Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis reunite after There Will Be Blood for period drama Phantom Thread.
In 1950s London, Reynolds Woodcock is a dressmaker extraordinaire, clothing countesses and foreign royalty in elegant gowns. When he meets Alma, a waitress at a local hotel, he falls for her, with Alma becoming his inspiration and eventually his lover. However, he finds that his routine is disrupted by the presence of this young woman in his house. He tries to mould Alma into his ideal, but Alma is not the pliant and compliant little mouse he thinks she is. An interesting power struggle ensues, where it's not entirely certain who has the upper hand...
Reynolds could quite easily have been a caricature, a fastidious little fusspot, but in the hands of a master like Daniel Day-Lewis, he becomes a much more complex character. Whilst his obsession with Alma and his desire to make her what he wants to be is occasionally uncomfortable, thankfully it never gets into Christian Grey territory (also because there's an equal amount of power play happening between the two characters; it's not all one-sided). There's a lot of humour to Day-Lewis' performance, and seeing this very exacting men gettiing rattled by the changes in his routine is amusing. If this is Day-Lewis' final film (as he has said it is), it's a strong performance to go out on.
Vicky Krieps (Hanna, A Most Wanted Man) is a revelation as Alma. Originally a clumsy, gauche young woman, she soon grows into a much more rounded figure; it's Alma who (in one of the film's funniest scenes) demands the return of a dress from a client who has disgraced herself. Similarly towards the end of the film, it's Alma's scheme that takes central stage. There's also a powerful argument between Reynolds and Alma, after Alma has made him a surprise dinner, in which she shows that she's not that quiet little girl any more. Even when the film takes a strange turn at the end, her performance remains magnetic.
I'll be honest, I was surprised to see Lesley Manville's name included in the Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominees; her inclusion at the BAFTAs wasn't so much of a surprise as she is a British actress and BAFTA do tend to favour home talent. Having now seen the film, I can confirm that my surprise was completely unfounded. She is superb as Reynolds' sister, business partner, and confidante Cyril. Ready with a waspish comment and fiercely protective of Reynolds, Cyril almost acts as his handler, ensuring that he can work undisturbed. There's also an intriguing ambiguity over Cyril's feelings towards Alma; after an uncomfortable first encounter, the relationship mellows somewhat to Cyril admitting she's 'fond' of her. Is there more to it than that? It's never explicitly stated which adds an interesting view to the character.
As you can imagine in a film about dressmaking and fashion, the costume design of the film is absolutely ravishing, for which designer Mark Bridges is to be commended. There's also some interesting sound design going on, where simple acts such as pouring a glass or water or buttering toast takes on an almost excruciating meaning.
My main issue with the film comes in the last five minutes, and yet again, it's another example of the ending undermining all the good work done before it. Reynolds' actions towards the end of the film just don't ring right with the character that's been set up before; I understand that characters change (and should) but it feels like a step too far. I may have misjudged or misread the ending, but to me, it just didn't work. A shame, because up to that point, I'd found myself quite enchanted by the film.
Phantom Thread is worth seeing for its sublime costumes and a trio of superlative performances, but perhaps don't pull at the threads too much lest the whole thing fall apart.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Tez
A biopic of famed English painter J.M.W. Turner might not, at first glance, seem like the most likely subject for director Mike Leigh to take on. Leigh is known for his improvisational films dealing with contemporary issues, but- as films like Topsy-Turvy and Vera Drake show- he is comfortable in a period setting.
Mr. Turner follows the last quarter century of Turner's life, from his life in London with his beloved father, William Sr, (Paul Jesson) and housekeeper Hannah Danby (Dorothy Atkinson), to his relationship later in life with Sophia Booth, a widowed Margate landlady (Marion Bailey). It's episodic in nature but held together by a remarkable central performance by Timothy Spall as the titular Turner.
Spall won the Best Actor award at this year's Cannes Film Festival and it's not difficult to see why. He totally inhabits the role and yet gives such a grounded and unshowy performance. Turner is undeniably a brilliant painter but quite a rough character, concerned with his art and little else. He barely acknowledges his illegitimate daughters, giving them little more than the most perfunctory of attentions (in one of the funniest scenes of the film). He uses Hannah for his own gratification but doesn't seem to care much for her. However, there are moments of levity- his relationship with his father is nicely done (the interplay between Spall and Jesson is great and their relationship is believable), he seems the life and soul of the Royal Academy of Arts and there is a lovely understated nature to his relationship with Sophia. There's also a tremendous scene toward the end of the film where he rebuffs the offer of a private seller which is just a brilliant moment. Is Spall's performance worthy of an Oscar nomination? I'm not sure, but it is certainly one of the best given by one of Britain's most underrated actors.
Other performances are similarly strong: Jesson, Atkinson and Bailey all give great performances as the most important people in Turner's life. Lesley Manville is great in a cameo role as natural scientist Mary Somerville (who Turner helps with an experiment on light refraction) whilst David Horovitch gives a good turn as Turner's doctor.
Leigh's script is absolutely loquacious with long, intricate sentences for even the most basic of social greetings. It's initially quite tough to cope with but you soon get into the flow of speech. The film is a real feast for the eyes. Dick Pope's cinematography is just spectacular, with luscious shots of landscapes, seas and towns that is just sublime. All the costumes are similarly exquisite.
It occasionally veers into the indulgent and there are some scenes that feel a little extraneous, padding up the running time to two-and-a-half hours. I feel a ittle judicious cutting would not have gone amiss- for example, a scene where Turner sits through an excruciating conversation about gooseberries could easily go- and the impact of the film would not be lost. That said, it's a handsome film and a great performance by Spall so it's definitely worth your time.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
We all know the story of Sleeping Beauty, right? Beautiful princess cursed by evil fairy to prick her finger on a spinning wheel and sleep til true love's kiss awakens her. But what about that evil fairy? What's her story? And it could it be that the truth, as we know it, is not the truth at all? This is the premise behind Disney's Maleficent. It tells the untold story of the evil fairy and why she did what she did. Basically, Maleficent does for Sleeping Beauty what Wicked did for The Wizard Of Oz.
Angelina Jolie really sinks her teeth into the central role, and you can tell she's really enjoying herself. The performance is high camp in places, but it's not played for laughs or played broadly or like something you'd find in the local amateur dramatics society annual pantomime. The scene where she gatecrashes the christening is just sublime- Jolie looks fantastic (the costume team have done a brilliant job) and relishes her waspish dialogue. It's a thoroughly committed performance throughout and the most important thing is that you actually sympathise (or empathise) with her- she's driven to do what she does after she's comprehensively shafted by Stefan.
The adult Stefan is played by District 9's Sharlto Copley who gives a decent enough performance, even if his sink into obsession and paranoia occasionally brushes into the melodramatic. Elle Fanning plays the teenage Aurora, a naive, sweet girl who veers to the side of saccharine occasionally but isn't merely a simpering, whimpering child (which is good). There's comic relief in the form of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple as the trio of good fairies charged to look after Aurora and keep her away from Maleficent's evil. I also particularly enjoyed the performance by Sam Riley as Maleficent's henchman Diaval, occasionally acting as her conscience and advisor.
So performance-wise, it's all pretty good. The script by Linda Woolverton (inspired by Disney's 1959 version and the original Perrault and Grimm fairytales) is pretty solid. There's exposition a-plenty on how Maleficent becomes seen as evil and nothing feels rushed, despite a relatively short screentime of 97 minutes. The main theme is one of female emancipation and empowerment, which is very refreshing to see. It's just a poor matter of timing that Frozen is still laround (and which contains a very similar theme). I'm not judging Maleficent too strongly on that because, as we have previously seen, twin films come along quite often.
However, there are a few flies in the ointment. Whilst director Robert Stromberg has a good eye for an epic shot, the action sequences are dreadfully shot, with muddy and shaky camerawork which really undermines what's going on. The CGI on some of the faerie creatures leaves a bit to be desired (looking like rejects from Harry Potter). Unfortunately, fantasy has been done many times since The Lord Of The Rings and has been done better. It's perfectly fine but there's nothing particularly innovative in the effects (and, as usual, 3D doesn't add much apart from a bit of depth of field).
I will be honest, I didn't go into Maleficent with the highest of expectation. Disappointing films like Snow White And The Huntsman and Oz: The Great And Powerful have meant I've lowered my expectations for revisionist fantasy tales but I was pleasantly surprised to find Maleficent was better than I expected. It's a thoroughly decent film with a strong central performance by Jolie.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Tez
