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.
Being dismissive of my contradictory opinion, and characterizing the way i view films in general as “strange,” just because i dont see them the same as you, is pretentious. I noticed you didnt question the word “condescension” though.
I was asked to defend my opinion of a specific film, and i did, and was called “strange” for it. I didn’t knock anyone else for having an alternative opinion, they are perfectly entitled to it.
Pretention/ condescension is a common occurence in films, and all other art forms. My son, a very knowledgable cinephile, is guilty of it all the time, and i call him out on it regularly (he LOVES Phantom Thread). I have a degree in music history, and have fought against pretention/ condescension in the classical music world as well, where it is rampant. I think non-classical music should be held to the same standards as classical music, and embraced by the classical community when it succeeds. Progress has been made in the last 50-60 years, with acceptance of jazz and Broadway composition, but still has a long way to go for rock and pop music.
I dont like snootiness in any form. One the reasons i appreciate artist Roy Lichtenstein so much is because he elevated the use of comic book art techniques to be “high art.”
I’m old now, but when i was young, i deliberately made the decision to not be dogmatic about art, and support democratizing it for everyone without compromising the quality. The main thing that keeps most people from exploring higher forms of art, is the chance that their perfectly valid opinion on something will be criticized by some pretentious gatekeeper, and make them feel humiliated.
Eh, maybe you’re right, maybe the way I view the entire art world is strange. If it is, I find it liberating. More people should try it.
Or, I dunno, maybe you should re-read this thread without the bizarre condescension that you seem to be adding yourself. Nothing I said was pretentious or condescending, and the fact that you’re behaving this way says more about you than me.
I didn’t even bring up the fact that you apparently watched a film that you seemingly despise “multiple times.” That’s kind of weird, dude.
I watched it multiple times because in a democratic household, I occasionally lose the vote for what we watch, and in the interest of family unity, i accept my fate.
I don’t think you know what condescension is. I am not trying to show my superiority in undetstanding art, i would like people who are afraid of art because of the sense of being judged to ignore the snooty gatekeepers, and learn how wonderful it is - while not dumbing it down at the same time.
Over my lifetime, i have helped many people learn to see art without fear of humiliation. I didn’t do that by being condescending and pretentious, and insisting they see art my a specific way. I did it by being welcoming and encouraging them to embrace their own opinions as valid, and not tell them that they have “a strange view of films.” That’s gate-keeping behavior, and i always push back against it. That doesn’t make me condescending, just the opposite.
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?
Being dismissive of my contradictory opinion, and characterizing the way i view films in general as “strange,” just because i dont see them the same as you, is pretentious. I noticed you didnt question the word “condescension” though.
I was asked to defend my opinion of a specific film, and i did, and was called “strange” for it. I didn’t knock anyone else for having an alternative opinion, they are perfectly entitled to it.
Pretention/ condescension is a common occurence in films, and all other art forms. My son, a very knowledgable cinephile, is guilty of it all the time, and i call him out on it regularly (he LOVES Phantom Thread). I have a degree in music history, and have fought against pretention/ condescension in the classical music world as well, where it is rampant. I think non-classical music should be held to the same standards as classical music, and embraced by the classical community when it succeeds. Progress has been made in the last 50-60 years, with acceptance of jazz and Broadway composition, but still has a long way to go for rock and pop music.
I dont like snootiness in any form. One the reasons i appreciate artist Roy Lichtenstein so much is because he elevated the use of comic book art techniques to be “high art.”
I’m old now, but when i was young, i deliberately made the decision to not be dogmatic about art, and support democratizing it for everyone without compromising the quality. The main thing that keeps most people from exploring higher forms of art, is the chance that their perfectly valid opinion on something will be criticized by some pretentious gatekeeper, and make them feel humiliated.
Eh, maybe you’re right, maybe the way I view the entire art world is strange. If it is, I find it liberating. More people should try it.
Or, I dunno, maybe you should re-read this thread without the bizarre condescension that you seem to be adding yourself. Nothing I said was pretentious or condescending, and the fact that you’re behaving this way says more about you than me.
I didn’t even bring up the fact that you apparently watched a film that you seemingly despise “multiple times.” That’s kind of weird, dude.
I watched it multiple times because in a democratic household, I occasionally lose the vote for what we watch, and in the interest of family unity, i accept my fate.
I don’t think you know what condescension is. I am not trying to show my superiority in undetstanding art, i would like people who are afraid of art because of the sense of being judged to ignore the snooty gatekeepers, and learn how wonderful it is - while not dumbing it down at the same time.
Over my lifetime, i have helped many people learn to see art without fear of humiliation. I didn’t do that by being condescending and pretentious, and insisting they see art my a specific way. I did it by being welcoming and encouraging them to embrace their own opinions as valid, and not tell them that they have “a strange view of films.” That’s gate-keeping behavior, and i always push back against it. That doesn’t make me condescending, just the opposite.