However, I do maintain that eliminating all nuance and saying it’s a love story about poisoning is (if you’ve seen it several times, perhaps purposely) reductive to the point of misrepresentation.
It’s a film that is good because it is so subtle and nuanced imo. Remove that aspect and it’s just a boring film.
If I had to describe it myself… (Spoilers below)
It’s a film about a man who is so in love with this woman/muse (whom he believes he needs to continue his craft) that he is willing to silently accept her slowly poisoning him when he discovers that she is. He is so devoted to his craft, and he realizes (or just believes) that as his muse, he will not be able to continue his work without her (which to him is basically death).
So he has to decide that he’s willing to quietly withstand the slow poisoning so that he can continue to “live” (through his dressmaking, which is his life), rather than leaving her and “losing his life” (i.e., his ability to work as a world class dressmaker). Knowing that it will literally kill him.
Then there’s the whole thing of like, does she know that he knows? Is this some twisted lovers dance for these two?
See? Much more than just “a love story about poisoning”
Again, I haven’t seen it in years so this is all from memory, but I thought it was a great story and it was only enhanced by P.T. Anderson’s direction, and Daniel Day Lewis’ performance.
C’mon, there are a million movies about every other element of the movie - the successful man falling in love with a beautiful young woman, the jealous confidant/ family member who gets in the way, trying to warm up a cold personality, May/ December romance, etc.
The REAL element that separates it from every other fish-out-of-water romance, is the Poison aspect. That’s what makes the movie unique, so focusing on it isn’t reductive at all. In fact, ignoring that as a prime element is disengenuous. Perhaps it is a twist that shouldn’t be revealed in advance, but it is a major part of the plot from fairly early in the film, so I would say the real twist comes at the end.
Its not how i “view films,” it’s how i view THAT film. I am under no obligation to view films in the same way you, or anyone else does. I am allowed to have my own opinion about them, without seeking anyone else’s approval.
Take your pretentious condescension some where else.
You can reduce literally any film to one sentence that makes it sound stupid.
“Citizen Kane is stupid, its a story about a rich guy who really liked his sled.”
Even still… oversimplification aside, I don’t see anything inherently stupid about “a love story about poisoning”
I find the basic premise to be too implausible to be entertaining.
Did you watch the film, or…?
Multiple times. It has not grown on me.
Fair enough.
However, I do maintain that eliminating all nuance and saying it’s a love story about poisoning is (if you’ve seen it several times, perhaps purposely) reductive to the point of misrepresentation.
It’s a film that is good because it is so subtle and nuanced imo. Remove that aspect and it’s just a boring film.
If I had to describe it myself… (Spoilers below)
It’s a film about a man who is so in love with this woman/muse (whom he believes he needs to continue his craft) that he is willing to silently accept her slowly poisoning him when he discovers that she is. He is so devoted to his craft, and he realizes (or just believes) that as his muse, he will not be able to continue his work without her (which to him is basically death).
So he has to decide that he’s willing to quietly withstand the slow poisoning so that he can continue to “live” (through his dressmaking, which is his life), rather than leaving her and “losing his life” (i.e., his ability to work as a world class dressmaker). Knowing that it will literally kill him.
Then there’s the whole thing of like, does she know that he knows? Is this some twisted lovers dance for these two?
See? Much more than just “a love story about poisoning”
Again, I haven’t seen it in years so this is all from memory, but I thought it was a great story and it was only enhanced by P.T. Anderson’s direction, and Daniel Day Lewis’ performance.
C’mon, there are a million movies about every other element of the movie - the successful man falling in love with a beautiful young woman, the jealous confidant/ family member who gets in the way, trying to warm up a cold personality, May/ December romance, etc.
The REAL element that separates it from every other fish-out-of-water romance, is the Poison aspect. That’s what makes the movie unique, so focusing on it isn’t reductive at all. In fact, ignoring that as a prime element is disengenuous. Perhaps it is a twist that shouldn’t be revealed in advance, but it is a major part of the plot from fairly early in the film, so I would say the real twist comes at the end.
What a strange way to view films. Good luck to you.
Its not how i “view films,” it’s how i view THAT film. I am under no obligation to view films in the same way you, or anyone else does. I am allowed to have my own opinion about them, without seeking anyone else’s approval.
Take your pretentious condescension some where else.
How the fuck was I being pretentious or condescending? The fuck dude?