Phantom Thread - Did Any DLers See it?

There was a cunty statement from Muriel about how she'd delete any threads she wanted, implying she was drunk with power, is it possible she removed it?

2 friends saw it and found it slow and boring. I’m waiting for Netflix

I saw it today. It's a movie about very strange people in a very strange relationship. Interesting, but unexciting, the the characters in it. Beautiful music, though. And the the costumes are great.

Saw it over the weekend - much better than I expected as I generally don't care for most of Anderson's films (THE MASTER was ruined by the grotesque performance by Joachim Phoenix). It really transports you into a singular world all its own.

All three leads were excellent - in fact, I think DDL is better here than he was in TWBB and LINCOLN. - perhaps because he was playing a character rather like himself?

Lesley Manville should get an Oscar nomination, but I'm afraid she won't as this film seems largely ignored by the voters in the U.S. so far outside of DDL's GG nom.

Just from the trailer and in light of all the old power pigs getting busted for being sexual creeps, the movie seems icky.

[quote] It really transports you into a singular world all its own

That is why I want to see it.

I don't really like DDL anymore (I used to!) and I am not in the mood to see a sadistic, controlling man...but I am tempted to go because of the beautiful cinematography.

Enjoyably off center and it doesn't pay off the way you expect it would. Period piece, romance, crime story, dark comedy. It all works. Wish it would get greater recognition.

Okay, I am going, R7

I can't believe it has been ignored at all the awards things. Does anyone know the reason for that?

See it for Harriet Sansom Harris's insane performance.

And the lovely Gina McKee looking especially elegant.

The frocks are too divine!

I'll wait for home video.

Don't wait for it at home - the lush settings, costumes, and cinematography will be lost on a TV.

Most of the dresses are gorgeous, but a couple are hideous, particularly the first one that Woodcock (DDL's character) designed for Gina McKee (whose character is a real bitch later in the film).

The "crime story" element really winds up being something akin to S/M in the end. I also loved Manville's dressing down of DDL's character later in the film. In fact, Manville is absolutely perfect in her role - I'm so used to seeing her in Mike Leigh films that her performance here was a happy surprise.

[quote]Don't wait for it at home - the lush settings, costumes, and cinematography will be lost on a TV.

There are few classes of people I hate more than "but you HAAAAAAAVE to see it on The Big Screeeeen" queens.

I've seen better

Oh, blow is out your ass, R12.

Wait...you already did.

Oh, Gina McKee - another reason to go

I agree that this is something that should be seen on the big screen - I will have to fit in before they pull it from the theatre

Brilliant. Manville should win an Oscar.

[quote]Gina McKee (whose character is a real bitch later in the film).

I don't think she's shown to be "a real bitch" later in the film at all. We are simply told she stops getting her dresses from Reynolds Woodcock, as is absolutely her right in a capitalist economy. She says nothing mean to him nor does she do anything to bring his couturier house down.

dong

Two hours of paint drying with a two minute WTF? ending.

During the two week Oscar qualifying run in NY they gave out free to everyone a 27 page program to remind the Academy about the costumes and cast and crew. Pssst I took 3!

Oh r12, what a lovely response you've crafted to r11. Why, certainly the atrocities of the world's most genocidal tyrants [italic]pale[/italic] in comparison to (shudder) the utterances of the "class" that likes seeing cool stuff on a big screen.

"e are simply told she stops getting her dresses from Reynolds Woodcock, as is absolutely her right in a capitalist economy. She says nothing mean to him nor does she do anything to bring his couturier house down."

You must have forgotten all of the snotty things she says to him about his new wife at the dinner party - both at the dinner table and at the backgammon table. Clearly her disapproval of the marriage made her decide to "switch houses" and find a new designer "pet."

If that's not bitchy I don't know what is.

House Of Woodcock...he he he he

R2 where?

I went in with the assumption this was a bio pic on Christian Dior or Charles James or someone, and it was going to be about a closeted homosexual. (I wasn't really paying attention to the trailer.) So I was kind of off-balance for the first part of the movie, because it was veering into different directions than that.

I sort of don't like that neither of the two leads are really explained enough as to their motives/personalities...but there was a lot in it I liked. And the ending is very funny in a perverse way. I wish it had had more of a deeper noir tone...but, well, I don't know.

I like it well enough....I may see it again, just to figure out what's going on with the characters. The male lead role is very opaque (?) Like....WHAT THE FUCK MADE HIM THAT WAY??

[quote] You must have forgotten all of the snotty things she says to him about his new wife at the dinner party - both at the dinner table and at the backgammon table.

That was a different character. That was Lady Baltimore, played by Julia Davis. Countess Henrietta Harding was played by Gina McKee.

Didn't you just want to slap DDL, though?? I was like, "What the fuck is WRONG with you??" And that kind of left me wondering about the heroine's attraction to him.

That all ended up being resolved in an interesting way...but still, I was thinking, "Wow. How hard is it to grant someone a courteous conversation? GET OVER YOURSELF."

[quote]but still, I was thinking, "Wow. How hard is it to grant someone a courteous conversation? GET OVER YOURSELF."

The movie takes that point of view as well.

I saw the movie again last night, and it's a damn shame Vicky Krieps wasn't nominated. She should be the frontrunner!

Are the mushrooms and food in general a metaphor for love or a metaphor for co-dependence? Or is there a difference?

Probably no difference in the context of the film. DDL's character has clearly been dominated by females (his mother, his sister) when Kriep's character meets him, and he clearly likes it that way.

As someone else noted, you have to wonder how much of DDL's real personality shaped this portrayal.

It's really a deceptively complex film. I'm still parsing the fact that *MILD SPOILERS* the note that Alma gives him when they first meet reads, "For the hungry boy, my name is Alma" and the very last line of the film is Reynolds saying, "But right now I'm hungry."

And, of course, the reason he finally breaks it off with the girl at the beginning is because she offered him a "snotty" pastry.

"Mr. Woodcock detests too much butter!"

As a fashion film, it was strangely underwhelming. I think in some ways DDL's character was definitely modeled on Charles James or Balenciaga, and we are told what a genius he is supposed to be. But the clothes themselves are nothing spectacular when you look at the kinds of actual clothes from that period. The clothes in the movie are only extremely accurate replications of popular high fashions of the time. Henry Woodcock is certainly nowhere near the artist that Dior or Charles James was.

The wedding dress for the Belgian princess seems to me to be almost a copy of Princess Grace's wedding dress. There is an under-the-bust seaming detail that is very familiar from something I've seen before.

Excuse me, Reynolds Woodcock, not Henry

Exquisite jewel-box of a film. I adored it. Yes, it was deliberately paced and full of nuance. But I lost myself in the period details and the performances. Someone upthread referred to it as "strange." I whole heartedly agree. Especially with the the mushrooms.

I wish they made more films like this. Who could've guessed from Hard Eight and Boogie Nights, two great films but way more on trend at the time, that PT Anderson would turn out to be such a visionary, unpredictable and literary filmmaker. He's why I still love going to the movies.

I wasn’t expecting a Hitchcock type film when it started and it took about an hour for the story to kick in but at the end it was an interesting film about twisted relationships..terrific performances.

I eventually came to understand why these two characters come together and why he stays with her. He's finally met his match in fuckedupness.

As for Daniel Day Lewis...he is every bit as weird as Reynolds Woodcock. There was an interview with him in W magazine; the accompanying photos are not flattering; he's gaunt, sporting elaborate, ugly tattoos on his arms, is wearing clothing that looks like it came off a homeless person and is sporting a shaven head. He looks very unwell. The article mentions him being in a motorcycle accident where he had his arm broken and for a while it looked like he might lose the use of one of his hands. Maybe he looked bad because of that. Anyway, he's a very good actor but a very weird duck, an odd, obsessive, evasive, hard to pin down man.

Most over rated actor in Hollywood history. He claims it's his last performance. Good,, but don't believe him for a second.

Nasty piece of work. Left feeling I needed to take a shower to get the slime of these gratuitously grotesque characters off me. I’d really been looking forward to seeing it and was sorely disappointed. Go see “I, Tonya” again instead. Superior picture in every way.

"Go see “I, Tonya” again instead. Superior picture in every way."

I seriously doubt that. And if you want to talk slime, seeing "I, Tonya" is like taking a long bath in it.

I was trying to figure out who Reynolds Woodcock's various clients were based on historically:

Countess Henrietta Higgins (Gina McKee): a great middle-aged beauty, still thin and elegant, and spectacularly dressed, and a member of the artistocracy, but still insecure ("You have given me courage"). Perhaps based on Margaret, Duchess of Argyll? (See image.)

Barbara Rose (Harriet Harris): Dumpy, American, incredibly wealthy, incredibly insecure. Married multiple times, most recently to a handsome Dominican playboy. Most likely an amalgam of Barbara Hutton and Doris Duke (both married to Porfirio Rubirosa).

Princess Mona Braganza (Lujza Richter): beautiful, innocent, and young Belgian princess preparing for a royal wedding. Likely based on DL fave Queen Fabiola of Belgium (née Fabiola de Mora y Aragon, a member of the Spanish aristocracy), who looked like a freak when she died (with a ridiculous hairdo), but was quite pretty when she married the King of Belgium in 1960 and who was dressed in a famous wedding gown by Cristobal Balenciaga (one of the inspirations for Reynolds Woodcock).

Lady Baltimore (Julia Davis): Bitchy international jetsetter and member of the British aristocracy; married multiple times; in love with her couturier and determined to sabotage his marriage. Was not sure who this was based on.

[quote]R35 As a fashion film, it was strangely underwhelming. I think in some ways DDL's character was definitely modeled on Charles James or Balenciaga, and we are told what a genius he is supposed to be. But the clothes themselves are nothing spectacular when you look at the kinds of actual clothes from that period.

I was being gallant in not bringing this up, but the clothes ARE strangely underwhelming. Most of the couture clothes from this era were just liquidly sumptuous...really marvels of architecture. Perhaps through budgetary restrain, what we see on show here is just kind of...meh. I though the story was going to develop where Alma helped him create a dazzling new collection...but no.

When he unveils the first dress we see him fitting in the opening scene, it's a bit dreadful. (sketch below.) Then the dress he makes for Alma while wooing her is stiff and just plain basic (in an uninspired way)...and some of them look like they could use a good pressing.

Queen Fabiola in her famous ermine-trimmed Balenciaga wedding gown.

Want to see it

I loved it. I will try to see it again on the biggest screen I can find. It is worth it. Not a fan of DDL but he is spectacular in this, as are the sister and the wife. There are so many things I still do not understand about the movie.... Harriet harris blew me away in her very short performance. I think that is the best part of the movie.

[quote]R35 The wedding dress for the Belgian princess seems to me to be almost a copy of Princess Grace's wedding dress. There is an under-the-bust seaming detail that is very familiar from something I've seen before.

Grace Kelly's wedding dress is a much more elaborate design than what we see made for the client in PHANTOM THREAD. It had layers of tulle, satin and lace with hand sewn pears, and it all went together in such complicated ways that the MGM designer Helen Rose had to be called when Kelly was dressing that day, because no one could figure out how it all tied and hooked together.

RE: R48 I meant to type "pearls," not PEARS (!)

Very funny, beautifully made film. Great performances. Not at all what I was expecting and I was surprised by Anderson’s relatively light touch. His movies can err towards self-seriousness, but this didn’t. Glad to see Manville and DDL score nominations, sad that Kriep’s didn’t.

[quote]I was being gallant in not bringing this up, but the clothes ARE strangely underwhelming.

I thought perhaps that was part of the point. He's past his prime, and he knows it.

"Fucking chic??"

[quote]I loved it. I will try to see it again on the biggest screen I can find.

If you're in NYC, it's screening on BAM's theatre #3—the huge screen that curves with no center aisle.

slow as curdled buttermilk...

[quote]I was surprised by Anderson’s relatively light touch. His movies can err towards self-seriousness, but this didn’t.

As was I! The humor of the movie was a welcome surprise, perfectly delivered by the actors. It plays like a black comedy at times, Hitchcock mixed with Merchant/Ivory with a touch of Bringing Up Baby.

but would edith head appprove??

i think not.

"but would edith head appprove??"

Who cares whether or not that cunt would "appprove?" She took credit for designs that she didn't create and won more undeserved Oscars than anyone in Oscar history. Totally overrated, she was.

I think part of the movie's point is that like Norman Hartnell (one of his many inspirations), Reynolds Woodcock is on the point of being superannuated as the movie ends and the 60s are about to begin. The New Look was everything for him--how would he adopt to the 60s when the New Look was considered passé?

[quote] I loved it. I will try to see it again on the biggest screen I can find...If you're in NYC, it's screening on BAM's theatre #3—the huge screen that curves with no center aisle.

AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 up at Lincoln center has been showing it in 70MM since it opened the Oscar qualifying run on Christmas day.

I just saw it this evening. Daniel Day Lewis and Lesley Manville are excellent. The problem is the story. It's long, often dull and in the end pointless. What I'm saying is that excellent performances in a film with a lousy story do not add up to make it a 10 out of 10 S*T*A*R*S kind of movie.

DL fave Harriet Sansom Harris is great as always in her brief screen time as Barbara Rose who is obviously suppose to be Barbara Hutton.

[quote] The problem is the story. It's long, often dull and in the end pointless. What I'm saying is that excellent performances in a film with a lousy story do not add up to make it a 10 out of 10 S*T*A*R*S kind of movie.

This is a recurring problem with all PT Anderson films since Magnolia. I mean, what the fuck was the point of Punch Drunk Love, except for giving us a chance to 'marvel' at Adam Sandler being 'serious'? Still mad that I paid to see that in the cinema. And There Will Be Blood was just a fucking chore to sit through.

I'll give you Punch Drunk Love, but I was constantly enraptured by both TWBB and Phantom Thread.

Magnolia, OTOH, is an entire 45 minutes too long.

Still, I'm happy that Lesley Manville will sitting up there with the nominees, along with her ex-hubby Oldman, who humiliated her all those years ago, running off with 18-year-old Uma Thurman when their son was still a baby.

[quote]R55 but would edith head appprove?? i think not.

Edith didn't approve of anyone's work besides her own...or that of those she could appropriate and slap her name on.

This show had the queeniest trailer of any movie in history.

This movie**

I thought so, too.From the trailer, I assumed it was going to be about a closeted gay designer bonding with (or even marrying) a straight girl. That's not the scenario, tho.

I don't think there's a single gay character in the piece (that's acknowledged, anyway.)

It was okay. Kind of arty,farty. I didn't like it at the end, when the girl stabs the guy with the fabric shears.

[quote]R67 I didn't like it at the end, when the girl stabs the guy with the fabric shears.

It was natural for her to take over his fusty old design business like she did, tho, and bring it into the new decade with that mini skirt collection. It was kind of an evolution that made sense. Dramatically.

And the scene where she rips out her tampon and throws it in his face because he's being such a dick was...primal!

Brava!

Bette Davis was wonderful in her brief cameo as Eleanor Roosevelt!

Wonder who got them all.

Edith did. Buried with her.

I never look back, darling.

A friend of mine who hates EVERY single movie she sees loved this. Also said the two women (the sister and the girlfriends) are a revelation. She couldn't believe that the actress playing the girlfriend didn't score an Oscar nom. I'm going to see this. The master was a very flawed movie but it was gorgeous to look at.

[quote]She couldn't believe that the actress playing the girlfriend didn't score an Oscar nom.

It's the biggest oversight in the nominations IMO.

I didn't like part when the girlfriend dumps him and then cuts up all the dresses scheduled for the fashion show.

she also said that the girlfriend plays a very proactive, feisty, active, "aggressive" role (she did not spoil the movie to me, tho), and that would've been perfect for the #metoo sensibility of this year's Oscars. That makes the oversight by the academy even stranger.

Unsatisfying movie. DDL had NO chemistry with the actress playing the obsessive love interest. I was hoping he would have forced her to eat the omelet to prove his love for him.

Is it about deleted threads on Datalounge?

[quote]R76 I didn't like part when the girlfriend dumps him and then cuts up all the dresses scheduled for the fashion show.

But the scene where she's tied up and sews the bridal gown back together using just her feet and some fishing line is impressive?

I thought for that scene alone the actress deserved a nomination.

I almost felt sorry for DDL because all of us noted we couldn't keep our eyes off Vicky Kreips when they had scenes together. She reminds me of a young Meryl.

Also in Chicago, it is playing at the Music Box in 70mm and you also get the (gorgeous) booklet with all the fashions.

I have seen the movie now 3 times. The eating/cooking metaphor becomes clearer to me every time. As someone has pointed out, the movie opens and closes with food references. The S/M relationship (poison, feeling awful "in your back", getting better) rules that relationship. I noticed that, at the restaurant, he says "You look ravishing" and adds "I am famished" right away. The breakfast table, the restaurant table, the farm table are places where power is given and taken. Two thoughts. For some reason, the opening dress for Gina McKee reminds me of WD's "Snow White" dress for the stepmother. And she bears a resemblance to her. Not surprising, she will be a bad customer/mother since she will leave him. (Issues with his mom also). Mushrooms. Surprisingly becomes the salvation, contrary to many fairy tales and folklore. I think there is something there.

I love how the narrative keeps thwarting our expectations (à la Chekhov). After the incident with the wedding dress, I thought that Alma (Soul) would intervene, re-cut it and it would become a big success but no.....also the "chic" conversation is interrupted by Alma....but nothing happens. After the NYE's ball sequence, we expect a kiss but we do not see it. It is such a rich movie with so many possibilities that it will be studied long after people stop talking about "Lady Bird."

Full of spoilers....

I think director P.T. Anderson is a obsessive, OCD workaholic whose wife is always nagging him to slow down and smell the roses.

One day they were watching "Rebecca" and he got an idea...

BEWARE Poison Mushrooms ! ! !

[QUOTE]Barbara Rose (Harriet Harris): Dumpy, American, incredibly wealthy, incredibly insecure. Married multiple times, most recently to a handsome Dominican playboy. Most likely an amalgam of Barbara Hutton and Doris Duke (both married to Porfirio Rubirosa).

Definitely it was a thinly disguised Barbara Hutton. Hutton was alcoholic, a drug user. The dress she wore to her nuptials to Porforio Rubirosa looks very much like the one Harriet Harris wears in the film. The Barbara Rose character also has a son (Cal) which would indicate Hutton's son Lance Reventlow (shown below with Rubirosa & Hutton).

Not gonna bother. A friend hated it. And it stole Luca's nomination. So fuck it.

R86 Barbara Hutton was thin, tho....if that matters. And at least basically attractive-ish.

R81, you had me until the last sentence.

Paul Thomas Anderson is the cutest! He looks so pretty.

hell no

looks like a cunty movie

I can't get this one out of my head. I might go see it a third time this weekend. (Thanks, MoviePass!)

R88

Hutton fought her weight most of her adult life. She actually had surgery to lose weight in her 20s which ruined her health. Next ?

R88

P.S. She was only in her early 40s when she married Rubirosa; the two shown in photograph. She looks like she was 60 something. He appears to be kissing the hand of an elderly dowager, which she basically was by that point.

It was beautifully shot. The scene where DDl was sitting on the toilet with diarrhea (2nd mushroom poisoning event), wrapped in a blanket, was exquisite.

Way to sell it (NOT!), r95.

[quote]Didn't you just want to slap DDL, though?

The last time I didn't want to slap DDL was after seeing My Beautiful Laundrette.

R95

And think just how much more of a true theater experience 'it all would have been' in fabulous AromaRama !!

r88, She was Pugly: Plain Ugly. Nothing but her money was "attractive," in the literal sense.

Wasn't this first a television series called "The Collection"?

It is so awful it was painful - so boring, Daniel Day Lewis was doing the whole 'i'm an artist' schtick - his character treats women like shit. The only highlight was the sister - she was great - had some really good lines. DDL ruined it though...think his real character shined through this character: insufferable, impressed with himself, assumes people will tolerate his bloated sense of self. (btw a friend knows his wife, Arthur Miller's daughter - said they are perfectly matched - they both think everyone should applaud when they enter a room, but everyone rolls their eyes at their self-indulgence)

[quote]think his real character shined through this character: insufferable, impressed with himself, assumes people will tolerate his bloated sense of self

The whole movie takes the piss out of this very mindset. That was part of the point, showing the ridiculousness of the Artist-as-God.

I didn't really care for it. It's a "Smart People" film for people who like to talk about how intelligent they are. DDL plays a tedious bore, closeted aspie. He's hard to empathize with. And that "girlfriend..." what a doormat!

Manville was the only redeeming quality of the film. Glad she got an Oscar nom.

[quote]It's a "Smart People" film for people who like to talk about how intelligent they are.

I can certainly see why some people didn't take to "Phantom Thread," but I really dislike these kinds of critiques. They suggest that someone's liking isn't genuine, but a mere affectation. What if, instead, people simply love and hate different things?

[quote]I can't get this one out of my head. I might go see it a third time this weekend. (Thanks, MoviePass!)

ADD?

Mr Lewis claims it's his last movie. All I can say is stand by your promise.

The movie is a tedious dissertation on a couple of loonies.

SPOILER ALERT

What is wrong with movies this year? Why are people falling in love with poison mushrooms and fish-man penises?

With Trump in the WH, everyone has poison on their minds.

[quote]What is wrong with movies this year? Why are people falling in love with poison mushrooms and fish-man penises?

It's not...yesterday...anymore.

DDL was horrifically campy in They Will Be Bored( an overrated snoozefest of a film. In addition his Razzie worthy performance in Gangs Of New York was almost as bad. In Phantom Thread, DDL is quite good as is the lead actress. The story is rather scant but Leslie Manville(who steals the show), DDL and the other actors really punch up the script. It is an expertly shot film with very little heart and soul to it. PTA at his worst has all the cold tendencies of Kubrick. Good acting saved an otherwise sleep inducing film.

Manville is a way more nuanced and clever portrayal of authority and cruelty than Allison Janney in the white trash biopic I, Tonya. But America has not taste.

R109, it isn't "America" that votes on these Awards

completely agree, R108

[quote]They suggest that someone's liking isn't genuine, but a mere affectation. What if, instead, people simply love and hate different things?

Those critiques stem from insecurity. There's no way we could possibly enjoy Phantom Thread sincerely, because they weren't able to connect with it. It's absurd, really. Also, I find it funny because Phantom Thread's a hilarious film and subverts much of its ostensibly pretentious air pretty early on and becomes this well-spun, well-acted romance about two people who love each other in ways only they can.

I loved it. I was impressed that the Academy went for it as well.

I thought there was a false note when the bitchy backgammon player says: “I don’t mean to be racist”....Did this misuse of the word "racist" exist back then? She is the same race and would be speaking about another European nation. It seemed like the modern (past 5-10 years) misuse of "racist" for " prejudice" which is either used out of ignorance or a politically-motivated attempt to silence a criticism of a nation, culture, political system, or religion.

I also think she just would have made her remark without hedging it.

One of my favorite scenes in the film is in The House of Woodcock, when he brings people in to do the auction of the dresses. The part where you’re doing this dance for him, even though you can’t exactly tell if he’s looking at you.

Yes, I love that scene. If people ask me for a favorite scene, I always come up with this one. I mean, I love all the scenes, but this one is so nice because even though there’s no dialogue, everything is in this scene, so you have all the layers. You have the dresses, which were like characters in the movies. You have the seamstresses which were always there, every day, every scene we did. They were always around. They were like little fairies, helping me a lot as Alma too, a lot. I didn’t feel so alone because of them in some situations where I could have felt alone or that were heavy. They were there. Then you had all the extras of the people coming to buy the clothes. Then for me it was a big challenge because I’m not like this. I didn’t grow up as a girl wearing dresses. My mother was in her 70s, emancipated and she taught me more like to be a boy.

So all of this was new to me and so I had to really learn how to wear those dresses and how to be comfortable because I don’t like to be looked at, especially, which some actors have this paradox. Here I would have to be looked at without text, without acting, so without my usual work environment–just walking and showing a dress, so I was so nervous and the day before I watched a lot of Pathe films of the old 50s Dior fashion shows and I tried to walk like them and imitate then. But then I would have to make it: walk in the dress, in the 50s, but then how would Alma walk in the dress in the 50s? How is Alma going to try and be as good as she can for what she has to do with the work but then also keep her own little story with Reynolds, because he’s watching. Then Cyril is watching too in the audience, so I have to do a good job. How is Alma going to react to a different dress? The two dresses are very different, so she reacts differently to the two dresses. The one dress, which is like the waitress uniform, I wanted her to have fun with it, knowing that he’s watching, walk for him and make fun of the whole situation, but without too much breaking the rules.

This is really Alma. She can make fun of it. She can do her whole thing, but she’s never leaving the boundaries so much that it’s about her. She would never make it about her. She would always stay in the thing of what it is, because she’s respectful, something that we have lost, to know how to be respectful. Back then, they still knew how to be respectful, just as a starting point. Then you can have different things, situations, opinions, reactions, but on the base of it, there’s respect. Respect for the work, respect for the other one, respect for age, respect for standards–and all of this was in this scene.

............

The tattoos on DDL.....strange.

Go away, Republican troll at r113. We can spot your Breitbart talking points a mile away.

you're a Repubican Breitbart R117. And Hitler, too. What I said was correct.

Also Daniel Day Lewis looked like he was wearing Toms slippers at one point and I wondered about the historical accuracy of his glasses.

It's true the clothes in the film don't come up to the standard of what we're told they're supposed to be---sculptural haute couture art at the level of Dior, Charles James, Cristobal Balenciaga, etc. But I still thought it was a great ride on production values alone if you love fashion history, costume, and cinema's other visual arts-cinematography (PTA did his own in this one BTW), art direction, production design. Plus a wonderful soundtrack. But story-wise, preposterous. Unintentionally hilarious in the places where it wasn't meant to be funny.

There's great a piece in gaycitynews.nyc making a case that PT "straightwashes" 1950's design history, and while I don't think it was a discriminatory plot, they have a point, and it goes a long way to explaining why the DDL character and this story are so ludicrous. The article notes that Paul Thomas Anderson asserted at one of the opening screenings the character was based on designers Cristobal Balenciaga, Hardy Amies, Norman Hartnell, Michael Sherard, Digby Morton, Edward Molyneux, Victor Stiebel, and John Cavanagh. Gaycitynews continues, "The thing is, each and every one of these designers was gay" (as was, Charles James, natch). Oh, he's a "confirmed bachelor"? A fussbudgety aesthete obsessed with ladies' clothing? Never seen interacting with males but for his doctor? Surrounded by and endlessly fussed-over by ladies, fixated on his mother and sister? A house full of fussy bouquets, statuary, and bijoux? A straight guy in the 1950s might be believable with ONE of those traits. ONE. The gaycitynews.nyc piece is funny and mordant. DL won't post the link, not sure how the DL links that work, are posted. The title hed is "Heterosexuality's Phantom Stalking."

[quote] As a fashion film, it was strangely underwhelming. I think in some ways DDL's character was definitely modeled on Charles James or Balenciaga, and we are told what a genius he is supposed to be. But the clothes themselves are nothing spectacular when you look at the kinds of actual clothes from that period. The clothes in the movie are only extremely accurate replications of popular high fashions of the time. Henry Woodcock is certainly nowhere near the artist that Dior or Charles James was.

Honey, what did you think they were going to do... somehow create a clone of Charles James or Balenciaga to make all-new clothes from that era???

All they could do was replicate popular high fashions of that era. You can't whip up new 50s sartorial genius just to make clothes for a film.

Really ugly clothes.

[quote]It is such a rich movie with so many possibilities that it will be studied long after people stop talking about "Lady Bird."

WHY MUST EVERYTHING BE A CONTEST?!

R119's article

[quote]It's true the clothes in the film don't come up to the standard of what we're told they're supposed to be---sculptural haute couture art at the level of Dior, Charles James, Cristobal Balenciaga, etc.

Thank you. The initial, insipid mauve dress he makes for Alma is utterly lackluster, like something a bridesmaid would have handed to her. And it isn't even in the best color. The dark blue swatch he tried on her looked better.

These are better clothes from that era:

Related article:

And please don't get me started on this aberration...

R119 I understand your point but you went overboard at some point. The story(which was not that strong) focused on this one character. It wasn't about a gaggle of gay designers and DDL being the lone straight one. It was about a straight guy who had extreme OCDs and how a woman(you could even sat two women in his life) undermine his male heterosexual dominance/obsessions. That was the overriding theme of the film.

My favourite film of the year alongside CMBYN, A Ghost Story and Columbus. I do agree, however, that the clothes could/should have been much better; costume design was perhaps the only non-exquisite aspect of the film.

It is pretty straightwashing if all the designers that inspired it were gay

And the fabric Alma criticizes in that one scene really [italic]is[/italic] fug.

Tho maybe the filmmakers were trying to make a point that House of Woodcock was not going to last...

Good point R131 so when Reynolds realises that his house (which also means his House) needs to change by including the dynamics Alma advocates, he's not just talking about his domestic life but his fashion sense.

R130 ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz. That angle is so boring. Petition The British and American film industry to do such a story. About gay men in the fashion business. This film at its heart wasn't about the fashion business ,it was about his control issues. This film didn't involve a rivalry with other designers for the most part. It was the story of how his obsession and his control issues were twisted on him. Importantly it is quite fitting that women are his undoing. Especially in a romantic sense.

go see it if you're tired or hung over - it will put you to sleep. It's tedious, affected, Daniel Day Lewis, my god, if he could be any more of a ham. There is one scene where the servant girl is wearing one his ugly dresses, he's sitting on the floor , head in hand, staring up at her, its so indulgent and silly...then he laughs and giggle....'oh I'm such the humble designer' And he's a complete ass to everyone in the film. Why do actors have to announce they're retiring? Is it so when they don't get hired anymore they can claim they are no longer acting? Based on this film, he should never work again. He really does play the acclaimed douchebag very well.

R134 I tend to disagree with you. Compared to his awful work on films like They Will Be Bored and Gangs Of New York he was quite subtle here. Yes the film was sleep inducing but the acting elevated the soporific nature of the piece. In essence the actors(especially Manville) brought the film to a higher echelon. The direction and plot on the other hand was on a much lower echelon.

[[[ It wasn't about a gaggle of gay designers and DDL being the lone straight one. It was about a straight guy who had extreme OCDs]]]

Well, that is just it, no? There were no gay designers in the story, despite the fact that every last one among the composite of inspirations used to arrive at this character, was gay. Anyone with any knowledge of design history in that time, or even, straight guys in that time, had to be laughing their head off watching DDL and PTA trying to pull this guy off as hetero. There were male designers at that time, in that milieu, at this level of refinement and aesthetics, who were married to women, but they were not straight.

For this viewer the silly implausibility of it was a source of hilarity, though hilarity that seems unintentional on PTA and DDL's part. The article found it somewhat offensive rather than funny, and wondered what PTA thought he was doing. I have no idea, and don't really care. I found the movie worth the admission based on the visual production values alone (costume, set decoration, production design, cinematography) despite understanding clearly that the clothes were far from the couture they were being presented as. I didn't care, thought it was great visual fun anyway.

I saw the humongous Paris Dior exhibition, "Christian Dior, Couturier du Reve," at the Louvre-linked Musee des Arts Decoratifs a couple months ago, Yikes, what a blowout extravaganza it was, with dozens, hundreds of dresses, gowns, coats, accessories, compete outfits, etc., available for close-up gazing. They even had a section where you could stand and watch "les petits mains," the ladies with the needle and thread, do their thing on a dress.

One does wonder to what degree Dior was in the mix for this character; Dior had a country house that he made into an exquisite creation, and was highly bonded to his mother and even met with her to inform her he had chosen YSL to succeed him at House of Dior. He also had a sister he adored. (She was not part of the business, though she was in the French Resistance). The shots on view of his showroom, his female staff, and his lady clients were redolent of PT. Or vice versa.

[quote]R134 And he's a complete ass to everyone in the film.

This more than anything doomed the film for me.

He's like the tiresome, self-indulgent novelist played by Jude Law in GENIUS. You just wanted him to drop dead in the first scene.

Tbh what I find particularly odd about the character's heterosexuality is the whole "Why aren't you married?" "I make dresses" "So?" "I'm... a confirmed bachelor" dialogue. Such conversation, to me, would always point to a character's homosexuality.

I can still see him as a homosexual despite his relationship with Alma, by the way. I know, I'm hopeless lol

R136 NO. It was a story about this one designer. He was a needle in a haystack like Ralph Lauren but he is the one. If the film featured multiple designers and they were straight then I'd say it was a serious case of delusion to begin with. If this film was about Empress Valentino or Empress Armani I'd agree with you. It is not.

R138 You are looking into things too much. He was a straight. A very fucked up OCD/obsessive controlling one too. Which there are a lot of in this world. The irony was that he couldn't control his lover/wife anymore. Through her feminine ways she won out in the end. In a way so did Manville's character as well. In the battle of the sexes, the so-called fairer one won.

[quote]R140 NO. It was a story about this one designer. He was a needle in a haystack like Ralph Lauren, but he is the one.

You mean "this one designer" in that he was the totally false invention this director thought the public would find palatable.

Saw it yesterday. Totally immersed in the cool charm and assurance of the first half, so the film had me where it wanted me. Really enjoyed the nuanced skill of the leads, and working out the complex dynamics.

DDL and sister plainly are not sympathetic characters, but they absolutely intrigue. Into this icy aesthetic tumbles Alma, who at least is recognisably human. In the escalating battles of wills, it's always Alma we're rooting for.

Didn't matter to me that the film avoided documentary realism with the frocks, or the probability of DDL being gay. I took it on its own terms as a 50s fairy tale noir, a dreamscape which the tightly-controlled House of Woodcock enabled, being - pre-Alma - so basically cut off from Real Life.

Hadn't entirely grasped that The House was just past its best till reading this thread, but of course reflecting now, that is part of the dynamic. What comes to mind is DDL saying, as he stumbles into the second darker half of the film, against his magnum opus wedding dress, "…It's…ugly…"

I'll certainly see it again soon. The film itself in toto inspires more fascinated affection than any of its characters, an unusual achievement.

I saw it a few days ago. Agree with other commenters. The couture was underwhelming. It did not convey the character's "genius" at all. Was hoping for more fashion and fashion culture of the time and I got none. The 'confirmed bachelor' line stuck out to me too in the context fashion design.

And spoilers for those who haven't seen it, can someone help me with the ending. I liked the bit at the end.. it was weird and wrapped it up nicely. A woman in the theater ahead of me decided to said out loud 'they're not poisoned'. Ok... so did she poison him again? Was it a placebo idea? Does it matter?

Mushrooms!? When did I eat mushrooms?

I loved the Don Loper cameo!

R143 The implication was that, to his pleasure, she continued to periodically poison him throughout their life together. What lunatics! I loved this movie. It was hilarious.

[quote]What lunatics!

Imagine the child they would have, and how it would grow up. Still, psychiatry was a growing profession in the London 50s.

A notional child also gave Alma the chance to posit Cyril as a nanny. Game set and match.

DDL gets an "out" if he's accused of being affected. It's probable that Cyril and Reynolds (possibly not even their birth names) came from much humbler class origins, and so all their hoity-toity ways are ultimately a performance.

[quote]R148 DDL gets an "out" if he's accused of being affected.

What do you mean?

Alma annoyed the shit out of me. Scenery-chewing DDL and the actress who played his sister were the only fun characters I was rooting for.

I so wanted Alma to do a Myna Loy in THE RAINS CAME.

Myrna Loy, I meant....

I feel like Reynolds would definitely be a DLer. You just know he'd disapprove of draining pasta.

Yes, R152. He would be the ultimate Tasteful Friend, offering no end of catty comments about homes for sale or the ghastly goings-on covered by the NY Social Diary (does that still exist)?

R143 The controller became the controlled. The father figure became the son and the daughter figure became the mother. He willingly ate the omelet when he knew it was poisoned. In essence, her will bested his, he capitulated and it would be what she desired not what he desired from now on. Though he most certainly wanted to become sick by her poisonous hand on a regular basis. A very twisted and fractured fairy tale indeed.

R154

Yes and it only took 2 fucking hours to get there. Awful plot. Pity, could have been better.

I wonder. I've often wondered actually, if I had been born when fashionable people were celebrated...not necessarily rich people, but when fashionable people were the order of the day. Like New York City was at one time. There was a time when it meant nothing to see people walking in NYC who were impeccably dressed.

Sooo that being said I wonder if I would have gotten married because of a particularly fashionable woman who also enjoyed a fashionable life style. I know I sound confused, but that's such a great promotion photo of them in the car. And of course there's the issue of what do you do with her in the bedroom and are not driving to a high-end party dressed to the nines.

I had a friend when I lived in SF who married a beautiful model in NYC ...she was in all the print ads and runway shows of this VERY well known designer, they live a very Calvin Klein-like life in the Hamptons. I'm sure I sound superficial and shallow, just seeking polite commentary...lol I do find fashionable women intriguing...of course that's VERRY GAY, isn't it! LOL It's odd because its not that you want to be these women, I enjoy dressing like a man, nothing like a great fitting tux... but today a beautifully dressed woman is like old men's teeth today...few and far between...Most women look like whores today.

Rarer than hen's teeth, I mean. The luxe of yesteryear is but a vaporous memory. Everything now is crotch-in-the-face, and unfumigated as well. I know a model who is 60 if she's a day, and preternaturally youthful-- must have a portrait in the attic--and she insists that it's all due to bushels of cum from uncut siphons. Va savoir!

I just saw it; here are my takeaways:

- Why bother making Woodcock straight? Nothing against Vicky Krieps, she was good, but the movie would have worked just as well with Woodcock's new muse being a young man, and it certainly would have been truer to the reality of those midcentury coutouriers. it's not like the Alma character had anything directly to do with the dresses being produced, and a male muse could have served as a sort of apprentice/ heir.

- Will the aspie diva become a new stock character, the kind other movies use for comic relief?

- Lesley Manville should give lessons in genteel passive aggression -- she was perfect. And I liked the simple dress she wore in her first scene (where she greets Henrietta Harding) best of all the dresses shown in the movie; I agree that pretty much all the gowns were underwhelming, particularly that first costumey-looking one Henrietta wore to the ball, and the wedding gown too.

- Harriet Sansom Harris practically stole the movie in her few scenes, and she apparently did it without spending months immerising herself in the lifestyle of a maudlin 20th-century heiress. Take that, Mr. Method DDL!

- The movie looks gorgeous, but I saw it with a friend who said it felt like it was playing in real time, and she wasn't wrong. This is not a movie that's going to work well streamed onto mobile devices.

I was never convinced that Woodcock was supposed to be straight. Until they showed the baby carriage, I assumed that he and Alma never had sex. His sexuality seemed to be completely sublimated in dressmaking, food, and other weird rituals.

[quote]R159 I was never convinced that Woodcock was supposed to be straight. Until they showed the baby carriage, I assumed that he and Alma never had sex. His sexuality seemed to be completely sublimated in dressmaking, food, and other weird rituals.

Yes, this is something that makes the film a bit hollow. If they were going for an idea that the designer was an assexual neuter, they might have developed it a bit more.

[quote]Until they showed the baby carriage, I assumed that he and Alma never had sex.

The baby carriage was just Alma's forward projecting fantasy, so maybe they never did. Food was their sex.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOLIERS

The thing about the second poisoning: When she is making the tea, she is very careful to only use one thimbleful of mushroom dust. The second time she loads the frying pan with big chunks,. If he had eaten the entire omlette she would have killed him (which may have been what she had wanted to do).

REALLY R12? Those are among the worst people you know? Then consider yourself blessed.

Gay designers have had young female muses forever. There was also the Calvin and Kelly Klein marriage.

I’ve read that this movie is described as a food movie. You hear talk of food, and food plays an important role, but it was hardly gastroporn with gorgeous depictions of food. Same for the fashion — really underwhelming. I think my favorite clothing was the simple short-sleeved forest green sweater Alma wears, or Reynolds’s layered tweed and silk ascot combinations. I guess they couldn’t use some amazing historical garments from some famous midcentury designers and arrribute them to the House of Woodcock. And it would be a tall order to ask a very talented contemporary designer to come up with some genius designs for the film.

I really thought that part of the point was that he had lost his touch. His design heyday is behind him.

[quote]Unintentionally hilarious in the places where it wasn't meant to be funny.

I obviously don't know what parts of the film you are referencing, but I would posit that they probably *were* meant to be funny. The film has the veneer of self-seriousness, but it's actually poking fun at that aesthetic throughout. It's has a slow-burn camp vibe to it, and I loved it for that.

"Kiss me my dear, before I'm sick," for example, is clearly supposed to be a hilarious—but I also found it strangely moving.

I think you must be right, R156. When that first dress — the Evil Queen from Snow White one — was shown, I think the theater audience didn’t quite know how to react. I think we were having an Emperor’s New Clothes moment.

Sorry, meant R165.

[quote]I think director P.T. Anderson is a obsessive, OCD workaholic whose wife is always nagging him to slow down and smell the roses.

PTA isn't married, but he's been with Maya Rudolph since 2001, and they have four kids together. And she seems to work as much as he does.

Brilliant film. One of the 3 or 4 from last year that will be remembered over time.

Brilliant film full of genuinely interesting character studies. Everyone also seems to miss that it's about eras ending and new ones starting and the inability of so many to accept change when it's happening. The point is that his designs --50s haute couture -- was coming to an end . You watch the film and know what Woodcock doesn't know -- Carnaby Street, Twiggy, etc. is just around the corner. He would rather die than face that and sister makes it clear to him it HAS to be faced. I think that's why he figured out what Alma, obsessed with him, was doing with the meals that made him sick and he was prepared to play the 'game' for whatever time he has left -- if the 'game' kills him the he'd rather die than live in a society that no longer wants or needs him.

I agree with those few that have bothered to admire Vicki Kriegs work. I thought she was stunning and deserved an Oscar nomination. Totally ignored. I also was stunned that PT Anderson, a young American, could go to England and deliver such a British film; understand that society and that whole 50s world. Incredible work and he most certainly deserves his Oscar nomination. I won't waste my time mocking those that berate Daniel Day Lewis, one of the best post WWII actors in films. I will just assume it's some failed Hollywood actor that's extremely jealous and secretly posting on DL.

The audience I was in only laughed once during the movie (as far as I can recall). They're sitting at a table, arguing. Their argument (I can't remember what it was about, but it was over nothing) is so silly, so ridiculous that the audience laughed; "wow, this is one fucked up relationship! Hahaha!"

I didn't laugh out loud but I smiled a lot of the time and I adored the movie.

The audience I was with laughed some.. Mostly at how cunty Day Lewis was at the breakfast table.

After it was all over I wanted some of those mushrooms.

They never specified what year it was set in -- seemed to be the late '50s, but it was hard to pinpoint.

In some of the close-ups of DD-L, he resembled Brian Stokes Mitchell.

[quote]R162 The thing about the second poisoning: When she is making the tea, she is very careful to only use one thimbleful of mushroom dust. The second time she loads the frying pan with big chunks,. If he had eaten the entire omlette she would have killed him (which may have been what she had wanted to do).

Watching it, I was noting how she's not hiding anything from him...she's cooking right in front of him and he was free at any time to get off his ASS, pay attention to her, and come over to check out what she was doing. So, I think it was a kind of foreplay. She is aware he is watching her. Also, I don't know mushrooms enough to identify them all, but maybe she mixed some of the benign ones into the pan, as well...it may not be that she absolutely LOADED the whole thing with one particular type.

The whole thing seemed like a variation of Munchausen's by Proxy.

[quote]r171 Everyone also seems to miss that it's about eras ending and new ones starting and the inability of so many to accept change when it's happening. The point is that his designs --50s haute couture -- was coming to an end.

But, there are couturiers who lasted through the 60s and beyond...Chanel had her biggest success in that era. Dior lasted. Nina Ricci lasted. Balenciaga didn't close till the end of the 60s. They supplemented their lines with ready-to-wear and fragrances, but I don't think they stopped making haute couture...did they? (I'm not an expert.)

I loved it and found it very engaging. Also laughed along with my friend and several people in the audience at DDL's cuntiness. Said out loud at least once "She needs to get the fuck out of there." And then marveled at how she turned the tables on him and he liked it!

Gorgeous scenery/costumes. But I actually thought his gown were supposed to demonstrate that he *wasn't* the great artist he imagined himself to be. That was just his justification for treating the women around him like shit. What made his dresses so extraordinary was the craftsmanship and detail, that they were handmade couture gowns, and that work was no longer done by him but a team of women at his beck and call. But the designs were just rich lady/royal dresses, the very opposite of artistry, made to show off wealth and opulence. In his fevered state from the first poisoning, he blurts out the truth, that the royal wedding gown was shit. And another moment of truth when his wife tells him she dislikes the material of a dress she's wearing. He basically dismisses her as having no taste, and she pushes back that she just has her own taste. The telltale sign that he has met his match.

R158 It was about a father figure/daughter relationship that transforms into a Mother/obedient son relationship. That is a very unique element to a straight relationship.Straight men are always trying to find a new mother. That male/female dynamic that led the DDL character to capitulate and lose his control.He reverts to a younger childlike self. In addition, in the battle of the sexes the woman(and some would say women) come out on top in this narrative.

I didn't quite *get* it when I first saw it. It grew on me, definitely. For one thing, the score is haunting and lovely. It has shrill dramatic tension at times when it's needed, along with some muddy, muted piano melodies that are just gorgeous. Honestly, because of the score, I couldn't stop thinking about the film afterwards, and that constant attention made me like it more.

I happen to have (mild) OCD, so this just felt pretty familiar at times. I'd like to think I'm not as much of a dick as Woodcock though.

It's ridiculous to me that Krieps wasn't nominated. In many ways, she was the main character. And her subtle accent (she's from Luxembourg apparently) helped made her character so incredibly alluring.

Spoilers.

Woodcock resignedly elegantly admits defeat at the hands of The Women when he's ranting about Alma to Cyril - with Alma standing silently behind him. Cyril lets him go on. Cyril's already icily put him down for his whining complaining manner. And in addition, said coolly (paraphrase), "Don't take me on, Reynolds, you won't stand a chance." As though it's a known law of science.

There were chuckles in the screening I saw, mainly for the sickbed scene with its flurries of 'Fuck offs' for the doctor. But otherwise there were fascinated smiles (mine) for the indulged creature that is Woodcock, with his testy assertions such as, "I simply cannot start the day with a confrontation.'

RW is undoubtedly what Datalounge would once have noted (not entirely dismissively) as 'a mincing prisspot.' In some ways DDL is channeling elements of Cecil Vyse in 'A Room With A View.' It's not often I'm so keen to see a new film again as soon as possible.

R183, interesting that you mention Cecil Vyse. I always felt that was the one time I saw DDL on screen and thought he was terrible (you couldn't imagine what Lucy could ever see in him), so he clearly upped his game since then.

I always find it weird when gay men lecture women for dressing like "whores" - first of all, for every woman wearing revealing clothes there are two women wearing no makeup and sweatpants. And most men today dress like slobs, so why don't you lecture them about how they dress? Do you only care about women's clothes because you want to be a woman?

Did anyone else think DDL sounded a little like Werner Herzog even though he was English? It was odd. Someone on another website mentioned it, so I know i’m not the only one to notice. He copied John Huston’s voice in There Will Be Blood. I’m tempted to rewatch his other movies and see if he has been slyly mimicking different directors throughout his career.

I thought it was a little jarring to hear "fuck" and "fucking" thrown around so much. That kind of language really was not used in polite company in that era.

Everyone should see this. It is truly a masterpiece and IMO Anderson's best work. Vicki Krieps is phenomenal. The costumes are gorgeous, the score is everything.

See it.

The score really is everything, and so surprising coming from Jonny Greenwood. It's better than his great score for "There Will Be Blood"—and an entirely different beast. I think it's the best American cinematic score in years.

The production design... the costumes... my gay little pink heart ached through this movie. It is IMMERSIVE.

It's also insane that del Toro is going to win for that genre schlock while PTA won't get anything for this gorgeous film.

[quote]It's also insane that del Toro is going to win for that genre schlock while PTA won't get anything for this gorgeous film.

I think they are both wonderful films that each perfectly illuminate their creators' oddities and perversities and obsessions.

[quote]You watch the film and know what Woodcock doesn't know -- Carnaby Street, Twiggy, etc. is just around the corner. He would rather die than face that and sister makes it clear to him it HAS to be faced. I think that's why he figured out what Alma, obsessed with him, was doing with the meals that made him sick and he was prepared to play the 'game' for whatever time he has left -- if the 'game' kills him the he'd rather die than live in a society that no longer wants or needs him

Tony Bennett experienced something along those lines...

'Tony Sings the Great Hits of Today! 'is a 1970 album by American classic pop and jazz singer Tony Bennett. Done under pressure from his record company for more marketable material, it featured misguided attempts at Beatles and other current songs and a psychedelic art cover. Both critics and Bennett himself have viewed the album as a career-low.

Clive Davis, head of Columbia Records, saw Bennett's album sales steadily decreasing, and decided the cure was for the singer to record more contemporary material. Bennett later said that, "I started planning the record by listening to as many current hits as I could stand. I mean some of the songs made me physically nauseous." Clive Davis reported that Bennett literally vomited before the first recording session for the album.

Straight people making a movie about couture....NOT. The very thought makes me recall Robert Altman's dreadful "Pret-a-Porter"....appalling.

What the fuck did I just watch? I’m totally lost. Did he know he was eating poisonous mushrooms?? And if so, why did he like it!

He submitted to her. He relinquished his insane control over his life and gave in.

PTA Presents: "The Mushroom Omelette"

[quote]PTA Presents: "The Mushroom Omelette"

I smell product tie-in! Call us!

[quote]I smell product tie-in! Call us!

It's absolutely to die for, that I can tell you.

POMPOUS, ODIOUS PEOPLE

I think the fashions in the movie were underwhelming by choice. PT Anderson is a serious director, not a decorator/stylist like that fag Guadagnino.

For what purpose would they be underwhelming? It doesn’t fit his characters narrative.

^it fits Anderson's vision, obviously

Maybe he has no fashion sense.

Wasn't British fashion like that in the 50s? It wasn't France.

And there are hints that the world, his world, the fashion world were about to change.

The point being made was that his clothes (and himself) were considered outdated by the younger generation and Alma was there to bring the makeover that was needed.

The costume design should have been better even considering that, but still.

Of for God's sake, what SHOULD the fashions in the movie have looked like? Since so many of you seem to consider yourself experts in costume design, let's hear what YOU would have done.

What a fascinating movie. The three mai actors were wonderful (especially the women, we know DDL all to well by now). The actress playing the drunk desperate bride was unforgettable too. The movie is set in the 50s but it's so layered and stylized it almost looks like it's set in the 18th or 19th century. I mean, it's almost incredible that Swinging London and hippies are just a few years away. My only reserve, as other posters said, is the number of "fuck" in this... it was just too contemporary. Also, they once use the word "bully". Was it current in 50s Britain? From what country is Alma supposed to be, BTW?

Not sure about the character, but the actress is from Luxembourg.

Christian Dior 1955

R186 He copied Houston's voice in They Will Be Bored? LOL. A very bad imitation indeed.

R194 It was a role reversal at the end. His OCD went from dominance to submission. Like many straight relationships he was always looking for his mom and finally found her. The Cocked faced off against The Cunted and the Cunted won.

R207, Alma's last name - Elson - sounded Scandinavian. I intuitively assumed she was supposed to be Danish.

[quote]It's also insane that del Toro is going to win for that genre schlock while PTA won't get anything for this gorgeous film.

Apparently you get entertainment value watching paint dry.

I thought the post about diarrhea was a joke. And then...

I was waiting for the raining frogs.

I'll just rewatch "Funny Face," I think.

The scene where he goes and finds her in the ballroom at the New Year's Eve party is so sad . . .

In the last shots, from Alma's imagination, she and Cyril almost seem to be the couple . . .

That's a beautiful movie. Great actors.

But the dress were fucking ugly, no wonder it was british fashion.

The couture dresses were quite ugly yes, but i loved the clothes the three main characters wore in their everyday life: so simple, classy and chic.

Anyone else think Cyril was a sister lez.

Did Cyril eat her omelette?

Around two years ago, as part of his preparation to play the couturier ­Reynolds Woodcock in Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, Phantom Thread, Daniel Day-Lewis re-created a Balenciaga dress.

[Of course he did.]

The Shape of Water Wins at the Costume Design Guild, Upsetting Phantom Thread...uh oh.

Phantom Thread and Call Me By Your Name were the most visually beautiful, yet neither were nominated by the Oscars for cinematography

I liked it a lot. I loved the visuals of the film. I thought it was so immersive. And funky and strange. Just a bit of a one-two punch. I wish there were more movies like this one. Surprising, charming, weird.

"He has always had a variety of passions: He once wrote a comedy script with Rebecca"

[DLers, do you think it was funny?]

His wife is utterly talentless, so any collaboration with her is bound to be shit. And the idea of those two. who take themselves SO seriously, creating a "comedy script" is surreal.

Alma was also the name of Bibi Ardersson in the film Ingmar Bergman's Persona.

R227...So? A lot of characters share names. It might not mean a damn thing in the end.

I enjoyed this movie but there is something I didn't understand and maybe one of you do?

SPOILER:

Woodcock told Alma that he always puts little hidden notes or items in everything he creates. Alma, working on the wedding dress, finds a small fabric note in a seam with the embrodered words “never cursed” on it. What does “never cursed” mean? A close up of the words was shown so I know it must mean something.

^My take: Never Cursed was just a wishing well message he put in the dress for the bride. Alma - who was just in the middle of "cursing" Reynolds with her plan - saw it and was irritated by it (or she felt a bit of guilt) so she threw it away. (she threw it away, right?)

Also if 'Never Cursed' appeared after Alma's cruel dinner-rejection by RW (can't recall), she'd be feeling that she had indeed been cursed - didn't he say (paraphrase), 'If you don't like it here you can always fuck off'? - both verbally and romantically.

So, not only had she been cursed, but the Princess on whom the House depended would be a total stranger to such harshness, which bliss RW only wished for her always. All of which would only embolden the steely Alma yet more.

a bit OT but worth repeating: Paul Thomas Anderson is so cute! He really could do better than Maya Rudolph. carry on.

[quote]a bit OT but worth repeating: Paul Thomas Anderson is so cute! He really could do better than Maya Rudolph. carry on.

Idiot.

R232 I agree. He is much better looking. She is funny and talented but is tough to look at. She made a good Donatella Versace because she is almost as fugly!

R233 Chill out cunty. Go get laid or find a glory hole. You an utter bore dreary.

I have seen all of PTA's movies, Inherent Vice was a pain to sit through. Anderson is often a bit too self-indulgent and he doesn't care about pacing as a much. This already started with Boogie Nights and was a serious problem with Magnolia.

Yes, his cinematography is gorgeous, yes he hires great actors and gets amazing performances out of them, but his movie drag!

I think my favorite is still Hard Eight.

I saw "Magnolia" for the first time a few weeks ago. I found it painfully indulgent and in search of a point, while it unmercifully dragged on for 3+ hours. His worst movie by far IMO, though I didn't see "Inherent Vice."

I loved "Phantom Thread" and consider "There Will Be Blood" a masterwork. I think "Magnolia" was a case of all his overpraise for "Boogie Nights" going to his head. Thankfully, he's mellowed and his talent has distilled itself.

Magnolia might be indulgent (i found it mesmerizing) but it's the signature movie of the 90s. The Master is VERY slow and almost autistic in its artistic integrity and performances but it's aesthetically wonderful: it's just stunning to look at.

Yes, Hard Eight was the best one.

I just liked Phantom Thread because the look was anti-Kardashian.

[quote]I think my favorite is still Hard Eight.

R235 is an insatiable bottom.

I thought the "Never cursed" was a reference to the superstition that a woman who touched a wedding dress would never end up getting married. When Reynolds is telling Alma about making his mother's wedding dress, he says that his sister believed this. Alma asks Reynolds if his sister ended up marrying, and he says no.

But that said, I didn't understand for whom the message was left? Not the lucky bride who, obviously, *is* getting married. For the seamstresses then? Or was it for Alma to find, in some bit of premonition on Reynolds's part?

I actually liked The Master a lot and saw it twice on the big screen. Boogie Nights had a very sprawling story and because Wahlberg isn't a compelling actor (unlike PSH or Phoenix) the movie lacks focus. There Will Be Blood at least had some top notch performances, amazing cinematography and a great score, plus not to mention a brilliant ending.

PTA needs to work with a writer and editor who tell him to not overindulge.

The note said "never curved." That was the guiding principle of his fashion design. Also, a metaphor about his inflexibility and difficulty in human interaction.

[quote] Chill out cunty. Go get laid or find a glory hole. You an utter bore dreary.

R234 has never been loved and it shows.

PTA movies are beautiful and have great acting, but they make no fucking sense.

I agree R244, Anderson spawls his stories so much that the movies could mean everything and anything. He needs to learn how to tighten up his spripts.

I hate spawled stories.

R219-yes, I did. They cgi removed her cane from all those hurried ascent of spiral staircase scenes. She had major tingles for alma!

Of course the sister was a lezzie, every Mrs. Danvers in every universe is a carpet muncher.

A Lurkish carpet?

His best film since Magnolia.

The best thing about the movie is to watch DDL being overshadowed by two brilliant actresses.

Vicky Krieps not getting nominated is a crime. Best female performance of the year.

PTA : king of Aspie Cinema.

I kind of wondered how much of the end was in her imagination. Her one on one conversations with the doctor where she describers her husband seemed to be setting it up as a confession to murder She only used a small portion of mushrooms in the first poisoning and he was sick for days. She used a lot more for the omelette, which should have killed. Her scene with DDL in the kitchen where she told him what she was doing had such a different tone, and everything else afterwards had a fantasy element -- all happy scenes including the baby. There was nothing to imply that either of them would suddenly change - they already had a horrible marriage after his supposed first epiphany after the first poisoning, which made the end scenes ring false, which made me wonder if anything was real from the omelette scene. If that was all in her head after she had poisoned him.

I hope DDL keeps his promise. Though he was electrifying in Laundrette. I actually though Frears had found some street kid.

That's an interesting theory, R252. In the short snapshot at the end that shows them dancing alone at the New Year's party, she is wearing a different dress than she actually wore that night—which supports your theory.

[quote]PTA : king of Aspie Cinema.

Yes, he's a fair successor.

nasty movie

But like that omelet, well done.

Loved R181's insightful remarks.

And R252 got me thinking.

But to be honest, I didnt care about ANYONE enough to ponder that.

Movies like this make me SICK ;)

[quote]The best thing about the movie is to watch DDL being overshadowed by two brilliant actresses.

That already happened in Lincoln.

R252: you wrote an excellent post, but you should have included a spoiler warning for those who haven't seen the movie yet and are curious about it.

R252 I agree. There was a complete shift in the mood of DDL and the entire film at the end. I couldn’t put my finger on it until now.

the dress she wore in the brief scene at the New Years party is different because that's not the same NYs party, we are actually watching the future as she envisioned it.

I like R252's ending better. However, if it was a fantasy, there should have been some indication that it was.

R252 before I watched Phantom Thread I read a review somewhere (I'm not sure I could find a link right now) stating that the film is a 'murder mystery' and after watching it, I couldn't see what the reviewer meant by that - but he must have read the story the way you've read it. Very interesting!

PTA's films have SOME excellent acting in them, but Joachim Phoenix's grotesque "performance" in THE MASTER is not an example. It was like a bad imitation of late 60's "living theater" performing. He ruined the film, though I have to assume he gave PTA what the latter wanted. Which makes you wonder about the director's judgement.

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is another misfire. Even Emily Watson couldn't save that one. INHERENT VICE is unwatchable - I gave up after 20 minutes.

The Kubrick/Aspie cinema comparison is very apt.

R252, mushrooms are often mentioned in fairy tales, as agents of danger. Maybe because so much of the organism is below ground and not visible. Also, the frequent uncertainty as to whether a mushroom is poisonous or deadly may refer to. DDL's ambivalence about a ing an intimate relationship. There's also a definite phallic aspect to them

I think the aspie director of our generation is that soulless brainy robot called Christopher Nolan. His bloated movies have no heart, no humanity, no soul. PTA is a lyrical and romantic director who portrays people with actual feelings.

Interstellar was a nightmare to go through.

R265 is right.

Yes, R265 is right!

So DDL is dead, right?

Now I have to watch it again!

i'm watching There Will Be Blood right now. It's wonderful so far. Even though maybe a real american actor could've played DDL's part.

BTW, we I say PTA is "romantic" I mean as german romanticism, not as sentimental.

"I think the aspie director of our generation is that soulless brainy robot called Christopher Nolan."

Agree as well. DUNKIRK was very impressive to watch as a technical exercise, but you don't care about any of the people as individuals except in the generic context of lives in danger. I will admit that Harry Styles acquitted himself rather well under the circumstances.

INTERSTELLAR was bloated nonsense, but I really disliked Nolan's overly noisy and absurdly overdone Batman films. I have never understood the acclaim around them.

I run hot and cold on PTA's films. Only BOOGIE NIGHTS and PHANTOM THREAD really worked for me. TWBB has some remarkable sections, but it's really an art-house star vehicle for DDL. Other than Paul Dano, no other actor in the film is allowed to make much of an impression. Davis and Crawford would have killed to get that kind of treatment.

R273 DDL is terrible in They Will Be Bored. Worst performance by a major actor next to his shitacular performances in 9 and Gangs Of NY. For such a good actor, DDL has had his share of bad performances. Phantom Thread was not one of them.

I disagree R274 I loved him in There Will Be Blood and I love the movie as a whole, although his performance (full-on hystrionics) is the opposite of Phantom Thread and I can see why it's not everyone's cup of tea.

His performance in TWBB is in the top 50 of all-time.

I'm obsessed with the Phantom Thread's soundtrack. It's so beautiful! It's on Spotify.

It's beautiful, I don't care how 'simple' it sounds to people who know much more than I do about music composition - art doesn't need to be terribly complex to be outstanding.

I thought it was beautiful and I liked that it was different from the regular type of background music, but I thought it was a bit overused. It seemed like it was playing almost continually I was a little tired of it by the end of the movie. However, It is a soundtrack I would enjoy.

But isn't that a callback to some movies of old, R279 when music was constantly playing?

I didn't find the music intrusive at all while watching. I barely remembered it. That's why i'm surprised i like the soundtrack so much.

Yes, it was pretty common R280 . I thought it was effective for much of the movie, but there came a point where it began to distract me.

I liked that it was different, I thought it was pretty, but by the end I thought it was a little much and found myself hearing the music as much as what was going on in the movie...

R276 Along with Gangs Of New York and They Will Be Bored, Daniel Day Lewis deserved a Lifetime Golden Razzie award. Some of the worst overacting I've ever seen in a movie. DDL actually made average performers look worse in those films.

R264, are you a mycologist?

R265 PTA made Adam Sandler boring and DDL overact in They Will Be Bored. He's a poor man's Altman and that is putting it lightly.

I just saw it and didn't understand the ending, so I'll read this thread and hope it clears things up

R286, to clear things up, try penicillin.

What a dreamy, weird movie. I was mildly hypnotized by it...

When Oscars snub you you know you've made a fucking great movie that will pass the test of time. Bravo PTA, and fuck that Churchill cabaret thing and that mexican Disney movie for self-professed cinephiles.

r289: Why are you talking about Lady Bird?

I understand why it was nominated but I couldn't get into it. Walked out halfway through. I can appreciate the texture and feel of the film but it lacked any emotional impact and I'm not that much into clothes. Too dry. Perfect for Daniel Day-Lewis's last film.

Well-deserved Oscar for best costumes

I thought I'd like it. Boring and pointless. What a peculiar subject for PT Anderson to want to make a film about. Only interesting character was Lesley Manville doing her Mrs. Danvers.

I agree with R252.

I sided with the fat drunk lady who was declared unfit to wear one of Woodcock's designs. I strongly hated the ending. If you are crazy enough to poison someone just enough so they will get sick so you can take care of them you do not tell them .

The fat drunk lady is Harriet Sansom Harris in a brilliant 2-minute role.

I didn't really understand what was going on with that woman's storyline. Aside from the fact that she had a very public drinking problem, did the people have a problem with her because she was helping the Jewish people? (Was there some antisemitism behind their decision to take her dress?)

Yeah what the fuck with that ending? So he liked that she poisoned him? WTF?

Oh, I just had a thought... maybe he liked being near death because it brought him near his mother...and because it brought him near his mother it brought out his desire to be taken care of.

Cinema can be impressionistic!!

Cinema can suck too.

I saw this in NY opening weekend in it's Oscar qualifying run. They gave out the program with all the costumes. A big push and it worked but there is absolutely nothing in that film's costumes that deserved an Oscar. Even the wedding dress was a let down. It was all campaign. The Greatest Showman's Rebecca Ferguson's costumes alone, not to mention all the rest should have won and weren't even nominated.

I disagree, R302.

Why was he the only straight fashion designer in the history of fashion?

R302, the dress in your link is fug and not period appropriate

[quote]the dress in your link is fug and not period appropriate

Neither is the music, it's a movie musical not a documentary.

I can you can interpret this movie in different ways. I saw it as a character study of two (or three, if you include the sister) very fucked up people. Woodcock, a very fussy, set in his ways man appears to have had a relationship with his mother where she was in complete control. It seems like he misses that. His relationships with women are rather master/slave; he's the one who decides everything and is in complete control all the time. He always eventually gets tired of his much younger female companions and of course he would. It must be boring to be with someone who does everything they're told to do. Then he meets Alma the waitress and immediately takes control of her in the same fashion. Only in this case he's met someone who rebels against his stuffiness and exactness and boy does she rebel! She POISONS him, and then nurses him back to health. And he likes that, the feeling of being helpless and taken care of by someone stronger than him. So he marries her. Friction starts between them again and she intends to poison him again with another batch of poison mushrooms. But he somehow knows what she's up to and intends to go along...with being poisoned! Because it means he'll be weak and she's be in charge, making him well again, and he loves that. Pretty sick. But then that's what the movie is about, a very toxic relationship that apparently works for both of these disturbed people.