Wednesday, February 01, 2017

PTA Adds Lesley Manville & Vicky Krieps To Fashion Film As Details Arrive

Focus Features has provided a formal press release today with some new details about the untitled (yes, it is careful to note, untitled) new Paul Thomas Anderson project, including cast and crew members as well as some new details about the story.
LOS ANGELES, February 1st, 2017 – Production has begun in the U.K. on writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson’s untitled new film. Three-time Oscar winner Daniel Day-Lewis is joined in the cast by Lesley Manville, who was a BAFTA Award nominee for Best Actress for Another Year, and Vicky Krieps, whose films include A Most Wanted Man and Focus Features’ Hanna.
Focus holds worldwide rights to the film, and will distribute the film in the U.S. later this year with Universal Pictures handling international distribution.
The film’s producers are JoAnne Sellar, Megan Ellison, through her Annapurna Pictures, and Paul Thomas Anderson. The executive producers are Peter Heslop, Adam Somner, and Daniel Lupi. Chelsea Barnard and Jillian Longnecker are overseeing production for Annapurna.
Continuing their creative collaboration following 2007’s There Will Be Blood, which earned Mr. Day-Lewis the Best Actor Academy Award, Mr. Anderson will once again explore a distinctive milieu of the 20th century. The new movie is a drama set in the couture world of 1950s London. The story illuminates the life behind the curtain of an uncompromising dressmaker commissioned by royalty and high society.
The creative team includes Academy Award-winning costume designer Mark Bridges, marking his eighth consecutive project with Mr. Anderson; Emmy Award-winning production designer Mark Tildesley and BAFTA Award-nominated set decorator Véronique Melery; Academy Award-nominated film editor Dylan Tichenor, and BAFTA Award-nominated composer Jonny Greenwood, each marking their fourth feature with Mr. Anderson; casting director Cassandra Kulukundis, on her seventh film with Mr. Anderson; and lighting cameraman Michael Bauman.
Perhaps least surprising of all this is the fact that Jonny Greenwood and Mark Bridges have signed on for the film, while it's a pleasant surprise to see Dylan Tichenor back in the mix, having not edited for Paul in almost exactly a decade.

The release goes so far as to identify Veronique Melery and Michael Bauman as the film's set decorator and lighting camerman, respectively, but curiously omits who will be serving as cinematographer. We have certain theories about why that might be but we'll hold off on reporting that for now...

-- EDIT: More from the Whitby treasure trove! (via @johnsantfilms)

Twitter and Facebook


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. I prefer Leslie Jones' editing to Dylan's. He allows scenes to linger beyond their usefulness.

    1. I'm sorry, I am as sorry as one can be about this but... something must finally be said. This fan site should be taken down... I mean come on, cigarettes and redvines, that's just nostalgia, now it's more like a cigarette and kale salad. Paul has become engrossed in a bubble of complaisance and ease. Starting with TWBB the concepts seem wonderful but, the films... if you're really being honest as fan, are partially executed and half inspired. Since TWBB, there has been a steady decrease in actual real goodness beyond a couple of great moments separate from a whole picture, I'm sad mostly because I want to so much to see these movies when I hear and read about them but I continue to walk away from watching.... unexcited and unprovoked (his last three movies.) Yes DDL was great, but he was also not in the same movie as everyone else. Look, almost no one would pass up the chance to work with DDL but with "untitled/phantom thread" Paul again seems that he's just gonna lean on a superlative performance in what sounds like (if I'm really being honest) his first truly out-of-touch concept for a film. Look, it's easy now, he's gotten carte blanche from Annapurna, and if he thinks these are the best movies to make, then ok. It's ok. As a FAN who still buys movie tickets, it's time for a new great filmmaker. Because, the of the in-the-bubble like nature of post-indie filmmakers doing only moderate and patronizing work (at least as far as the actual audiences are concerned) is really becoming a bummer in our time. As a liberal it seems we have even become weak in there Arts. Especially in 2017, as other media platforms and formats are swelling to engulf the feature film... We need some truly great new filmmakers. Even Tarantino has the self awareness to realize he has become a lame duck and is retiring in two movies. Maybe if the nostalgic followers and film school students take away his fan site it will challenge Paul to do the hard work again. I indeed even remember when this site had a great design and wasn't just this ehhh blogspot. Life is more complex than ever and there is still time for a few new great Cinema Classics, cinema is the lie that reflects the truth. But good things don't ever get made unless people (new or old) have both the insight and the fortitude to do the good hard work.

      I hope this movie is good, but this is where we're at. So yeah it's crazy, but I'm not excited for a Daniel Day-Lewis / Paul Thomas Anderson movie.

    2. You're just not a paul thomas anderson fan. Starting with PDL is when he truly blossomed as an artist. When his films became more freeform, more improvisational, more dreamlike and experimental. His early films were engrossing and highly technical well-told stories that were cinematically in debt to his favorite filmmakers. He only coalesced all his influences into something distinctly his own in his later career. His recent films are hard on a first viewing, because they're more structurally challenging and ambiguous, but that's what makes them great art.

    3. I'm still a fan, but a bored and unenthusiastic one. But look PDL WAS GREAT. Perfect even.

      But TWBB and forward are half ehhhh and you must know it. (At least feel it.) As I said before I crave to see these films, watch them four or five times and upon reviewing begin to feel what's actually missing.

      Not only were the early films technical amalgams of greatness, they more importantly included relevancy and style that was (possibly luckily) of its time. They told us truths about life that we could apply across our time in this space continuum. And the new films bite from other styles just as much or more but they're missing the goodness.

      If TWBB, the master, inherent vice, and this new one is his blossoming... it seems more like a rotting. Be real... he said what he had to say when he had a lot to say... he's got twenty kids now and wife that makes the real bread. He's half in it because he can't be fully in it any more. People get old and creatively drained and even sometimes the best.

      Really, people say the audience is the problem, but that is not actually what's happening in this situation. The fanboys want there to be more there... so they say there is... and they spend time figuring out ways to extract self imposed meaning from what in reality is (from someone who's been on set) rushed and half thought out art. Btw Paul is more technically concerned than ever. Look, on top of that... when the dream team was behind him (elswit, tichneor, brion and everyone else together) there was magic, but even they have changed. Times have changed and great artists preserver. His blossoming has equaled stagnation and irrelevancy.

      So you can get mad at the fans for the quality because "they just don't see what YOU see" but that is indicative of the movie industries problem as a whole. The lack of insight into contemporary humanity as it especially pertains to feature films in modern time.

      Studios only make movies on #s and big data now and artists like Paul have full lives and are older, so they come up with what they can and hope that something pops or that at least the aura of genius past will bleed into whatever new attempt they embark upon.

      Feature film is declining due to many things like streaming, vr, games and future immersive entertainment. But, importantly there is an amazing lack of quality creativity... even in the artistic and avante-garde dept. Now is a very critical time, and there is, especially now, a yearning from us cinema fans and actual monetarily supportive audience to have new, relevant, and meaningful true-to-life flicks (that teach us something about ourselves and make us say.... yeah that's how it is, ultimately feeling less lonesome on this planet.) We live in this great and crucial time and there is still a ten year window where some the greatest movies of human history could be produced. Ones that define our place in time and embolden the outsider in all of us, while including, progressing and illuminating the audience. This new phantom thread thing ain't that. So cool, another Brit period piece but this time we get it with Paul and DDL.

      Vice will do an long interview about it, DDL might win an award and then we'll all forget about. Just what the movie industry needs right now.

      Cool I guess.

    4. so now then... As I said before, I crave to see these films, watch them four or five times and upon reviewing begin to feel what's actually missing.

      Reference points

      1. Unexpected/relevant/succinct casting
      (Are you kidding, brolin was awful, Paul dano= over acting out tha wazoo, Reese Witherspoon was boring, so was kathrine whatever, and I wished Owen Wilson had brought it, but again.... it equaled a strong ehhhh. Even Joaquin who seemed 100% fit came out looking like he was acting. (You must know these things to be true in your heart.) it seems now for every piece of good casting there are two mehhh decisions.

      2. Music - I'm not opposed to switching composers but I'm sorry... Johnny greengrass just really ain't that good at composing. It lack luster at best. Music and sound may be 51% of what makes a movie great and this new music is only ok. There's been three chances now, and while he seems cool, the music so just ok. It's almost like someone famous trying to rip off other styles and he falls short of even that. TWBB music was like a bad copy of Jon Brion and Penderecki.

      Look, over all, at the end of the day, the productions just don't hit with a force or even a lingering rumination. So it's cool, he'll just make these movies that's cool.

      At least Tarantino has some self awareness and wants to pass the baton to those willing.

      Film is dying because yesterday's saviors have now become today's dinosaurs. I'm just saying... maybe some people should stop sucking toes and challenge these artists to once again make Awe Inspiring Feature Films.

      Who knows what will happen. My fellow liberal creators have proven to be weak and ineffective, while we tell ourselves we're winning. So maybe let's just suck toes, look for something that isn't there and sit quietly while we die.

    5. I agree that it is frustrating that Paul is doing a Brit period piece about dressmaking.... I can't imagine someone can defend this premise, but I also can't judge it before seeing it. But for you to say that his previous movies don't connect to real people or the current cultural climate is wrong. The best films are metaphor, and like all great art metaphor is what gives the piece its power. Blood was set 150 years ago and centers on people we will never know and a time period we will never know. But the struggle between religion and business, father and son, past and present is universal and is unequivocally in the DNA of TWBB. The Master also connects us to a spiritual struggle and another dynamic between business and religion and power. Inherent Vice's "moment" that really blew me away was the moment that the 70s suburban women basically stole the culture from the open minded weirdo hippies in that parking lot. It was pretty powerful to have such a weird, funny moment say so much. So I think he's using original characters and stories to let us look at ourselves in an interesting way. Yea, it's cool to have a movie like Last Picture Show and Last Detail but Blade Runner or The Fly also have their merits even though their characters and worlds are completely unrelatable.

      So to say he's borrowing on nostalgia is weird to me because he's making movies in a completely different way than he was in the early part of his career.

      I feel like your posts are political and who can blame you, I politicize everything nowadays as well. But the storyline that you use and a lot of people use about the liberals forgetting the real people of this country seems like you and the people that use this narrative don't know who the people are. It's condescending to think that everyone who isn't in LA/NYC is a coal miner.

      I think the generation collective of filmmakers that we romanticize of the 70s with Spielberg and Lucas and Scorsese and Coppola and DePalma we want to have with the guys from the 90s-QT and PTA and Spike Jonze and Kevin Smith- isn't there. But I don't think film is dying it's just waiting for a little rebirth. I think there is way too much emphasis on the Oscars, we need the studios to release the best movies year round instead of dumping them all in a three month period. We need to not hold back criticism on films because we are worried about being PC, and we should all try to take friends and dates to other movies even if we seem like the pretentious dicks that don't want to see a Marvel movie. And also, Cigs And Redvines is awesome, they put a lot of work into getting this information and they usually break them first.

    6. If you think TWBB is half ehhhh... you must get your head checked

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Do we know if he's shooting on 35, 65, or 70? In one of the photos, I saw a 35 mag, but I might be wrong. Let me know.

  5. Lighting cameraman is as Kubrick used to refers to his DoP, I assume Michael Bauman is the DoP.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Michael Bauman was a gaffer on The Master and Inherent Vice (and the "Daydreaming" video), so I wonder if "lighting cameraman" is the Kubrick definition or maybe he's getting bumped up to working the lights while PTA does the actual camerawork.

    1. That's what I was thinking. It's like what Kubrick did with Douglas Milsome for "Full Metal Jacket" or Larry Smith for "Eye's Wide Shut".

  8. One of the possible theories on the ellusive cinematographer might be that he's DPing himself? There was not a credited DP for the Radiohead videos...

  9. do you think day lewis has been training as a dress maker for the past 2 years? i wouldnt put it past him

  10. Hey does anyone know why Jon Brion doesn't score his projects anymore? I absolutely love Greenwood and the work he and Paul have done together but I sometimes miss the Brion sound paired with Paul's imagery :(

    1. Amen, brother. When 'Punch-Drunk Love' finally has its day in the sun, we'll all talk about the unparalleled combination of visuals and soundscape. But that movie is hyper-stylized compared to 'The Master,' 'Inherent Vice,' and I'd even argue 'There Will Be Blood,' too. I wonder if Paul has just moved on. It's hard for me to explain, but something bothers me about how the visuals and score to 'Blood' and 'The Master' go together. But 'Vice' convinced me Anderson + Greenwood is a great pairing.

  11. Hey guys I'm super pumped for this, but am curious about the story concept. I'm having a hard time picturing a PTA film set in England about a dressmaker. This seems rather bizarre no? I'm sure it's going to be beautiful but honestly am shocked that this is what he and ddl are up to

  12. Almost certain this will be a loosely-conjured adaptation of the life of Norman Hartnell, couturier, iconic designer and Royally-appointed dressmaker for the Queen of England, the Royal family, high society, and film / theatre starlets, and whom was at the height of his popularity, success and cultural acclaim in 50s London. He appears to have lead a voracious *bon vivant* sort of life:

    Can conceive of this being the narrative of Hartnell attempting to divine the design for the dresses worn by Queen Elizabeth II in the 50s when he was designated as 'Dressmaker by Royal Warrant' to the young Queen (when she was in her thirties). Can therefore imagine Vicky Krieps (also in her early thirties) will be portraying the young Queen Elizabeth II, and Lesley Manville will be portraying Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (who would've been in her mid-fifties).

    If my speculation's correct, that certainly makes for a kind of formalist historical departure for PTA!



  13. I also just finished researching who the film may be loosely based on! Along with Hartnell, I stumbled upon Hardy Amies, with whom Hartnell had a sort of competition. Amies also made dresses for the Queen in the 50's.

    Another fun fact about about Amies is that he designed all of the costumes for Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odessy!!

    Amies once - referring to Hartnell - was quoted as saying:

    "It's quite simple. He was a silly old queen and I'm a clever old queen".

    It would be interesting if this competitive nature between the two famous designers were to inspire the film. Plainview/Eli hehe.

    Very excited in any case!

  14. Wow. When it Comes to editing, you're a moron. I guess you can't sit through a Stanley Kubrick movie because he lets the shots linger too long. Maybe the problem is you, not them.