Tom Ford's "A Single Man"

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

I attended a screening of Tom Ford's overwrought and over art directed vanity production "A Single Man". It's without question, the most expensive student film ever made.

 

I haven't read any early reviews or press on it so I have no idea what people are saying. I'm sure the pretentious will think it's fabulous beyond measure, however, I suspect it will be savaged by most of the critics.

 

It's about as subtle as a chainsaw in a nursery. Ford doesn't pass up any opportunity to bludgeon the audience with the obvious, i.e., if someone is looking "deeply" at someone else let's make sure there is an extreme close-up of the eye and let's repeat it about a dozen times throughout the movie. If Firth is sad the colors are desaturated, if he's happy they're not. It's the sort of thing a freshman film student would do, thinking it profound and clever.

 

It's neither.

 

The embarrassingly ludicrous scene involving the latin hustler (who is dressed like he walked straight from a Steven Klein photoshoot) screams "I'M A FORD MALE MODEL!!!". Additionally, half the scene is played against a huge and distracting poster from "Psycho", which is basically a close-up of Janet Leigh's.........wait for it...........savour it.........yes, you guess it..........eyes.

 

Probably my favorite moment of cinematic masturbatory absurdity comes near the beginning of the movie when Firth drives onto the campus and three girls dressed in black walk through the shot, apropos of nothing. They look like extras from Grease as styled by Italian Vogue - I suspect Scorsese had to be physically restrained to prevent him from gouging his eyes out. I myself, sat there slack-jawed for nearly a minute before I recovered. It was the first, and last, time in the movie that I felt sorry for Tom for making a fool of himself.

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the slow motion sequences - of which there are several.

 

Ford was writer/producer/director/financier so there was no one there to tell him "no".

 

The movie is a textbook example of someone who isn't even remotely as clever as they think they are.

 

Miraculously, none of the actors embarrassed themselves, although I was surprised at how Julianne's British accent was all over the map. I expect more from her. Firth's performance is actually worthy of an Oscar nomination, however, I suspect he won't get one because no one will want to encourage Ford although, based on everything else in the movie, Ford had nothing to do with the performance.

 

I'm sure all the gays will go see it because Tom Ford is hot and chic and fabulous and all those tedious things that gays have a habit of celebrating. And many will cheer it, however, the truth is, it's a sorry spectacle of pretentious bullshit masquerading as "art".

 

I hope Tom's gotten it out of his system because he needs to go back to fashion and leave filmmaking to the professionals.

[+ purplekow]

I attended a screening of Tom Ford's Single Men

It's about as subtle as a chainsaw in a nursery.

 

Yikes, little baby parts flying all over the place and the doctors screaming.

Sounds like an excellent horror film

[+ Cash4Trash]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1218217-single_man/

 

Above are some of the first reviews. I's been on the festival circuit this year.

Colin Firth is considered a serious Oscar contender.

[operalover21]

A Single Man (alternate view)

 

I saw a screening last night and was going to post but got tired. Someone beat me to it.

 

I have a completely alternate view. First, I think it was very brave of Tom Ford to make this film. I don't think I've ever seen anythng else remotely like it. I re-read the Isherwood and he makes substantial changes but stays true to the spirit of the book.

 

Second, Colin Firth gives an absolutely amazing performance and is sure to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor and may even win. Julianne Moore is not far behind. The young man, whose names escapes me, ends up being affecting but seems stiff at times (no pun intended) but that may have been intentional.

 

The production is absolutely beautiful to look at (setting is 1962). Is it a perfect film? No. Is it a very good film? Yes. Without question. There is nothing that says "student film" about it. It's an amazing first feature. I'd love to see Mr. Ford do more.

 

I would highly recommend it. If for nothing else, an amazing bit of acting from Colin Firth.

 

Go!

[Yeswell]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I really like the book and I was alarmed at some of the changes to the book I've read about. And both Firth and Moore are too young and goodlooking for the parts they play, which I think is a bad sign. Note to Mickie Moosie: don't say 'all the gays' will think something, when you're gay and you don't think that. You're a typical gay: we all are. I loved the chainsaw simile. Note to Opera Lover: it was not brave of Tom Ford to make the movie. Bravery is too important a quality to be used in a situation like this.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

There is nothing that says "student film" about it.

 

You obviously haven't seen any student films. In my younger years, I had a roommate who was a film major and I was subjected to countless student films. Ford's film has the exact quality all those films had (an "important" film that's "saying something dammit!") except his production values far exceed anything a student film could hope for.

 

Because of Firth and Moore, all the pretentious nonsense is imbued with weight and class. Had it been a couple of nobodies found through an ad in Backstage no one would be saying nice things about it.

 

I would highly recommend it. If for nothing else, an amazing bit of acting from Colin Firth.

 

I totally agree that Firth is wonderful and it's worth seeing just for him but be prepared to sit through dozens of excruciating moments of cinematic self-indulgence.

 

Let me cite another one of those I totally forgot about (since there are so many).........

 

As I mentioned in the first post, whenever Firth is remembering his dead lover, the colors are always fully saturated - except for one time. There's a scene where they're lying out on a huge (overly dramatic) rock outcropping. For no reason whatsoever, THAT scene is shot in black and white with a slight infrared effect. It looks like an ad for Obsession - I kept expecting Kate Moss to come staggering into the frame.

 

That scene is a perfect example of what's wrong with the movie. Does it look great? Hell yes! However, it doesn't advance the narrative or serve the work as a whole - instead, it's a moment for the director to indulge his fabulocity. Rather than paying attention to the interaction between the characters, the viewer is distracted by the shot. It's one of countless moments where the director is calling attention to himself ("Doesn't that look amazing?!?!?") - like a 9yo girl suddenly interrupting her parents' cocktail party by dancing in the middle of everyone while wearing her Halloween fairy costume.

 

Every director should be entitled to one shot in a film where they can pull out all the stops and do something just for them (Hitchcock always plopped himself into one shot). However, Ford takes that liberty to the extreme and essentially does it with EVERY shot. The film is filled with beautiful visuals but they constantly step over the line into unintentional parody.

 

Sadly, our culture is filled with people who are so dazzled by style that they fail to notice there's no substance. I could cite a specific politician (peace be unto him), but there's a separate forum for that.

 

By the way, for those who will see the film and wonder: "What the fuck was with the OWL??", the owl (in slo-mo, of course) represents death - like there wasn't enough that had already gone on prior to that to clue us in on the fact that he was going to kill himself.

 

ugh, the more I think about the movie, the more I hate it.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

Note to Mickie Moosie: don't say 'all the gays' will think something, when you're gay and you don't think that. You're a typical gay: we all are.

 

First let me dispense with the part about me being "typical"........I'm not.

 

That aside, you make a very good point so let me clarify what I meant by "all the gays".

 

I was referring to that sub-sect within our community that defines their very existence and everything they do by their sexual identity. If it's gay, they're there in a nanosecond. Those gays will flock to the movie like it's a free Lady Gaga concert.

 

I'm gay, but if I were to list things about me, it would be one of the least consequential aspects of my life. Being gay is who I am just like my height, weight and other characteristics. I'm A through Z and, oh yeah, for those who care, I'm also gay. I got over the whole gay thing way back in the 1900's.

[Rod Hagen]

Isherwood's Single Man was a tweedy community college associate professor who, like Isherwood, lived in a modest Santa Monica bungalow. Knowing that, when I see the heavily-perfumed trailer I gotta ask, what's with the 'roided out Mad Men sets and costumes?

[operalover21]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I really like the book and I was alarmed at some of the changes to the book I've read about. And both Firth and Moore are too young and goodlooking for the parts they play, which I think is a bad sign. Note to Mickie Moosie: don't say 'all the gays' will think something, when you're gay and you don't think that. You're a typical gay: we all are. I loved the chainsaw simile. Note to Opera Lover: it was not brave of Tom Ford to make the movie. Bravery is too important a quality to be used in a situation like this.

 

It's always brave to do something that goes against the conventional wisdom especially when you do most of the finanancing yourself because you believe in the project. I consider that brave.

 

The changes were approved by Mr. Isherwood's estate and his still living partner who has made it clear that he believes that Mr. Isherwood would like what Ford has done. That's enough for me.

[operalover21]

First let me dispense with the part about me being "typical"........I'm not.

 

That aside, you make a very good point so let me clarify what I meant by "all the gays".

 

I was referring to that sub-sect within our community that defines their very existence and everything they do by their sexual identity. If it's gay, they're there in a nanosecond. Those gays will flock to the movie like it's a free Lady Gaga concert.

 

I'm gay, but if I were to list things about me, it would be one of the least consequential aspects of my life. Being gay is who I am just like my height, weight and other characteristics. I'm A through Z and, oh yeah, for those who care, I'm also gay. I got over the whole gay thing way back in the 1900's.

 

What an unbelievably narrow-minded and stupid comment. I don't count myself in that group at all and I went to see it with a bunch of industry friends all of whom were straight.

 

So much for your stereotyping.

[Lankypeters]

What an unbelievably narrow-minded and stupid comment. I don't count myself in that group at all and I went to see it with a bunch of industry friends all of whom were straight.

 

So much for your stereotyping.

 

 

I find the use of the word "stupid" here offensive.

 

And I might point out that "bunch" should be restricted to describing bananas.

[Yeswell]

In being a gay man who proclaims that he's over being gay and he's not like the other gays and that being gay is just one of the many things about him and so on, you are indeed typical. There are many many gay men just like you. But that's fine: there's nothing wrong with being typical and I didn't mean it as an insult. I just don't understand why many gay men feel the need to define gayness as what they're not and then proclaim themselves as more individual.

[Yeswell]

P.S. The owl sounds very bad indeed. Oh my god.

[Yeswell]

Sorry, Opera Lover, it's still not brave. Tom Ford is a gay man with lots of money who decided to make a film that is bound to recoup its costs, at the very least. He's not coming out and he's not risking poverty. It's just not brave. And even if Don Bachardy feels Isherwood would have approved of the changes we are not required to agree with him. If you liked the movie, fine, but you don't need the ghost of Isherwood to endorse your judgment.

[+ purplekow]

I find the use of the word "stupid" here offensive.

 

And I might point out that "bunch" should be restricted to describing bananas.

 

 

I am glad you made your first point. But as to your second, let us not get our panties in a bunch.

[Guest DuchessIvanaKizznhugg]

I agree.....

 

Sorry, Opera Lover, it's still not brave.

 

I agree with you Yeswell. For me, acts of bravery need to have a concern beyond one's self.

Tom Ford's film effort may well be considered as risk-taking (in a creative/career sense, I mean) on his part, but it's not the stuff of bravery.

[Lankypeters]

But as to your second, let us not get our panties in a bunch.

 

Faulty diction will do that.

[operalover21]

I find the use of the word "stupid" here offensive.

 

And I might point out that "bunch" should be restricted to describing bananas.

 

Sorry if you find the use of that word offensive but I stand by my opinion that that comment was stupid.

 

As for "bunch." If you knew this group you would know that they are not far off from a bunch of bananas.

[uwsman2]

"bravery"

 

I haven't seen this film yet, but based on the advance discussions, I hope to, having read and enjoyed the book many years ago when it was new.

 

As to "bravery" - I think creative people - artists, if you will - are very brave in putting their works out there for people to judge and comment upon. Especially a movie with pretensions of being a major release, being entered in film festival competitions and opening in theaters to be subjected to commentary by radio, TV, blog, and newspaper reviewers, who will feel completely uninhibited about characterizing and being critical about the creative folks who made the film. Every time a performing artist goes out on a stage, there is a kind of bravery at work, putting themselves out there to be judged.

 

So I think that whenever we decide to comment publicly on the work of such a person, we owe it to them to think seriously about what we are going to say, and to temper our comments with an attempt at understanding what they are trying to do. Everybody has a right to express their judgments, of course, but I think that temperate language is appropriate in the presence of such creative efforts.