Skip to main content

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.


I'm probably out of step with most PTA acolytes in that I don't much care for his acclaimed early works (Boogie Nights, Magnolia); my appreciation only really takes hold with There Will Be Blood. Everything since has been rather mesmerising – if sometimes flawed – and this wilfully perverse picture is no exception, flipping a tale of an indulged, emotionally manipulative eccentric fashion designer (stand up, Daniel) into a piece about mutual massaging of unhealthy impulses that somehow – at least, at the point we leave the couple in apparent contentment – makes them whole. I’m not sure I'm fully on board with comparisons to gothic melodramas such as Rebecca, although I can see where they’re coming from. There's definitely a streak of sadistic intimacy in common, but in terms of genre, Phantom Thread feels like its own thing, even though the director name checks the influences himself. The film isn't gothic in texture, and while the comparisons to Powell and Pressburger have validity in terms of visual dexterity and acumen with character, they don't quite feel right either.


In part, there's the same painstakingly unhurried pace common to The Master and There Will be Blood, and the need to let yourself be led into whichever unforeseen direction PTA wishes to take you. But the route is less obviously accessible here due to the lack of dramatic fireworks and the contrasting attention to detail of Reynold Woodcock's attention to detail. Reynold is a prissy, anally retentive genius, "a spoiled little baby" propped up by his ever-present sister ("My old so and so"), who hires and fires his muses with a sell-by-date (muse is an overly kind way of regarding his vassals). 


Alma (Krieps) looks to be the shy, retiring latest conquest, swept away by the man and so poised to be eventually ruined by him. Except that she won’t be bowed by his pettiness, even though it appears she has no recourse. We've already seen, or been told, of the funks he gets after a design triumph, where he is reduced to an infantile, needy state and so accepting of affection – as much as he cruelly spurns it when he is riding a creative wave – but Alma's inspired method of taming him through perceiving this still comes as a surprise. 


Indeed, the turn the film takes with the introduction of poisonous mushrooms flips your expectations for the picture and the characters in an entirely riveting, inventive and original manner. I’m not entirely sure I even believe it – that Alma knew she wouldn't kill him, and that the result would play out exactly the way they do – but I'm willing to go with it, simply because it's so perverse. You think we're in Suspicion territory, that Alma will be found out, since their subsequent marriage is built on a huge deceit, and it isn't long before he's returned to past form – as soon as their honeymoon, in fact. So when she makes him a drugged omelette and he eats it, instructing her "Kiss me, my girl, before I'm sick" it's a deliciously twisted moment of depraved interdependency; they're both getting what they need, even if the long term consequences for his liver are in doubt. That there's no indication of the hows and whys of his knowing, but it isn't really as important as the implications. 


Krieps is astonishing throughout, and mesmerising in a way Day-Lewis, for all his ticks and quirks and precision, can't hope to compete with. Indeed, it may have been as inevitable as your average Meryl movie that he'd be up for awards noms, but it's as outrageous that she was shut out of the conversation. Lesley Manville is also outstanding as the imperious sister; a later scene, where he goes to her bemoaning the effect of Alma on his life but finds himself thoroughly put in his place by the women he thought he held sway over, is perfect. 


This trio hog the screen throughout, but their interactions with others through vignettes still etch themselves on the mind, from fitting Gina McKee's countess with a horrid dress (my personal opinion, as Woodcock clearly thinks it's perfection) to Alma snatching one away from an old sous (Harriet Sansom Rose) she doesn't believe deserves to wear it, to Woodcock blithely recalling how rude he was to Brian Gleeson's doctor when he was ill, and in so doing being blithely rude to him again.


PTA has made a fascinating film. It is, perhaps, guilty of being somewhat self-conscious in its artistic obsessiveness, replete with precisely rictus compositions and in thrall to earlier eras in a manner that recalls Scorsese's The Age of Innocence, but it’s hard to argue that the approach isn't entirely justified by the subject matter. So too, Johnny Greenwood's score is gorgeous, and feels as if it has come straight out of classic Hollywood; it really ought to have taken an Oscar. As for Day-Lewis, do I really think he has retired? Only for as long as it takes PTA to come up with another role he can't resist. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra (2019)
(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …