A Single Man

Now that I sit down to write about it, I realize that it’s been five days since I watched this movie and that I have not written down word one about it. But oddly enough, despite that, I remember very well that: I didn’t like it as much as I had hoped that I would; that I hated the ending; and that it was utterly beyond my ability to comprehend that Julianne Moore was getting nominations for Supporting Actress awards for her work on the film. She is a talented actress, but even her formidable talents are not enough to create the third dimension necessary for the audience to make any kind of emotional connection to the character she plays here.

Colin Firth, on the other hand, does create that third dimension; and it is entirely possible to make the kind of emotional connection with his character that is necessary for the viewer to maintain any kind of interest in the film - apart from, perhaps, how pretty the film itself looks (but more on that later). He plays college English professor George Falconer on what is apparently to be the last day of his life. Distraught by the recent death of his lover, George is determined to spend the day putting his affairs in order before going home to off himself.

This is not an elaborate operation. He has only to clean out his desk at work and empty his safe deposit box and then lay out all the important stuff on his desk at home, along with instructions as to what should be done with each thing; and there is but one wrinkle - his friend Charley (Moore), a former lover with whom George claims to have a complicated (though important) relationship. He takes these steps in an almost clinical fashion, letting emotion get the best of him only when something he sees or touches during the course of his day brings back a particularly powerful memory of his dead lover.

And so the “single man” of the title might refer either to George, who is now single again (though obviously not interested - at first - in ever getting into another relationship) and, in many ways, singularly alone; but it also might refer to his departed lover, Jim, who demonstrates, by negation, precisely how important a single man - here meaning one person only - can be in someone else’s life. This effect is amplified by the story’s being set in late 1962, on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when homosexuality still played itself out in the dark corners and back alleys, far from the judgmental eyes of the self-righteous.

In flashback, George gets the news of Jim’s death - during a trip by car in the winter to see his family in Colorado - from one of Jim’s relatives, who calls in secret because the rest of the family had not wanted to inform George of what happened. George is also not invited to the service, which, he is told, is for “family only.” Firth is devastating in this scene, showing grief and shock but also remarkable restraint. He does not lash out, but rather remains civil - almost as though he understands (and possibly, in some unlikely way, accepts) the position that the relative who calls is forced to take because of his family’s beliefs. It’s an impressive piece of acting, one that should help to earn him a nomination (but not a win) at the Oscars.

All of this serves to show how very, very alone George is in the world; despite having a good job and at least one close friend, he is completely severed from life after Jim’s death. Though he claims to love Charley, he holds her at a distance; the affection between them is perfunctory. And he is efficient deailng with his co-workers to the point of being curt. He has poured all of his effort and attention into Jim - into a single man - and the loss is emotionally debilitating. George is able to get out of bed, get dressed, get to school…but these are objective actions that require no evaluation and precious little effort. They can be done on auto-pilot, and this is how George moves through this last day of his life.

The film is the directorial debut of fashion designer Tom Ford and as one would expect from someone who makes a career out of how things look, the film looks terrific. There are some elements that make it clear that the director is inexperienced - some dissolves that feel a little bit out of place and some cuts that are too kinetic - but these are minor quibbles that are far outweighed by the spectacular art direction. Though I imagine the Oscar will go to Jim Cameron’s Lord of the Flies starring Blue Man Group, I would certainly think that there is a nomination out there for this one. What is perhaps best about Ford’s direction is how he gets the camera to see into the characters - or how he manages to get Firth and Moore to express so much with eyes only. Surrounded by such exquisite - though dated - beauty, these are two very haunted souls.

I don’t know whether or not the end of the film is true to the end of the 1964 novel by Christopher Isherwood; but if it is, then I’m pre-emptively disappointed in the novel (the movie tie-in edition is not available yet at the library, but I’m on the hold list). If it is a deviation by Ford (who also wrote the script), then he should be barred for life from screenwriting. The ending was so bad that I’m surprised I have actually been able to heap so much praise on the film to this point. It might just be me, or it might be something that’s lost in translation from prose to screenplay and from screenplay to sound stage. I don’t know; but I didn’t like it, and for me it’s a pretty major problem with what is otherwise a very fine film (and a very impressive debut from a non-film person).