A Single Man

Life IS worth living—Some dreamy boy might flirt with you!
Released:
2009

Director: Tom Ford

Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Matthew Goode, Nicholas Hoult

The Setup:

Man still mourning the death of his partner plans suicide.

Discussion:

This film comes with a bit of backstory, which is that it is the first film by Tom Ford, fashion designer and former head of some fashion house or other, who decided it’s time to direct films, and financed this largely himself. It is an adaptation of a late Christopher Isherwood novel that I read way back when, and didn’t think that much of, although others consider it “a defining work of modern gay literature.” So here we go!

We open with images of Colin Firth as George Falconer floating aimlessly in water. Then he approaches a car crash where his lover and their dog lie dead, kisses the corpse, then wakes in his bed. It is 1962 and radio reports remind us of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is eight months after the death of George’s lover, Jim, in a car accident while away visiting his family. George lives in an amazing glass house in Los Angeles. He calls his friend Charley, played by Julianne Moore, and tells her he will come by for dinner after all. Then he gets out a gun and slips it into his bag.

Along the way we’ve had frequent flashbacks to George going over to Charley’s house the night he received the news of Jim’s death, and his childhood. He goes to school, where he teaches literature, and gives an impromptu lecture about how we all live in fear, with special coded section about gays, at which point we cut again and again to two gay guys sitting in front, one gorgeous one decidedly not, as though to explicitly say “See? Not everyone in this movie is going to be utterly gorgeous.” But let’s get back to the gorgeous people: student Kenny, with piercing blue eyes and an angora sweater, and his chain-smoking girlfriend who looks like a baby Claudia Schiffer. She has two major abilities in this movie: smoke and give intense looks.

Kenny is clearly intrigued by George in more than a scholarly way, and essentially becomes a mini-stalker, always showing up and making loaded comments and casting meaningful looks, and literally lurking around every corner. By the way, throughout the course of the movie, on about eight different occasions, different people tell George that he looks terrible, although the newly slimmed-down Firth has never looked more radiant. Even in the world of the movie, he looks healthy and well-rested and impeccably dressed. Grief has also apparently rendered him unspeakably attractive, given the huge amount of people who come on to him during the course of this single day. One is a gorgeous Spanish man hustler outside the liquor store, seemingly waiting for someone exactly like George to drop by. They smoke together in front of a giant poster for Psycho. By the way, several scenes are desaturated to the point of approaching sepia or black and white.

George buys bullets. Kenny shows up again. He takes all his stuff out of his safe deposit box. Kenny shows up again. He goes home and arranges all of his papers and keys for easy post-death processing, and has a semi-comic scene where he practices putting the gun in his mouth, but keeps fussing with this or that. Then he goes over to Charley’s.

Charley is a woman who George had an affair with way back when, but it didn’t work out, and she became his lifelong friend. She is now divorced and bitter and makes herself up for George’s visit apparently five hours before he is expected, and has a friend in booze. They have dinner during which she laments her sad state—married twice with kids and husband who abandoned her—and asks if George ever wished they’d end up together, which he definitely did not. She says they could be together now, and he could have a “REAL relationship,” which causes George to explode about how his relationship with Jim WAS real. The movie suddenly springs to life in this scene, making one realize how monotonous the previous hour had been, and causing me to think “At last someone who can act—but wait a minute, we’re talking about Colin Firth, who can certainly act.” It’s just a testament to how dulled-down the rest of the movie is.

SPOILERS > > >
George goes home to finally do the deed, when there are more and more complications, and a mysterious rustling in the bushes outside his house. I wonder who that could be? He goes out to the bar where he first met Jim [cue flashback], and who should be showing up moments later, but stalker Kenny. They talk, then go take a nude swim, wherein George bumps his head somehow and they return to George’s house. Kenny constantly calls George “Sir” and asks leading flirty questions like “Is that an order?” when George tells him to get another beer. I found myself distinctly uncomfortable during all the Kenny scenes, for a multitude of little reasons: he’s a pushy little stalker, and I found his continued attentions and sexual insinuations fairly creepy, he is George’s student, and he’s just a little too gorgeous in a pretty-boy fashion-model way, which is also distancing, as the tone of the movie elides over his creepiness [he is lurking by night in the bushes outside George’s house, recall] with a tone of “But he’s SO GORGEOUS!” and also because you know this film is by Tom Ford, and you find yourself rooting that Ford would succeed in making his serious movie and get beyond the gorgeous-guy bullshit.

Kenny gets naked. George seemingly falls asleep. He wakes at three in the morning in bed, the nude Kenny asleep in the couch, with George’s gun at his side. George takes it and returns to the bedroom, but we no longer have any fear that he might kill himself. Then—sudden heart attack! George falls to the floor—more water imagery, vision of Jim coming and kissing him [not unlike the way he kissed Jim into death at the beginning]—and he dies! The end.

Now, the whole element of the gun and George killing himself at the end was added for the movie—which in one way was wise, as the movie would have no dramatic tension whatsoever without it—but it leaves an unfortunate wrinkle at the end when George decides not to kill himself—and dies anyway, moments later. Which can make someone like me spend the final moments, when I’m supposed to be all moved and choked up and stuff, instead saying “Holy shit, it’s like Final Destination! He decided not to die—but death got him anyway!” Which I don’t think is what Ford was going for.

But if you need to add a gun to add some dramatic tension, that might serve as a clue that your source is too literary to make a very good movie—making it the second novel in a few weeks, after The Road, that is just not really suited to be a movie. One can see how having George die at the end of the book could be a successful literary conceit—the main tale is full of small, low-key moments and memories, all of which gain special significance at the end, when you look back and realize that this was George’s last day alive. The introduction of the gun successfully adds dramatic tension to the beginning [needed in a movie, not necessarily a novel], but distorts the ending in the strange way described above. Oh dear, I think it speaks once more to the general trend of diminished literacy, and the lack of understanding that the experience of reading a novel is fundamentally different than that of watching a movie.
< < < SPOILERS END

The movie was very good for a first-time director: the scenes flow consistently, it has a distinctive look, and never seems even slightly unprofessional. And I admire Ford for taking on such a serious and introspective project. But for me it was just emotionally and dramatically inert. I was not involved with George’s character or his grief. It was just kind of a long, undistinguished series of events, which suddenly came to life when Julianne Moore came on screen. But once that scene was over [ONE scene, although the trailer makes it seem as though she's in the entire film], my involvement with the movie was also over, and I spent the last few scenes completely checked out, thinking “Will you just kill yourself, already?” and “Christ, will this movie ever fucking end?” Again—not what I think Ford was going for.

So yeah, I just wasn’t that involved in Firth’s performance, which others are beside themselves over, and never got very involved with his character, which rendered the movie just a long series of events, and left me lots of time to nit-pick about how everyone’s telling George he looks awful when he clearly looks amazing, and how, despite how awful he supposedly looks, he’s apparently some kind of sex magnet. And kind of unfortunately—especially as it’s impossible to divorce yourself from the fact that Tom Ford directed this movie—one spends the entire time evaluating how he is managing the mixture of style and substance. Which makes it not totally fortunate that he picked material that leaves one with the impression that its key message is: “Life is worth living… because oh my god, like, some dreamy boy might come on to you!”

The friend I attended with likes to sit and read the credits, so when I met him coming out of the bathroom, he said with glee “Mr. Firth’s costumes provided by… wait for it… wait for it…”

Should you watch it?

Truth be told, you could miss it and not miss much.

Comments

All comments must be approved before they are published. Only approved comments will appear. You may also use this space to report typos and broken links.

The ending where George

The ending where George decides to live, then immediately has a heart attack and dies, really pissed me off! And spoiled the whole movie for me! A right-wing audience could easily interpret this as George is literally struck down by the Hand of God for the crime of being gay (and for contemplating suicide - that'll teach him). This movie would be more progressive if George had decided not to kill himself, and then went off with either the stalker or the hot Latino hustler, but maybe I'm just sentimental that way. Colin Firth really does show his acting chops in this movie, especially in the scene where he first gets the news of his lover's death over the phone, and you see how first it doesn't register, and then the impact gradually sets in. That's exactly how it would happen in real life.

Movie had me engaged the

Movie had me engaged the entire way, especially the cuts, like a finely made quilt, a designer period-piece. Until the end. George falls out of bed clutching his RIGHT shoulder. Heart attack victims who survive always describe shooting pains down the LEFT arm.

A Single Man

This film had a narcotic effect on me...not sleepy or bored but very pulled into George's dilemma...live or die? Beautifully done, measured and precise, George decides life is too hard and I get it, ya know... George is tired and tired of feeling the same way everyday since his partner died. He sees no way out and even when a new potential lover shows up, Kenny, George looks askance at the situation. Is Kenny there to be with him or is he just a kid seeing what life is like with George the professor. Kenny is beautiful, Charly the gal next door is beautiful, hell George is beautiful!!! During my most recent watching of this film, I began to wonder what Colin Firth has that makes him such an effective actor and this is what I came up with. Firth is totally where he is at all times. No vacancy signs or looks for escape. He is totally there. George is a hurly burly gorgeous man dying of grief and still manages to look as hunky as a guy can get. I care that he's suffering...I just can't take my eyes off Firth. That's the star power, I think. Oh he has a bewildered look about what is coming next and about what the past has meant, but Firth takes the movie and runs away with it because of his charisma and skill as an actor. I found myself caring less about the movie and more about Colin Firth being on the screen.
I do think the story is great and that Tom Ford did a bang up job about loss and grief and needs of any lonely person who has lost his lifetime partner. I could see the grief killing George. I think George made a very logical decision to kill himself. It seems reasonable that George plans to end it all but when he dies of a heartattack instead, he is finally dying of his broken heart. He is getting the peace that he wanted so much and his broken heart did the work for him. It died and took George with it and his lover's kiss was an invitation to the beyond, where real love is really real. I love this movie and most of all, I love Colin Firth. He is a super hunk and Tom Ford knew just what he was doing when he had George's clothes tailored to Firth's body...grrrrr....Colin Firth is what handsome and hunky is all about and he's all that without trying.

Why are gay movies usually tragic?

I recently watched two films back-to back and I wonder what your thoughts might be. They are 1.)A Single Man and 2.)Far From Heaven

It seems(along with Brokeback Mountain) Queer Cinema has taken ½ a step back in the last couple of years and I base that statement on a basic observation made by “The Celluloid Closet”. During the 1960’s and 70’s,gay-themed films consisted largely of tragedy. One partner ends up dead,the other lonely and unhappy.

Perhaps because all 3 films I mentioned were set in the Pre-Stonewall era this theme is consistent. Is this a warning by the filmmakers to not be cowed back in the closet(sort of cautionary tales)? Or are they lazily returning to the old stories of queers-as-victims? All of these films were very well done-great direction,cinematography,spot-on acting. A great deal of thought obviously went into the making of them.I would simply hate to see less challenging films for queer film-goers. I appreciate that filmmakers are attempting to rope in (pander to?) straight audiences as well as gay, but I would like to see less !@#$ tragedy,and more strength. Am I oversimplifying?

Tragic

I agree. Its something I have moaned about endlessly and I despaired of Black Swan. The only gay personas hollywood identifies with are either evil predatory or tragic victims. Thats all they want to fund. Sooooo many LGBT films have dark stereotypes of us that come to a sticky end. There are a few lesbian films coming out now that are not based on a tragic story (substitute - 'cautionary tale'), I don't know so much re the boys. Check out the secret diaries of Miss Anne Lister which is a piece of history (true story). And we have the L word. There is Queer as Folk too (UK) which is upbeat.... I think things will get better.

Is tragic more salable?

In the past, I think it was because gay life was viewed as tragic. Nowadays there are more movies where gay romances work out [I haven't seen it yet, but I hear BIG EDEN is a nice, happy gay love story] and other gay movies [like I Love Your Philip Morris, The Kids Are All Right or whatever that last Gregg Araki one was] where the topic just isn't tragic, and being gay is just a characteristic.

However... you read all the articles about how movies in general are getting harder to finance without being a sequel or a remake or being focus-tested to death? I think a gay film in general is a harder sell [which is why most of them tend to be indie] and I think it has become somewhat of a tried-and-true narrative that gay relationships are inherently tragic. That is to say, I think a gay movie is more SALABLE if it treats gay relationships as tragic.

I also think, in a perverse way, a movie is more likely to appeal to the gay community if it is tragic. It it's not, it starts to open itself to all sorts of questions about how the characters are portrayed, why we're focusing on white males and not minority groups, etc. But if it IS tragic, it is seen as supporting the ideas that gays are not accepted and have a great struggle [and are thus deserving of understanding and tolerance], which essentially supports the arguments of gay activists for acceptance. So, in a bizarre way, tragic gay stories are an easier sell to the gay community than happy, positive ones.

Others? Thoughts?

Salability is the key reason

Salability is the key reason - audiences who expect and prefer "bury your gays" storylines, and frankly, gay and straight creators who enable that. Being gay can still be, forgive me, a colossal pain in the ass, but it's so much better than it was even 15 years ago. However, gay tragedies are easier to write. I could write a couple in my sleep, though I wouldn't, and probably most gay men and women who can string words together could do the same. I guess I can't blame a guy or gal for purging for the money, if someone's buying. This is NOT to demean the horrible life experiences of many gay people (I lucked out there, I'll admit), but I cling to this notion that if writers/filmmakers weave gay characters into stories of all kinds that work on their own merits, whether the stories are "gay stories" or not, we will advance much further and faster than we ever will by churning out tragedies of intolerance, bitter coming-out narratives, and so on.

It's strange, but the only movie I've seen in recent times that came close to what I'd like to see regarding gay portrayals is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The movie as a whole I found rather pathetic (and it put my partner right to sleep), even though my straight best friend proclaimed it "beautiful and Oscarworthy". And I could have done without the roommate's revolving-door bedtime policy, but I did appreciate that he was this smug, quasi-likeable asshat who just happened to be (a phrase I loathe) a gay dude. That's what I'm looking for - gay characters who are not tragic sacrificial lambs, vectors for emotion porn, or precious unicorns with very important lessons to teach about tolerance.

Or the vapid gay monsters on LOGO and Bravo. That end of the rainbow is where the real horror lies. Ick.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <img> <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options