Author Topic: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!  (Read 29322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

csage97

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +31
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #210 on: February 08, 2018, 09:43:48 AM »
+1
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.


Lewton

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +102
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #211 on: February 08, 2018, 06:18:18 PM »
0
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!"

Bleep

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +25
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #212 on: February 08, 2018, 08:43:22 PM »
+1
"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".

Lewton

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +102
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #213 on: February 08, 2018, 08:54:06 PM »
0
"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.

Something Spanish

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Respect: +113
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #214 on: February 08, 2018, 09:31:17 PM »
0
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.

Lewton

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +102
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #215 on: February 08, 2018, 09:54:52 PM »
+1
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.

Something Spanish

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Respect: +113
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #216 on: February 08, 2018, 10:09:42 PM »
0
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?

Lewton

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +102
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #217 on: February 08, 2018, 10:29:19 PM »
0
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), 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.

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Respect: +284
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #218 on: February 09, 2018, 01:20:10 AM »
+2
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. 


Bleep

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +25
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #219 on: February 09, 2018, 05:09:27 AM »
0
"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.

Lewton

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +102
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #220 on: February 09, 2018, 12:32:21 PM »
0
"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.

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
  • Respect: +110
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #221 on: February 09, 2018, 02:05:28 PM »
0
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?"
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."

Bleep

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +25
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #222 on: February 10, 2018, 01:07:04 AM »
+4
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.)

HACKANUT

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +6
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #223 on: February 10, 2018, 08:09:48 PM »
0
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?

Bleep

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +25
Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Reply #224 on: February 11, 2018, 05:47:13 AM »
+1
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. . . .

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy