MovieChat Forums > Phantom Thread (2018) Discussion > New Yorker: Daniel Day-Lewis’ ‘Phantom T...

New Yorker: Daniel Day-Lewis’ ‘Phantom Thread’ Is Toxic Masculinity Propaganda

posted 6 years ago by Satan2016 (23477)
5 replies | jump to latest

Miserable SJWs take over NY Art Rag.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/12/new-yorker-the-daniel-day-lewis-film-phantom-thread-is-toxic-masculinity-propaganda/

Hemon argues that Phantom Thread promotes a brand of “toxic masculinity” because the character of Alma exists only within Woodcock’s world.

>> Reynolds Woodcock, the controlling dressmaker played by Daniel Day-Lewis, governs a domain peopled exclusively by obedient and loyal women. Among them, Alma distinguishes herself by refusing to be used and discarded by the couturier. But, for all her relative agency, she exists only within the world of Woodcock. We have no idea who she was before entering it, where she might have come from, or what she might have wanted from her life. Soon after she meets Woodcock, he measures her for a dress. When, in a fit of internalized misogyny, she apologizes for having small breasts, he says, “Oh, no, you’re perfect. It’s my job to give you some—if I choose to.” Just as her body is significant only in his dress, she has value only in relation to his ever-present, shamelessly metaphorical hunger.

It is, of course, possible that Alma’s role in the film is limited because Day-Lewis’s Woodcock character is the main protagonist. After all, the film is a look at Woodcock’s life, not Alma’s.

[–] CountJohn (579) 6 years ago

It is, of course, possible that Alma’s role in the film is limited because Day-Lewis’s Woodcock character is the main protagonist. After all, the film is a look at Woodcock’s life, not Alma’s.

^^^

If I saw a movie about a woman and all the men in the movie's narratives were peripheral to her's, I wouldn't be bothered by that at all. It's like some people these days think it's sexist that every single movie ever made doesn't 100% revolve around a Strong Female Character (TM)

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Alma isn't fully developed because the movie isn't about her, it's about her effect on Woodcock.

That, and the lovingly photographed luxury period clothes.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Now that I think about it...

Alma isn't fully developed because the entire film is about Woodcock and everything is seen from his POV. And he doesn't give a rat's ass where Alma came from or who she really is, he just cares what she can do for him. From modelling his clothes to freeing him from his inhibitions, it's still all about him.

[–] TheArgentinian (6461) 5 years ago

I don't see nothing wrong with that quote.

Also, yuck, Breitbart

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) 4 years ago

Well...okay, I disagree with Hemon, and I think the reviewer missed the boat here, for a few reasons.

1. There is an assumption that the film is promoting Woodcock's behaviour; I don't think it is. This occurred with critiques of Joker as well, people were against it for "promoting" the lead's psychopathic behaviour, even though he's a villain. I believe Woodcock was portrayed as a jerk and wasn't meant for us to emulate.

2. The point of the film was, I think, to show this co-dependent relationship and this odd power-play the two leads had within it. Woodcock was obsessed with his mother and surrounded himself with mother figures who would pamper and dominate him alternately. Cyril ran the house, tip-toed around Reynolds, but made it crystal clear that she would win if he wanted to throw down. Alma babies him and is then made to put up with his temper tantrums. He demands his way like a toddler, but then requires aid. There's a lot to unpack there.

3. Alma poisons him multiple times and clearly exerts her strengths as well. Again: co-dependent. They converse about this: strength and weakness - several times.

4. Alma's role isn't limited. She is stealthier than he is. He only appears to get his way. She gets her way a LOT - she twists and strangles him until he proposes (this stalwart, confirmed bachelor who dismissed every prior model), for just one instance of this.

5. So, his world isn't peopled by obedient women. It's peopled largely with women, but they exert strength in their own ways, too. Consider his being forced to choke down his bile for his benefactress until Alma (not Reynolds: ALMA) criticises the woman and says she doesn't deserve to wear the dress.

I could go on.

So, I think the reviewer missed the boat here, if for no other reason than this: the film wasn't "promoting" toxic masculinity, it was *showing* toxic *behaviour* of both male and female varieties. For every instance of toxic masculinity, there is an instance of feminine smothering.