Jeff Bernstein

This specific author will attempt an initial answer to this fabulous question from the thematic side. Theory : By reducing the “pop out” of the two film stars, by attempting to “blend” in Streep and De Niro with their bustling surroundings, the director of Falling in Love has made the decision to do his best to “reduce” the Star Power of his two principals in order to turn their presences into Everywoman and Everyman, so that the audience can finally “get past” the dazzle of the star quality and identify exclusively with the story essentials : the dramatic interplay of an “ordinary” couple. The cinematography here is therefore the exact opposite of 1930s Hollywood : the Director in this film is attempting to make Larger-than-Life Movie Stars smaller (so to speak)— to turn these two Film Stars into Characters. (As opposed to 1930s Hollywood, in which the Stars were often simply "themselves" for eighty minutes and audiences were happily content with that.) The jackpot for the director to win here is for the audience to finally forget (if possible) that it is Steep and De Niro on screen : not them, but just “normal people” like the rest of us, to elicit our sympathy and so on. The restrained cinematography contributes to conveying the thematic expression that these two characters are just “two completely ordinary people”.

David Mullen, cinematic genius : in response to your words : Absolutely; indeed. Art is a great sharpener of the mind, a mental gymnasium. As we grow, the Art we see grows; and likewise. It’s magical, the energy transfer between Artwork and (shall we say) Participant. Both evolve concurrently, all depending on the concentration and dedication of the Participant. Great news : Art is always there, and Free. Using the power of Art, one intentionally changes oneself; without it one is changed. “To lighten the mood,” as one says as a phonemic overture to content : you speak of Terry Gilliam. No coincidence, of course, that I spoke of him today, and that I met him twice in my lifetime. Heartwarming story I do not think he will mind the transmission of : Terry Gilliam is on the extreme shortlist of the nicest persons I ever met from the World of Art. The first time I saw him was years back. He gave a speech at Occidental College after a screening of Time Bandits. At the end of the evening, instead of disappearing off to who knows where, Terry Gilliam descended from the stage and mingled with the audience for all long as the audience could stand it. That is to say, Terry Gilliam remained speaking genially with people until the very last person had his or her say, or received his or her autograph (on whatever wacky photo they presented to him). David Mullen! Your reference reminds me of the great exchange about VCRs in David Lynch’s Lost Highway. (Now isn’t that fine cinematography—is the first shot actually lit simply by the end of a cigarette?—and the amazing color of Gilliam’s Munchausen!) Coincidences abound : Lynch gained a reputation way back in 1980 as "the nicest man in Hollywood", a Jimmy Stewart character who just happened to make weirdo Eraserhead. It was reported during the making of the gargantuan Dune (1984) that writer-director David Lynch would give his same complete time and attention to the least important member of the crew as to any other member of the crew. Lynch and Gilliam : nice guys. Why can't everyone be like them? Vertigo. Does David Mullen speak Wisdom in his every sentence? The answer, obviously, is yes. Top tip to all young people : watch Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, at least 100 times each (put one or another on every night before sleep, for example), and you will absorb essential principles. However : There is no way to learn how to tell a first-rate story only from watching movies. Absolutely no way. If you’ve heard it here first, I’d listen to me, but I have no personal stake in the matter, thank god.

The film Being There (1979) is a major work, equivalent (in the words of Hunter S. Thompson) to "an eerie trumpet call over a lost battlefield". Coming near the end of the film is a moment of striking nihilism, which, therefore, might be otherwise called Truth. The moment involves the character type of the Onlooker. The Onlooker is a story fundamental (not to say the Onlooker character appears in every story). The Onlooker sees events from the side of things, and the Onlooker's summating understanding will never enter history, but die with that character. With the death of that character, all the evidence required for understanding the story at hand is lost forever. In Being There, the Onlooker is the character of the Doctor, who says little, but, as a Doctor, and therefore a symbol of Logic and Reason, sees "all", and continuously calculates it. In the moment in question, the nihilist moment of Truth near the end of Being There, the Doctor, responding to one last witnessed action of the main character of the story (Peter Sellers), says to himself, "I understand." Now, this "I understand" is in the vibe of "Yes! Finally! All the pieces are put together! VICTORY!" But—then, like a character in Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey into Night, the Doctor hears himself and reevaluates his position; and repeats his words , but now in a vacant manner : "I understand." What does this second "I understand" convey? The second "I understand" conveys that the doctor knows that no one else will ever understand (because only the Onlooker has "all" the pieces), so : Understanding is Useless. Understanding means nothing. (Get over it.) What a moment. You either understand this moment in Being There or you don't. But, good news : Time teaches a person about life. So if you don't understand Art now, let's say you're not supposed to understand now. But maybe one day. That's one amazing aspect of Art, a source of its Colossal and Endless power : you don't have to understand it too soon. You can keep returning to it, and you gain in power as you go. And this recollected moment physically hurt (for only a fleeting moment, thank god) because it made this author think of what sort of artist Hal Ashby was, and the world he represented : the same world the late Owen Roizman lived through, but in less wacky and tragic circumstances.

"The Ultimate Sacrifice" First to fall of the Achaeans as the Trojans forced their way forward toward Patroclus was a leader of the Boeotians, Peneleos. He had never failed but to fight at the front, but now he was sent out of the field with a wounded shoulder. A spear thrown by someone had incised a bloody scratch there, then wild-fighting Polydamas had leapt in with his sword, and with one hammer-blow deepened the scratch all the way to the bone. Polydamas sprung away to wound the next man, and Peneleos returned to the ships, passing by Hector grappling with Leitus in close combat. Leitus' two hands fluttered around his body as he sought to ward off the blows from Hector's fists : then Hector drew sword. Leitus' eyes grew wide, but he still didn't see the strike come to him, so quick it was. But the wound he received seemed trifling. Yet this smallest of wounds on his wrist left Leitus unable to brandish a weapon; and Hector smiled at his little victory, and left Leitus alone after that. So Leitus, great-hearted Alectryon's son, had to sheepishly withdraw from the battlefield, scurrying in fear on his way to the ships, for his right hand was useless. And while Hector was smiling, a tremendous spear struck him in the chest, thrown from the hand of mighty Idomeneus. The spear-point bounced off Hector's breast-plate and the shaft shattered into pieces, and all Trojan fighters nearby shouted in inextinguishable fury. A Trojan then tossed Hector a spear, and the moment he caught it, Hector cast it at Idomeneus, who was coming straight for him in a chariot; but the driver turned the horses, and took the spear himself, even Coeranus, close friend of the bloodthirsty one Meriones, whom Coeranus had followed out of the city of Lyctus to come to war. Just moments before, Coeranus had seen mighty hero Idomeneus on foot, and invited him into the chariot-box. So when the spear came in, which would had unhappily given Hector the victory, Coeranus knew what he had to do. The warrior made the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the army, and fell at the hands of Hector Man-Killer. The spear shattered his face, and let no more be said about it. So he tumbled backwards out of the chariot. And before even Idomeneus knew what was what, Meriones had leapt into the chariot-box beside him, grabbed the reins, and turned the sleek-muscled horses round. And he said to his friend : "Whip the horses all the way to the ships! We need more armour, more men, and more weapons. How can fortunes keep changing so quickly? What is going on?" To this Idomeneus could offer no answer. So they rushed off the field of battle, with fear falling on their hearts. Entire book here absolutely free! https://www.odysseyandiliad.com/

PT Alma’s “Let me drive” is powerfully reminiscent of Medea’s appeal for “committe habenas, genitor”, which, in both cases, leads to horror. (“let me take the reins, father”; Seneca, 33.) TARANTINO (a.) From the ancient Greek dictionary Liddell & Scott : “ τίζω (verb) : to be always asking ‘what?’ ” (b.) Michael Madsen refers to his gun : “I feel naked without it.” This is the very use of the word in the Iliad : “γυμνός” means both “unarmed” and “naked” (e.g. XVI.815). STAR WARS In Virgil’s Aeneid, the Queen says to her warrior son, at crunch time : “spes tu nunc una” (XII.57) : “You’re my only hope.” NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN / THE ILIAD (a.) ἐπιλίγδην : “glance shot” (XVII.599) (b.) In the same sentence (XVII.599) is the phrase γράψεν δέ οἱ ὀστέον ἄχρις : “cut all the way to the bone”, which recalls : “Mister, you got a bone sticking out your arm.” (b.) “the one right tool” ὄρσεο κυλλοπόδιον ἐμὸν τέκος: ἄντα σέθεν γὰρ Ξάνθον δινήεντα μάχῃ ἠΐσκομεν εἶναι : (XXI.331–32) ἠΐσκομεν = “the one right tool” (c.) ἀμφήριστον ἔθηκεν : “the issue is not certain.” (XXIII.382) (d.) μύθοις λαβρεύεαι : “big talk” (XXIII.478) (e.) ( θεοὶ ) εἰσορόωντες : (The gods) : “We’ll look into it.” (XXIV.23) ALSO: “You can see the sipes real clear.” (29:45) Ovid, Metamorphoses (II.133) : “manifesta rotae vestigia cernes” EWS Domino : “I’d rather not put it into words.” Seneca’s Oedipus : “eloqui fatum, pudet.” (19) BIG LEBOWSKI Brandt to The Dude : “Her life is in your hands.” Oedipus to Tiresias : “ ἐν σοὶ γὰρ ἐσμέν “ (Sophocles, 314) reply : The Dude : “Oh, man, don’t say that . . .” Tiresias : “ φεῦ φεῦ, φρονεῖν ὡς δεινὸν ἔνθα μὴ τέλη λύῃ φρονοῦντι ” (316–7) (Tiresias : “Damn, man, why must I know what I don’t want to know?” ) FULL METAL JACKET Hartman : “Disappear, scumbag!” King Priam : “Disappear, wretch!” “ ἔρρετε , λωβητῆρες ! ” (Iliad, XXIV.239) BONUS: The Master : “We fought against the day and we won.” What does this mean? Rewritten by yours truly : “Only those who sail against the prevailing winds reach their destination.” Now what does that mean? Whatever the world is thinking and feeling, don’t think or feel that. Be Yourself and Stand Strong. But don’t take my word for it. Take the Master’s.

Oedipus the play by Sophocles begins : Οἰδίπους : "ὦ τέκνα, . . . 1. Oedipus the king steps into view of some citizens of the city he rules, Thebes. Oedipus the king begins with addressing the people : "ὦ τέκνα" : "O children". Oedipus is the father. Oedipus is the ruler—the right measure. Oedipus is Reason and Control. Oedipus is the State. Oedipus is Right. Oedipus the man is confident, sure, reasonable; practical and trustworthy; helpful and caring; utterly responsible. Oedipus is certain on his feet. In approximately sixty minutes his entire Self collapses from the highest height to the lowest low. Oedipus the character is a surrogate for the audience. Thus, what a wild ride for spectators to experience the continuum of Oedipus! Isn't it funny that Oedipus the character is entirely, ingenuously with his whole heart, committed to tracking down, uncovering, and curing the Problem of the State, and spends the duration of the play employing Logic and Reason to follow the tracks of the Situation to its Origin, only to discover that He is the problem? Now, isn't that funny? (e.g., "First to go, last to know.") The tone of Oedipus the play, as devised by its playwright Sophocles, is a continuous mix of the dead-serious and the perversely funny : the sickest mix—considering the Situation. The play's tone is a fusion of colossal contrasts. This fusion is simultaneous at all times in the narrative. The play is not now-and-then funny, then now-and-then serious : the play is both, simultaneously and continuously. Here, we must remember to hear the word "funny" as "the most perverse humour possible"; and the word "serious" as "the most serious Situation imaginable". Mixing with virtuosity—fusing like Brundlefly—these two hyper-contrasts, these Opposing Poles of Perspective, the Serious and the Funny, is the mark of a first-rate narrative. The two-tone tone of Oedipus the play is matched, for example, by Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. This virtuoso tone is what Phantom Thread is after. 1b. In fact : Oedipus the play has for its continuous tone a triple mix of contrasting-yet-homologous elements : (1) the dead-serious, (2) the perversely funny, and (3) the Most Horrifying, Sickly, David-Lynch-Strangely-Surreal, Stomach-Queasy Shockingness. This triple mix might make Oedipus the play, arguably, the greatest technical feat ever realized by a storyteller. Oedipus the play has the most complex tone of any story ever written. 1c. How close does Phantom Thread come to this triple tone? Let's look. 2. The Perverse in Oedipus Οἰδίπους ὦ τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή, τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι; πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει, ὁμοῦ δὲ παιάνων τε καὶ στεναγμάτων: ἁγὼ δικαιῶν μὴ παρ᾽ ἀγγέλων, τέκνα, ἄλλων ἀκούειν αὐτὸς ὧδ᾽ ἐλήλυθα, ὁ πᾶσι κλεινὸς Οἰδίπους καλούμενος. O children, freshest raised of long ago Cadmus, why have you gathered here, and sit before me, holding appealing olive-branches crowned with leaves? Why is the city air heavy with incense, why is the air heavy with hymns and sighs? Judging it right to come to you myself, o children, and not hear second-hand of things, I am here, a name well-known to all, Oedipus. Thus the first 8 lines of the play. By the end of line 14, the State, Religion, and Self-confidence are all already fatally undermined by Sophocles. 3. ἁγὼ δικαιῶν μὴ παρ᾽ ἀγγέλων, τέκνα, ἄλλων ἀκούειν αὐτὸς ὧδ᾽ ἐλήλυθα, ὁ πᾶσι κλεινὸς Οἰδίπους καλούμενος. Judging it right to come to you myself, o children, and not hear second-hand of things, I am here, a name well-known to all, Oedipus. Line 7 : "ἐλήλυθα" ("to come to"). Oedipus enters the play at an elevated pitch, at the height of stature. Falling downhill is the only direction he follows from here. The continuum of the narrative as devised by Sophocles is one long surreal fall. Reason is applied until Reason reveals the Absurdity of the Origin. But, just here, in his first words, Oedipus is at his highest position, the lofty starting-point of his long fall. Here, at the first, the speech is on the grand scale : Oedipus the play opens akin to the sound of the Big Bang; and progresses to a mostly empty darkness. Here, already, is perversity : "ἐλήλυθα". The grand-scale effect that Sophocles engineers in lines 6–8 (a broad, open-mouthed exclamation belted out with supreme confidence) includes, as a component, the ululatory use of six "L" sounds. "ἐλήλυθα" evokes "ἀλαλητῷ" in the use of the double "L". The ululant ἀλαλητῷ (from ἀλαλητός) is a war-cry or "shout of victory" (dictionary definition (dd)) and is "usually a triumphant outcry" (dd) in the Iliad (e.g. XII.138). It's one of those words in Ancient Greek that imply an improvisatory phonemic stream, such as "ἒ ἔ, παπαῖ παπαῖ" (Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1114); or "ὀτοτοῖ" (Aga., 1076), which appears elsewhere as, for example, "ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ" (Euripides, Trojan Women, 1294). Oedipus stands before the people triumphantly ululative, not realizing he's already lost. Later, Oedipus affirms his total commitment to tracking down the source of the Situation : a pestilence is ravaging the city. A fact is relayed to him : the previous king of Thebes, Laius, was murdered. On this subject Oedipus says (ll. 139–41) : "Whoever killed him might possibly come to me with hands raised in similar violence—so by helping him, surely I am helping myself." but—he himself—Oedipus—killed "him". Oedipus is the culprit Oedipus is after! Eventually, the man who raises up his hands against him is—himself! In "helping", Oedipus is actively, zealously, and unwittingly, destroying himself. Example : later, his fingers tear out his eyeballs from their sockets. So is it an understatement to describe his encouraging pronouncement of faith as spectacularly wrong? 4. State vs. Religion : both spectacularly wrong Oedipus speaks his opening words, then invites a Priest of Zeus to respond on behalf of the people. The Priest speaks (ll. 14–57). By line 58, the Situation has been exposed as Ridiculous. The Priest of Zeus has no idea what Zeus is doing. (e.g. "Whoa, let's say you have no idea and leave it there. No idea. Zip, none.") Funny? The Priest appeals to Oedipus to save the city, unaware that Oedipus is the problem. Worse, the Priest speaks confidently of the Gods—he even parades his erudition with a cringeworthy joke. The Priest of Zeus is a silly oblivious idiot, yet a supremely confident man. State vs. Religion : examples : (3) Oedipus invites the people to "rise" (ἵστασθε 143), but the people remain, until the Priest bids them "rise" (ἱστώμεσθα 147). (2) The Priest endeavours to educate Oedipus before the people. (1) The Priest delivers to Oedipus a monumental opening speech of 33 lines—then Oedipus responds by ignoring him completely. By line 58, State, Religion, and Self are caught in pestilent darkness. By line 87, all three actors in Oedipus the play so far are "wrong about everything"! Creon, the most trusted friend of Oedipus the king, returns from a fact-gathering trip to the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, and his very first word is spectacularly wrong. Oedipus to Creon : "What is the Word of the prophetic god?" (86) Creon : "Good." (87) In retrospect—considering an eyeless Oedipus exiled; his incestuous mother dead; his daughters traumatised; his sons dissolving into chaos and long war—this prediction is inaccurate. Creon adds : "I say heavy suffering, if things chance to turn out well, may lead to some good." (87–8) 5. The Priest's cringeworthy joke "πλουτίζεται" (30). In the midst of his monumental speech, the Priest of Zeus remarks : "Hades grows rich in corpses . . . !" πλουτίζεται : "make wealthy, enrich" (dd). Πλούτων : "Pluto", another name for Hades, God of the Underworld. πλουτίζεται / Πλούτων. The Priest of Zeus makes a stupid pun. Why? Because he is a moron. There is also a crucial technical reason for this dumb joke. Sophocles foregrounds a joke, one so obvious it's unmissable, and thereby sets a benchmark of humour for the Spectator. Since nothing else in Oedipus rises to that dubious level of obviousness, the Spectator might completely miss the (perverse) humour, and remain in the depths of a profound seriousness. This dumb joke is a key element that Sophocles uses to bring the triple-fold tone into being. 6. Undermining Reason Oedipus is the most intelligent person in Thebes, the man who solved the riddle of the Sphinx. Sophocles conveys Oedipus' Reason reasonably. Example : Sophocles has Oedipus speak in "either-or" sentences (e.g. 11; 89–90) to convey that Oedipus sees many sides of Situations, and condenses his Thought succinctly and well. But about himself Oedipus knows nothing! Oedipus : "οἳ δ᾽ εἰσὶ ποῦ γῆς?" / "Where on earth is the murderer?" (108) 7. Plainly Perverse "μίασμα χώρας" (97) : "miasma in the land". Earlier, the Priest addresses Oedipus as "ὦ κρατύνων Οἰδίπους χώρας ἐμῆς" ("O Oedipus, king of my land" 14). Creon returns, and delivers the oracular news : because of the murder of the king, there is a miasma in the land. Since Oedipus is equated with the State from the start (Oedipus = χώρας), obviously the Oracle is speaking obviously : miasma = Oedipus. But nobody hears it this way. Funnier, Creon says : ἄνωγεν ἡμᾶς Φοῖβος ἐμφανῶς ἄναξ μίασμα χώρας . . . (96–7) "Apollo Seer commands us plainly (ἐμφανῶς) . . ." 8. prophetic ashes (μαντείᾳ σποδῷ 21) As Oedipus progresses, Truth continually clarifies until the Spectator sees it clearly, and Oedipus blinds himself. Sophocles engineers this "shimmering slow-focusing knowledge" effect through technics, including word-repetition; double-meanings; strangely-apt metaphors. Key themes recur in the manner of alarm bells—(e.g. eyes, feet)—apparently unheard by the characters. Yet, as Oedipus progresses, a suspicion ever-increases that somehow, somewhere inside him, he already knows his Fate, but only intuitively, so cannot yet recognize the truth inside his own words. (With his every word, one part of himself is speaking to another part of himself : a call from afar to afar.) 9. Seeing The first 150 lines include many references to seeing (e.g. 15, 22, 45, 105). Example : ὦναξ Ἄπολλον, εἰ γὰρ ἐν τύχῃ γέ τῳ σωτῆρι βαίη λαμπρὸς ὥσπερ ὄμμα τι ! (80–1) Oedipus : "Apollo Healer! May He come as saviour, brilliant as an open eye!" Not the most apt metaphor in retrospect? 10. Line 100. Creon : "ἀνδρηλατοῦντας . . ." Oedipus asks Creon : Did the Oracle reveal the cure to end the pestilence? Creon's first word in answer: "ἀνδρηλατοῦντας . . ." : "to banish from house and home" (dd). Oedipus has now heard his Fate. With another 1,400 lines to go! 11. ὀλωλότος Creon says : "Λαΐου δ᾽ ὀλωλότος οὐδεὶς ἀρωγὸς ἐν κακοῖς ἐγίγνετο." (126–7) "After Laius' ὀλωλότος, no one helped us when the pestilence came." ὀλωλότος = death / murder. ὀλωλότος (126) ἀλαλητῷ (shout of victory) ἐλήλυθα (7) 12. Oedipus welcomes Creon's return from Delphi, saying : τάχ᾽ εἰσόμεσθα: ξύμμετρος γὰρ ὡς κλύειν. (84) Oedipus : "We shall soon know (what's going on) : he's within fit distance for hearing." (dd) ξύμμετρος = "within fit distance" = "he's close enough to hear him speak the truth of things." The perverse humour here recalls the last lines of Double Indemnity : the truth is actually : "closer than that." 13. Sick-footed Just as with the repetitive theme of "seeing", so : feet (e.g. 50, 128). The Origin of the Situation involves Oedipus' feet—indeed, his name means "swollen foot" (dd). 14. Repetition Oedipus the play is mystic and incantatory early on. Techniques used by Sophocles to maintain the mystic mode include : hypnotic repetition of words or themes. Examples : πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει, ὁμοῦ δὲ παιάνων τε καὶ στεναγμάτων (4–5) φθίνουσα μὲν κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός, φθίνουσα δ᾽ ἀγέλαις βουνόμοις . . . (25–6) γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά (58) τίν᾽ ἡμὶν ἥκεις τοῦ θεοῦ φήμην φέρων (86) ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποσκεδῶ μύσος (138) πρός τε Παλλάδος διπλοῖς : to the two temples of Athena (20) 15. What is the message? Oedipus : "ἔστιν δὲ ποῖον τοὔπος?" (89) Oedipus : "What is the message?" (of the Oracle). Or : What is the Word? What is the Truth? τοὔπος is virtually a homophone of τόπος ("place"). So Oedipus is also saying (unwittingly) : "What is the place?" The place—where his Reason hasn't arrived at yet—is "τριπλαῖς ἁμαξιτοῖς" (716) : "where three ways meet". The place where the murder took place. The murder he committed. The murder of his father. ἁμαξιτοῖς : ways, paths, roads, pathways. In retrospect, isn't the following metaphor strange? Oedipus, to the people : "ἀλλ᾽ ἴστε πολλὰ μέν με δακρύσαντα δή, πολλὰς δ᾽ ὁδοὺς ἐλθόντα φροντίδος πλάνοις" (66–7) "Know that I have shed many tears, and have wandered many ὁδοὺς of Thought." ὁδοὺς : ways, paths, roads, pathways. 16. Oedipus and his birth mother are separated at his birth. Later, they meet, marry, and have children together, all unwittingly (apparently). How disturbing, that Nature didn't engineer-in safeguards against such behaviour! 17. Oedipus is Mind. His first line is a question. His Mindfulness is referenced at 6, 58, 67, 73, 132, etc. The Priest of Zeus remarks that Oedipus solved the riddle of the Sphinx "οὐδ᾽ ἐκδιδαχθείς"—"without any instruction from us". (38) In Oedipus, questioning leads straightaway to cataclysm. 18. The Best Intentions Grandly before the people of the city Oedipus says : τῶνδε γὰρ πλέον φέρω τὸ πένθος ἢ καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχῆς πέρι (93–4) "I care more for all these people than for my own life." Later, he will be forced to worry about himself. Funny? Serious? Horrible? Phantom Thread : Part I of Film THE COMIC Alma enters the film and promptly trips up. "I simply don't have time for confrontations" : i.e. "I don't have time for life" : a perverse paradox recalling paradox-play in Sophocles and Henry James. The way "my old so-and-so" Cyril slides into her breakfast chair recalls the ghost of an actress in a 1930s movie (4.52–5); her immemorial grace returns at the fashion show (43.54–9). "I make dresses" : the amusingness of the naive-sounding experienced-one (e.g. Alice saying "Thank you" at Ziegler's party). "Confirmed bachelor . . . incurable" : perfectly amusing dialogue for, say, Cary Grant or Robert Montgomery or Clark Gable in the 1930s. Blue is "bit serious", then Cyril promptly walks in wearing blue. (Throughout the film Lesley Manville has the 1930s look all over her shape.) "She told me she wants to be buried in a dress that you make" : a nexus moment—the marriage of comedy and death : an absurd joke, a "foregrounding" joke, like the Priest of Zeus' πλουτίζεται ! Breakfast is a locus of the light-hearted throughout PT. Woman wants the man sexually, "I'm working" (41.39)—a comic moment in any narrative. The comedy swiftly continues as "the other woman" sweeps in : Cyril with tea. The fashion show involves a comedy of degree : 'tis a very proper meltdown : "Let me do it. Let me do it. . . . Let me do it, let me do it. Damn it. You're no good to me just standing there, Pippa! I need your hands on this. . . . Just go. Go, go! I'm sorry." End of Part I of PT. NAZI GERMANY "Do you look very much like her?" "I don't know, I think so." (17.44) Does this exchange suggest Alma's family was lost to the Nazis? Alma doesn't seem to like very much any type of control. Woodcock invading her personal space to remove her lipstick, or to work on fashion, generates some anxiety for her (e.g. the CU at 24.22–47). The depersonalization, being reduced to measurements, a physical object occupying a space, doesn't seem to appeal to Alma very much. "Just jump up on the box for me" : the man could be ordering just anybody (24.12). Alma also doesn't find appealing her personality being forced down to zero; nor the sadistic monster Nazi overtones of "You have no breasts. . . . My job to give you some, if I choose to." (39.52) Concentration camp wear? Note the face : light and dark. THE CREEPY "ashes . . . fallen to pieces." μαντείᾳ σποδῷ ! (21.26) This shot marries silent film (tint) to Clockwork Orange : as directed by Murnau (11.10–19). (9.18) Cyril flicking the napkin hard (like Jack sweeping junk into the lens in Shining) in a "get away" motion and signal. It is also aggressive : evocative of pent-up energy : finely-channelled energy. Cyril : the "I". Reason. "Cyril is right. Cyril is always right." This quick "flick" movement is recalled in Woodcock's head gesture here : "And where's the dress now?" Small talk is large intrusion. Woodcock's quick head gesture returns at "I think I don't like the fabric so much" (35.02). Patterns, resonances. "And who's this lovely creature making the house smell so nice?" (27.18) : Silence of the Lambs motif. "My little carnivore" (33.16) Also evokes a fairy-tale motif : e.g. "Then l'll huff . . . and l'll puff . . . and l'll blow your house in!" Bullying and dissent : "Yeah, you didn't say that" : correcting him (29.21). "but you do now" : correcting her (39.32)—which recalls Grady in Shining : "Did you know that?" : same off-hand power-games. 30:32–40 : "You have the ideal shape" : Fassbinder : the dolly-zoom. (An intrinsic tool in Fassbinder's technics.) Ominous. (The dolly-zoom returns in "Alma, will you marry me?"—but now includes Woodcock as well). Fairy-tale element : Alma is nature caught in the castle like Danny in the Overlook. The fairy tale of the orphan child who works her will among bullies who think themselves gods. EYE The mad eye of the artist (a 1920s German-feel : Caligari etc). Oedipus : "like a bright eye". The summit. "like a bright eye". See Psycho (1960). "That's your room" : similar in affect to Norman Bates and the "b-b-b-b-bathroom" (33.50). "I very much hope that she saw the dress tonight. Don't you?" : he sounds here uncannily like Hal-9000 (10.29). MAGIC CIRCLE MOMENT MOTHER Wedding dress : equated at the first with Mother (her second marriage /cf. Παλλάδος διπλοῖς). Marriage = Mother. Keeping Cyril close keeps mother close. Women work for him and help him create. The art produced is for women to wear. His sister runs the business. All women judge him. FAMOUS LAST WORDS "It's comforting to think the dead are watching over the living. I don't find that spooky at all." (10.40) SERIOUS "No one can stand as long as I can" (34.49) has an epic sense, Homeric : the sense of "endure". FASHION SHOW Judgment Day. End of Part I of Phantom Thread. Conclusion : Thankfully, PTA is reaching far.

"I love the use of the color blue by the artist." The Conformist (1970), Bertolucci / Storaro Die bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant (1972), Fassbinder / Ballhaus The Exorcist (1973), Friedkin / Roizman The Thing (1982), Carpenter / Cundy EWS

and so on.

Owen Roizman has left behind him a remarkable Hollywood career. To his body of work there are too many titles of significance and too many filmmakers of significance to list here. William Friedkin was the first, but just one, crucial collaborator in his history. Owen Roizman lived through and contributed to a massively significant Hollywood timeline (the 1970s). The French Connection (1971) was one of the first, if not the first, big-studio Hollywood movie with a full-on simulated documentary technique (a huge gamble which paid off; audiences responded huge). The Exorcist (1973) for a short time became the highest-grossing film of all time (or close enough) (but unseated soon after!). His storybook career was book-ended by highly intelligent directors : Friedkin and Lawrence Kasdan. Network (1976) was a colossally highly regarded film of its day. His Taps (1981) featured a very young Tom Cruise in his breakout role (as the EWS acolyte, I would say that). He shot the great film stars Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Tootsie (1982) was an extremely high-profile film of its year (in a year of E.T. and Gandhi!). His last film French Kiss looks absolutely ravishing; it's Hollywood-studio cinema at its finest, in all phases of production : a beautiful swansong. It's staggering the important names and titles I must leave out here! When a man dies, so much dies with him. Not just his own memories, but a whole world's.

Shadow of a shadow.

David Mullen's intricate care lighting the character's forefinger in shot 2 recalls John F. Seitz and Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity (27.14).

1:29.05-1:29.12 : homage to Conrad Hall and In Cold Blood (1967)? I know the answer : yes.

. . . And finally, the lens flare : 1.19.14. What synchronicity; I hadn't seen Jennifer's Body since the dvd days. All this excitement, simply because David Mullen was kind to me. Let everyone who sees this use our exchange as an example of proper and correct behavior. Be kind to each other, and each raises the other's game. I would say I'm certain that what I defined as out of phase is indeed out of phase. I don't require a television to determine this; I see it on a laptop screen. Which would mean that Jennifer's Body must be added to the out of phase list that appears earlier in this thread. What a list to be a part of! Karyn Kusama is a brilliant director. I am watching the movie without sound, and even without sound an audience should have no problem following the film (so to speak). It's also obvious that Karyn Kusama has an extremely fine understanding of quality, considering the visual film references I am seeing (e.g., David Lynch's Elephant Man). Tomorrow I shall hear the words. Before film was the Word.

Wait, before I read : is that OUT OF PHASE ?! at 47.37-.41?!?! What a movie!

The Lensing of Jennifer’s Body : The First Seven Shots 3 January 2023 note : By minute one of the film, I told myself, “Wow, this is already so amazingly well-shot, I need only watch ten minutes for comment.” By minute 1.42 : “I’ve seen enough,” I said. “Cinematographer David Mullen is a Genius. Write the following.” opening sequence The opening sequence of Jennifer’s Body (dir. Karyn Kusama; writer Diablo Cody) is composed of ten shots. Shot 1 1. The opening sequence features a series of homages to horror films and icons. The first and most apparent reference is to John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978). 2. In the top center of the frame, some leaves are tipped with light : this technique is employed (apparently) to add depth to the darkness, by finely distinguishing the foreground black from the background black. This technique is also employed on the pinnacle beside the central gable of the house. 3. Note the even distribution of cinematographic light horizontally across the frame. 4. Note the precision moonlight effect on the house. There is no evidence of a photographic effect here, no obvious source of filmmaking trickery. Larry Smith recalled that Kubrick asked him only one question in order to get the job : “How would you light the exterior of the house (i.e., Somerton)?” Kubrick’s question brings to mind the difficulty of what David Mullen engineered here. 5. The subtlety of the lighting on the house is wondrously precisionist. This house is lit as Sternberg lit Dietrich. 6. Note the bonanza of geometries : e.g., the circle and the rectangle; the horizontal and the apexed. This is a “compendium shot”, so to speak : in this shot are elementary shapes, building blocks of vision : a fine touch to begin a visual experience. 7. The beauty of the coloring is staggering. Is it accurate to say that the seven-color spectrum is visible in this initial shot of the film, along with black and white? Hence, in terms of color, we can deem this a “compendium” shot, keenly suitable for a first shot. All the resources required for the rest of the movie are present right here (both colors and shapes). A lovely touch. 8. As the camera tracks forward, snowflake-like pinpoints of light glitter across the lawn. Not all of these pinpoints are flowers; some are (apparently) glistenings of dew or suchlike. The cinematographer did not simply show up to the location, point and shoot : but, in a manner of speaking, created the location. (He and his team did, as he would be the first to remark; and the entire crew). The time required to set up this shot was, this author would guess, four to five hours? If David Mullen says any less, that means his genius is all the more. Shot 2 1. Though this is a close-up, and not a POV shot, the camera is still “floating” : not hand-held but moving. I propose that the predominant reason for this is to generate subliminal tension. A subtle technique. Simply stabilizing the camera and shooting the CU would have saved some duration of production time; this set-up required an increment of more time to shoot. (Didn't it?) Give a genius more time, you get more genius. 2. The green glow emanating from (apparently) the television and illuminating the forefinger is fantastically subtle in its capture—along with the rest of the television ambience. Speak of “painting with light”! Right there in Hollywood! This author guesses that the television ambience was all engineered by the cinematographer. By the end of shot 2 it is obvious that David Mullen is a master of the subtle. No question, this lensing is first-rate, an example of Hollywood technical genius out on the stage of world cinema. And we’re only at shot 2. Shot 3 1. This shot employs a number of techniques from shot one, with equivalent technical artistry, so we won’t repeat ourselves here. Shot 4 1. Note the face : light and dark. This shot, as Truffaut said of Hitchcock’s Rear Window, “is cinema.” 2. Behold the soft outline of the face. What a masterclass in Focus! 3. The reveal of the lighting on the tongue is like a coin-spilling jackpot (see for yourself!). By now it is obvious that David Mullen is not a master of the subtle, he is a master of the infinitesimal. 4. This is another shot that presumably took hours to light (we are happily back in the 1930s here), but well worth it. When David Mullen powers up his camera, the production value instantly doubles. Theory : Whatever this film looks like it cost to make, it probably cost a third of that, if that. 5. The beauty of the color alongside the softness : this may well be a close-up of a Renaissance painting. Just open your eyes and look. 6. Note the subtle light defining the curve of the nose, and the highlights on the (vampyric) teeth. This cinematography is equivalent to keyhole surgery. The attention to detail is staggering. This is Hollywood declaring to the world : Try to outdo this! 7. By shot three of Jennifer’s Body, it is clear that nothing random appears in a shot lit under David Mullen’s watchful eye. Shot 5 1. The camera tracking to the window = Brian De Palma (for example). Also, the closet = Carpenter’s Halloween! 2. David Mullen was careful enough to ensure that the window glass had slight smudging in places, so that the pane didn’t look, at first glance, empty. This technique is employed in, yes, a subtle manner. Theory : if David Mullen is allowed to do his work, it will be done subtly. 3. This shot has a wondrous vibe founded particularly in its color. This particular yellow adds a new aspect to the burgeoning atmosphere of the film; somehow, the yellow contributes a whimsy, which prepares us for the comic element of the narrative. A color used in a proleptic manner? If I’m not crazy—if my commentary on this point is accurate—is this effect not staggering? What are we discovering here? 4. In terms of ongoing meaning production, there is very obviously a “pecking order” to a film frame : the audience is not admiring the technics, the audience is (hopefully) suspending its disbelief. But, when we begin to think about how the brain unconsciously processes vision, perhaps we can say : “There are no small details in a film frame. Every pixel, so to speak, is of equal magnitude to the next.” This remark obviously requires further exploration elsewhere. 5. Note the blue of the character’s leggings. The lighting of the garment contributes to the visual “popping out” effect of the character. 6. Note the shadows, which one can call subtle. Obviously we’re not in a 1930s movie where the shadows are present because the production line is roaring along at top speed. Here, these shadows are engineered on purpose. And yes, by reminding us of the 1930s, we smile : and smiling is consonant with the comic element of the film. 7. Because of its position in the frame, the bedpost was a potential nightmare for the cinematographer. But David Mullen lights the bedpost as if it were a chess piece of the gods. 8. Note how the indoor light, ostensibly from the television, subtly lightens as the camera approaches the window. This subtle shift recalls a cameraman opening an aperture on the move (e.g., Licorice Pizza, 32.03). Shot 6 1a. Dolly zoom. Fassbinder. Hitchcock. The sinister. Genius. 1b. Amazing question : In what other movies is there a dolly zoom within the first ten shots? The only answer I can dredge up just now is Fassbinder’s Angst vor der Angst (1975). 1c. (Two sinister dolly zooms, related, but divided by much running time, appear in Phantom Thread. The first is at 30:32–40. Go find the marvellous other.) 2. If (in my humble view) the primary task of the cinematographer is to ensure that the stars look as good as possible, then, if this is true, then David Mullen can rest easy. He makes even a pale, deathly-looking character look attractive. Imagine if David Mullen had the 1930s actresses in front of him! (Recall, say, the husband-and-wife dream-team of Joan Blondell and George Barnes in Smarty (1934). For younger readers : George Barnes was one of the four greatest Hollywood cinematographers of the 1930s. Absolutely no question. Blondie of the Follies (1932), for example, is extraordinarily shot—especially for what it is, a Hearst situation. So it’s no surprise that the film is associated with MGM : their films were the most relentlessly technically savvy of the 1930s. Begin, say, with Grand Hotel (1932) and work your way forward. Soon you might blurt out : “Wow, 1934 was one the greatest years in Hollywood history!”) 3. This is the title shot. There is simply too much to say with this extraordinary shot, so forget it. The color, the choice of lens, the composition, the complexity of the entirety, and so on and so forth. The dolly zoom is enough for me. This is a “jackpot” shot : an entire book can easily emerge from the study of this one shot. If no one believes me, I will prove it, if motivated. I hereby choose this one shot as inspiration for the book, “How to Watch a Movie”. The entire book will explain this one shot. Shot 7 1. Fascinating mutation of color straight out of EWS : the bedposts up to now have been seen as white. In this shot, the bedpost looks green (recalling the sickly green of Vertigo?). 2. Note how the lighting coaxes the television table's right leg to pop out. Compare the quality of that black to the shadows on the wall. Might this shot be titled “Study in Black”? 3. No way is David Mullen about to ignore the post behind the television. Why? Because the post is in the shot. This cinematographer engineers his every shot as NASA engineers a rocket engine : the attention to detail is commensurate in its rigor. 4. The picture on the television is perfect. We have seen a billion television screens in a billion movies, but in how many movies have we seen color television imagery captured with such strict clarity? I would say not many. 5. Note the light illuminating the lower central part of the television. Necessary? If it appears in a frame of Jennifer’s Body, then the answer must be yes. 6. The lensing here is lovely. Remove the television from the shot, then show the shot to a film fan and ask : “This shot was in The Shining, right?” I would wager a sizable number of answers would be : “I think so.” 7. The interplay of light and shadow on the wall has a strong 1930-40s feel, and so on and so forth back to the early German filmmakers, who brought their techniques to Hollywood. That one shadow represents the entirety of what Double Indemnity (1944) means for Hollywood : a colossal remark for those who hear it. Shot 8 1. Split Diopter? Obviously, Brian De Palma comes to mind. But the effect is seen all the way back in, at least, John Ford; I think The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Yes, we all remember that Welles and his technicians created a Split Diopter-type effect in Kane (yes, the first shot of Susan’s suicide attempt). 2. The lensing here is flabbergasting. This has to be one of the most magnificent shots to emerge from Hollywood in the 2000s. Absolutely no question. Just look for yourself! But I don't want to hear about it, thanks. 3. And there you have it : The masks. Eyes Wide Shut. No further comment.

And the thematic use of lens flares in Spielberg’s latest? For a few times in an otherwise sedate production, Spielberg associates lens flares specifically with the character of the mother. (Thus, as with West Side Story, flares appearing later in the film return the character to memory). At one moment, in a lens flare only film can capture, Spielberg evokes the inspiring last shot of Kubrick's 2001—but instead of the fresh-eyed Baby, here the bubble holds mother and child. (Kubrick originally envisioned Saturn, not Jupiter, for Part IV—notice how Spielberg’s flare recalls the shape of the wondrous ringed planet.) On the use of lens flares in Spielberg’s West Side Story. When the lovers first meet, the film frame is ablaze with striking flares of a density and duration never before seen in a Spielberg movie. Then all lens flares virtually disappear for the rest of the film's running time. Then, near the end of the story, when one lover is searching for the other and scans an empty street, all those lens flares from over an hour of running time earlier return to fill the sky : a visual reminder of what is burning in the character's heart. postscript : Spielberg’s recent thematic lens flares are what one might call “The Kubrick EWS effect”. PTA experienced the same effect, evidenced in Phantom Thread. (See earlier posts.) Nicolas Winding Refn also experienced the effect (i.e., Only God Forgives). NEXT POST : Tribute to David Mullen ASC, this site’s top contributor : A commentary on the lensing of Jennifer’s Body (2009).

Sir, yours is a fascinating reply. No doubt your recent cinematographic efforts yielded fabulous footage, considering your first-rate work on, for example, Jennifer’s Body (one of the most winsome Hollywood films of the 2000s, starring the unutterably charming Amanda Seyfried). This thread now requires a further exchange, if I may, because your timely words have opened up the way for a colossal question. If it is true (I ask naively and politely) that “out of phase” was originally a phenomenon that required the interrelatedness of the shutter speed with other technical factors, how, then, do digital cameras fall prey to this phenomenon, since they do not require shutters? It would be an pleasure to hear the explanation by an outstanding Hollywood insider. Thank you, sir, and best wishes for 2023.

For most of cinema history, the electrical production quirk known as "out of phase" was deemed a grave cinematographic error (in the same category as unanticipated lens flares). In later times, however, first-rate filmmakers employed this flickering-of-light effect as a technique to generate subliminal tension (or whatever else). Examples : 1. Kubrick : A Clockwork Orange 2. Fassbinder : Unfortunately I cannot remember which film, but it is an outdoor shot with house and trees (anyone?) 3. Scorsese : Taxi Driver 4. Kubrick : The Shining 5. PTA : The Master PTA's employment of the technique is the most visually subtle of these examples, requiring a large screen to discern the effect clearly. Since "out of phase" is a celluloid phenomenon, is PTA's use the last of its kind . . . forever?

One reflection.

Note the conjunction of the fine antique wood with the profile of the Mysterious Woman. After Somerton, the Mysterious Woman is the fundamental item on Dr. Bill's mind. Hence, the wood filling the frame. See the wood grain in shot 2? Notice the horizontal bars here (just after the scene above). Then here (just after the scene above). Then vertical bars (just after the scene above). Mutations. Resonances. Making Connections. Art.