 |
| Photo Link- Hemon-Phantom-Thread.jpg |
“Phantom Thread” is nothing if not propaganda for patriarchy" sums up Aleksandar Hemon in the New Yorker. He manages to discover "Disguised as art-house cinema, the film spectacularly endorses the inherent genius of masculinity." he also goes on to label six academy award nominations as "a symptom of the Weinsteinian toxic masculinity exposed by the #MeToo movement." His article in the great magazine is valid but 'Phantom Thread' is a valid movie. As the author doesn't agree with the propaganda, I find it difficult to agree with his way of reducing the movie to "nothing" if not a toxic propaganda for masculinity.
Phantom Thread is a movie about a self absorbed genius, often a prick, this doesn't put the movie into the same class as Czech propaganda movies or Leni Riefensthal movies of the third Reich. Those are corporate movies and their provenance and sometimes even stated use is a dead give away. I am sure, you have to go really psycho analytical to call the exploration by Anderson a product at par with aforementioned propaganda movies. The author does make it clear that he is given to easy classification and and finds solace in a bit of lazy slotting. His description of Zero Dark Thirty and Hurt Locker is a pointer. He is happy to find some ideologically jarring stand and switching off to all other pleasures. Somehow, I find this a little limiting and a barrier to expose myself to the pleasures of a well made movie.
By going microscopic we cede the opportunity to be somewhere in the middle ground away from the extreme polarization where nuances are not possible. Every art form has some ideological function and it is incumbent on any independent intellect to be aware of that. At the same time wisdom lies in not going hyper rational, that would obviate the possibility of art that requires an ability to be vulnerable. Reason is there and will be there but it has to be moderated by emotions and willingness to surrender to the joys of contradicting demands of vulnerable abandonment, if it doesn't want to become debilitating.
Hyper rationality has its uses in the domains of discipline and regimented spheres but it is inherently dogmatic. It doesn't allow for nuances as nuances ask for a plurality of explanation - an anathema to rational certainty.
While ideological film reviews are valid and pointing out the ideological outcome of an art piece is a legitimate exercise, it is very easy to go too far and take leave of nuanced world of cinematic pleasure. When delicate and not so delicate undercurrents and artistic pleasure spots are road rollared by an uncompromising ideological interpretation of an art work, we are short changed. We might win an argument (where you have to be forceful..unidirectionally) but art achieves depth by seeping in and not by pointed drilling.
The author is right about the masculine heavy handedness of the ambience of the movie. This is something to be noted and even be allowed to form a backdrop of the entire viewing experience if one's asthetic receptors work in that fashion. But problem arises when such observation becomes central enough to ruin the viewing experience. Self absorbed masculine genius is an intriguing and culturally present, rich and valid cinematic archetype. Presence of such an archetype should not qualify a movie to 'nothing but a propaganda' specially when the actor playing the role brings in so much richness to the proceedings.
If permitted to take similar strident uni dimensional view as Mr Hemon, the article in question is nothing but shameless exploitation of new sensitivity brought in by recent events, including #metoo campaign. A shoddy news jacking.
