Phantom Thread (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Ugh........looks like there is no CD available for the soundtrack. It's streaming only.

Amazon just added the AutoRip feature to their CD pre-orders. So, I'm listening to the MP3s now and apparently the CD will be delivered on Tuesday. It's supposed to be releasing Friday. I'm not sure why I wouldn't qualify for release date delivery of it, but no matter; the MP3s will be fine until then.

Total running time of the album is 56 minutes, per iTunes. I've already listened to it three times through tonight.

In other news, Amazon has updated their listing for the Blu-ray to list an April 10 release date, and the cover art is up, listing the extras. This seems like a relatively quick turnaround for a film that just went wide in January, but what do I know?

 

[Jake Lipson]

I saw this two weekends ago when it finally opened here and thought it was exquisite. Then I saw it again seven days later this past weekend with a friend, and the second viewing confirmed that my intense reaction to the first viewing wasn't a fluke. This is the best film of 2017, and the best thing I can say about it is that they just don't make films like this anymore. It really hearkened back to old-style classical filmmaking in the best sense, and I just thought it was perfect.

My friend (who, for sake of context, is a senior citizen and much older than me) liked it very much but thought that the ending was too weird and that it went off the rails with the ending. I understand why someone would think that, since the ending is quite startling and unusual, but I thought it was great, and very much consistent with the relationship and behaviors established between the two characters throughout the film.

I know that a win would give him a fourth acting Oscar and that's unheard of, but I really do think that Daniel Day-Lewis has earned it with this role. I'm sad about his retirement only because it means we won't see any more performances from him, but he certainly has chosen a magnificent way to go out.

Also, Vicky Krieps doesn't seem to be getting enough attention for her work in this film. She is outstanding, and is truly a match for Day-Lewis, which I imagine is very hard to do. Even though the Best Actress category was ridiculously crowded with great contenders this year, I'm kind of surprised that the Academy didn't nominate her, since they obviously loved the movie, and it really is more her movie than DDL's in terms of her being the point-of-view character that the audience is "with" during it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

This obviously sort of crosses into subject matter for the Blu-ray forum, but since Universal hasn't issued a formal press release yet, I'll just leave these here. Extras details on the back seem brief, 25 minutes in total. I hope they end up being more substantial than they sound.

I'm glad that the awards nominations have not (yet) soured the cover artwork with annoying banners or anything "loud."

 

[bujaki]

Great film; matchless acting from all 3 principals; exquisite cinematography and score. DDL's acting surpasses that dreary British film that's all the rage (don't understand why).
Edit: To clarify: I mean Roth's portrayal of Churchill.

 

[Jake Lipson]

DDL's acting surpasses that dreary British film that's all the rage (don't understand why).

Agreed!

 

[bujaki]

To correct post #44, I meant Gary Oldman's portrayal of Churchill, not Tim Roth's. Posted late at night by an aging brain.

 

[Jake Lipson]

There Will Be Blood made $40 million in its theatrical release in 2007-8 with DDL, PTA and eight Oscar nominations.

Phantom Thread has DDL, PTA and six nominations. It has, so far, grossed $14.9 million.

Even when not accounting for ticket price inflation, that's a huge gap, and with the Blu-ray arriving in April, Phantom Thread seems unlikely to make up the difference. But in a lot of ways, I think Phantom Thread is actually the more accessible movie.

So, what accounts for the difference? Why are so many people who saw There Will Be Blood not turning out for the reunion film from the same writer/director and star? I know that they are not very similar in style, but you would think people who liked one would at least be interested in the other, and they have received similar critical praise.

 

[TravisR]

I'd say that it's largely because There Will Be Blood was marketed in a way to make it look more exciting (burning oil wells, people yelling and the music) and Phantom Thread is seen by the general public as the stereotypical old-timey drama. And not that I've looked up the grosses but I'd guess that smaller Oscar nominated movies are making less money than they did a decade ago.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I'd guess it's because one teasingly promises There Will Be Blood (to an often bloodthirsty nation).

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, whatever the reason, There Will Be Blood fans who are skipping this one are missing out on another sensational piece of filmmaking.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

There Will Be Blood made $40 million in its theatrical release in 2007-8 with DDL, PTA and eight Oscar nominations.

Phantom Thread has DDL, PTA and six nominations. It has, so far, grossed $14.9 million.

Even when not accounting for ticket price inflation, that's a huge gap, and with the Blu-ray arriving in April, Phantom Thread seems unlikely to make up the difference. But in a lot of ways, I think Phantom Thread is actually the more accessible movie.

So, what accounts for the difference? Why are so many people who saw There Will Be Blood not turning out for the reunion film from the same writer/director and star? I know that they are not very similar in style, but you would think people who liked one would at least be interested in the other, and they have received similar critical praise.

Well, I think there are a lot of reasons that the two films have performed differently. I agree with Travis that the promotion of the film is part of the problem. It looks like some staid British drama you would find on PBS. Anderson's films up to this point have all been some sort of take on American culture and behavior but this swerves in a different direction.

His fans should know at this point that whatever set of circumstances he has set the film in it will only be a jumping off point for exploring the characters. So, I think when people hear "it's about a dressmaker" that sounds amazingly boring. As a huge fan of Mr. Anderson I wondered how he would make a two hour film about a British fashion designer interesting. One thing I imagined he might add actually ended up in the story:

Spoiler: SPOILER

There being a ghost in the film or the idea of one. Interestingly that is in the picture though not central to it.

So, the truth is it is not really about a "dressmaker" it is about three odd strong willed people having to live together and the push and pull between them. Interestingly, the project started not being about a fashion designer at all, as Anderson and Day-Lewis developed it they finally settled upon the world of fashion as a place to set it. Sadly though that world and the fact that it is a period piece set in England...well...makes it look like a snooze fest to many people.

The next thing I would consider is how movies have rapidly changed in the 10 years between There Will Be Blood and Phantom Thread. In that period of time the industry, theater owners, and the audience that goes to the cinema have all become even more blockbuster/sequel obsessed. I mean in 2007 I think the industry and theater owners still had a working interest in making interesting stand alone films for adults...now, not really. There exists just the short season from September to December when these films will get slotted for release mainly because they are warming things up for award season. These films though, typically, are not going to generate the massive profits that prop up the industry.

Scorsese discussed this problem and talked about how the industry needs to continue to find ways to support filmmakers like PTA and name checked him directly among others. What the studios and theater owners seem to want to make are super heroes, Star Wars, and animated films and have those coming out on weekly basis throughout the year. These are the films that draw crowds and are more likely to get a crowd in a cinema. More likely to bring out a family.

I thought it was very telling that when Denis Villeneuve set out to make Blade Runner 2049 he could not book time in a big studio that could house that sort of production for years because they are all booked for the next 10 years with nothing but super hero and Star Wars pictures. So, he had to go to Budapest to make it. I think he is facing the same issue with Dune.

The next thing I would consider is just how people feel these days. I think the sociopolitical atmosphere has people craving escapism more than thoughtful films. Even the discussions of films now seem a bit odd to me where they often hinge on "Why didn't they explain that?" or "They never told us why this happened!" and the blockbuster films all seem to be so damn simplified it is as if the makers of them think their audience are complete idiots.

There Will Be Blood got tremendous reviews and great word of mouth in 2007 and that still counted for something then and brought people beyond just fans of Anderson or Day-Lewis out to see it. Now, Anderson in the interim has delivered two films that were quite different from each other in The Master and Inherent Vice and these were not easily accessible to a mass audience, they were not as well liked, and even to some of his fans they seemed a departure from his early films like Boogie Nights and Magnolia. In fact There Will Be Blood was a departure from those films. Anderson seems to make very unique films that do not follow the "rule" when it comes to "building a brand" by basically keeping all of his films very similar. I would say Wes Anderson has done a better job of creating films that all have his very obvious stamp on them and developed a "brand" that brings his fans back again and again. I think PTA probably has lost some of his fans over the years because his pictures are quite different. So, more than likely there just are less "hardcore" PTA fans now than there were in 2007. Plus you have people that probably turned up to The Master and/or Inherent Vice and said "Nope, I'm done with this guy."

I think this has become more of an issue with the audience over this past decade where if a filmmaker or "brand" of films do not deliver the same thing over and over again...well...people are not going to turn up at the cinema to take a chance on those pictures. PTA simply does not deliver the same film over and over again. Good for film buffs, bad for growing or maintaining a large audience.

I do think you are correct that this is a more accessible picture and in fact it seemed more of a return, to me, to his films like Boogie Nights or Magnolia in a way. It is very much about how the ensemble of characters interact and play off each other as was the case in those films. I also thought he was riffing quite a bit on Hitchcock and Kubrick in the way he shot and arranged the picture which was fun.

So, yes, really great film, really deserves to be seen, it is not exactly what people might expect upon seeing the trailers or promotion and probably will not get seen by many people. I just don't think there is a good hook to get people out to see it and while it is nominated it is not a favorite to win Best Picture so I don't think that will get people out to the cinema either.

 

[TravisR]

I think PTA probably has lost some of his fans over the years because his pictures are quite different. So, more than likely there just are less "hardcore" PTA fans now than there were in 2007. Plus you have people that probably turned up to The Master and/or Inherent Vice and said "Nope, I'm done with this guy."

I imagine that's true and not that everyone isn't entitled to their opinion but I can't imagine a scenario where I'd give up on the best film maker of his generation. Maybe even the best film maker working today.


EDIT:

The next thing I would consider is just how people feel these days. I think the sociopolitical atmosphere has people craving escapism more than thoughtful films. Even the discussions of films now seem a bit odd to me where they often hinge on "Why didn't they explain that?" or "They never told us why this happened!" and the blockbuster films all seem to be so damn simplified it is as if the makers of them think their audience are complete idiots.

That desire for explantion even seems to be prevalent in discussions of blockbusters too. There's people in Star Wars threads that seem to think that everything that isn't explained to the nth degree is a 'plot hole'. Granted, 'plot hole' seems to now mean "I didn't like this so it is therefore wrong, makes no sense and the director is a hack" but it is strange to see people wanting everything explained in detail in the movie and not wanting to think of a reasonable explanation based on what is shown in the movie.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I didn't like The Master, but it was extremely well-made, just not to my interest. I missed Inherent Vice and haven't caught up with it. But, my disliking The Master was never going to stop me from checking out Phantom Thread. A good filmmaker who I like can make one movie I don't like and still have my loyalty. I didn't care for Dunkirk either, but I'm still going to show up to opening weekend of whatever Christopher Nolan does next, because I enjoy his work overall.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I imagine that's true and not that everyone isn't entitled to their opinion but I can imagine a scenario where I'd give up on the best film maker of his generation. Maybe even the best film maker working today.

EDIT:
That desire for explantion even seems to be prevalent in discussions of blockbusters too. There's people in Star Wars threads that seem to think that everything that isn't explained to the nth degree is a 'plot hole'. Granted, 'plot hole' seems to now mean "I didn't like this so it is therefore wrong, makes no sense and the director is a hack" but it is strange to see people wanting everything explained in detail in the movie and not wanting to think of a reasonable explanation based on what is shown in the movie.

Yes, I love all of PTA's films. I also find the more you watch them the better they get and the more they reveal.

On the way today's audience seems obsessed with "explanation" well...I think there are some reasons for that. First, I would say the way each person experiences a film is different and the truth is many people seem to miss a lot of what goes on in a film. I am not saying that this makes them "stupid" or anything like that I just think when watching a movie people get taken in or caught up in different things. So, because their mind goes off in some other direction they miss other things in the story or they leave the theater and recall the film, not really as it happened, but based on what and how it made them think. So, the film becomes more of a personal experience for them than really a recounting of what actually takes place in the picture.

I also think audiences are more "explanation" obsessed now because of the internet and the idea that after watching a film you can go to the internet and now there are hundreds of articles, blogs, videos "explaining" the film. Plus we can now post and have discussions about the film and give our own explanations or ask our own questions about what happened in a film.

I think when a person posts something and says "Hey, they never really explained that in the movie!" a whole lot of other people jump in and say "Yes, they never explained that!"

I also think some filmmakers are paying attention to this kind of thing and I know I will get in trouble for bringing this up again but Ridley Scott went sort of bat shit trying to "explain" Alien with Prometheus and Covenant and the insane idea he needed to make 5 or 6 films to give all of the "explanation" leading up to Alien.

I mean come on, that did not have to happen and it was basically a travesty because what made Alien great and such a fascinating film was exactly the fact that the characters in the film encountered something that was not explained and left all kinds of mystery available to the audience.

Now, an audience presented with Alien would walk out, go to the internet and start thousands of conversations about "But they never explained who the big guy in the chair was!" or "They never explained what the alien was and where it came from!" or "They never explained who put Ash on the ship and how he knew about the alien!"

So, I think the obsession with "explanation" is in part due to the internet and also taken advantage of by the business because that desire for "explanation" opens the door to sequels and prequels designed to "explain" things.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I didn't like The Master, but it was extremely well-made, just not to my interest. I missed Inherent Vice and haven't caught up with it. But, my disliking The Master was never going to stop me from checking out Phantom Thread. A good filmmaker who I like can make one movie I don't like and still have my loyalty. I didn't care for Dunkirk either, but I'm still going to show up to opening weekend of whatever Christopher Nolan does next, because I enjoy his work overall.

I don't know how many times you have watched The Master, Jake, but it gets better with repeat viewings. One of the things I noticed about There Will Be Blood, The Master, and Inherent Vice and basically beginning with Punch Drunk Love is that Anderson seems to be intentionally attempting to avoid hitting the expected beats you would get in mainstream films. So, things might go on a bit longer or shorter than what you would get in a film designed specifically to appeal to mainstream tastes. This will on first and maybe even second viewing throw off most people and have them a bit off balance...which is intentional. In films like There Will Be Blood, The Master, or Inherent Vice it becomes hard to settle into the film because it is specifically not hitting beats we generally feel should be there. I think he basically found and began to like this technique with Punch Drunk Love and it worked with that film because it made you, or at least me, feel very uncomfortable watching it and due to the fact that the main character Barry lives his life feeling very uncomfortable it puts you right in that head space with him.

I recall the first time watching There Will Be Blood also feeling uncomfortable because Plainview is such a driven and intense guy, and also does not like people, he also is not "comfortable" in the world or in his interactions with people. So, again this technique worked.

Then he employed it again in The Master but in a bit of a different way and for a different purpose. In The Master Freddie basically is lost in the world. He does not really have any idea what he is going to do from one second to the next and I think he drinks because it helps slow the world down for him...otherwise it's all just sort of spinning by and he is grasping at whatever he can get his hands on. Then he meets this guy Dodd that wants to appear as if he has the world all figured out...but he's really full of shit...and desperately is attempting to keep up this charade of being the "master." Again this all creates a sense of discomfort in the audience and confusion and the "unbalanced" beats of the film assist in telling the story.

Of course he does it again in Inherent Vice and this time Doc is not uncomfortable in the world he is more too comfortable and more than a bit unaware of what is actually going on but seems to get the idea that things seem headed in a bad direction. For Doc there is no real order to things just sort of drifting through them. He humorously clashes with Bigfoot, a man obsessed with order and who becomes furious when he can't exorcise control over his world. In this film the unbalanced beats of the picture again are used to help get us into Doc's obviously clouded head space. It's more funny this time than disturbing though.

Which brings us to Phantom Thread and I believe he mostly drops this technique here and instead tells the story in a more...well...traditional manner where he seems to be referencing classic films and how they told their stories more than just trying to keep you feeling off while you watch the picture.

Anyway, what I think these unbalanced beats sort of hide in plain sight or maybe in plain view (ha) are things like humor and little moments we don't catch the first time through. This makes watching his films more than once or twice an interesting and rewarding experience.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't know how many times you have watched The Master, Jake, but it gets better with repeat viewings.

Only the once on its theatrical opening weekend in my city. I was just really, really, really bored by it. But I got on board with There Will Be Blood and Phantom Thread immediately.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The first time I watched The Master I was kind of looking at it as a drama. When I saw it again I found much more humor in it. When I watched it the third time I found it hilarious and the crazed bromance taking place between Freddie and Lancaster very, very funny. There is a lot going on in it and in every scene. I now totally see the film as comedy and just thinking about certain scenes makes me laugh.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The CD just arrived from Amazon and I hate the packaging. It's in a thin cardboard thing (I hesitate to even call it a case) and the CD is just behind the cardboard. There's no tray for the disc. And there's no booklet or liner notes either. It looks nice but is very cheap and doesn't seem particularly safe for the disc itself. I'm out of spare jewel cases, but the next time I get some I'll have to transfer it into one.

It's a lovely disc, but I wish the packaging were more practical and secure.

 

[TravisR]

The CD just arrived from Amazon and I hate the packaging. It's in a thin cardboard thing (I hesitate to even call it a case) and the CD is just behind the cardboard. There's no tray for the disc. And there's no booklet or liner notes either. It looks nice but is very cheap and doesn't seem particularly safe for the disc itself. I'm out of spare jewel cases, but the next time I get some I'll have to transfer it into one.

It's a lovely disc, but I wish the packaging were more practical and secure.

It sounds like the CD packaging for all of Johnny Greenwood's PTA scores and I think Punch-Drunk Love had that packaging too. I have no clue if that's something that Anderson wants or Greenwood wants or his label wants or if it's just a coincidence.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It sounds like the CD packaging for all of Johnny Greenwood's PTA scores and I think Punch-Drunk Love had that packaging too. I have no clue if that's something that Anderson wants or Greenwood wants or his label wants or if it's just a coincidence.

Yeah, I shouldn't have been surprised since now that you mention it, There Will Be Blood was the same, although I haven't played that one in a while. It does look nice from an aesthetic point of view, but I think protecting the disc is more important and would have preferred a jewel case for that reason. I had to touch the bottom of the disc, which I normally try never to do, to pry it out of the packaging, and it's already got some spots on it that look like they could be cleaned. I've put it in a paper sleeve for now until I can get a proper case, and it's not going back in its original packaging, ever.

I would also liked to have liner notes to give a sense of the creation of this amazing score. Oh well. The music's enough.