Is this a true romance? Is it even a story about true love?
Well ... written, produced and directed by P.T. Anderson, it's about a high class dress maker, Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) in 1950s London, a middle-aged bachelor wedded to his work, an artist who regards women as simply dress-hangers for his art, a perfectionist who brooks no interruptions - the sound of toast being buttered noisily is enough to bring a pained expression to his face - and a lost soul who, apparently, cannot love any woman except his long-dead mother; and about whom, incidentally, he still hallucinates. In other words, he too-often displays the temperament of a peevish, demanding child who will not be questioned, opposed or criticized. Could we expect anything less from a severely introverted, incurable bachelor who is surrounded by women only, in his daily work life?
But, it's also the story about a ruthless, determined young woman, Alma (Krieps), who, when opportunity arises, takes the necessary time to break through this perfectionist's emotional wall to achieve what she thinks will be her version of The Sweet Life. For her, that is, and her compliant lover ... or husband. Crucially, this story opens with Alma relating to a doctor her trials and worries concerning her relationship with Woodcock, and as though she is talking of the past....
And so ... by sheer coincidence our perfectionist is taking a break from work at a rural seaside resort where, in a quaint restaurant, he is served by Alma, a waitress (the name traditionally means 'nourishment' or 'soul'). There is a spark between them - he is intrigued. Enough to cause Woodcock, in turn, to later take Alma to dinner at another restaurant; and then to his nearby residence - where he insists upon using her as model to design and make a dress ... for her to wear.
From that point onwards, the plot - and Alma's occasional voice-over - continues with the strengthening of that mutual attraction - followed by the gradual disruption caused by Alma's presence at his London business; the displeasure evinced by Woodcock's sister, Cyril, a spinster whom he calls 'my old so-and-so' (Lesley Manville in a low key, but riveting performance); the inevitable attempts by Alma to gain more of Woodcock's attention; her desire to go dancing, his arrogant rejection of such frivolity; the mutual frostiness that begins to cool their ardor for each other; and so on, with other peccadilloes, little by little, until....
One morning, Alma decides to use - and reuse - the only technique she thinks will help to ensure his need for her. Exactly what she does, I must leave for you to discover writer/director Anderson's ironic and macabre resolution for Alma.
On balance, I think there are three ways this story can be interpreted: first, as an allegory about the creative process, and the difficulty of sharing that creativity with others, especially those emotionally close; or second, simply as a male-female power play in an industry where creativity was, at that time, largely dominated by men; or finally, as a man simply with a mother fixation, who discovers, at last, a suitable woman as mother-surrogate, and wife.
Writers usually choose names carefully for the main players in a story, often as a metaphor for character. So, I'm confident P. T. Anderson followed that principle when he wrote the script. Hence, if I were to chose, I'd select the last option as the most relevant interpretation for this dressed up (no pun intended) account of a thoroughly unlikable, neutered man who, fortuitously, will achieve the happiness - such as it is - he so thoroughly deserves.
But it's not everybody's movie: there are long silent scenes with long looks between each other; scenes of the two simply walking together; and, of course, many scenes of the women workers doing their work. What's entirely missing, of course, is sex....
Naturally, the overall standard of production, the flawless acting, the directing, the setting, the photography and editing, the music (a tad too loud for me at times) - they all combine to give the viewer the very best in entertainment about the ties that bind. And why they do.
Recommended for all adults. Eight out of ten for this sumptuous production.
Well ... written, produced and directed by P.T. Anderson, it's about a high class dress maker, Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis) in 1950s London, a middle-aged bachelor wedded to his work, an artist who regards women as simply dress-hangers for his art, a perfectionist who brooks no interruptions - the sound of toast being buttered noisily is enough to bring a pained expression to his face - and a lost soul who, apparently, cannot love any woman except his long-dead mother; and about whom, incidentally, he still hallucinates. In other words, he too-often displays the temperament of a peevish, demanding child who will not be questioned, opposed or criticized. Could we expect anything less from a severely introverted, incurable bachelor who is surrounded by women only, in his daily work life?
But, it's also the story about a ruthless, determined young woman, Alma (Krieps), who, when opportunity arises, takes the necessary time to break through this perfectionist's emotional wall to achieve what she thinks will be her version of The Sweet Life. For her, that is, and her compliant lover ... or husband. Crucially, this story opens with Alma relating to a doctor her trials and worries concerning her relationship with Woodcock, and as though she is talking of the past....
And so ... by sheer coincidence our perfectionist is taking a break from work at a rural seaside resort where, in a quaint restaurant, he is served by Alma, a waitress (the name traditionally means 'nourishment' or 'soul'). There is a spark between them - he is intrigued. Enough to cause Woodcock, in turn, to later take Alma to dinner at another restaurant; and then to his nearby residence - where he insists upon using her as model to design and make a dress ... for her to wear.
From that point onwards, the plot - and Alma's occasional voice-over - continues with the strengthening of that mutual attraction - followed by the gradual disruption caused by Alma's presence at his London business; the displeasure evinced by Woodcock's sister, Cyril, a spinster whom he calls 'my old so-and-so' (Lesley Manville in a low key, but riveting performance); the inevitable attempts by Alma to gain more of Woodcock's attention; her desire to go dancing, his arrogant rejection of such frivolity; the mutual frostiness that begins to cool their ardor for each other; and so on, with other peccadilloes, little by little, until....
One morning, Alma decides to use - and reuse - the only technique she thinks will help to ensure his need for her. Exactly what she does, I must leave for you to discover writer/director Anderson's ironic and macabre resolution for Alma.
On balance, I think there are three ways this story can be interpreted: first, as an allegory about the creative process, and the difficulty of sharing that creativity with others, especially those emotionally close; or second, simply as a male-female power play in an industry where creativity was, at that time, largely dominated by men; or finally, as a man simply with a mother fixation, who discovers, at last, a suitable woman as mother-surrogate, and wife.
Writers usually choose names carefully for the main players in a story, often as a metaphor for character. So, I'm confident P. T. Anderson followed that principle when he wrote the script. Hence, if I were to chose, I'd select the last option as the most relevant interpretation for this dressed up (no pun intended) account of a thoroughly unlikable, neutered man who, fortuitously, will achieve the happiness - such as it is - he so thoroughly deserves.
But it's not everybody's movie: there are long silent scenes with long looks between each other; scenes of the two simply walking together; and, of course, many scenes of the women workers doing their work. What's entirely missing, of course, is sex....
Naturally, the overall standard of production, the flawless acting, the directing, the setting, the photography and editing, the music (a tad too loud for me at times) - they all combine to give the viewer the very best in entertainment about the ties that bind. And why they do.
Recommended for all adults. Eight out of ten for this sumptuous production.