The most impressive thing about Black Swan is the simplicity. It’s a story about a dancer who is given the lead in Swan Lake, her big break, and the pressure she is put under causes her to come apart at the seams. The conceptual aspect of the film drawn from Swan Lake is as important as the plot itself.
Is Black Swan a masterpiece? I don’t think so, but watching it made me wonder about what it takes to make a masterpiece, and how long a film has to be around before people start declaring it one. Maybe it’s like canonisation; you have to wait for five years after the director’s death before proceedings may begin.
I suppose that every masterpiece is greater than the sum of its parts, and that’s what prevents Black Swan from being one. Everything about it is close to spectacular; the performances are stellar, the production design is top notch (although I thought the black-and-white motif was overused), and the cinematography and camera work are also very good (although some of it was a bit too shaky in parts). But even with all this, it never seems to rise above mere technical excellence.
Black Swan will doubtless be compared to The Red Shoes, but there are 60 years between the two films so I don’t think that’s fair, and besides, The Red Shoes probably has more in common with that other recognised classic Singin’ In The Rain (hmm...now there’s a double feature).
Barbara Hershey is particularly good as Portman’s overbearing mother. Her presence reminded me of another film she stars in; The Stunt Man, also about paranoia (and sleeping with the director). Vincent Cassel’s performance gets smothered by everyone else, but I think the reason I wasn’t so impressed with him in this film is because he’s so good in everything else I’ve seen him in, and he often plays much bigger, stronger characters than the one he plays here. Perhaps he deliberately toned it down (or was directed to do so) in order not to distract the audience from Portman’s delicate and repressed little flower.
It’s an excellent film and well worth a watch. It builds well to a satisfying and dramatic ending, which is something that pleases me more and more as I work my way though so many ‘classic’ films of yore.
Here is a more detailed review than mine (and some nice posters).
There are a handful of authors who are, or have been, very popular in Hollywood. Top of the list is Stephen King who has a list of media based on his works as long as both his arms and growing. King’s ‘great work’ the Dark Tower series will inevitably be adapted for film or TV or both.
The late Michael Crichton was equally prolific and would no doubt still be writing for the screen if he were still alive and now Dennis Lehane is setting himself up as the next Crichton (with less science fiction): Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, a couple of episodes of The Wire and of course 2010’s warm up to Inception; Shutter Island.
I can only assume that it is a coincidence that two films were released within a few weeks of each other, both starring Leonardo DiCaprio and both having such a strong ‘it’s a film about films’ vibe. SI is an ode to classic 40’s thrillers and mysteries, Inception a tribute to Hollywood movie convention and a demonstration of how it doesn’t have to be all bad. Inception is of course open to, and subject of, intense debate about its meaning. A lot of people tired of the praise, then the backlash, and the following argument (summed up best here), but I’ll never tire of Inception or the great debate.
Shutter Island was lauded as a great film and rightly so, but it was never the beneficiary/victim of as much hype as Nolan’s film and so never sparked much debate. The other thing about Shutter Island is, without giving too much away, it is not open to interpretation. It’s a mystery, but all is revealed unambiguously at the end.
It’s precisely because it is not open ended that SI is so entertaining. Scorcese’s not-so-subtle-but-not-quite-obvious touches compel the audience to really pay attention. Some of the necessary elements that allow the viewer to form a theory about what is really going on are a tad obvious, but this is definitely a film that warrants a second viewing to go back and spot all the clues.
SI is one of the best ‘spooky thrillers’ I’ve seen (I’m desperately trying to think of a similar film...The Others maybe?) DiCaprio’s character’s motivation is clear and his behaviour is believable. I find that the most annoying thing about a lot of thrillers and horrors is the unbelievable or inconsistent way the protagonist behaves, all for the sake of moving the story forward of setting up the shocks, doing dangerous or ill judged things for no reason. In SI, all the secrecy and strangeness that surrounds Leo compels him to probe deeper into the events on the island, putting himself at greater risk, but not without reason.
I found to be a Shutter Island is a satisfying film. Some may think that the big twist at the end is either predictable or unoriginal, and they’d have a point, but they’d also be missing the point. Shutter Island is a popcorn movie. It’s a big budget studio picture starring an A-Lister in the lead and directed by a successful and well established director, and it’s as good as such movies get.
I suppose the only negative is the ‘they had too much money to spend’ factor that can effect films nowadays. The film looks very good but it’s very obvious that a lot of shots were filmed in front of a green screen.
The theory behind extensive green screen shooting is that it is cheaper to create stunning exterior locations digitally. Why bother scouting a location then setting up a shoot and waiting for just the right light when The Magic Hour can be created on a computer? It’s good, but not completely believable. It doesn’t detract from the experience, but there are a couple of scenes that look out of place because of the awkward transition from location to studio within the same scene. This is just nitpicking, Shutter Island is well worth a watch, and proof (as if it was needed) that Scoresese can do more than just Gangster Montage. It would be interesting to see what Guillermo del Toro would have made of it.
NB. It’s very easy to mistype the title of this film.
Many thanks to Turner for letting me squat in his blog for a session as part of his 50 post celebration. Turner asked me to review a new release that I've been going on about for a good year or so now and finally saw on opening night. It turns out I'm quite poor at writing concise reviews so view if you will, my full thoughts on a Top 3 of 2010 contender:
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - Recommended
Last Wednesday Scott Pilgrim finally opened in the UK, a few weeks behind its poor opening in the US where the film disappointingly and unexpectedly bombed. Major shame, because this film deserved to be appreciated.
Let's cover the basic plot of the film. Based on the underground comic book series, Scott Pilgrim sees Michael Cera as the titular hero character coasting through his early 20s, slacking around with his band and dating a 17 year old high school girl named Knives Chau. He falls in love with a mystery new girl in town called Ramona Flowers and the movie follows them getting together. Problem is to be together Scott is required to beat her 7 evil exes in fights to the death.
Sound like a mix of a feasible but complicated indie flick, and a potentially gruesome dating movie! But the films style is a homage to 90s 8-bit computer games. You pick that up straight away when the Universal logo comes up. Awesome. When the fights happen they are cartoonish, OTT, and so impressive and continuously inventive it's amazing to watch. It's definitely a comic book movie, more so than any comic movie that's come before it. Words pop off the screen, the stylistic tics of the comic book remain intact, even including some original Bryan O'Malley art work and lettering in parts. But interestingly the comic was in itself a mix of odes to old school computer games, and the indie music scene in Toronto. These run deeply through the film as a result.
The film clearly shows its influences, for those who know what they're looking for. The computer games references range from the sublimely subtle (Great Fairy Fountain theme from Zelda playing in a daydream? Amazing) to the cringingly try hard ("What do you play?" "Zelda mostly"). There's so much more, not just in terms of throw away lines but in visual style during the fights, and amazing digital effects. If you want to investigate further see here.
What really makes this film work is the music though. Scott plays in a band, they play pretty often in the film and come up against other bands on their journey too. Films like this can live or die by the music it chooses because if that band don't sound like a real band, if it's too contrived, it just won't work (See 'Where's Fluffy?' in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist snorearama. Don't worry, SP vs. TH is on another level). So in a master stroke in planning each separate band has an actual real life equivalent writing for it. Beck writes the Sex Bob-omb songs (lo-fi indie fuzz), Metric fill in for Clash at Demonhead (which from my own view of the comics fits them perfectly), and Broken Social Scene sort out the Crash and the Boys songs. What makes this extra clever is that once the songs are written, it's the cast performances which are used in the film meaning there's no jarring awkward voice syncing gonna happen.
More importantly than that Broken Social Scene and Metric both come from a Canadian music scene that was, at the time a couple of years ago, vibrant and exciting and it was during this time the comics were written in Canada. This helps add to the authenticity of the whole thing.
I totally loved the film. But I feel almost wrong in reviewing it. I'm not impartial. I am in every way their target audience: I've read the comics, I've grew up in the 8 and 16-bit era, I love pixel art, Zelda and chiptune, most my favourite bands come from Canada, and I like Michael Cera.
I think that last one is important in knowing if you're going to enjoy this flick. On the nets Cera gets a lot of flack about his samey act he's been doing for years now. I remember reading he'd be taking the role of Scott Pilgrim, and to be honest I was disappointed because I know what Cera does, and that's not how I pictured Scott in my head. But he doesn't just pull out his standard performance, he does step up and puts in a great showing. Scott acts thoughtless but in an innocent way, and there's growth (although it takes a while) where Scott learns a few things and how his decisions affect other people. It’s worth commending Cera on nailing the fight scenes too.
The film has a depth in its supporting cast that means in many cases the smaller characters are guilty of some scene stealing. Many reviews have mentioned the work of Kieran Culkin, who does indeed have some good lines. My personal favourite was Aubrey Plaza as Julie Powers, with a caustic dislike for Scott. The exes too are each pretty fleshed out and enjoyable, and one of the best scenes goes to Chris Evans and his turn as Pro Skater turned Action Star Lucas Lee. I'm not ashamed to say I've been following him for a while since I found he made the film "Not Another Teen Movie" not only bearable but also rewatchable. But in each sense the Exes have their own defined styles and indeed endlessly inventive and entertaining battles. Elsewhere Mark Webber is perfectly cast as Stephen Stills, the leader of Scott’s band, popular-at-the-moment Anna Kendrick turns up for a small part, and Ellen Wong makes such an adorable Knives it kinda pulls your loyalty away from the film’s intended couple.
So after all that, why would I recommend the film beyond “It’s full of games and music I like”? Well, for one it’s genuinely funny. There’s smart zippy dialogue as well as reoccurring visual gags (Scott’s haircut trauma for one). Secondly how often do things like 8 bit computer games act as stylish pointers for films? Never. Thirdly and most importantly it just needs to be seen! Edgar Wright has clearly put so much of his heart into making this a potential game changer in the way visual effects are seamlessly blended in, and how it takes the film to a higher level. You have genuinely never seen a movie that looks this way before, and given the Box Office results you probably never will.
The film isn't flawless by any means though. You leave the cinema unsure with whether you agree with Scott's choice, because out of anyone Ramona is the least fleshed out. In fact, after their first get together their relationship doesn't have too many opportunities to grow and breathe on screen beyond the battle scenes and I think this does the story some damage. The film may also drag a little towards the conclusion since the first batch of exes are all so good and the latter don't quite make it. The inclusion of Scott's ex Envy is much slimmer than her presence in the book, where we got more of the emotional damage but also some reconciliation which rounded out not only Envy more but also Scott‘s story. Finally it may be because the comic book was started 6/7 years ago but some of the styles, Ramona's in particular, just seem a little dated by today's standard. And Scott wears sweat bands still.
I’m getting the feeling there’s a lot of waffle up there, so here’s a summary: See this movie. It’s original, inventive, playful, unique, heartfelt and funny and whenever those things are combined they should be commended and experienced at the cinema. Don’t miss it.
There’s still more I could write: Edgar Wright deserves an award, why did this film bomb in America? But they’re for another time perhaps.
In the meantime as a final tempter, if you find any of these videos amusing or at all interesting, go see this film.
That The Expendables is one of the most anticipated films of the year is a reminder of why we go to the cinema; to have fun. Stallone’s latest offering benefits from being released so soon after Inception and Toy Story 3 as it’s a film to be enjoyed on one level. No need for interpretation here, how refreshing.
Much has been made of ‘The Greatest Action Ensemble Ever’, and rightly so, they’re all here; Machine Gun Joe, Rocky, Rambo, Cobra, Tango and John Spartan have made a new action film. That’s enough to get anyone exited.
Other than Jason Statham, the rest of the cast don’t get a lot of time on screen, and of the entire ensemble, it’s Stone Cold Steve Austin who surprises the most. He’s not a great actor, but he has an amazing presence on screen due to his size (he reminds us just how small Stallone actually is) and the fact we can tell that in real life he’s probably not someone you’d want to upset. There’s a scene where he hits a woman in the face, and we shouldn’t laugh, but he has been arrested for spousal abuse.
Mickey Rourke is also good, almost too good. I get the feeling he may have improvised many of his lines, and in his big emotional scene he shows every one else up. Terry Crews is underused, although he gets the best line of the film, and has the biggest muscles.
The Expendables is of course about the action. There’s plenty of it and the standard is high, although personally I prefer my fight sequences to have longer shots that involve more than three strikes between cuts. Stallone isn’t interested in stunningly choreographed martial arts, he likes large men hitting each other very hard and he knows how to shoot it. The final action set piece is reminiscent of both Rambo III and Commando (no bad thing) as it is confined to the bad guys’ compound which must be infiltrated and destroyed in a large explosion.
This is Stallone’s eighth as director, and his attempt to make a contemporary film are clear to see. If there isn’t any action taking place, the majority of shots are composed with a shallow depth of field. It looks like a TV cop show in some scenes (has Sly been watching NCIS?). Even though it’s clearly a big budget film, it doesn’t really look like it cost the reported $80m, maybe they blew it all on cars and bikes?
Stallone has almost been cynical with a lot of the aspects of the film; it was clear to him that a large proportion of the domestic target audience would be UFC-watching, Affliction-wearing, tattooed bikers (or those who aspire to be such things). This may be the reason Stallone’s character hangs out in a tattoo parlour filled with fancy choppers, drives a custom vintage pick-up and is mates with MMA legend Randy Couture.
Will the expendables prompt a resurgence of manly action films being released at the cinema? I don’t think so, but it will do the straight-to-DVD market a world of good. Even though they both turned down roles, Seagal and Van Damme will both benefit from the increased number of action B-Movies that will be made thanks to the popularity of The Expendables.
It seems like a strange comparison to make just because both films were released within a couple of weeks of each other, and TS3 is a kid’s film...or is it.
Pixar films have always been kids’ films with enough subtle humour and references to entertain the parents. Since setting a new benchmark for animated films with the original Toy Story (way back in 1995, yikes!) each film Pixar make is better than the last one, to the point where, with TS3, they’ve reached a bit of a predicament; how far can you go to make a children’s film incredible and yet still make a film that is suitable for children?
When they wrote Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase ‘To infinity, and beyond’, it was just something corny for him to say as part of his deluded space-hero character. This simple line has been over-interpreted over the years, even as far as being the basis of humanist interpretations of the plot of Toy Story. The people behind the TS series would, I’m sure, tell the world that the films are just stories about toys. Simple as that, although the toys have well defined and developed characters. Without worrying about including a deep message or statement (they used the animated short ‘Day & Night’ for that) Pixar have resorted to a simple method of making TS3 better than its predecessors; Peril.
Raising the steaks and putting the characters in jeopardy is how almost all films are structured, and the best films make the audience care about the characters so they are emotionally effected by the peril the characters go though. The Toy story films do this brilliantly, and the advantage of a successful franchise means that by the end of a third film, the audience are so attached to Woody and Buzz and the gang that when that final peril comes, the audience are deeply moved.
This is clearly where TS3 betters Inception. The big criticism of Nolan’s film is that the characters are not as important as the story. DiCaprio and the rest of the cast go through four layers of peril at the same time, but all the characterisation that has taken place in the first half of the film seems secondary to the plot itself. But Inception is original and ambitious and plays with the conventions of moviemaking itself, so I think it is the better film. Toy Story 3 doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done before, it just does it better than it’s been done before (with the aforementioned advantage of being part of a series).
The quality of the TS series comes partially from the fact that no film has been made with a sequel in mind. They never set themselves up for the next chapter, each of the films reaches its own complete conclusion, although TS3 has a very clear sense of being the final chapter, and therein lies my only slight annoyance with the film.
* SPOILERS * START * HERE
You may have heard about how good TS3 is and how engaged the audience becomes, grown men have cried at TS3, and they can be forgiven. This film has a ‘moment’ in it. Almost every film aspires to create a third act climax that will move the audience, and in TS3 the peril is so great and the characters so beloved that you’ll need a heart of stone not to be upset by the sight of Wood et all finally accepting the fate that they have tried to avoid throughout the whole film. They have been thrown away, old toys that are not wanted anymore, and are stuck together in a huge pile of rubbish that is slowly being dragged into a huge furnace. There’s no escape and the characters all know it. They realise they are doomed and stop struggling. They solemnly hold hands and wait for death. This must be the saddest most traumatic scene ever in a children’s film. It’s ok to cry because the toys can’t shed a tear, it’s the final reminder that they are just toys after all, not people. I imagine some kids in the audience must be incredibly stressed out by this, it was a brave move by the writers and director and one that makes sense, it’s the only place left to go after three incredible films; ultimate peril followed by heart wrenching acceptance that, despite all their efforts, the end has finally come, followed by...miraculous rescue at the hands of the comic relief claw-machine aliens.
Of course they could never have killed all the toys, but I wish they had. It’s not that I’m evil and twisted or a sadist, but because TS3 takes the audience to the edge, like no kids film has before, and I so wanted to be pushed off. Making us care so much for these toys and then tearing them away for ever would have been incredible, it would have given a deeper meaning to the film; that sometimes the things that you love are taken away, no matter how hard you try. The villainous toy of the film could have still suffered a similar fate or worse in order to emphasise that evil never triumphs, but sometimes good doesn’t triumph either. That would have been a brave and refreshing message to the kids.
But that’s not what Toy Story is about. It’s about simple cinematic pleasures performed very well so children around the world can enjoy it. Oh yes...and merchandising.
Also, I wonder how they’ll handle ‘Spanish Buzz’ in the Spanish dub of the film.
It’s difficult to talk about what makes Inception so good without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, and to declare that there isn’t a massive Sixth Sense style twist at the end doesn’t spoil it. In fact, as intricate as the film’s plot is, it’s refreshingly simple. The story is good enough without some huge about-face at the end. There is a little predictable ambiguity, but that can be forgiven.
The essence of Inception’s greatness is that it straddles the line between risk taking intelligence and studio pleasing big summer release. Nolan’s Batman films are praised for being popcorn blockbusters that don’t underestimate the audience and Inception is the same. During the second half of the film there are four storylines all taking place at the same time. It would sound complicated to explain, but when you watch it, it isn’t remotely difficult to follow. The script was years in the making and it shows, if only every film was allowed to stick to the original screenplay so rigidly, films like Hancock and Clash Of The Titans would hold themselves together better. There’s been a bit of ‘will inception flop’ talk bouncing around the internet which will doubtless be bollocks, Inception is too good to fail.
The film runs for over two hours but I don’t think it ever gets boring. This is partly because of the aforementioned multiple stories but also because of the supporting cast who are all more compelling to watch than DiCaprio. Leo gets a lot of knocking and I don’t like to criticise him for no reason. His performance in Inception is very understated considering the character he plays. Like I say, I won’t spoil it, but if you watch Inception, take a moment to think about Leo’s character afterwards, and try to imagine how any actor could play a character who has experienced all those things.
I suppose someone had to do it, and I can’t actually think of another contemporary leading man who would have done better. DiCaprios’s presence is like Joseph Gorden-Levitt’s hairstyle; slightly off-putting but necessary.
Cheve Chase got old! But when you can’t get any real 80’s comedy legends to appear in your film, he’s always available.
Something else which is in danger of getting old is the Yearning For Lost Youth Bromance Comedy genre...for now at least. Porkies gets remade for every generation. When I was 16 it was American Pie, which at the time was hilarious, but the sequels and knock offs it spawned soon petered out until a new group of kids reached the age where they were old enough to go and see ‘adult’ comedies and Superbad was made.
Superbad is a lot better than American Pie because as well as all the hilarious gross out stuff, it placed an emphasis on the friendship shared by the main characters. At the end of Superbad we care more about those crazy kids going off to collage, we appreciate our own friendships more, the film makes the audience feel good and they tell their friends how much they like it. This whole ‘loving your bros’ vibe has been used in comedies ever since; Role Models, The Hangover, most blatantly in I Love You Man, and now Hot Tub Time Machine.
As well as the ‘these guys love each other just like you guys love each other’ angle, HTTM taps the comedy well of 80’s nostalgia. This film must have written itself; Poison, Motley Crue, Red Dawn, large mobile phones, Regan and AIDS. All the obvious gags appear, and there’s very little else. This film is inevitably funny, but it’s not as good as the more forgettable modern comedies. It’s still better than Harold and Kumar though.
At least HTTM has been released early enough to get ahead of the game as far as 80’s nostalgia goes, and at least it doesn’t take itself seriously, unlike the upcoming remake of Red Dawn and the probable Motly Crue biopic will.
How do you like your comic book movie adaptations? Do you like them to play it straight like The Dark Night? Or do you prefer the more tongue in cheek; don’t take themselves too seriously style of Iron Man. Kick-Ass occupies a new territory of comic book movie (I don’t consider it an adaptation as the comic and the film were conceived together, even if the comic appeared first).
Kick-Ass is the most honest comic book movie yet. Teenagers read comic books and Kick-Ass is full of two of the biggest parts of every teenage boy’s life: foul language and jokes about wanking (that’s a massive generalisation, I know).
Previous comic book films pick a style and stick to it. Either they are too serious to be fun, or they are too much fun to include the ‘inappropriate’ adult material that inhabits all the best written comic books. Kick Ass is fun and very much in the style of a comic book film, it looks a lot like Raimi’s Spiderman films, perhaps intentionally. It is the natural next step in the evolution of comic book films; a combination of extreme ‘comic book’ violence not suitable for kids, funny foul language (which is the language spoken by teenagers and adults who should know better), and a bright, colourful aesthetic reminiscent of the old Marvel comics.
So does this new style of comic book film work? Maybe, but not as far as Kick Ass is concerned. The good news is that the failings are directorial, not conceptual. Pop-culture reference has been old hat in films since the Star Trek reboot, where they were perfected. Pop-culture reference only really works if it is subtle and truly relevant to the film it appears in. The first half of Kick-Ass is packed with distracting comic book reference, and one glaring and shameful reference to the director’s previous work (maybe it was symbolic...?). By the second half it seems that the film makers were satisfied with the number of ‘look at this wink wink’ moments to forget about them and concentrate on ensuring the climax to the film didn’t disappoint (which it doesn’t).
If you’ve seem the film yourself, you’re probably screaming ‘But the whole film is one big reference to comic books, that’s the point you idiot!’ But that’s also my point. Achieving the right tone and ‘feel’ of a film is difficult enough, and with something like Kick-Ass it’s even more difficult. I think that Kick-Ass should have been played slightly straighter, that way the audience would have the affinity for the characters the director obviously wanted us to have by the time the tension racks up. And the best films feature believable characters reacting in a way you can believe even in unrealistic circumstances.
I don’t dislike Kick-Ass. The ‘Superbad meets Spiderman’ analogy is lazy, but somehow accurate.
Bronson – 2009, Nicolas Winding Refn Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll – 2010, Mat Whitecross
Considering how different Michael Peterson (latterly know as Charles Bronson) and Ian Dury are, it’s surprising how similar their respective biographical films are...or maybe it isn’t?
A convention of biographical film has been recently establishing itself whereby the subject narrates and tells the story of his own life, breaking the fourth wall. Abstract and fantasy sequences are employed to help portray the character of the subject so the audience might better understand them. The feel of the time and place where the person lived are brought across using music and animation.
Most biographies still play it straight, as is fitting for the subject, like the Ian Curtis bio ‘Control’. But increasingly, when the subject is artistic/creative/notorious, accuracy has given way to presenting the subject as their persona. A direct line of biographies can be traced which have slowly become increasingly conceptual;
The Doors (1991) Ed Wood (1994) Chopper (2000) 24 Hour Party People (2002) American Splendour (2003) I’m Not There (2007) The Diving Bell and The Butterfly (2007)
And they’re just the ones I’ve seen. The three italicised films from early in the new millennium are the particular examples of the modern biography; take a famous persons public persona and use it to show who the real person was. We use the public image to understand the private life.
This may all seem painfully obvious, but here’s the interesting bit. Bronson and S&D&R&R share an almost identical structure and method of narration.
In ‘Bronson’, the film opens with Charles Bronson standing on a stage in a theatre. He begins to tell his life story to the both the theatre and cinema audiences. Throughout the film we come back to Charlie Bronson ‘the entertainer’ for his take on the events of his life. S&D&R&R opens in exactly the same way and uses the same method of cutting back to Ian Dury as narrator of his own story.
This may be pure coincidence, but these are two British made biographies of British men, set during roughly the same period and released within months of each other. Does the fact that they are so similar prove an inevitability of influence? Both of these films are quite original, but they have both hit upon the same idea at the same time. As hard as the writers and directors have tried to be different, they’ve ended up doing the same thing as the other guy. Is this because the other guy has seen the same films he has?
Anyway. The similarities end there. The films both works well, but ‘Bronson’ works better. Bronson is funny and brutal, like the Mark Read bio ‘Chopper’ performed in a circus. The Dury film is more conventional. After all the abstract sequences it boils down to the familiar ‘he was a bit of a bastard but he loved his kids’.
Colin Firth achieves every actor’s fantasy in this adaptation of Christopher Isherwood’s 1964 novel; he gets to perform a scene in which his Character, George, is alone in his home when he receives a phone call bringing bad news:
Jim, George’s lover for the last sixteen years, has died in a car crash. Jim’s cousin called to let George know, (no one else in the family wanted to call him) and what with this being 1962, gay George is not invited to the funeral.
Cue Colin Firth’s finest hour; he can sit holding the receiver, his face in screen filling close up, and react to tragic news. The faraway look, the waver in his voice, the wait before the inevitable tears, but then the restraint in not breaking down completely. It may seem cynical to accuse Firth and Ford of Oscar Baiting, but that’s just what they’re doing. It’s cheap and it detracts from the rest of the film.
The scene described above happens very early on and occurs as one of many flashbacks to George’s life with, and immediately without Jim. The film follows George over the course of one last day, at the end of which he intends to commit suicide.
After Colin Firth achieves his acting fantasy, Tom Ford’s film plays out like a morbid gay fantasy. George is an Englishman living in Southern California working as a professor of English Literature. His dear departed lover Jim was an architect who designed the incredibly tasteful house they shared. George drives a lovely Mercedes Benz and lives surrounded by all the aspects of 60’s Americana, tasteful and tacky, that will forever be in fashion.
George gets to talk to his halfwit Yankee colleagues about the cold war and the Cuban Missile crisis, which provides plenty of opportunity for witty, glib closing remarks. He mopes around sorrowfully whilst gorgeous young men throw themselves at him, but he ignores their advances. His heart is broken, and no pair of smooth, pert buttocks can fix it, not even Nicholas Hoult’s.
George hangs out and boozes with fellow ex-pat and old flame Charley (Julianne Moore aka Maude Lebowski) creating a kind of self satisfied ‘Englishman Abroad’ vibe reminiscent of Evelyn Waugh’s ‘The Loved One’ (that’s right, literary reference y’all).
Tom Ford had a clear vision and he has achieved it, but he owes a lot to the production team he worked with – the same people who work on Mad Men. A Single Man is stylishly and tastefully directed, but not as subtle as Tom thinks it is. It’s an impressive debut by a fashion designer who has obviously watched a lot of critically acclaimed European film. But the result is a film that’s too conscious of its own style. There’s not much to the story that takes place within the elegant design of the rest of the film. ‘Designed by Tom Ford’ would be amore accurate credit.
The biggest problem with the film was the dialogue. Maybe the script is taken directly from the book, and this may be how Californians spoke 50 years ago, but said out loud it sounds clichéd and unconvincing. Perhaps the soulless superficiality of it all was intended as a comment on 60’s America, but I doubt it.
