Phantom Thread
Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson
2017
****
Director Paul Thomas Anderson and actor Daniel Day-Lewis are two film makers who only make feature films when they want and exactly the way they want to. This leads to few but brilliant films. However, the much hyped Phantom Thread wasn’t quite the masterpiece I thought it would be and I’m afraid this is down to these two men. The film is set in London in 1954 where we visit the house of renowned fashion designer Reynolds Woodcock (played by Day-Lewis) who creates dresses for Royals and members of high society. His charisma and genius are matched only by his obsessive, controlling personality. Cyril (Lesley Manville), his sister, manages the day-to-day operations of his fashion house and has significant influence over his life. Reynolds is haunted by the death of their mother, and stitches hidden messages into the linings of the dresses he makes after coming up with the idea when he decided to sew a lock of his mother’s hair in his breast pocket to be close to her. We learn quite quickly that Woodcock falls in love easily and bores of his girlfriends even quicker. It is down to the stern Cyril to dispose of them. Exhausted after designing a new gown for a revered client, Reynolds visits a restaurant in the countryside and becomes interested in a waitress called Alma (Vicky Krieps). He asks her on a date, and she accepts. Their relationship develops quickly and she moves in with him, becoming his assistant, muse and lover. Cyril initially distrusts Alma but comes to respect her willfulness and determination, setting her apart from all of her brothers other girls. At first, Alma enjoys being a part of Reynolds' work, but he proves aloof and hard to please, and they bicker. When Alma makes him a romantic dinner, Reynolds lashes out, saying he will not tolerate deviations from the routines he has worked hard to perfect. Alma then poisons Reynolds' tea with mushrooms gathered outside his country house. As he readies a wedding gown for a Belgian princess, Reynolds collapses, damaging the dress and forcing his staff to work all night to repair it. He becomes gravely ill and has hallucinations of his mother. Alma nurses him back to health and he asks her to marry him. She accepts. Reynolds and Alma soon start bickering again. As Reynolds feels his work is suffering, he concludes it may be time to send her away. Alma responds by making Reynolds a poisoned omelette. As he chews his first bite, she informs him that she wants him weak and vulnerable with only her to take care of him. Reynolds swallows the omelette and tells her to kiss him. As Reynolds lies sick, Alma imagines their future with children, a rich social life, and her running the dressmaking business as a partner. She acknowledges that while there may be challenges ahead, their love and their new arrangement can overcome them. The film ends on quite the poetic note but essentially, Woodcock is somewhat pathetic and still needs mothering even though he is well into his fifties. The story is said to be based on the British fashion designer Charles James, although Anderson became interested in the world of fashion after reading about Cristóbal Balenciaga – who, on the day of his death, in 1972, Women's Wear Daily ran the headline "The king is dead" in honor of without mentioning his name once, as no one in the fashion world had any doubt as to whom it referred. The craft and elegance of 1950s fashion is captured beautifully and the film is visually rich from start to finish. However, there are some major issues I had with it. To be fair some of the illusion was broken for me as I work very close to where many of the exterior shots were filmed – it certainly doesn’t look that way in real life, but there are far too many big mistakes for me to agree that it is a masterpiece. The continuity is all over the place, with peoples glasses (and a cigar at one point) disappearing and then magically reappearing. Certain set pieces are too modern for the 1950s and, worst of all, in one scene a neon ‘Fire door keep shut’ sign can be seen on a door in the background. It’s the sort of distraction that can really sour the magic. The language used was also a little ahead of the times. The word ‘racist’ was used once before it existed. People would have said ‘racialist’ back then but in the context it was used they would have more likely have said xenophobic – or something else entirely. I had great issue with the script. The supporting characters had an air of believability about them as they spoke naturally but when the lead actors were allowed to improvise – and I have no doubt that many of the scenes were improvised – it all goes to pot. Anderson said that Day-Lewis should have received a co-script writing credit but I’m afraid most of what he added to the script was awful and felt out of place. Day-Lewis is a great actor and he has been in some great films but at this point I think his reputation is bigger than it deserves to be. For me, Phantom Thread is the product of two men who think a lot of themselves and who don’t deserve all of the praise they receive. The fact of the matter is, Phantom Thread – Anderson and Day-Lewis – are propped up and carried by the film’s two leading female actors; Vicky Krieps and Lesley Manville. Day-Lewis’s character is supported by both their characters and Day-Lewis himself is allowed to shine because of the two ladies performances. Anderson’s film is a masterpiece but an oil painting with a smudge on it, Day-Lewis’s performance is good but ridiculous and pointless without Vicky Krieps and Lesley Manville. It was great that Manville was recognised for her performance and was nominated for all the major awards but it was criminal that Krieps was so overlooked. Without her the film is nothing. Every other character could have been played by someone else – I can think of many actors who could have done as well or even better but Krieps is phenomenal. The first scene where she and Day-Lewis are clearly improvising is horrible because he is so selfish in his performance. You can see it in her eyes but she remains gracious. I enjoyed the film a lot and I thought the story was brilliantly dark, especially towards the end. It’s just that its not as good as the hype suggested, the direction is stunning until very amateur mistakes keep appearing and frankly Day-Lewis can retire (again) with no protest from me.