements: note the bolts of fabric stored horizontally above them on a ceiling rack. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, it seems to me, there is no way a digital camera could capture such beautiful softness. Wow. (In fact, the greatest degree of "wow". . . .)

That's it for the time being. Best of luck everyone.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on April 10, 2018, 03:59:19 PM
Feel free to tell me if this is totally implausible or unconvincing, etc. Or maybe it's just obvious? I don't know. I almost posted it before and then decided against it to ward off embarrassment. Going back to this idea out of boredom now...

I've been thinking about a line that happens in the restaurant scene which immediately precedes the moment where Woodcock and Alma are first seen going into his room. Alma tells Woodcock that he looks "thirsty." Do you think PTA was aiming for some kind of playfully anachronistic effect there by evoking what is also a modern colloquialism (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/its-easy-to-be-called-thirsty-on-social-media-what-about-on-capitol-hill.html)? As per that article:

Quote from:
“Thirst,” in recent black and then internet slang, describes a graceless need for approval, affection or attention, one so raw that it creeps people out. It calls to mind the panting tongues, bulging eyeballs, springing hearts and steam-shooting ears of Looney Toons characters. [....]

The more commonplace the word has become over the past few years, the more it has come to describe a condition that exists on a very wide spectrum. The guy who eagerly favorites your every social post is thirsty. The co-worker who’s always fishing for the boss’s praise is thirsty. The brand that tries very hard to be cool is thirsty. The rally-obsessed, Twitter​-​​incontinent politician is thirsty. The acquaintance who’s always suggesting you get together for brunch is thirsty — or maybe you’re just judgmental and mean.

I know this might seem like a peculiar idea for a film which, like There Will Be Blood and several other PTA movies, indicates a great commitment to preserving the authenticity of its time period.

There is a precedent, though. When Henry first shows up in TWBB, he introduces himself as a "brother from another mother." Kevin J. O'Connor delivers that line perfectly, making it seem less like a self-conscious reference to a modern joke than a turn of phrase that someone, in that setting and time period, might just happen to use. Same thing applies to Vicky Krieps' line and delivery. I think PTA was being a bit mischievous in both cases, as he surely knew how these lines would resonate with modern audiences. It creates an amusing bit of friction without disrupting the authenticity...kind of keeps the audience on its toes, makes the film crackle in a minor but funny way. 

I guess the difference is that Alma's use of "thirsty" more closely (but not exactly) corresponds to the way the colloquialism is currently used, even though the film's time period predates the popularity of the term. So, in that sense, it's different from Henry's use of "brother from another mother."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: WorldForgot on April 10, 2018, 06:15:09 PM
Definitely think that's the joke. In TWBB, too.
 
First time I heard Alma's lil quip I thought, damn, they just pulled another one over Justice League.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on April 10, 2018, 08:18:51 PM
For sure, he loves doing fucking dope shit like that
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 10, 2018, 08:49:50 PM
Can someone name PTA's anachronistic jokes? I absolutely think this is one of them. Pretty convinced about "from the window to the wall" as well.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on April 10, 2018, 11:33:03 PM
There should be an anachronistic thread, definitely...
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on April 11, 2018, 01:12:05 AM
Thanks for the responses.

I can't think of any other examples right now. I had forgotten about that one from The Master -- not the scene, of course, which is amazing, but just the song reference aspect. Even though PTA (jokingly?) acknowledged that idea on Twitter, I'm still not sure it was a deliberate reference.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 14, 2018, 07:51:04 AM
Please pardon me if someone somewhere has already pointed out the following, but in the past week I watched the two films I mention below and had a "revelation" or two:

1. “You Little So and So” -- Marlene’s second song in Blonde Venus (1932), dir. Josef von Sternberg.

[Josef von Sternberg was, to remind, a -- or "the" -- "Kubrick" of the early days, in a series of ways, so to speak.] [If you haven't seen Shanghai Express (1932), please WATCH IT THIS VERY MOMENT and enjoy the show!]

2. Pin Up Girl (1944), a charming, lighthearted comedy starring Betty Grable. One integral scene involves Betty standing behind a man who is talking to another man about her without knowing that she is in the room and listening. This makes me think that such a conceit is probably a staple of classic comedy movies. [Hence, one more "screwball comedy" element in PT.]

Stay well.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on April 14, 2018, 02:24:52 PM
Speaking of the "so and so" line, J. Hoberman's review of Phantom Thread, which only showed up recently, alerted me to something which might have been obvious to others, but definitely flew over my head. He mentions the punny connection between "so and so" and "sew and sew."

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on April 17, 2018, 08:18:12 AM
Two general points:

1. Woodcock adding "Never Cursed" to the wedding dress suggests (doesn't it?) that he considers himself cursed (e.g., as a child he was brought up by "Black Death"). [There is something in his past, or his sister wouldn't be able to threaten to best him in any verbal conflict . . . right?]

2. There are a number of thematic correspondences with The Accidental Tourist. For example, early on in the movie:

William Hurt: "I'm not muffled. I endure. I'm holding steady."
Kathleen Turner: "I know you think that, but I think you're fooling yourself."

. . . And (coincidentally?) right after this scene we see W.H. lathering up to shave.

One sharp example: both films feature the woman feeding the man a drug in order to keep him. . . . ("You know I don't take pills." "This time you do." . . . "Those things are deadly." . . .)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Drenk on April 17, 2018, 08:30:20 AM
That "Never Cursed" thing kills me. I don't think he entirely believes it, but that he opens the possibility for once that he was never cursed. He wants to believe it. And maybe he wasn't even formulating to himself that he thought of himself as cursed. The thoughts were in his head but not formed. That's why writing the words is such a powerful act.

It's also bittersweet in a way because the past will always be tainted by his previous superstition and how it dictated his life. Which is also a belief he had to have in order to live the way he did. And then you have Anderson who's able to capture how calm and yet charged and special this moment is. It's a testimony to how special his love for Alma is, and that she discovers the message is overwhelming.

Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 01, 2018, 04:55:40 PM
Hello, friends. Just thought I'd post this pic, for two "pertinent" reasons. (1) The soft colors recall the soft colors of the ceiling-stored bolts of fabric in the Alma measuring scene; and (2) the artist's name is Nikoline Liv . . . Andersen!

Stay well everyone.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 02, 2018, 05:55:45 PM
WOODCOCK: “Stop!”

Ἀγαμέμνων: οὔτοι γυναικός ἐστιν ἱμείρειν μάχης.
AGAMEMNON: (Indeed not) (woman) (is who) (desires) (battle).
AGAMEMNON: Women are undesirable when they desire battle.
Aeschylus, Agamemnon, line 940.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 03, 2018, 04:22:59 PM
1. During the fireside chat (“. . . you will lose.”) Alma is associated visually with alcohol. Later, the pair kiss before a window advertising “ALES & STOUTS”.

2. When mother appears, an open door is visible, leading to a “world” of clothes. A labyrinth? (Soon Alma “invades” this “world”, at which point the mother vanishes.)

3. “It’s as simple as that.” A significant use of an ordinary phrase: fine writing.

4. Shakespeare employed the word “sour” 35 times in 20 plays. Julius Caesar, 1.2 : “sour fashion”; Richard II, 5.6: “sour melancholy”; Romeo and Juliet, 5.3: “sour misfortune’s book”. . . .

5. New Year’s sketch: notably detailed. (All work and no play . . . ?)

6a. The excess of butter: “This was the most unkindest cut of all.” (Julius Caesar, 3.2)

6b. Her smile just after: full-spectrum psychotic: Norman Bates’s final smile?

6c.  . . . and the rainbow lens flare. (“Where the rainbow ends?”)

7. The last shot is neither the future nor the present, but the past: back to the set-up of 34:32.

8. Alma’s last gesture: “shrugging her shoulders”: a sick joke, a perverse twist on the romantic comedy and screwball genres: “Oh, I’m just a plain old psychotic, me.”
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 05, 2018, 04:12:46 AM
ALMA

1. A spider and her web: watch the window behind her in the marriage proposal scene.

2. She leaves Cyril's office and leaves the door open -- Alma's character in a nutshell.

RANDOM

3. The automobile camera rig recalls the big wheel camera rig in the hacked-up Grady sisters scene.

4a. New Year's Eve: The lovers gazing wordlessly into each other's eyes for a significant duration recalls (doesn't it?) the first kiss between Redmond Barry and Lady Lyndon.

4b. The dancing scene is crucial for PT to sustain its 1930s screwball undercurrent. Name any fifty lighthearted movies from the 1930s, and most likely 49 of them, if not all 50, will have a dancing scene!

5. Is it just semantics, or -- going on the visual evidence of Woodcock's suggestive comportment -- does it seem as if Woodcock is surrounding himself by, rather than simply getting into, his trousers?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: HACKANUT on May 07, 2018, 10:16:08 AM
tid bit: last viewing I noticed a boom mic moving in the reflection of a picture frame while He tells Alma about the Black Death.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 08, 2018, 06:44:44 AM
Great discovery, HACKANUT!

Isn’t that picture beautiful? The “look” is an artful example of fashion genre-splice.

Q: Is the figure draped in at least five different elements of fashion?

1. A jacket with lapels. It looks as if the jacket, theoretically made of wool or of a cotton-wool blend, has no corresponding sleeves.
 
2. The figure's arms look as if they are covered with sleeves of a loose transparent material (e.g., sheer mesh)—(sleeves from a garment different from the jacket).

3. Starting just above the waistline: a glamorous gown-type piece, with the sweep moving both horizontally and vertically. The look of the material suggests, say, blue silk taffeta. (It is notable that this gown-type section looks to be positioned over the jacket.)

4. The billowy skirt, not colored, looks to be of light, airy material, possibly chiffon.

5. It looks as if, under the jacket, there is a simple shirt.

Extra reflection: Most generally, the line drawing itself has (to me at least) an Ancient Greek mood to it (i.e., the simple, elegant strokes.)

Notes (numbers correspond to the above):

1. Sleeveless lapel jackets were popularised by YSL in, for example, his infamous 1971 collection.

2. Sheer mesh recalls, initially (to me), YSL, this time of the late 1960s.

3. Gown-type piece over the jacket: An unconventional look, but far from unheard-of; a photograph from the new advertising campaign of Prada, for one example of many, features a corset-like bodice piece positioned over a button-down shirt: a juxtaposition of not only two different, clashing elements of clothing, but also of two different, clashing types of fabrics.

4a. Terminology: the waist-down part of a dress is referred to as “the skirt”.

4b. Because the hem looks rounded, the skirt's material will most likely be neither sheer mesh nor tulle.

And regarding the mood of Ancient Greece: To name three examples of many: YSL has Ancient Greece–inspired gowns in his infamous 1971 collection; McQueen has Ancient Greece–inspired looks in “Pantheon” and "Neptune"; and then, very famously, the Delphos gowns of Fortuny.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 10, 2018, 03:34:11 PM
In the charming I Met Him in Paris (1937), Claudette Colbert delivers the line, "You old so and so"  -- while in the mountains of Switzerland.

 
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 10, 2018, 05:12:42 PM
Personally that reminded me of the lyrics in Jon Brion's "Here We Go"...

Because someone can say, "Hello
You old so and so, here we go"


"So and so" is used in other PTA movies too. Does anyone remember?
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: eward on May 10, 2018, 05:23:40 PM
"Someone's so and so meets someone else's so and so and so on..."
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 14, 2018, 11:55:59 AM
"staring contest . . . you will lose."

Two sides of her character:

1. Aggressive one-upsmanship.
2. A compliment (he is attractive to her, easy on the eyes).
Also:
3. A meta-moment: PT will outlast us. (EWS: "You haven't changed a bit." "Thanks . . . I think.")
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lewton on May 16, 2018, 09:10:54 PM
Quote
When I interviewed Paul Thomas Anderson about Lesley Manville [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/theater/lesley-manville-long-days-journey-into-night.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/theater/lesley-manville-long-days-journey-into-night.html)] I snuck in an unrelated Phantom Thread question I have wondered about since I saw the film: IS ALMA JEWISH? His answer: "A-HA. YES."

https://twitter.com/amandahess/status/996744143794778112
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 17, 2018, 09:11:42 AM
Family resemblance?

Chanel S/S 2015 Couture
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: wilberfan on May 18, 2018, 12:09:48 AM
Confirmation (https://twitter.com/amandahess/status/996744143794778112) that Alma was Jewish.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 20, 2018, 04:05:13 AM
Family resemblance?

Framing agitation.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Lottery on May 21, 2018, 08:38:04 AM
Exceptional stuff. Feels like a sister film to The Master at times. Alma is easily one of PTA's best characters, Krieps is absolutely amazing.

Intriguing use of framing device. For a brief moment I thought Reynolds may have been dead, then realised they were using present tense and then they revealed that she's speaking to the doctor in the midst of her and Reynolds's bizarre psychological game- with a brief glimpse into a potential future. Really interesting.

PTA has said a few times that he doesn't use 70s films as models/inspiration anymore and that he draws from older films. It seems very true in this film,  some of the cuts/moments are old school indeed.

Jonny Greenwood is a hero here. Quite different from his previous work and the use of music here differs from other PTA's films. Interestingly, you can tell he has been on a serious piano kick for the last few years, this is reflected in this film and the most recent Radiohead album.

I admire PTA's restraint on this one. Quieter and less in your face than earlier works but also really funny, sinister, sweet and uncomfortable.

Very different and very similar to what PTA has done before, in the best way possible.
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 21, 2018, 03:34:03 PM
Family resemblance?

Distant cousin? -- Scorsese's After Hours (1985)
Title: Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
Post by: Bleep on May 25, 2018, 06:41:26 AM
1.

Fashion facts pertinent to PT from the indispensable book Couture Sewing Techniques by Claire B. Shaeffer:

“typical for a couture design, [a] dress [is] made to fit its owner and cannot be altered successfully for another individual. . . .
          A couture garment fits flawlessly as a result of multiple fittings on the client’s dress form, which has been customized to duplicate her figure, but more impressive than the fit are the subtle ways in which a couture garment is proportioned for the individual client. For an asymmetrical figure, for example, the collar, pockets, and shoulder seam may be slightly narrower on one side. For a full figure, vertical seamlines are moved in or out as needed to create the most flattering line, while for a short figure, all horizontal seamlines are adjusted, not just the waistline and hem.
          The size of the client’s garment also affects the way it is embellished. On a garment with embroidery or beading, the embellished design is scaled to the dimensions of the client’s garment, so that it does not overwhelm a smaller figure or float against the sizable background on a larger one.” (pp. 10–11)


“During the 1940s and 1950s, many clients had their entire wardrobes from a single couturier. Although some clients will order an entire wardrobe from the same designer, many prefer nowadays to patronize several houses.” (p. 22)


“When your garment is complete, you will have your final fitting, and assuming all is well, the griffe (label) will then be sewn in. It is considered bad luck to sew it in before the final fitting.” (p. 23)


2.


MORE SO AND SO . . .

Yet another “auditory sighting” of the expression “[the/you] so-and-so!”: the charming MGM short “Love on Tap” (1939).