A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[Nikki]

I'm not feeling very charitable towards Mr Ford these days [mister 'This is not a gay film'] so I tend to think he just wanted to come in and change as much content as he could.  He eliminated Doris, added Carlos, changed Jim from bi to gay and George from gay to bi and added a whole suicide theme.  I get the feeling that he just changed Lois because he could.

Michael, I agree with you that Ford may have wanted to change as much as he could, and it doesn't always make the characters as interesting or appealing as they were in the book.  Even though I don't agree about some changes; I except them.  However, I do question why he changed Charley so drastically.  Maybe he could not think of a middle-aged actress to play the role -- although Helen Mirren comes to mind, or a young Shelly Winters. 

'This is not a gay film':  Didn't some people say that about BBM?  But, and this is a big but, in ASM the gay theme winds through the film as it affects George as a gay man mourning his dead partner; as a gay man teaching about minorities aware that he is one of them; as a gay man whose confident is a straight woman; and as a gay professor who may or may not be attracted to his flrty male student.  Yes, the film is about loneliness and grief, the loss of a lover, and midlife crisis which could have been attributed to a  heterosexual man just as well, but the gay theme lends a profound intensity to the George character which I don't think would have worked as well had he been straight. I am loathe to disagree with Ford -- it's his film ---- but still...

[michaelflanagansf]

Beach scene with Jim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq4M8fD4Tz0

Ignorant Straight Girl here: I was quite surprised to see you describe film George as bisexual, Michael. I've got the impression, from talking to people on this forum, that what George describes ("I wouldn't say it meant nothing to me, but it meant a great deal more to Charley" and "because I fall in love with men") would not necessarily lead him to think of himself as such, or indeed that other people nowadays would do so. But of course I know it’s just a question of defining the definition, as it were. (We're not really told much about what book Jim's feelings were concerning Doris.)

Okay, so he doesn't fit the definition of a bisexual exactly - I suppose you could call him a Kinsey 5 or Kinsey 4, but these terms don't mean much to people.  What would you call him?

[Cally]

Okay, so he doesn't fit the definition of a bisexual exactly - I suppose you could call him a Kinsey 5 or Kinsey 4, but these terms don't mean much to people.  What would you call him?

No, I really was asking as an ISG.  I personally have no hangups with the term bisexual, and before I came to the forum I definitely would have described film George as such (Kinsey 4 or 5 certainly fits my view of him), but I've got the impression, from the reactions of some people as to whether Jack or Ennis were bisexual, that it's not an acceptable word to describe someone whose main emotional attraction is to someone of the same sex, and I know it's caused some heated discussion. So when I said I was surprised that you used it I meant just that - nothing heavy.

As far as I'm concerned we all move around on a spectrum with infinite gradations, if that makes sense. And I use the term 'ignorant straight girl' loosely .

[garyd]

What did you think about her comments regarding George being a 'raging misogynist?'  This seemed a bit harsh to me - particularly given George's primary relationship in the book is with a woman.

Yeah, that entire paragraph is a bit "hyper" don't you think?
I don't see George as a "raging" anything (nor his he "breathtakingly sadistic"..I mean please)

As I think you mentioned in a post, George is just so deliciously "normal" and human.  He is grieving, has a few neurosis, is concerned about the world in which he lives, has a few "get even" fantasies.  If that is raging and breathtaking, well, issue me a membership card.
None of this is to say that George is unaware that his true sexual identity is considered by many, perhaps most, to be taboo, and nasty, and "monstrous". 
He fully recognizes and understands himself and the environment in which he lives and he does not allow it to defeat him.

And, of course, Isherwood is, as we have discussed, probably saying he is close to being a bit too complacent;  that it is time to join forces and make some noise.

[michaelflanagansf]

Michael, I agree with you that Ford may have wanted to change as much as he could, and it doesn't always make the characters as interesting or appealing as they were in the book.  Even though I don't agree about some changes; I except them.  However, I do question why he changed Charley so drastically.  Maybe he could not think of a middle-aged actress to play the role -- although Helen Mirren comes to mind, or a young Shelly Winters. 

'This is not a gay film':  Didn't some people say that about BBM?  But, and this is a big but, in ASM the gay theme winds through the film as it affects George as a gay man mourning his dead partner; as a gay man teaching about minorities aware that he is one of them; as a gay man whose confident is a straight woman; and as a gay professor who may or may not be attracted to his flrty male student.  Yes, the film is about loneliness and grief, the loss of a lover, and midlife crisis which could have been attributed to a  heterosexual man just as well, but the gay theme lends a profound intensity to the George character which I don't think would have worked as well had he been straight. I am loathe to disagree with Ford -- it's his film ---- but still...

As you probably know, Nikki, I'm good friends with a musician and I often defend her work by saying let the artist decide what the artist's work should be and what it means.  So it's not without some thought that I am angry at Tom Ford for his comments about this not being 'a gay film.'  He also said that he doesn't think of himself as gay [http://www.akawilliam.com/tom-ford-i-don%E2%80%99t-think-of-myself-as-gay/], but that doesn't bother me nearly as much as his saying that he doesn't think of the film as gay.  I rather think of his self-identity as being because he's a fashion designer and he's a bit reactionary.  It's rather like being told by your hairdresser that he doesn't think of himself as a gay hairdresser (that's nice dear, just do the hair, okay?).

The reason I have real problems with him saying that this is not a gay film is because he is adapting (admittedly loosely) the work of another artist - and that artist is both an icon of gay people and was a strong voice for gay liberation in the sixties and seventies.  And the work he is describing is one which was important to gay people (as you will see when I get around to David Garnes from 'The Isherwood Century') and has been describe by no less of a gay artist and writer than Edmund White as 'one of the first and best novels of the modern gay liberation movement.'  And it does make his choices (like eliminating Doris and making George and Charley have a sexual history) suspect - why is this director diluting or changing the vision of Christopher Isherwood? 

It is also problematic because this sort of statement has a history.  Throughout the book 'The Celluloid Closet' Vito Russo peppered the beginning of chapters with quotes of this sort:

"'The Children's Hour' is not about lesbianism, it's about the power of lies to destroy people's lives"
(William Wyler, 1962)

"'The Sergeant' is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness" (Rod Steiger, 1968)

"'Windows' is not about homosexuality, it's about insanity" (Gordon Willis, 1979)

"'Staircase' is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness" (Rex Harrison, 1971)

"'Sunday Bloody Sunday' is not about the sexuality of these people, it's about human loneliness" (John Schlesinger, 1972)

"'The Boys in the Band' is not about homosexuality" (William Friedkin, 1970)

"'Cruising' is not about homosexuality" (William Friedkin, 1980)

So for me when Tom Ford says this it is an echo of darker, more closeted times.  And I wonder about what is going on culturally that people of Ford's station in life still feel compelled to make these statements.

There have been people who have made brave and bold statements about gay themed films in the past.  In one of the very first instances where an actor involved in a film with a gay theme stood up to the people who wanted to silence him Dirk Bogarde (speaking about 'Victim' in the early 60s) said:

"It was the first film in which a man said 'I love you' to another man.  I wrote that scene in.  I said 'There's no point in half-measures.  We either make a film about queers or we don't"

I agree with the very brave Mr. Bogarde - there is no point in half-measures.  Although I like the final product I now feel that Tom Ford is something of a throwback to a darker time in his opinions.  And he certainly is no Dirk Bogarde.

So yes, I strongly agree with your second paragraph - this film is about a gay man and his partner's death and the aftermath.  It was also written by a gay man who lived through Europe in the buildup to World War II and who was a strong figure in the gay rights movement in here.  So 'de-gaying' the film in his comments is really something of an insult, I think.

[michaelflanagansf]

No, I really was asking as an ISG.  I personally have no hangups with the term bisexual, and before I came to the forum I definitely would have described film George as such (Kinsey 4 or 5 certainly fits my view of him), but I've got the impression, from the reactions of some people as to whether Jack or Ennis were bisexual, that it's not an acceptable word to describe someone whose main emotional attraction is to someone of the same sex, and I know it's caused some heated discussion. So when I said I was surprised that you used it I meant just that - nothing heavy.

As far as I'm concerned we all move around on a spectrum with infinite gradations, if that makes sense. And I use the term 'ignorant straight girl' loosely .

Okay!  Got the context now.

Hmmm...well I don't know exactly what you call these people then, Sara.  I suppose you could say they are 'functionally bisexual' - but again, that seems labored.  It's true that bisexuals would dispute that these people are, in fact, bisexual - because their desire isn't really toward both sexes they are simply conforming to societal expectations.  But this is a point where language fails, I fear.

[garyd]

No, I really was asking as an ISG.  I personally have no hangups with the term bisexual, and before I came to the forum I definitely would have described film George as such (Kinsey 4 or 5 certainly fits my view of him), but I've got the impression, from the reactions of some people as to whether Jack or Ennis were bisexual, that it's not an acceptable word to describe someone whose main emotional attraction is to someone of the same sex, and I know it's caused some heated discussion. So when I said I was surprised that you used it I meant just that - nothing heavy.

As far as I'm concerned we all move around on a spectrum with infinite gradations, if that makes sense. And I use the term 'ignorant straight girl' loosely .

You know Isherwood addresses this somewhere, it may be in "The Isherwood Century", I'm just not sure.
Anyway, he says that he sees a definite distinction between lust and love and "like" and love.
(He is all for lust by the way. )

What he seems to be saying is:
A guy can like another guy and, due to lust, have sex with him.  That does not make the guy "queer".
A guy can even love (romantic love) another guy though not necessarily experience lust.  This does not make him queer either.
Or a guy can fall both in love and lust for another guy...therefore ..."queer". 
It's the combination of love and lust that appears to be the litmus test.

 I suppose the converse would be true as well?
A guy can like a woman and, due to lust, have sex with her.  That does not make him straight?

I'm not saying that Isherwood is the expert here, I'm, well, just sayin'.
It's complicated.

g

[garyd]

In the 80s there was a phrase 'Acquired Immanent Divinity Syndrome' that we used to refer to the work of authors like Randy Shilts who seemed to believe disease (and the minority status conferred with it) conferred saintliness.  It's great to see Isherwood addressing this in the 60s.

Hmm, I'd like to hear more about this.  I always considered Shilts to be somewhat of a good guy. I know he was the subject of some ire over the closing of the bath houses.

[michaelflanagansf]

Yeah, that entire paragraph is a bit "hyper" don't you think?
I don't see George as a "raging" anything (nor his he "breathtakingly sadistic"..I mean please)

As I think you mentioned in a post, George is just so deliciously "normal" and human.  He is grieving, has a few neurosis, is concerned about the world in which he lives, has a few "get even" fantasies.  If that is raging and breathtaking, well, issue me a membership card.
None of this is to say that George is unaware that his true sexual identity is considered by many, perhaps most, to be taboo, and nasty, and "monstrous". 
He fully recognizes and understands himself and the environment in which he lives and he does not allow it to defeat him.

And, of course, Isherwood is, as we have discussed, probably saying he is close to being a bit too complacent;  that it is time to join forces and make some noise.

LOL at the membership card.

I suppose I come down as giving those revenge fantasies and the thoughts about the children and the women a little more weight than thinking of them as neurosis, but I certainly don't think of George as a monster.  I tend to think that George was getting over a depression and is in the cranky and irritable phase when we see him at the beginning of the book - but this may just be my own interpretation leaking through as I saw an awfully lot of that going on in the 80s and 90s with AIDS.

So yes, I think Bucknell is probably overstating the case.

[garyd]

One of the things which is interesting about George is that he's so damn normal (apart from the fantasies about torturing people).  It's interesting that this book predates 'Boys in the Band' by four years.  It definitely gives the feeling that regardless of events like Stonewall, people were already on the move - politically as well as socially.

Yeah, this could be an interesting discussion in and of itself.
We just saw "BITB" a month or so ago.
It has not, necessarily, aged well whereas "ASM" has a timeless quality.
g

[michaelflanagansf]

(He is all for lust by the way. )

Have I mentioned how much I like Isherwood. 

[Cally]

Thanks, both!

Just depends where people want to stick their labels - which have their uses but do need to be detachable.  You're right about the 'complicated' anyway, Gary.

[garyd]

Have I mentioned how much I like Isherwood. 

I have the feeling that the two of you would have been very good friends.

[michaelflanagansf]

Hmm, I'd like to hear more about this.  I always considered Shilts to be somewhat of a good guy. I know he was the subject of some ire over the closing of the bath houses.

Well quite (the good guy bit) - perhaps a bit too good.  Randy had a tendency to apply his Roman Catholic ethics to the situation at hand - and that's was James Miller was referring to when he used the term "Acquired Immanent Divinity Syndrome" (he wrote an essay on this - you may be able to find it somewhere although on a quick search I couldn't find the original).  He points to several scenes in 'And The Band Played On' where the people who get the disease begin to be written about in almost hagiographic terms.

Didn't have anything to do with the bath houses - it was literary criticism.

[michaelflanagansf]

What he seems to be saying is:
A guy can like another guy and, due to lust, have sex with him.  That does not make the guy "queer".
A guy can even love (romantic love) another guy though not necessarily experience lust.  This does not make him queer either.
Or a guy can fall both in love and lust for another guy...therefore ..."queer". 
It's the combination of love and lust that appears to be the litmus test.

I agree with all of this, btw.  It's driven me mad repeatedly in my life too (although in retrospect, probably in a good way).