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 what the film is about… (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 work as a world class dressmaker).
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.
barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Multiple times. It has not grown on me.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
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 what the film is about… (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 work as a world class dressmaker).
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.
barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 1 week ago
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.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
What a strange way to view films.