Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
Vicky Krieps | ... | ||
Daniel Day-Lewis | ... | ||
Lesley Manville | ... | ||
Julie Vollono | ... |
London Housekeeper
|
|
![]() |
Sue Clark | ... |
Biddy
|
![]() |
Joan Brown | ... |
Nana
|
![]() |
Harriet Leitch | ... |
Pippa
|
![]() |
Dinah Nicholson | ... |
Elsa
|
![]() |
Julie Duck | ... |
Irma
|
![]() |
Maryanne Frost | ... |
Winn
|
![]() |
Elli Banks | ... |
Elli
|
![]() |
Amy Cunningham | ... |
Mabel
|
![]() |
Amber Brabant | ... |
Amber
|
![]() |
Geneva Corlett | ... |
Geneva
|
![]() |
Juliet Glaves | ... |
Florist
|
Set in the glamour of 1950s post-war London, renowned dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) are at the center of British fashion, dressing royalty, movie stars, heiresses, socialites, debutants, and dames with the distinct style of The House of Woodcock. Women come and go through Woodcock's life, providing the confirmed bachelor with inspiration and companionship, until he comes across a young, strong-willed woman, Alma (Vicky Krieps), who soon becomes a fixture in his life as his muse and lover. Once controlled and planned, he finds his carefully tailored life disrupted by love. Written by Focus Features
I've always had mixed feelings about P.T. Anderson -- on the one hand, he has a brilliant touch as a director, and as a fan of his dad's role as "Ghoulardi" on local Cleveland television growing up, I always had a soft spot for the kid. But this film is a puzzle: its gender politics are stuck in the 1950's along with its fashion choices (at one point, Day-Lewis's Woodcock crows "Don't say the word 'chic'!"), its main characters are utterly flat, and the only interesting changes are brought about by poisonous mushrooms. No one grows, no one really steps out of themselves; trapped within Anderson's brilliantly-framed shots, they talk, argue, raise their eyebrows, and sometimes noisily crunch their toast, world without end, amen. A film must go from one place to another; someone in it must grow or experience change; we have to be somewhere different at the end than at the beginning. Here all we have is beautiful stasis -- which ultimately make this film, despite its rich artfulness, an ugly one.