Liberation in Confinement & Control: Autonomy Through Poison
Characters
I am going to try something new this week and start a miniseries where I will examine forms of violence and the way that they influence female identity in film. I will specifically look at movies with female protagonists where they use a form of violence (a term which I will be using broadly) and examine how the act of violence influences their identity (either works as an act of resistance or a moment of empowerment or both).
For this week, I'm going to begin with the film Phantom Thread.
When I first watched Phantom Thread, I was fascinated by the way it played with violence. I thought it was so cool the way blood was drawn without there being any blood drawn. It was all in the dialogue, in the silences, hovering in these intense moments of tension. I was, like most of you, stunned by the final twist, and it had me thinking about everything. I mean, did Alma win? That was the main question. She was still under Reynolds' rule. She was still trapped in that toxic marriage.
But, then, I rewatched the movie, and I started seeing Alma's agency in a much different light.
For the sake of keeping this analysis concise, I will not delve too much into voyeurism, although I'll leave some links at the bottom of the article in case you're curious. What I will highlight is how Reynolds uses his gaze to establish dominance over Alma. From the very beginning of the scene, Reynolds' eyes penetrate into Alma's personal space; he witnesses her fumbling and becomes privy to her embarrassment. They both laugh it off but the dynamic is clear: Reynolds is in control and Alma is not. This dynamic is further established when Alma walks over to him to take his order. At this point, Reynolds' gaze is unabashedly violating; even through the screen, his gaze and silence elicits a level of discomfort. He is deconstructing the woman in front of him, taking her down to her parts and then leaving his judgments. She can feel it, too, although arguably his attention and the discomfort he causes is a form of pleasure for her.
The moment, innocuous as it seems, becomes hyper-sexualized because of how it confines and strips Alma. That is to say, Alma's body is the centerfocus, actively being exposed and undressed by his eyes, and in this manner, Reynolds becomes the dominating force.
So, originally, I saw this scene and was like, okay, Alma is not empowered here. In fact, she becomes entrapped in Reynolds' world, defined and reshaped to his desires and rules. However, I don't think that's true anymore.
It all goes back to that very first dinner date.
"If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose." - Alma
Where it seems like Alma immediately succumbs to Reynolds' power game, the dinner reveals an ulterior side to Alma that enables her to navigate and resist his dominance. It all begins with the conversation surrounding his mother. Reynolds asks/demands Alma for a photograph of her parents, to which she says no. At this point, her answer inadvertently wobbles his sense of authority because, first, it hasn't been done before, and second, she asserts her own authority so that it overrides his. He doesn't have a response to it. She replies with "it is at home," which neither poses an alternative to soothe him nor does it promise her ever showing him the photograph at all. This, then, becomes the moment where who controls the conversation switches.
To break the silence, and to regain a semblance of control, Reynolds continues by sharing a moment of vulnerability. He tells her where he keeps his mother and why. This is an important scene because in his attempt to re-establish his command, he ends up giving a piece of himself to her. Alma is the one observing, demanding, prying. For the conversation to continue, he must open up to her.
The conversation transitions to Alma inquiring about his love life. At this point, her scrutiny is evident. And, although Reynolds is smiling, it is clear he is uncomfortable, because the conversation is transactional. It comes with the undertone that one will win; one will be more exposed and undressed than the other. When he caves in and explains why he is unmarried, Alma is quick to judge it as predictable. Here, through her responses, she confines him to her judgments the same way he did with her eyes. If that is not clear enough, her next sentence really hammer in the extent to her control. She claims both out loud and with her gaze: "If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose."
This is a significant moment because firstly it highlights her awareness of what he is doing, and secondly, she is blatantly challenging him. What might seem like an obvious power imbalance is revealed to be much more.
"I still think he is too fussy." - Alma
As the movie continues, Alma's reign of power becomes more and more blatant.
Earlier in the movie, Reynolds used his position of authority and his words to restrict and confine the first girl he was dating. His tactic was to make her a ghost of sorts, both ignoring her, and also confining her to his shadow. This is something that is later revealed when Cyril asks him whether he's going to make Alma into a ghost as well. It becomes clear that he is using his attention— his gaze— as a weapon, one that determines the value and worth of his female counterpart.
Where his deprivation of attention actually erased the previous girl (we never hear or see her again), Alma retaliates against it with her complaints and opinions. In fact, she uses this space to redefine her own identity and agency through sound and movement. Cyril asks her to behave and in place, Alma reminds her that Reynolds is being "too fussy." Again, what does this remind you of? Well, it's exactly what Reynolds is doing. He defines the behaviour of the women around him. He shapes them, tames them, reworks them so that they are beautiful. What is Alma doing when she judges Reynolds behaviour? She's stripping him down, calling him out; moreover, she is using her words to carve him so that he behaves the way she wants to (but that comes much later).
"Maybe I like my own taste." - Alma
What originally seems like subservience can be turned over on its head to conquerorship. As Alma consistently asserts her opinions, her tastes, her thoughts, she starts taking over Reynolds' empire. She's the one who disrupts Reynolds' reign, inflicting injury and insecurity to his ego. For instance, when he makes another dress for her, she is quick to point out that she doesn't like the fabric, which attacks his skill. When he retaliates by calling her taste bad, she replies with "Maybe I like my own taste," again, undermining the effect of his insult.
It may not seem like violence at first, but it is. Just like Reynolds' gaze was a knife that dismembers her down to her bones, Alma's words, silences, assertions, and the final poisoning allows her to cut her husband down in the same way. He becomes marginalized from his own house; even Cyril at one point talks back to him when he complains, eerily echoing a similar sentiment to Alma's: "Don't pick a fight with me, you certainly won't come out alive." The playing field has entirely shifted: Reynolds' power is merely a facade. From the shadows, Alma lurks and watches over him.
"She's turning me inside out." - Reynolds
The peak of Alma's authority comes to light when Reynolds finally brings his grievances to Cyril. Alma is the winning force; Reynolds is the one who is actively being erased and he knows it: “I can't work. I can't concentrate, I have no confidence. She does not fit in this house. We built this house, the two of us. Now, she's turning the whole bloody place upside down. She's turning me inside out.”
When I first heard this quote, I thought it was Reynolds repeating old patterns. He was tired of Alma; he was going to kick her out for good. Rewatching this, however, reveals how violence (using her gaze and words) allows Alma not only to imitate his power, but to take over. She is on the throne, which is evident when the interaction between Cyril and Reynolds ends with her entrance. She is the invisible eye lurking over Reynolds, keeping him in place, stripping him down to his bones, undressing him. Her silence takes control. She constricts him simply with her gaze, shaping her relationship to what she wants. In fact, I realized that Reynolds was becoming exactly what Alma wanted all along. He was turning into a helpless child, tattling on the mean, invisible bully while also relying on her validation. In this way, by indulging in violence through voyeurism, Alma is able to establish her own authority.
"I want you flat on your back."
So we get the poisoning scene, and this is the culmination of her violence, the final act, the moment where she overpowers him because she takes it one step further. She actually manifests her control through physical violence.
By literally poisoning him, Alma not only becomes the dominating force, but she emphasizes that Reynolds' authority was always an illusion. When she goes, "I want you flat on your back," she takes the mind games and puts it on the surface. This statement is her desire, opinion, and influence over Reynolds revealed: she has been and will always be the one in control. Reynolds collapses to the ground at her feet, and this becomes a visual demonstration of him succumbing to her. The next scenes show Alma standing whereas Reynolds is always seated, bowing to her presence.
It might not seem like a big deal, but what is important is the way in which violence allows Alma room to define herself. What is Alma's identity, really? At first it was waitress, a young girl who was not known, not rich, and didn't quite like herself. With Reynolds, she is powerful, beautiful, and capable. Violence allows her to build a sense of self that is, ironically and arguably, autonomous (despite it being contingent to her marriage to Reynolds) and empowered.
Women are so often marginalized within narratives, that it is refreshing to see characters that subvert their positions to take up room. What Alma's story shows is the way in which violence can be a form of resistance. I think Phantom Thread might even be playing with us, the audience, by testing our preconceived notions. It took me a second watch to realize the extent to Alma's win, to even accept that, despite the toxicity of her relationship, she had, in fact, succeeded in more than resisting her erasure. She reinstated herself. She conquered. In this way, her relationship becomes her legacy, one that maintains she stays on top.
More Readings
- https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/1b4f38d2-3caa-485f-a8bf-d567e2058b8f/content
- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137444387_2
- https://ifl.web.baylor.edu/sites/g/files/ecbvkj771/files/2024-02/PatternsofViolenceArticleTrain.pdf
- https://medium.com/we-die-first/watcher-and-the-invisible-man-the-violence-of-voyeurism-7a1d5b2a4475
- https://www.thefrightclubni.com/post/1960-the-year-of-cinematic-voyeurism
(Not on voyeurism, but a really cool reading of the Phantom Thread and plants)
- https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/04/killer-plants-annihilation-phantom-thread-beguiled-lady-macbeth/557873/
More Articles
It's Not That Deep: Why You Need to Watch Catfight
The Lobster Isn't As Artsy As You Think It Is
On Violence & Women: What Movie Shall I Discuss Next? Put your suggestions in the comments!
Comments 4