Phantom Thread - Critic's Reviews

[Lewton]

On Anderson’s latest feature film, Phantom Thread, Greenwood’s music appears across the majority of the film’s 130-minute runtime, elevating the director-composer partnership to a new level.

In other words, Greenwood's music is featured more frequently here than in TWBB, TM, and IV? Is that true?

[Tictacbk]

In other words, Greenwood's music is featured more frequently here than in TWBB, TM, and IV? Is that true?

I'd say so, yes.

[wilberfan]

Offered in the wake of the nomination for Costume Design...?  (Spoilers)

The Dresses in “Phantom Thread” Aren’t as Jaw-Dropping as They Should Be

https://garage.vice.com/en_us/article/yw573b/the-dresses-in-phantom-thread-arent-very-good

Phantom Thread is about a lot of things: postwar gentility, psychological brinkmanship, emotional dependency, the ways love and mania are the same thing, breakfast meats, death. What it is not about, despite some moony reviews and a W magazine cover line proclaiming Day-Lewis “Hollywood’s Ultimate Star in Fashion’s Ultimate Film,” is fashion. Put another way, Phantom Thread is about fashion the way The Devil Wears Prada is about journalism.

[riotmaterial]

Reviewed at Riot Material magazine
riotmaterial.com

review excerpted below:

Reviewed by Kristy Puchko

In the post-Weinstein era, we look around at the carnage of shattered lives and wonder how we got here. What a poor time for the release of Paul Thomas Anderson’s 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.

As we regard the allegations coming out of Hollywood, old school anecdotes of bullying creators feel less charming and more ominous. To Anderson’s credit, his tale of a tyrannical fashion designer does have a thread of criticism, as its female lead pushes back and declares Reynolds Woodcock (60-year-old Daniel Day-Lewis) is “a spoiled baby.” Still, there is a stark power imbalance between the two, both within the plot and the structuring, that cannot be ignored or overcome. Phantom Thread will try to convince you that in the amusing muse Alma (34-year-old Vicky Krieps), Reynolds’ has at long last met his match. Anderson’s script, however, only ever considers her in the context of him.

The story begins at the end of a cycle. Over breakfast in 1950s London, a sullen woman sniffs over Reynolds’ lack of attention. His stern sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) suggests this dour girlfriend be cut from his life. He swiftly agrees, leaving Cyril to do the dirty work, while Reynolds is free to look elsewhere for love and inspiration. Almost immediately, he finds the clumsy, blushing waitress with a charming smile, and decides she shall be his new project/paramour. Before the end of their first date, Alma is already in Reynolds’ studio, stripped to her underthings, awed by his attention, and being unapologetically criticized over her small breasts and bit of belly by an intrusive Cyril....

To read the entire review, go to http://www.riotmaterial.com/p-t-andersons-phantom-thread-couldnt-come-at-a-worse-time/

[Jeremy Blackman]

I normally like Kristy Puchko, but this... no.

So many critics are very certain they know what this movie is trying to say.

[Jeremy Blackman]

SPOILERS

Kristy Puchko's review bizarrely does not engage at all with, you know, where the story GOES, which is the whole point of the story. Alma completely dominates Reynolds. She needles him throughout their relationship, making noises with toast and spoons and such, and we're meant to be on her side throughout it all. She makes no accommodations for his fussiness; in fact she basically tells him to grow out of it. It's a story of her conquering his nonsense.

By the way, Slate's Dana Stevens gave a glowing review of Phantom Thread (here) and gushed over it with her friend in the Spoiler Special podcast (here). They address the gender dynamics, both understanding them and unpacking them in a surprisingly straightforward way.

Likewise, the podcast Who Shot Ya? gave the movie a glowing review and also completely understood the gender dynamics. It's not that hard, people.

[eward]

I normally like Kristy Puchko, but this... no.

So many critics are very certain they know what this movie is trying to say.

Such criticism seems to have gone in with its mind already made up.

[modage]

I'm friendly with Kristy IRL but yeah, everybody misses the mark sometimes (myself included).

I'm actually surprised that her take is such a minority as I would've expected this backlash to be a much larger contingent of people misunderstanding the film.

It's amazing how much everyone gets and loves it. Especially now as people seem to expect art to be a reflection of this exact moment and impose a What Does This Say About Us In 2018? (Which, is a really terrible filter to use to judge all art.)

[©brad]

"He may be a designer, but he’s the designer as tortured genius, a man whose idiosyncrasies and unreasonable behavior are enabled and tolerated in the service of his art. It’s an old and favored trope in fashion, once cultivated by many. But while that version of the aesthetic auteur may still be revered in other realms, from Hollywood to SoHo, it has actually fallen out of favor in fashion. Or perhaps more pointedly, we’ve stopped falling for it."

No, you haven't stopped falling for anything. Everyone in fashion remains batshit crazy fueled with more delusions of grandeur than Trump.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Slashfilmcast just released their Phantom Thread episode, and guess what, Kristy Puchko is their guest. (She has been a semi-regular guest in recent months, so I'm not actually surprised.)

I really made an effort to understand her argument, especially now that she could make it with full spoilers. Distilling it to one sentence: Since PTA made the decision to engage with these issues, it was his social responsibility to execute this film with full feminist rigor, including more backstories for his female characters.

Which is super ridiculous. I do understand where she's coming from, but it's frustratingly narrow-minded. Her other comments on the movie were weirdly technical and superficial, too. And she's not a PTA fan, so I don't think she was interested in his particular type of weird magic, which probably resulted in her just reading surface-level themes like we're in an English literature class.

Anyway, here's the episode:

http://www.slashfilm.com/filmcast-ep-452-phantom-thread/

The review of Phantom Thread begins at 1:12:18

[eward]

Jesus, that was painful. She really missed the boat on this one. Yikes. If you ask me, she went in with these criticisms virtually pre-established, and nobody really effectively rebuts them because...they're afraid to? Sigh. I would have had immense trouble hiding my irritation with her take. Do people care about art anymore? Or is it all ideology?

She is just plain wrong about so much. Even just little details, for instance, she says we know nothing about Alma except she's obsessed with Reynolds; we don't know if she has family or anything of the sort. WRONG. We know she has a sister. Had a mother. Has experience making dresses herself. So much more about her is there to intuit, for those of us who don't need everything hammered on the surface. It's called subtlety, what the fuck do people want? And another example, she insists, INSISTS, that Cyril also commented on Alma's breasts in the first date/measurement sequence - nope, never happened. Oh they objectified her, what a horrible, unforgivable scene - it's FASHION!! And what is with her complaining about Reynolds discussing various superstitions involving wedding dresses...that it's poking fun at women who would have such superstitions and that's wrong because marriage at that time determined so much of their future? What a bunch of malarkey. This sort of thing makes me see red.

Dana Stevens, on the other hand, knows what's up.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Slashfilmcast is basically my second favorite podcast in the world, so this is a sad event. Their episodes on my two favorite movies of the year (PT and mother!) were kind of sabotaged by guests who turned out to be very poorly-reasoned critics. What really caught my ear in this case is that Kristy keeps saying the movie needed to be more clear and "concrete." Have you ever watched a PTA film?

I think Jeff and Devindra did an okay job rebutting her while preventing the debate from getting too heated. Devindra actually calls her out on one of those inaccuracies you mention. Unfortunately they all saw the movie at least 2 or 3 weeks ago (and they intended to do this ep last week), so the details are not entirely fresh.

I've actually immensely enjoyed all of Kristy's other appearances on the podcast. (But I won't lie, this worries me.)

[eward]

What really caught my ear in this case is that Kristy keeps saying the movie needed to be more clear and "concrete." Have you ever watched a PTA film?

Right, it was a failure of the artist that she needs her hand held at every turn. Why is this sort of nonsense even tolerated?

[wilberfan]

The good news is, with the Internet, anyone can review films.

The bad news is, with the Internet, anyone can review films.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/arts_and_entertainment/review-phantom-thread-was-made-to-win-awards-isn-t/article_fedc4dea-056b-11e8-819e-eb45f8d528c7.html

[Drenk]

There's definitely a trend in Anderson movies where he hides innovation between what can, at first glance, looks old school—and we live in the Snapchat Era, so...