Jenny finds Anderson's film frivolous but worth 4 stars
Paul Thomas Anderson's films have often been about struggles for
control and their disastrous consequences, as in There Will Be Blood, or The
Master. This one is no different except that the struggle is between the
pettish, self-absorbed bully, Reynolds
Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Alma, the
young waitress half his age (Vicky Krieps) whom he picks up when temporarily running
away from his life in London and perhaps also from his fierce sister, Cyril, an
absolute star turn from Lesley Manville.
It is the 1950s and Reynolds makes showy frocks for rich middle aged
women who need to display their wealth at society balls. He secretly despises
his clients unless they are young, beautiful and royal. He lives with his
sister in his Mayfair atelier where there has been a long line of young women
to service his sexual needs. When, inevitably, they bore or irritate him, Cyril
coolly sacks them.
This first act is easily the best part of the film. Day-Lewis’s luminous, handsome face is matched by the unaffected smiles of Alma who seems simultaneously plain and beautiful. Day-Lewis cleverly gives Reynolds a too-careful way of speaking, hinting perhaps at someone whose social origins are more lowly than he likes to admit. I was caught up in the plot here, underestimating Alma, wanting to shout, ‘Don’t do it! He’s far too old for you!’ thinking that we were in for yet another film where the appalling behaviour of a man to a woman is excused on the grounds of his supposed ‘genius’. I should have been warned. Early on in their relationship she tells him confidently that if he thinks he’s engaged in a staring match (he is) she can outstare him – and she does.
Now it gets complicated. Is this film one long secret comedy
homage to Hitchcock’s Rebecca?
Possibly. Alma was the name of Hitchcock’s wife. The character’s name, Reynolds
Woodcock – a joke maybe and a play on Hitchcock? Early on we see Reynolds
carefully clipping away nostril and ear hair: his grooming must of course be
perfect and there was sniggering all round in the audience when I saw it. Then there
is his ambiguous sexuality, where he drawls the claim that is he a ‘confirmed
bachelor’, echoing Laurence Olivier’s Max de Winter whose is-he-isn’t-he
sexuality was lightly disguised in 1940 along with Hitch getting away with what
now seem blatant references to the lesbianism of Mrs Danvers. Lesley Manville
as Cyril - note, no effort made to feminize her name - is a shoe-in for Judith
Anderson in Hitchcock’s film, same hairstyle, same dress, same scary frown.
There is the same obsession with clothing and underwear and the same Gothic melodrama. The film also has echoes of Joseph Losey’s gripping 1963 classic The Servant where master and servant inexorably swop roles and in fact Day Lewis’s Woodcock has more than a passing resemblance to James Fox’s Tony.
There is the same obsession with clothing and underwear and the same Gothic melodrama. The film also has echoes of Joseph Losey’s gripping 1963 classic The Servant where master and servant inexorably swop roles and in fact Day Lewis’s Woodcock has more than a passing resemblance to James Fox’s Tony.
This film is about co-dependence; it’s about male frailty
and the inability of this particular man to love and be loved unless dominated.
It is about the malign influence of a controlling mother. Alma may be young, she may be ‘foreign’ (never explained, though Vicky Krieps is from Luxembourg) but she is definitely in charge.
It is about the malign influence of a controlling mother. Alma may be young, she may be ‘foreign’ (never explained, though Vicky Krieps is from Luxembourg) but she is definitely in charge.
The film is glossy, as pernickety in its framing and
beautiful close-ups as is its protagonist. Exterior shots are few and far
between; instead you get a real sense of the narrowness of the Mayfair
townhouse as the staff clop their way up the stone stairs along with the
stifling snobbery of that world.
The performances are excellent, the music subtle. If this really is Day Lewis’s final performance, as he has claimed, then he will be a loss: no film actor currently working is as subtle or can convey so much in a single glance.
The performances are excellent, the music subtle. If this really is Day Lewis’s final performance, as he has claimed, then he will be a loss: no film actor currently working is as subtle or can convey so much in a single glance.
But in the end, I didn’t care about any of the characters;
they all seemed equally preposterous. The claustrophobic silence and sticky atmosphere
of the atelier, the hideousness of the dresses and the delusions of the women who
wore them, the pointlessness of Reynolds Woodcocks’s work, the silliness of an
ending which involves poisonous mushrooms – it all made me feel that the film
itself was pointless and silly: too long, a little dull - and not a patch on
the masterly melodrama of Rebecca or The Servant.
No comments:
Post a Comment