MovieChat Forums > Phantom ThreadΒ (2017) Discussion > So let me get this straight.

So let me get this straight.



She poisons him twice, and the second time he obviously knows he's being poisoned. But they end up having a baby, and living happily ever after? WTF?? Wouldn't you want to get away from a psycho bitch who poisoned you twice? Just sayin"...

Btw, why is the title "Phantom Thread"? I understand the thread part, but why phantom?


😎

reply

I am with MovieMan 100%

And, I asked my wife the same questions...

WTF? Really?

At the intersection of Crazy Street and Bad Ending Road we have Alma Avenue....

I was not bored...but the damn ending was the worse, typical hollywood....I felt as if I had wasted 2 hours and too many minutes of my life watching this presumptuous piece of self indulgent crap.

Thank God the theater uses Real Butter on the freshly popped corn.

reply


I couldn't agree more, Liston. That's two hours neither of us will ever get back. I only went to the stupid movie cause it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (yeah right!). I try to see all the Best Picture nominees before Oscar Night. I've seen all but three: Get Out, The Post and Call Me By Your Name.

I'll see Get Out on Monday, but I refuse to view the other two. The Post will obviously be a bunch of self righteous Leftist Bullshit, and Call Me is about of couple of gay guys. I'm still trying to get a particular scene from Brokeback Mountain out of my head! Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

😎

reply

Two Names
1) Amy Shumer
2) Cardi-B
Lesbian furniture makers torn apart by a lust for the man who delivers the wood.

reply


I had to google Cardi-B, but I know Schumer is a fat leftist pig who I depise. And I assume you're referring to her affair with furniture maker Ben Hanisch. I feel sorry for Ben.


😎

reply

This is an unbelievably childish comment. Grow up.

reply


Oh get your high horse, waffle. What makes you think you are the arbiter of behavior?


😎

reply

Since when does not being homophobic equate to riding a high horse? Frankly, it’s unbelievable that this conversation is even happening in the year 2018.

reply


Who is being homophobic? I just said I didn't want to see a movie about two gay guys. I'm just not interested in that.


😎

reply

I'm gay and I just watched this movie about two straight people. Have fun being ignorant.

reply


Have fun being an asshole, pepe!

πŸ˜’

reply

Also, the phrase is β€œget off your high horse”, so you might want to edit that for clarification. Next time, just do a quick spelling and grammar check before submitting your reply. The homophobia is bad enough...there’s no sense embarrassing yourself in other ways.

reply


Okay, so I left out the word "off". It's called a typo, waffle. Get over yourself.


😎

reply

It’s called β€œbeing a bigot and a moron”.

reply


And it's called being an arrogant self-righteous prig, waffle.


😎

reply

What did I tell you about grammar?

reply


Nothing wrong with my grammar, waf.


😎

reply

Check your commas.

reply


Okay I left one out. Big whoop.


😎

reply

*shipping this like crazy*

reply


???


😎

reply

Do you type this on a tablet?

reply


No, on a desk top. Old Skol here.


😎

reply

(bad joke)

reply


???


😎

reply

(it's like when people post NOW KISS memes!!) except I can't, so I did the fangirl "shipping" thing that happens to every tv series character EVER! :D)

reply


Okay then. I don't know what that means. I'm old skol.


😎

reply

It’s not about being poisoned, it’s about being incapacitated. Only once he’s been rendered helpless is he able to give up control and be tended to in the way that the softer aspects of his nature so obviously crave. Also, she’s not β€œpoisoning” him because she wants to kill him. She’s β€œpoisoning” him so that he’ll allow her to truly love him, which in turn allows herself to be truly loved. I think it’s a beautiful film.

reply


So she has to incapacitate him by poisoning him, because that's the only she can get any attention? That is sick, and they both need professional mental help. I would divorce her. Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree about this movie.


😎

reply

If you’d prefer a conventional romance about conventional characters, then simply watch 98.3% of all other films ever made. Problem solved.

reply


I only watched this because it was nominated for Best Picture Oscar. One of my hobbies is to see all the nominated films before Oscar night.


😎

reply

I think there is also some type of Oedipal element going on in their relationship. His mother is obviously a huge part of the film. I spent my time watching it trying to figure out just what she meant to the film. I think at the end, he just liked being taken care of like a child. Also, the one scene where his mother is in the room with him; Alma crosses over her and his mother vanishes. What do you think?

Also, is that what the title means? Phantom, meaning ghost or figment of the imagination, meshing as a play on words with the phrase "common thread", meaning an idea or theme that is consistently present in different areas or things (or people)? The theme being that maternal nature. She takes care of him when he's sick. She even said he was "being fussy", like you would say about a child.

reply

[deleted]

Wow. You nailed out. Smart comment

reply

Yeah, I think things are a bit more oedipal than I originally assumed. Obviously he's an obsessive control freak who is used to treating everyone around him like dirt, and he doesn't respect or love Alma until she takes control away from him. Now that kind of need for control isn't fun, there's tremendous pressure to get everything perfect and everything other people do bothers the fuck out of you, and by physically humbling him she's both freeing from the constant need for control and punishing him for being such a bad boy, which he probably accepts as his due because he knows he's being a shit.

So while there's definitely an oedipal element in sickening him and making him helpless, but not a huge one. Remember that the first time she did this she didn't actually hover over his bed and smother him with love, she went downstairs to work on the wedding gown. I don't think she's going to take on the Mommy role, more like... Mistress. I really hope their relationship took a Femdom turn, that's so much less icky than an oedipal one.

reply

It's amusing, and predictable, that the OP completely missed that he was an obsessive control freak who treated everyone like dirt.

You're right that being this kind of person isn't a picnic. It's like how a significant number of very powerful and controlling people pay to have prostitutes dominate and even humiliate them.

A strange film, to be sure, but very well done and interesting.

reply

"It's like how a significant number of very powerful and controlling people pay to have prostitutes dominate and even humiliate them."

Well, you know that and I know that, but I don't think it's general knowledge.

Frankly I found the film a bit of a let-down, but then I don't find straight peoples' femdom relationships at all appealing.

reply

It's not general knowledge? Huh.

Was it the straight femdom part of it that made you feel let down? Otherwise, πŸ‘?

reply

I agree..there's something there that is very subtle and definitely overlooked by the casual viewer...and the title does infer it. I'm just not sure if it's something deeper or just basically what you said. I did wonder if Alma was either carrying his mothers spirit (but age might negate that)..or if she was just guided to him by his mother's spirit more likely to give him what was needed/missing in his life. That's the best I can come up with.

reply

Yeah, I really need to watch it again in order to find anything deeper, assuming something deeper is there. I feel there may be.

reply

Post it if you do find something. I'm not quite sure there is, but with PTA I was hoping there was.

reply

Excellent post, with a lot of insight. I think Otter added to it in that Alma didn't take on the role of mothering him the first time.

reply

Yeah, I had a plan to watch it again while keeping what Otter said, and a few other things, in mind, but as it sometimes goes, I haven't quite gotten around to it yet.

"Remember that the first time she did this she didn't actually hover over his bed and smother him with love, she went downstairs to work on the wedding gown." - I want to keep this in mind, in particular. I want to see if it is all just about the power dynamic or if Alma not going to him at first was still in that mothering tone, but just as a form of punishment for all of his wrongdoings. Really, the two ideas don't have to be exclusive, as I suspect the Oedipal tone came to be after the power struggles had already begun. If I still sense that Oedipal tone, I want to see if it's during that scene and it's a punishment or if it first seems to occur during the first instance of her actually taking care of him. Like Otter (and I'm sure most folks), I do find it "icky", as they put it, but I can't help but feel that way about the film. Among a few smaller, more obvious things, it's just that scene where the "ghost" of the mother and Alma cross - it just seems like so much more than just a fever dream from the sickness.

Also, very good point here - "It's like how a significant number of very powerful and controlling people pay to have prostitutes dominate and even humiliate them."

Reynolds is one of those people that, for the most part, is surrounded by "Yes Men", or, in Reynold's case, "Yes Women". Your point made me realize that and really gives a lot of support to Otter's take.

reply

You may be right, that the first time was punishment as a mother would punish a child. Well, as a criminal mother would punish her child 😁

I need to see it again. I was very distracted when I saw it last night. At first I didn't realise it was a movie that needs your full attention the way it does.

I'd missed the scene you mention when the ghost of the mother and Alma cross, and the mother vanishes, leaving Alma. It couldn't be much clearer, could it?

It is icky, all of it. These are not well people. But they are interesting characters.

reply

That's a bingo! It's clearly Oedipal. She wants to baby him, he wants to be babied, and that's why his incapacity is used to strengthen their weird, co-dependent relationship. They were both sickos.

As for the title, while it obviously references the tailor/fashion designer part of the film, I took it to also reference the invisible string that connects them both together, but I assumed this was an umbilical cord (cut the cord, already!)

reply

The phantom thread is an invisible, intangible thing connecting them together, almost forcing them to remain together and inseparable - whether it's good for them or not. I also assumed that it was tied to the Oedipal themes of the film and referred in some metaphoric way to an umbilical cord.

reply

Interesting insight. Thank you for planting that seed.

reply


Wow. A blast from the past!

Okay, the sounds reasonable. Thanks.

😎

reply