A Single Man
Starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore
Directed by Tom Ford
Starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore
Directed by Tom Ford
Style over substance is what A Single Man is. First-time writer-director Tom Ford (best known, apparently, for being a fashion designer) certainly has crafted a beautiful-looking film and it can't be denied that Ford's directorial choices are intriguing (although sometimes "pretentious" would be a better adjective), but overall, it's these artistic choices that remove the audience from emotional connection with the film's title character.
The year is 1962 and George (Firth) is a gay man whose mate of sixteen years, Jim (Matthew Goode), has died in a car crash. On a fateful day in February, a morose George has decided that his life isn't worth living without Jim and he sets out to end it all. George, a college English professor in California, goes through the day, cognizant that it will be his last, attempting to make a lasting impression on his students, providing nice words to his colleagues, and meeting up with his best friend, fellow Brit, and former lover, the sassy and often-intoxicated Charley (Moore).
Knowing that George is wanting to commit suicide, you'd think that as we follow this guy around there'd be some emotional connection with his character. Colin Firth definitely does his best at trying to convey his character's sadness, but I never once felt any type of attachment with George. I can't help but think that a huge reason for this is because Tom Ford focuses more on aesthetics than story. There are some surprisingly "talky" moments that instead of revealing layers of George, pull the viewer out of the film.
As I said, it's no fault of Firth who is a joy to watch (and being "a joy to watch" in such a depressing role is task worthy of praise). Firth is never bad in anything and he's definitely at the top of his game here. Julianne Moore is also charming as George's best friend, Charley. She's the quintessential 60s British rich floozy, the comic relief (who also harbors some despondency), and a welcome respite from the dreariness of George.
There's much to like in A Single Man -- Firth, Moore, Ford's interesting palette of colors and intriguing directorial choices. But, in the end, if you don't have a story, you don't have a movie. Visuals are important with film being (obviously) a visual medium, but this film has this overarching sense of "importance" that its lukewarm story cannot support.
The year is 1962 and George (Firth) is a gay man whose mate of sixteen years, Jim (Matthew Goode), has died in a car crash. On a fateful day in February, a morose George has decided that his life isn't worth living without Jim and he sets out to end it all. George, a college English professor in California, goes through the day, cognizant that it will be his last, attempting to make a lasting impression on his students, providing nice words to his colleagues, and meeting up with his best friend, fellow Brit, and former lover, the sassy and often-intoxicated Charley (Moore).
Knowing that George is wanting to commit suicide, you'd think that as we follow this guy around there'd be some emotional connection with his character. Colin Firth definitely does his best at trying to convey his character's sadness, but I never once felt any type of attachment with George. I can't help but think that a huge reason for this is because Tom Ford focuses more on aesthetics than story. There are some surprisingly "talky" moments that instead of revealing layers of George, pull the viewer out of the film.
As I said, it's no fault of Firth who is a joy to watch (and being "a joy to watch" in such a depressing role is task worthy of praise). Firth is never bad in anything and he's definitely at the top of his game here. Julianne Moore is also charming as George's best friend, Charley. She's the quintessential 60s British rich floozy, the comic relief (who also harbors some despondency), and a welcome respite from the dreariness of George.
There's much to like in A Single Man -- Firth, Moore, Ford's interesting palette of colors and intriguing directorial choices. But, in the end, if you don't have a story, you don't have a movie. Visuals are important with film being (obviously) a visual medium, but this film has this overarching sense of "importance" that its lukewarm story cannot support.
The RyMickey Rating: C-
but style is puuurty
ReplyDeleteThis whole "style over substance" thing seemed to be more prevalent than I remember in 2009 -- Where the Wild Things Are, Antichrist to name a few others.
ReplyDeleteAll of these flicks ended up in that C- to C range (2 to 2.5-star).
There's no denying that Tom Ford has an eye for appealing visuals and I'd certainly look forward to another film by him. However, I hope he doesn't write it.
I haven't seen it but Julianne Moore looked smokin' so basically my vague comment was towards that. I'm still a believer in Shutter Island even if it drags on or whatever its gonna look damn good. The cinematography looks spectacular and since Scorsese has used the same editor for forever i'm sure the editing is top notch. All its Technicals look Oscar-worthy and it sucks that it got pushed back. A lot of critics are saying DiCaprio is making it reallllllly hard to choose his best performance because he isn't cruising around in this one which makes me giddy
ReplyDelete"The cinematography looks fantastic from the 2 minute trailer I have seen. And even though every review is saying it's at least a half an hour overlong and I even put a disclaimer of 'even if it drags on', the editing is going to be great!"
ReplyDeletehttp://rymickey.blogspot.com/2009/12/movie-review-avatar-3d-2009.html
ReplyDeleteYes, Avatar falls into the "style over substance" category, but it never once screamed "PRETENSION" to me. While Cameron is certainly arrogant, his movie not so much. "Wild Things," "Antichrist," and "Single Man" all look awesome, but at times, they look "too awesome"...too "hey look at me and the cool things I'm doing onscreen!"
ReplyDeleteWhile Avatar is certainly visually appealing, it's seamless in its look. Cameron has certainly crafted something new, but he didn't really step outside of the "action movie" genre in terms of directing. The fault with Avatar lies in the fact that there IS a story, but it's drawn out to a ridiculously overlong 2 hrs 45 minutes.