Phantom Thread

Daniel Day-Lewis is Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper.  Obsessed with designing his 50's era high fashion dresses for regal, important people, the only person whom he can stand to have around him is his own sister.  He notices a waitress one day and asks her on a date that is inexplicably as sensual as possible, from beginning to...end.  Well, not until end.  The end turned very business-like.  I'll be honest, this first act of the movie made me feel very uncomfortable, because I couldn't understand the chemistry between the two characters and it came off as creepy.  The only reason why I could possibly imagine that Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper might have found the waitress worth noting is because she bears a passing resemblance to a younger Meryl Streep.  Day-Lewis and Streep have never shared the screen together, and with him retiring, I suppose that this is as close as you'll ever get to that.

The movie doesn't have much in way of plot.  Not a lot happens, and it moves slowly.  It progresses through a series of scenes that build up the drama and the tension between the characters.  Young Streep really likes Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper, but Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper hates it when she does anything that distracts him from designing dresses.  The drama comes from how she will go way out of her comfort zone for him, but he isn't willing to make any sacrifices for her.  Paul Thomas Anderson explores the odd, unconventional way in which this romance works, until it eventually takes on its final form.  I won't give away the ending, but obviously the relationship either works or it doesn't.

The main takeaways from this film include its cinematography, its music, and its performances, all the signs of a talented director.  Anderson never makes hit movies and has a niche audience of fans, but I understand their loyalty.  He only ever makes his passion projects and his directing and storytelling is almost the definition of what you expect from an Oscar winner.

The cinematography reminds me, incidentally, of another Oscar-nominated film — that actually has Streep in it.  The colors and lighting remind me a bit of The Post, and it's shot on film.  70mm film, just to be as fancy as possible.  Give me 70mm film over any special effect any day.  Like Spielberg, Anderson will never settle for a shot that doesn't challenge the viewer in some way, that doesn't uniquely frame the action in an engaging manner, while also keeping it subtle.

The music feels like what you get when you go to a piano concert with your grandmother.  At times I thought that this was older sheet music that predated film, because it sounded like it was designed specifically for a recital, and Anderson thought that it happened to work with his movie.  It doesn't sound like it works around the scene, and much like Hans Zimmer's score for Dunkirk, it moves the film along in a montage-like feel.  The Academy nominated it for an Oscar, and rightfully so.  It stands out on its own, with a fully realized identity, while also reflecting the peculiarity and stiffness of the setting.  This is definitely one of those scores that's worth buying, especially enthusiasts of piano, violin, and cello, and I would listen to it for recreation.  If I could play these instruments, I would even buy the sheet music.  It's almost as good as The Shape of Water — my opinion that the latter deserves the Oscar still stands.

Then, of course, there are the performances.  Daniel Day-Lewis didn't become unrecognizable in this movie as he has in others, but he still brings no outside persona with him that distracts from the performance.  His textbook-definition INTJ may belong to a simple archetype, but he manages to give him such a distinct, memorable persona that feels fully fleshed out, and you can tell that he method-acted his way into this character.  There aren't too many times when I can tell that someone method-acted, and that it paid off, but I can tell here, somehow.  You don't just flip a switch and become a character that feels this lived-in.

With that having been said, the fresher, more surprising performance comes from his co-star, Luxembourgian actress Vicky Krieps.  She rose to the occasion and held her own as a character who managed to be just as captivating as her male counterpart without having to be anywhere near as extreme.  In this movie, people rarely ever communicate what they're thinking, and Krieps manages to convey her character's state with just the right amount of clarity and just the right amount of mystery.  She did an amazing job.  Actually, this leads into a rant.

The Academy always nominating Meryl Streep is sexist.  They will nominate her when she's on auto-pilot.  It says that they don't think that there are really any good female performances out there that are worthy of acknowledging.  I would have just about anyone replace Streep who delivered an interesting performance.  I said Gal Gadot should have been nominated in her place because of how she managed to fill the boots of a worldwide cultural icon that many fans have strong opinions of, and satisfy almost everyone with her performance.  I still stand by that, and Gal Gadot is still my personal pick for Best Actress.  However, seeing this actress, Vicky Krieps, playing a Young Streep, it makes me realize just how prejudiced the Academy is against female talent, because Krieps delivers exactly the kind of performance that they like to reward, a performance of Streepian excellence, that's much fresher than anything Streep has done lately, and yet they hand it to Streep anyway because they don't really want to acknowledge the incredible depth of talent that's out there.  Way to go, Academy.

Lesley Manville also gathered some attention for her performance as Jordan Peterson possessed by Sheldon Cooper's sister, and while it stands as a respectable performance, it doesn't stand out as a respectable performance.

The sound editing deserves some mention as well, if however brief.  I noticed its genius at several points, but it did an astounding job of telling a crucial part of the story during the turning point where the characters reach their epiphany about what they will do with their relationship.

My overall impression: directed with the same meticulous attention to detail as its main character, Paul Thomas Anderson sews together a moody piece about a challenging love affair from a different time period, which should remind many viewers of Victorian romance novels.

Game Night

Best comedy I've seen in a while.  Re-watchable.  This movie doesn't  waste a single beat, and every single detail is relevant.  You never wonder, "Why did this have to happen?"  You know how Youtube a film critics watch a major blockbuster, and they think that a certain scene is pointless, or a certain character, or whatever?  Every part of the writing has a point in being there, some sort of payoff.  I had a lot of fun guessing what might have been going on the whole time, and I'm satisfied with all of their twists.

This movie makes me really want to set up a regular game night with friends, just like the characters.  Who are all great characters, I might add.  I'm very glad that I watched this.  Anyone who sees the trailer and thinks that it looks interesting will like it.

The Shape of Water

Guillermo del Toro is basically kind of a demented Jim Henson. He likes telling fairytales, and he even tells them in a very fairytale sort of manner with the dreamy way that he directs, but he also adds a sinister side that makes you wonder whether or not he's disturbed. Overall, I'd say that The Shape of Water is a bit more feel-good than his average fairytale. In a nutshell, it's basically Beauty and the Beast but with the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and it has the same positive feelings that come from that tale.

While the story isn't original, it's very well-edited. No scene lasts too long, and each segment of the story lingers for just the right amount of time before moving on to the next segment. Guillermo uses some clever editing techniques within each scene that makes them flow more and really relax the audience. In the third act, something happens that reminds me of last year's La La Land. Overall, he knows all of the tools that even most seasons pros don't always learn. He also understands his cinematography like few people do, giving his movie a deep, rich color pallet that doesn't call attention to itself (as a Wes Anderson production might), but will mesmerize most viewers without them understanding why. He uses some great long takes, and finds great ways of moving and framing his camera. The film score by Desplat swept me away to another plane of blissful existence. The production designs facilitate the flow and the color of the cinematography, and feel just detached from reality enough that this movie exists in its own world. The characters are written in just the right way to make a unique impression and also seamlessly blend in with the story. It helps that every single actor knocked it out of the park. Guillermo's been nominated for Best Director because of this film, and I think that he's the leading candidate for winning, because of how well he puts together all of these elements to serve a film with a solid, difficult-to-replicate identity. Fittingly, the end product is very fluid.

Throughout the movie, I got this nostalgic feel for some old movies from my childhood, and although I haven't seen it since I was around six years old, I have a vague memory of Babe: Pig in the City using similar cinematic language as this. Something also reminded me of Ratatouille, Edward Scissorhands, James and the Giant Peach, and Matilda, and a few other captivating children's films with that very particular atmosphere. However, take all of those and add a hard R rating. It covers themes of sexuality extensively, and of course delivers on some of those themes visually. I appreciate the artistry behind it, as does del Toro's base, but most people I know are not very comfortable with seeing too much of that onscreen. There's also some very disturbing gore. It doesn't reach Mel Gibson levels, but in some ways that makes it worse, because it's easier to imagine the pain that the characters go through. Anyone who has worked in an industrial environment might find themselves immediately familiar with the character who loses two fingers and has to get them sewn back on, only to develop a painful infection. My mother once had a fishhook caught in her eyelid and would take no pleasure in the scene where a character gets dragged across the ground when someone hooks a finger through a bullet-hole in his cheek. Also, there's swearing, but I think that this should be the least of anyone's concerns at this point. If you want something that has childlike creativity but also exists in a very adult world, this movie works quite well to that end.

One last thing that I should mention: the credits acknowledges the Triple Crown of OCD Directors for lending a helping hand in the filmmaking process: Cameron, Cuarón, and Iñárritu. Guillermo is in good company, and I personally think that this 2010's decade should continue in the trend of acknowledging the talents of the great and surreal Mexican directors who have proven to be some of the greatest dreamers of cinema.