Review: Phantom Thread (2017)

* * * *
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Vicky Krieps, Lesley Manville

Generally speaking, I'm not a person who thinks that spoilers matter. What happens is much less interesting to me than how it happens, particularly since plot twists tend to be so telegraphed anyway. I knew that there was some sort of twist to Phantom Thread but I didn't know what it was (and not for lack of trying, as the giddiness with which some reviews talked around the twist piqued my interest, but Movie Spoiler didn't have a write up for the film yet and Wikipedia's entry for it was still just a couple of sentences that only gave the basic premise). I'm glad that I didn't because in a million years I don't think I would have guessed that the plot would take the turn that it does until it was already veering into that other lane, and that realization that it was taking that turn (and then the turns that flowed out of that one) was one of the great pleasures of watching the movie. I think that Phantom Thread, a meticulously put together movie in every respect, is a film that can be enjoyed even if you go into it knowing where it's headed, but it's a lot more fun if you go into it cold. So if you're planning to see it, stop reading here, because spoilers lie ahead.

Review: The Age of Innocence (1993)

* * * *
Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, Winona Ryder

The Age of Innocence may very well be Martin Scorsese's most underrated movie. While his certified masterpieces like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Mean Streets and Goodfellas are still spoken of with reverence sometimes bordering on worship, and even flawed, divisive work like Gangs of New York and The King of Comedy have their passionate defenders, his elegantly meticulous rendering of Edith Wharton's masterpiece seems to have been somewhat forgotten. This is a shame since, aside from being simply a great movie, it's also a near perfect adaptation of its source, one which captures the narrative scope of Wharton's story as well as its stylistic flourishes, translating them from the literary to the visual. It's a wonderful film, albeit one which begs the question: how does a film which boasts marvelous performances from Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer end up with only one Oscar nomination for acting and see it go to Winona Ryder?

Review: Lincoln (2012)

* * * 1/2
Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field

A film like Lincoln inevitably ends up being caught in a Catch-22. On the one hand, a story this important and compelling must be told. On the other, it's impossible to tell it without it having that aura of the "Important Story," which makes it feel like the kind of movie you see because it's "good for you," the cinematic equivalent of brussel sprouts. Lincoln is an "Important Story" - it just is, there's no fighting that - but it is told with a minimum of period piece fussiness and it takes material that might otherwise be dry and makes it engaging and even entertaining. Lincoln is a movie that is good for you, but it is also a good movie.

Review: Nine (2009)

* *
Director: Rob Marshall
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren, Fergie

Oh, Nine, you disappointed me. Maybe it's my own fault because I had such high expectations for so long, but why shouldn't I have had high expectations? The cast is phenomenal, it's based on both a popular play and a classic film, and it's directed by Rob Marshall, whose feature film debut Chicago I loved (seriously, I will defend its win for Best Picture to the death). So what went wrong? Maybe it's a case of too many good things in one place, but make no mistake: something has gone terribly, terribly wrong here.

The film is an adaptation of the stage play that is itself an adaptation of Federico Fellini’s 8 ½ and follows director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) as he struggles to pull his next film together. Sets have been built, costumes are being made, screen tests are being performed, interviews about the impending work have been conducted; the only thing missing is a script. Contini is blocked, hindered by the failure of his most recent films and driven to distraction by the women in his life; he just can’t pull himself together long enough to find inspiration and put it down on paper.

Now, about those women: there’s his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), once a great actress but now just his support system; his mistress Carla (Penelope Cruz); his muse Claudia (Nicole Kidman); his confidante/wardrobe mistress Lilli (Judi Dench); his mother (Sophia Loren); and an American reporter (Kate Hudson) determined to get an exclusive, of sorts, with him. There is also Seraghina (Fergie), the local prostitute of his childhood memories who still sparks his imagination. Now, when I first saw the cast list for this film and read Day-Lewis, Cotillard, Cruz, Dench, Loren, Kidman, Hudson and Fergie, my first thought was something along the lines of, “one of these things is not like the others.” Let it be said, however, that Fergie’s brief time on screen the only time when the film really seems to come alive and her number, “Be Italian,” is the only one with any genuine fire in it (though Cruz gives it the old college try with “A Call From The Vatican”). The film’s biggest problem, ultimately, is that aside from “Be Italian,” none of the musical numbers is particularly memorable. Not a good sign for a musical.

The other problem, one which might not be so glaring if the music itself was stonger, is that the characters don't have much in the way of depth. We get to know Guido pretty well and Cotillard is given enough time to etch out a moderately distinct character (truth be told, the only resonant moments in the film are in the scenes between Day-Lewis and Cotillard), but the others are as thin as paper. In dress and manner Carla is the antithesis of Luisa - that's apparently all we need to know about her in order to understand her relationship with Guido. What is it about Claudia that inspires Guido so? What are we supposed to take away from Guido's flirtation with the sycophantic reporter? Nine depends on the audience to respond to the actors rather than the characters so that you fill in the blanks by saying, "Guido is drawn to Carla because she's Penelope Cruz; Guido is inspired by Claudia because she's Nicole Kidman; Guido flirts with the reporter because she's Kate Hudson; etc." This isn't the fault of the actors; it's because, metaphorically speaking, the film is too busy looking down at its feet and counting the steps to invest itself in the moment and create a genuine foundation for its glossy, beautiful surface. It all looks amazing but it never relaxes enough to become anything more than an assemblage of parts.

Structurally, Nine is quite similar to Chicago, with the musical numbers taking place on a stage in the imagination of the protagonist. This worked marvellously in the earlier film, but here it feels disruptive and a bit clunky. What's the difference? Roxie Hart was a spunky gal with delusions of grandeur; Guido Contini is a brooding genius who can't find happiness despite having everything available to him for the asking. Aside from the fact that Roxie is a more relatable/sympathetic character (everyone, at one point or another, has imagined being a "star" of some sort), there's also the fact that a story about wanting something has more and better energy than a story about having everything and still being unhappy. Chicago was fun and had a lot of bite to it; Nine is gloomy and kind of aimless - to be honest, there were times when I was actually quite bored with it. Like I said, it looks good (the cinematography, in particular, is gorgeous) and there are a few good moments scattered throughout (there would have to be with that much talent in front of and behind the camera), but it's ultimately a failure as a film.

Review: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

* * * *
Director: Philip Kaufman
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche, Lena Olin

"In the world of eternal return the weight of unbearable responsibility lies heavy on every move we make. That is why Nietzsche called the idea of eternal return the heaviest of burdens… the absolute absence of a burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant."
- Milan Kundera, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”

Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a surgeon living in Prague who has subscribed himself to a life of lightness, of accepting that nothing he does matters, that no thought or action has any real meaning. He carries on with various women, one of whom is Sabine (Lena Olin), an artist with whom he shares particular passion. One day he’s sent to a spa to perform an operation and meets Teresa (Juliette Binoche). Teresa follows him back to Prague and begins living with him, suddenly introducing a heaviness to his life by her need to ascribe meaning to everything. He continues to see other women, including Sabine, but eventually marries Teresa. When the tentative cultural and social freedom of Prague Spring comes to an end with the Soviet occupation, Sabine, Tomas and Teresa flee to Switzerland. For Teresa, life in Geneva is unbearable – she lacks the spiritual lightness that allows Tomas and Sabine to float above the troubles of the world – and she returns to Prague. Eventually, Tomas follows her.

Once back in Czechoslovakia, neither can leave again because the Russians confiscate their passports. Tomas, a respected brain surgeon, is unable to practice medicine due to his refusal to sign a declaration retracting an article he had written before the occupation, calling out the corruption of the Communist regime. He becomes a window washer, he continues to womanize – in spite of everything, his philosophy has remained intact. Teresa, on the other hand, continues to be heavy, too affected by all that goes on around her.

I find that the problem with many “historical” films is that the filmmakers are often less interested in their characters than they are in a particular event from history. The result of this is that the protagonist becomes a thinly developed means of exploring an event, which in turn depletes the resonance of that event because to care about it you have to care about and identify with the character through whose eyes you’re seeing it. This film gets it right, emphasizing the characters over the plot and allowing the characters to be slowly and fully developed, rather than just setting them up and tossing them into political turmoil and upheaval. It also helps that the three principles are played by three really great actors, each at the top of their game.

Since Tomas exists so far above everything that’s going on, much of the tumult is expressed through Teresa, who feels everything so deeply. She’s a photographer who goes to great lengths to capture the Soviet invasion only to get some of those photos to Geneva and be told that the invasion is yesterday’s news – it doesn’t matter, which Tomas knows and accepts because he can accept that nothing matters, but which Teresa can’t bear. The great conflict between the two – aside from the obvious monogamy issue – is that he can just allow everything to roll off his back while those same things pierce her to the very core.

There’s a great deal of eroticism in this film – between Tomas and Sabine, Tomas and Teresa, and between Teresa and Sabine – all of it carefully constructed and skilfully carried out. Generally speaking, there’s a lot of sex in movies but so little genuine eroticism that it almost seems strange when seen here. It’s a sexy movie in a way that you don’t often see, in that it explores sex and sexuality in a serious way, weaving it into the philosophical themes of the story, rather than just tossing in a few sex scenes simply for the sake of having some nudity like so many other movies do. It’s one of the many facets of the film that raises it above and beyond many others.

Review: There Will Be Blood

As his name suggests, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a man of singular purpose, and There Will Be Blood follows him towards the end in a similar fashion. The film and its protagonist are unapologetic and unrepentant in pursuit of their goals. This is a film devoid of warmth; it’s characters are isolated, somehow, from each other. They know each other, but there’s no real human connection that binds them to each other – they’re not unlike characters from an Ayn Rand novel that way. What we're presented with here is an ugly and depressing view of the world, but one shown to us with such technical brilliance that in the end it’s as excellent as it is gloomy.

The film opens with Plainview mining for silver by himself in the middle of nowhere. He falls down the shaft and breaks his leg and manages not only to haul himself out, but to drag himself to the nearest settlement. This opening section tells you everything you need to know about the character’s relentlessness and tenacity. He is a man who simply will not stop. The film then flashes forward four years. Plainview is now working with other men to mine for silver, accidentally finding oil. One of the men dies and Plainview takes it on himself to care for the man’s infant son, whom he will raise as his own. Ten years later, he and the boy (whom he calls H.W., played wonderfully by Dillon Freasier) are looking to expand their enterprise and find more land to drill on. Plainview is approached by Paul Sunday (Paul Dano), who informs him that his family’s land and the surrounding area is rich in oil. Plainview and H.W. go there and find that oil is literally bleeding out of the land. Plainview begins making plans to buy up the land, drill it and get rich, and finds his progress at every point impeded somehow by Eli Sunday (also played by Dano), the local preacher.

Plainview’s purpose isn’t getting rich. He does want that, but only as a means of isolating himself further from other people, whom he sees as weak and detestable. What Plainview really wants is not necessarily his own success, but rather the failure of the people around him. “I have a competition in me,” he says, “I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people… I want to rule and never, ever explain myself. I’ve built up my hatreds over the years, little by little.” The performance by Day-Lewis is mesmerizing as he embodies this absolutely hateful and demonic character. This is a man who ultimately feels nothing for other people, even the boy he calls his son. There is an accident early in the film which leaves H.W. deaf. Plainview is quick to run out to save him from further harm, but just as quickly abandons him to get back to the business at hand – his oil. His right hand man, Fletcher (Ciaran Hinds) stands beside him, watching an oil derrick burn, and asks if H.W. is all right. “No,” Plainview replies without emotion. Fletcher disappears to see to H.W., but Plainview stays where he is. Later, a man claiming to be Plainview’s brother (Kevin O’Connor) shows up. Plainview sends H.W. away to San Fransisco (doing so by abandoning him on a train) and sets the brother up in H.W.’s place as his companion and witness. His interactions with H.W. and Henry, the brother, show us that he’s not so much lonely and in need of companionship, but rather desirous of an audience.

Plainview’s best interactions are with Eli, a preacher of incredible fervour who is not exactly what he seems. Their relationship is always shifting, always on the verge of erupting. Eli finds a way to make Plainview bend to his will by submitting to be baptized by Eli in his church, which involves Eli slapping the sin out of Plainview before he’s officially “saved.” Eli thinks he’s won, but really this is nothing to Plainview other than one more perfectly surmountable obstacle to his ultimate goal. Years later, Eli and Plainview will meet again for the last time, and Plainview will show him how completely and utterly he’s “won” and then will delight in destroying what's left of Eli. The last scene of this film is alternately frightening, gruesome, and kind of funny (personally, I will never look at a milkshake the same way again). The Plainview we see in the film's final scenes is someone now as physically twisted as he is mentally twisted.

What’s startling about this film is the way that it defies expectations. We don’t expect a character like Plainview to “win” and live happily (which he does, in so far as his goal was to separate himself from the world and he ends the film master of a cavernous and forbidding mansion). One of my favourite shots in the film plays on audience expectation: in the center of the shot are railroad tracks leading into the distance. The expectation is that we’ll see a train coming along them but instead, off to the right, a car emerges down an unpaved road and the camera turns from the tracks to follow it. It’s a simple thing, but also brilliant.

There Will Be Blood is a masterpiece on every level. The cinematography and score are excellent, the pacing is brisk (it clocks in at about two and half hours but doesn’t feel like it), and the direction is masterful. The acting, too, is excellent, especially the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. If he doesn’t win an Oscar for this role, something is very, very wrong.