Phantom Thread | Dirtying the Frame

In almost every way ‘Phantom Thread’ is a cinematographic anomaly. For one it is a film without a true cinematographer. Director Paul Thomas Anderson's regular cinematographer, Robert Elswitt (who, save for 2012’s ‘The Master’, had shot all of Anderson's previous films) was unavailable and so Anderson, along with a well established team of cameramen and lighting technicians, decided to proceed without him. Cinematographic duties on the film were a collaborative affair between Anderson, lighting cameraman Mike Bauman, camera operator Colin Anderson and gaffer Jonny Franklin. This is a story fascinating in itself, but bizarrely not the most interesting element of the films cinematographic presentation, as what fascinates me about Phantom Thread is how spectacularly it bucks the trends of modern cinematography, aiming not for clarity or the highest quality of image and light but rather for a frame that looks dirty, authentic and ‘period appropriate’. What fascinates me the most is the way in which Anderson chose to ‘dirty up the frame’ and challenge the conventions of modern cinematography. 

‘Phantom Thread’ in so many ways feels like an antidote to the problems of modern cinema, though I’m not here to diagnose the cause; it is clear that modern cinema has become almost too perfect technically. Images are now better lit than ever, they’re cleaner and in the highest technical quality that cinema has ever seen but with that, blockbusters (and it is blockbusters especially) seem to have lost a sense of style, a sense of creativity and unique artistic expression in their visual presentation. It is hence refreshing to see a director like Anderson whose aim is to achieve exactly the opposite. Anderson’s lighting cameraman and previously long-time gaffer Michael Bauman said one of the first things Anderson told him about the film's visual style is ‘this cannot look like the Crown’, he goes on: ‘When people think of a period movie it becomes this beautifully polished, amazingly photographed – I mean ‘The Crown’ looks beautiful – but super clean, gorgeous light and he was clear it [Phantom Thread] couldn’t look like that.’

So how did they go about doing this? What exactly did Anderson's assertions mean? The result of this very simple mandate is one of the most stunningly beautiful period pieces ever shot, a film that truly feels older than its 2017 release date. As always with Anderson, modern cinema's preeminent analogue purist, ‘Phantom Thread’ was shot on film and the stock was chosen with intention. Film is in constant competition with digital, it is in a fight to stay relevant and in response to this developers like Kodak have begun to create film with a very fine grain, a high purity and a quality that can stack up against digital. But ultimately for Anderson this look was not antique enough, the uniquely obvious grain structure of film is part of its charm - its rough and old fashioned characteristic. Anderson was looking for texture and he found that in Kodak's Vision3 200T (Tungsten balanced film) and 500T stocks. 

These choices were made through conducting extensive research and testing, with the final format and lenses chosen for the film's look not being locked in until a week before filming began. It is clear watching the films tests (which have been cut down and published on youtube along with a commentary from the director) that Anderson knew exactly what he wanted, often making comments like ‘as you can see it’s just not right’ or remarking on how a single teapot in the back of frame felt ‘wrong’ and out of place ‘in the house of Woodcock’. Anderson's vision is definitive and supported by an expert technical knowledge, Bauman says of him ‘He can hold his own with any other DP when it comes to glass and what he wants out of it and how it’ll react to film –  he knows it incredibly well.’

The film has a very atypical look. It is not sharp and pristine, rather it is soft and hazy; where many modern films aim for rich blacks, Anderson instead opts to flatten the contrast and reduce the intensity of colour. Bauman states ‘Most people try to have nice rich blacks – a very nice velvety type of feeling in the blacks – and that was no bueno for this film’. During their initial testing for the film the team tested some 50D (Daylight balanced) stock, but found that, even with the lo-con (low contrast) filter they’d use throughout, it was ‘incredibly sharp and colourful’, and for ‘Phantom Thread’ they ‘wanted something else’. The higher they went with the film speed the more desaturated the image became, hence why they chose the faster 500T stock as their standard look. The film's low contrast look was further supported by the team's choice to use vintage glass, like the Zeiss Jena lenses or the 50mm antique Pathe he had converted to spherical, which was used to shoot anamorphic on ‘There Will Be Blood’, that softened the actors features and added character to the frame. This look was all supported by the use of haze and softer light sources on set that all helped to further flatten the film's contrast. 

However, the lower contrast captured in the initial shoot was not purely an artistic decision but a technical necessity. When ‘pushed’ in post production (a technique that involves intentionally underexposing film and then compensating for it during development), the 500T film stock became far more textured; the grain was enhanced, the contrast increased and the colour saturation deepened as Bauman explains in an interview with Kodak - ‘We settled on a push for the entire movie, which had the effect of enhancing the film grain, increasing the contrast and delivering more saturated color’. In preparation for this approach Bauman and Anderson experimented with this ‘push processed style’ on their music videos for both Radiohead's ‘Daydreaming’ and HAIM’s ‘Valentine’. These videos, like ‘Phantom Thread’, had a unique look that came from enhancing certain elements that are uniquely filmic, by ‘breaking’ the image and letting imperfections in. Whilst film was still the standard cinematic choice, manufacturers aimed to reduce its imperfections but now, with the cleanliness of digital so prevalent in our cinematic landscape, there is an artistic desire to embrace the beauty in the antique and imperfect. 

Modern filmmakers should take note of Anderson's approach, and it seems like some are. Just last year, cinematographer Greig Frasier used many rehoused ‘soviet-era’ lenses for ‘Dune: Part 2’, including the ever popular Helios 44-2 that was utilised on ‘The Batman’. Additionally filmmakers like Sean Baker, who has fully embraced the characteristics of anamorphic glass with his latest ‘Anora’, and with Yorgos Lanthimos’s ‘Poor Things’ featuring a fantastic swirled bokeh, it appears that many are embracing the imperfections of the antique. However examples like such are few and far between, and an exciting exception to the rule. This approach will of course not work for every film and digital cleanliness still has its place. Jonathan Glazers’ ‘The Zone of Interest’ for example, is uniquely digital in a very chilling way but my hope is that more filmmakers will learn from Anderson's example and will be challenged to make bolder, more interesting cinematographic decisions.

Phantom Thread | Technical Specs 

Aspect ratio: 1.85 : 1

Camera: Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2

Stock: 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219)

Printed Film Format: 35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383) 70 mm (blow-up, Kodak Vision 2383)

Written by Jonah Prisk | IG: @jonahprisk