Yes No Maybe So: "Phantom Thread"
Monday, October 23, 2017 at 4:00PM by Ben Miller
Paul Thomas Anderson's latest joint, Phantom Thread, has him collaborating for a second time Daniel Day-Lewis (who is reportedly retiring following this film). The Christmas release follows the true story of 1950s London fashion designer Reynolds Woodcock. Tagging along are his muse Alma (Vicky Krieps) and his sister (Lesley Manville).
After a long long wait, the first poster and the trailer have arrived. See them after the jump as we nail down the Yes, No, and Maybe So of it all…
Yes
• I love a subdued DDL. Despite his grandious speeches in Lincoln, a reserved quiet Daniel Day-Lewis is a welcome reprieve. He hasn’t been this (presumably) subtle since The Age of Innocence
• Lesley Manville should be more famous. She seems to have a great ice-queen sister role -- can she finally snag that Oscar nomination that's eluded her?
• Vicky Krieps seems up to the challenge in her scenes, willing to go big while seeming so coy
• Getting The Master feels from some of these shots, which is never a bad thing. Anderson is shooting this himself and Johnny Greenwood is returning for the music score
• If you are a big fashionista (I personally am not), I can imagine the foaming at the mouth you are experiencing
No
• Not much Manville in the trailer…hopefully that isn’t indicative of her role
• My only concern is that this does not seem to be in Anderson’s wheelhouse. But why doubt that stellar track record?
• It is a well-worn troupe of a powerful man and the women he drags along, but this seems to have a lighter touch than most of those stories
Maybe So
• Early buzz has described this as 'Mike Leigh directing Fifty Shades of Grey'. What to even make of that?!?
• Anderson/Day-Lewis are both much beloved, but can veer a little off course now and again
I am firmly in the Yes for this one. How about you? The film opens at Christmas and will presumably go wide by January or February.
Reader Comments (57)
/3rtful:
I think Hard Eight is a fine movie -
Inherent Vice is PTA's worst because 1: too confusing for its own good.
2: too dialogue heavy
3: too much Pynchon and not enough PTA.
4: too many close ups of characters talking - TV like mise-
en-scène - thus PTA's least cinematic movie.
ps: I stand by the critique of Vicky Krieps - you can almost always tell when an actor work or doesn't work - even when it's just a 2 minuter trailer.
@Ulrich
You know Jonathan Demme is one of his influences. And Demme is all about the talking heads in 1.85 which Inherent Vice does well. I want to say I'm shocked by the response to Paul's current work but the sensibility of now is arbitrary as hell.
Ulrich: I agree with your conclusion (without having seen Hard Eight), but let me rebut some of your suppositions:
1: Hmm. It's confusing, but so's The Big Lebowski. It's more that The Dude is more passionate about his rug than Doc Sportello is about...anything.
2. Too much dialogue. Okay, yes, PTA has never been the best at writing dialogue. Even in his best movie, paring himself back led to the best sequence.
3. That there's "too much Pynchon and not enough PTA"? Um...I've read Pynchon and mostly loved the work and there's barely any Pynchon in that book to begin with.
4. TV like mise en scene. Bingo.
Ultimately, I'd say it feels like a half cooked and overlong TV pilot, and I have no idea why PT Anderson chose THIS Pynchon novel. Even if he was dead set on the "60s California thing", The Crying of Lot 49 is a slightly more "Pynchon" story, and I'd think the appeal of adapting Pynchon would be to adapt the kind of stuff that made his name and not this recent plate of reheated Coen Bros leftovers.
YES FUCK ME WITH THE PHANTOM THREAD YES
Also a soft yes. I don't really get the "sumptuous" comments as it just looks fine to me, but nothing visually stunning stands out. Plus the plot doesn't do much for me but it is PTA and DDL so I'd like to be able to trust them.
YASSSSS! And Vicky Krieps steals this trailer right from under DDL's prominent nose, BTW ...
^you gotta be trolling, Dorian!
Vicky Krieps will prove a disaster, mark my words.
Are you her father or brother or boyfriend or something?!
Volvagia:
1. I've lost patience with convoluted movies - I don't know when that started exactly.
When I was younger, I was better at going "so what if I don't get everything's that going on, but at least I can marvel at the actors, the music, the camera work etc" . I can't do that today unfortunately - I can't watch many film noirs these days!
2. I haven't read Inherent Vice but as I understand it, PTA lifted much of the dialogue directly from the book - like copy pasted! and just inserted it into the script. Same goes with the plot. He didn't do much adapting - which is why it's funny that PTA got a nom for best adapted screenplay - if it's true he didn't do much writing/adapting - and just filmed the book!
3. Like I said I haven't read Inherent Vice, so I take your word for it
that the book is not very Pynchonesque - but if the movie is not Pynchon and it's not PTA, then what is it?!
4. Did PTA have to adapt Pynhon - or any book for that matter? couldn't he have written his own groovy California set 1970s movie?