Daily Archives: Tuesday, May 26, 2015

  • A Single Man

    Tom Ford (2009)

    Tom Ford is a famous fashion designer (whom I’d never heard of).  It seems too obvious to say that his debut as a movie director is much more confident as a piece of design than as a piece of drama but it’s true.   As the eponymous, homosexual George Falconer, an English professor (of English) at a Los Angeles university, Colin Firth must be one of the most sharply-dressed academics in history, real or cinematic.  When Eduard Grau’s camera pans across the students in a lecture hall or walking or sitting around on campus they too look improbably well groomed, even for the early 1960s. Kenny Potter, the student whose relationship with George is one of the main strands of the story of A Single Man, is dressed all in white and his blue eyes stare into George’s soul:  Ford might as well have gone the whole hog and given Kenny an accessory label on his forehead reading ‘Not as innocent as he looks’.  George’s meticulous preparations for his impending death include laying out the suit, shirt and tie he means to wear in his coffin.  He is in no sense the (self-described) ‘dirty old man’ of the Christopher Isherwood 1964 novel(la) on which the film is based and the last lines of which, in their description of George’s end, are:

    ‘And if some part of the non-entity we called George has indeed been absent at this moment of terminal shock, away out there on the deep waters, then it will return to find itself homeless.  For it can associate no longer with what lies here, unsnoring, on the bed.  This is now cousin to the garbage in the container on the back porch.  Both will have to be carted away and disposed of, before too long.’

    A Single Man takes us through George Falconer’s final hours.  Ford’s screenplay, which he wrote with David Scearce, introduces a fundamental change from Isherwood’s book:  in the film George gets up knowing that this will be the last day of his life because he intends to commit suicide before it’s over.   According to an interview with him quoted in Peter Parker’s TLS review of the picture, Ford doubted whether the Isherwood material had the dramatic legs to survive on screen without this kind of spine to the story.     His doubts may well have been well-founded but the new element is deeply unsatisfactory.  Ford and Scearce haven’t thought through the implications of George’s planned suicide and its effects on other things that happen in the course of the day – 30 November 1962.  It’s received wisdom that prospective suicides, having planned what they’re going to do, are more likely to be calm and ordered than they are to be frantically out of control in their last days:  not only does George buy bullets for his gun, write farewell letters, and put his financial affairs in order; he also takes the opportunity to appreciate his last encounters with those he sees routinely – his housekeeper, one of the secretaries in the university department where he works – and to tell the people concerned how he values them.  This idealised notion of the lead-up to killing yourself isn’t sustained, however:  George isn’t calm and resigned when Ford sees a chance to liven things up by his protagonist’s getting angry or impassioned – during dinner with his old friend Charley, an expatriate lady lush, or when he start ranting to his college class about the plight of minorities.  And neither these outbursts nor, until late in the day, his (non-physical) encounters with young men to whom he’s attracted appear to cause him to think twice about self-extinction – to consider that he has unfinished business with life, or the potential to find further joy or pleasure in it.   It’s only after his climactic meeting with Kenny – they go skinny-dipping then get drunk at George’s house – that he decides against suicide.  Kenny doesn’t seem to offer George the prospect of a new relationship as fulfilling as the one he enjoyed with his long-time partner Jim, killed in a car crash eight months earlier, so why does it bring about this change of mind?   The prospect of suicide is used by Tom Ford purely to sharpen the narrative line of A Single Man – once it’s served this purpose, it’s eventually dropped and George, as in the novel, dies of natural causes.

    Shortly before he pegs out, George’s voiceover tells us that:

    ‘A few times in my life I’ve had moments of absolute clarity. When for a few brief seconds the silence drowns out the noise and I can feel rather than think … And things seem so sharp and the world seems so fresh.  I can never make these moments last. I cling to them, but like everything they fade. I have lived my life on these moments.  They pull me back to the present and I realise that everything is exactly the way it was meant to be.’

    It’s hard to square this experience of life with George’s loss of Jim, with whom, we’re elsewhere led to believe, he enjoyed many years of sustained connection and happiness.  The ‘everything is exactly the way it was meant to be’ may be a nod to Isherwood’s abiding interest in Hinduism (Don Bachardy is credited as a ‘creative consultant’), an interest which informs at least the conclusion of the novel but which makes no sense here.  It’s a deathbed conversion, to put it mildly:  there’s not a hint of George having this kind of religious sensibility elsewhere in the film.  A Single Man really is all over the place.  There’s more than one exchange about living in the past – is that the explanation for George‘s tuning in to radio and television broadcasts about the Cuban missile crisis a month after the crisis had passed, including Kennedy’s famous address to the nation of 22 October 1962[1] (or is the crisis just useful to jack up the apocalyptic angst that Ford seems to be after?)?  What’s the point of the apparent confusions in the relative ages of George and Jim?   As they sit reading together at home, not long before his death, Matthew Goode’s Jim is not much older than in the flashback to their first meeting – although their partnership has lasted sixteen years.  But Colin Firth has been made up to look (albeit unconvincingly) much younger in the earlier flashback.  The age difference there appears to be about ten years; it seems more like twenty-five in the chronologically later sequence.

    I read the Isherwood book in a single day, on the Eurostar back from our holiday in Avignon in 2005 (an indication of what a short novel it is).  I don’t recall it in detail but I do remember it as often amusing, sad but not miserable.  There a few good lines in this adaptation but painfully few laughs – the tortured tone is very different from that of the original.  (Oddly enough, although the suicide element of the narrative seems to run counter to Isherwood’s intentions, the sequence in which George makes comically unsuccessful attempts to finish himself off in a motel room, especially a routine with a sleeping bag, feel truer to the mood of the novel.)  The film moves with lugubrious slowness.  Every shot is carefully composed and stays on the screen long enough for us to read its meaning (and then some):  we see George handling his gun then the annoying little boy next door playing with his gun and George pretending to shoot back, that kind of thing.  The faux-classical score by Abdel Korzeniowski unnecessarily underlines the gloom – and the monotony of the proceedings.   George has a recurring dream of feeling he’s drowning.  The nude bathing with Kenny, as I remember it from the book, is shocking and disorienting but also, from George’s point of view, life-enhancing.  Ford gives it the same claustrophobic quality as the other underwater sequences.

    It’s not surprising that Colin Firth’s performance as George has been overpraised – this is the best I’ve seen from him but to say that this actor gives the performance of his life doesn’t mean that much.  Firth is intermittently impressive – in his reactions to odd lines or looks from Kenny and Jim and, especially, a Spanish prostitute called Carlos; and to the news of Jim’s death, which he receives in a telephone call.  (The voice of Jim’s cousin is supplied by an uncredited Jon Hamm, who reads very well and compellingly.)  When George gets out of bed at the start of the film and looks in his shaving mirror he sees not ‘the face of a human being but the expression of a predicament’.  That’s the problem with Colin Firth’s portrait.  The actor playing George needs to let the audience in on what’s going inside the character’s head but it’s surely essential that his private anguish and suicidal intentions aren’t obvious to all those he meets in the course of the day.  Firth presents an ashen, tormented face to the world at large.  He’s also evidently in better physical shape than George is meant to be.  When he and Kenny run from a bar to have their dip in the sea and they clamber down the beach shelf, the younger man offers his hand and says ‘I’ll help you down, sir’:  Firth, who’s hardly been outrun by Nicholas Hoult, doesn’t look as if he needs it.  And his appearance neutralises the character:  in his sober suit and white shirt and his heavy horn-rimmed spectacles, Firth looks more a businessman than an academic.

    It says a lot about A Single Man that, after half an hour, I was looking forward to Julianne Moore’s next appearance.  As Charley, she shows much more theatrical flair than usual – and it’s a quality in desperately short supply in this picture.  Moore occasionally overdoes Charley’s fusillades of gin-soaked laughter but she looks great – like an aging, permanently off-balance fashion model – and she has fun with the English accent, which she handles wittily.  Her doing the twist to Booker T and the MGs’ ‘Green Onions’ – and getting Colin Firth into the spirit of the dance – is one of the movie’s few highlights.   (I liked Julianne Moore more here than in anything I’ve seen her do since Boogie Nights.)  Both the younger American men are played by British actors.  Nicholas Hoult is too immediately insistent as Kenny; he needs to emerge more subtly, but inevitably, as the sexual focus of George’s attention.   Matthew Goode has a relaxed, humorous quality as Jim, and his knowingness is easier to accept.  The best of these objects of desire is Jon Kortajarena as Carlos; he acts naturally and expressively and you get a sense of what George is seeing in him – it’s a welcome change from what Hoult and, to a lesser extent, Goode explicitly project.    (The casting of Kortajarena – according to Wikipedia, he’s best known as an A-list male model – is one instance where Tom Ford’s background pays dividends.)  It’s a pity that the exchange between George and Carlos is so ostentatiously designed:  the muted colours of what’s gone before are replaced by startling pink-orange evening sunlight and their conversation takes place against the background of a wall displaying a vast poster for Psycho.

    It’s remarkable that certain actors beloved of middle England will draw an audience to the Richmond Filmhouse regardless of what they’re appearing in.  The place was nearly full for the mid-Sunday afternoon showing of A Single Man but I’ve no idea what some people there got out of the film.  When George and Jim look at one of their dogs, Jim says how nice it must be to have the dog’s life, and George agrees, with one of the better lines in the script, ‘Yes, being able to sniff whoever’s arse you like …’.  There were little gasps of shock in the audience (‘Mr Darcy!’), the same as when Judi Dench said ‘Fuck’ (once) in Mrs Henderson Presents.  The more surprising element in the audience was a youngish couple who were doing a kind of anti-Valentine’s Day cabaret.  This lasted from when we were waiting in the foyer to go in until the person unlucky enough to be sitting next to the couple creditably asked them to stop arguing.  (After telling her to mind her own business, they did.)  At one point, the woman slapped the man.  A few minutes later, he told her, ‘The problem with you is that you’re an alcoholic but you can’t hold your drink’.  If that was right and considering the representation of women in the film, A Single Man may not have been the ideal choice for this pair to see together on the fourteenth of February.

    14 February 2010

    [1]  ‘This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military build-up on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. … ‘

     

  • A Serious Man

    Joel and Ethan Coen (2009)

    When I watch a Coen brothers picture in the presence of others, I feel as if I’m watching a foreign language film and the only person in the audience who needs subtitles.  The possibility of my face cracking during A Serious Man soon became almost absorbingly remote yet most of the (smallish) audience in the Odeon was chuckling often and contentedly at the dolorous story of the title character Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg).  Larry is in his mid- to late thirties; married with two teenage kids, he’s a science lecturer in a Minnesota college.  Larry is on the brink of tenure.  His pot-smoking son Danny (Aaron Wolff) is about to have his bar-mitzvah.  The main aim in life of his daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) seems to be to have cosmetic surgery.   The domestic atmosphere is strained – between this brother and sister and especially thanks to the presence of Larry’s brother, Arthur (Richard Kind), who’s long outstayed his welcome as a house guest.  It’s possible that Arthur is a hypochondriac about physical ailments but there’s no doubt that his mental health is fragile:  when he’s not spending hours in the bathroom draining a ‘sebaceous cyst‘, he’s filling notebooks with an abstruse treatise, much of it written in dense patterns and symbols and something to do with neurology.  Larry’s life quickly starts to unravel. His wife Judith (Sari Wagner Lennick) wants a divorce and it’s her mentor Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), a longstanding family friend and a recent widower, whom she wants to leave her husband for.  A work colleague (Michael Tezla) explains that the tenure committee has received anonymous and defamatory letters about Larry.  He’s bribed by a Chinese student (David Kang) who’s disappointed by his maths grades.  Both Larry’s kids, in their different ways, are fleecing their father.  Arthur gets in trouble with the police.  Larry turns for help to a succession of three rabbis (Simon Helberg, George Wyner, Alan Mandell).

    A Serious Man has been described (not by the Coens themselves, as far as I know) as a modern retelling of the Book of Job.   Bad things happen to Larry and the trio of rabbis corresponds to Job’s comforters.  The resemblances between the characters and stories don’t go much further than that.  (It’s surprising, given the Coens’ predilection for the physically rebarbative, that they didn’t find an equivalent of the Biblical episode when Satan ‘smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown’.   Arthur’s sebaceous cyst seems a rather poor substitute.)  Job was a man ‘perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil’.   Larry ticks the last box but not so obviously any of the other three.  The Gopniks may observe the cultural ritual of bar-mitzvah but Larry isn’t a spiritual man who thinks that a heavenly father is looking after him.  In other words, A Serious Man is about being a Jew rather than a religious believer and it seems to present Jews rather than the God-fearing as essentially ridiculous.

    The film’s prologue, set in a shtetl in Tsarist Russia and with Yiddish dialogue (which did have subtitles), involves a couple’s encounter with a dybbuk[1] (Fyvush Finkel) – an encounter which the wife (Yelena Shmulenson) tells her husband (Allen Lewis Rickman) will inevitably bring bad luck.  I struggled to understand the meaning of this sequence.   Are the Coens deriding the superstition or saying that the bad luck skipped a couple of generations before visiting Larry or that the intervening holocaust was even worse luck for Jews?   Maybe it doesn’t matter; maybe it’s enough, for them, to create this striking, eerie sequence and leave the audience with the impression that the people we’ve just seen are hapless and ludicrous and, in that respect, anticipate the ones we’re going to see in the 1960s story that follows.  (But, if so, why bother?)  The Coen brothers were born and raised in Minnesota by academic parents and the film takes place in 1967, the year that Joel Coen reached bar-mitzvah age (Ethan is three years younger).   A Serious Man is therefore being seen as a first for the Coens – a return to their roots, although they’re too disdainfully detached for roots to seem the right word.  They seem fascinated by the suburban geography of the place (as usual, their expert team includes Roger Deakins as cinematographer and Jess Gonchor as production designer, and the writer-directors are also the film’s editors).  They may well like the music of the era too and the Jefferson Airplane song ‘Somebody To Love’ supplies vibrant punctuation to the story (with incidental music by another Coens regular, Carter Burwell).  But the brothers are predictably derisive about the human beings in the world in which they grew up.

    No one could accuse the Coens of peopling their films with the physically unremarkable.    The faces and/or bodies on display are either remarkably ugly or exceptionally pleasing; occasionally an average-looking actor playing a simple-minded character is encouraged to perform in a way that makes them look crudely stupid.  (The trio of protagonists in O Brother, Where Art Thou? illustrate the three categories.)  The brothers often have Roger Deakins photograph the performers concerned in close-ups to emphasise their unfortunate looks.   If the Coens suggested a fascination with physical grossness and awkwardness that would be one thing; if they equated a hideous appearance with viciousness, that would be problematic but, if expressed seriously, provocative; as it is, they just seem to be making fun of people who are fat or bulbous-featured or otherwise displeasing to the eye.  The audience at A Serious Man got plenty of laughs from the facially or corporeally ill-favoured people up on the screen and that seems a reasonable reaction given the way the Coens present them.  A Gentile director couldn’t of course have got away with making A Serious Man because the facial characteristics on which the brothers concentrate in this way are emphatically Jewish ones.  The cast of A Serious Man can obviously act but the performances tend to be too deliberate, as if the actors are aware the Coens want their characterisations to be anchored in their looks – and want to take plenty of time examining the imperfection of those looks.   It’s surely no coincidence that the rhythm of the monologue delivered by the second rabbi, whose looks are unexceptional and even pleasant, is freer than most of the rest of the film.

    Woody Allen, in the days when he used to straddle the departments of Jewish social satire and existential angst, created a much more enjoyable combination than the Coens.  They write clever dialogue but its cleverness is self-satisfied:  they’re dependent on the actors in their films not just to bring their wit to life but to stop it being alienating (as George Clooney, Richard Jenkins and Tilda Swinton succeeded in doing in Burn After Reading).   Woody Allen’s casting himself made a huge difference in making clear that he, along with other members of his ethnic group, was the butt of his jokes.  A Serious Man made me nostalgic for Allen not just because of the Coens’ lack of sympathy with their satirical targets but because they don’t seem preoccupied either with the unfairness of an apparently godless universe in the way Allen so garrulously used to be.  In fact the Coens here are at a double remove from this kind of anguish because Larry Gopnik himself doesn’t seem oppressed by the implications of his worsening fortunes.   Yet critics enthusiastic about A Serious Man rave about how ‘dark’ and ‘disturbing’ and ‘mature’ (as well as ‘laugh out loud’) it is – in a way I don’t recall happening for Woody Allen except when he made a self-consciously solemn picture like Interiors or Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Compared with the briskly entertaining Burn After Reading, A Serious Man moves more slowly and the tone is often lugubrious.  It may be for these spurious reasons that people think the film has depth.

    When the Coen brothers won the Best Director Oscar for No Country For Old Men Joel Coen concluded their acceptance speech with the following:

    ‘Ethan and I have been making stories with movie cameras since we were kids. … And honestly, what we do now doesn’t feel that much different from what we were doing then … we’re very thankful to all of you out there for letting us continue to play in our corner of the sandbox, so thank you very much.’

    This strikes me as honest.  The Coens are still two unassailably smart school kids, laughing at their more naïve contemporaries – like Enid and Becky at the start (but not by the end) of Ghost World.  Maybe I wouldn’t hate the brothers’ pictures as much if their many admirers saw them in this light too, and not as intellectually serious film-makers.  Or maybe that wouldn’t make a difference and I’d still loathe the films as smugly nasty and jocose.  When we first meet Larry Gopnik he’s having a medical examination and seems to get a clean bill of health.  Towards the end of the film, when things otherwise start looking up for him, he’s called back by the doctor, as an apocalyptic-looking tornado approaches the town.  I’m prejudiced and primed to dislike the Coens’ films – having seen the trailer for A Serious Man several times I wasn’t expecting it to change my mind about them. But I do think it’s their most dislikeable picture in some time – partly for what it is, partly, I think, because it’s been well received and that makes you feel more helpless arguing against it.  It brings back Pauline Kael’s words about Barton Fink:

    ‘It seems to me a misconception at almost every level.  It’s a terrible picture.  The Coen brothers’ sense of style is so limiting too.  Very strange, arrogant conception of the past.   An appalling movie.’

    28 November 2009

    [1] The online dictionary’s definition is ‘In Jewish folklore, the wandering soul of a dead person that enters the body of a living person and controls his or her behavior’.

Posts navigation