Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not a lot of info yet, but still exciting.

Quote

Universal and Focus Features won a worldwide rights auction for an untitled film that Paul Thomas Anderson wrote and will direct, re-teaming him with There Will Be Blood star Daniel Day-Lewis. Focus won the deal after a ferocious bidding battle with Fox Searchlight. The deal puts the lie to press reports speculating that buyer appetite has vanished going into Toronto.

...

The new PT Anderson picture is set in the fashion world in London in the 1950s, and the plan is to start production early next year and release it in late 2017.

 

Edited by Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to his spokeswoman in a statement to Variety it is, but you never know...maybe he changes his mind eventually. Of course he could be like Sean Connery, who actually kept his retirement surprisingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Connery turned 73 the year that his last film (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) came out, whereas Day-Lewis is currently 60, so... I guess that's not *too* big a gap, but I do think Connery's commitment to his retirement is not that surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is officially Phantom Thread. The first trailer:

And the first poster:

image.png.53b136e0a0b484bf2004edafb1974f76.png

Edited by Joel Mayward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this is the first time PTA has ventured out of America in his subject matter. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally saw this last night, and it's exquisite. The kind of film I immediately wanted to rewatch as soon as it ended, as I wanted to revisit the story and characters, as well as better appreciate the beauty of the environments and costumes. And the Jonny Greenwood score is magnificent. I hope to write a full review, but as an initial reaction, it seems PTA-and-DDL films are *much* more interesting to me than PTA and Joaquin Phoenix.

Edited by Joel Mayward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really loved it as well.  A few bits of dialogue rang false, and I thought the 4th act dragged a little, but otherwise all the pieces clicked wonderfully.  The Jonny Greenwood score is gorgeous, probably the best thing I've heard at the movies in 12 months.  And the dark humor, especially in the second half, was delectable.  I'm glad that Day-Lewis and Manville got their Oscar noms, but Krieps deserved one as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked it too. Rich dialog and visual elements. The tension within controlled conversations was intense, no screaming or bullets.

The period seemed older than the 1950s though, by visual setting, use of sepia, soft looks. And by language like mention of 'chic' as a word and as a fashion choice, suggesting its cultural presence was new, but the word was in use long before the 1950s. And then use of the F-word suggested a more modern tham 50s time. But those time elements do not take anything away, just make an abstract dimension or give it an undercurrent of being a work of fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike_tn wrote:
: And then use of the F-word suggested a more modern tham 50s time.

The f-word is centuries old. Is there a particular *way* it was used here that felt anachronistic for the 1950s? (Have you heard the story about J.R.R. Tolkien reading sections of The Lord of the Rings to the Inklings before it was published in the 1950s, and one of the Inklings exclaiming "Not another f---ing elf!"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

Is there a particular *way* it was used here that felt anachronistic for the 1950s?

No particular way, just its significant use throughout this movie struck me. I was not familiar with the history of that word use when I posted. Regarding Tolkien, I had not heard of your reference. Funny. Characters using the F-word, hearing it, gestures, don't bother me. My point of view above is probably biased/uninformed and was more a recognition of word use in old vs new film. Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike_tn wrote:
: My point of view above is probably biased/uninformed and was more a recognition of word use in old vs new film.

Yeah, movies were generally censored back in the '50s to eliminate stuff like that. You could barely even say words like "damn" and "hell". But these words did exist in the language at that time. (Military expressions like "FUBAR" and "SNAFU" -- which were very popular during World War II, if not earlier -- were based on expressions like "F---ed Up Beyond All Recognition" and "Situation Normal All F---ed Up", respectively. And that was in the 1940s, the decade before this film is set.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's keeping history lessons interesting. And I always thought foobar use was rooted in program codes but they probably got it from the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mik_tn wrote:
: I always thought foobar use was rooted in program codes but they probably got it from the military.

I vaguely recall that the soldiers in Saving Private Ryan said "FUBAR" a lot. I can't recall any other World War II movies that have used the expression, though I was familiar with it before I saw that movie (partly because I was already a fan of books like Jesse Sheidlower's The F Word, which catalogues all the ways that the f-word has been used over the centuries).

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×