A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[garyd]

I'm not feeling very charitable towards Mr Ford these days [mister 'This is not a gay film']

LOL, agreed.
Methinks Mr. Ford may have "projected" a bit too much of his personal perceived biography onto the film and in the process
rendered some disservice to both the art (the book) and the artist (Isherwood). 
This places me, I think, very much in the same camp as you in light of your above comments about artists and
your list of historical literary, theatre and film examples.

 "ASM" is the story of a gay man just as "BBM" is a gay love story.  I honestly think this is a given.
(Remember when Daniel Mendelsohn got his knickers in a knot over this whole thing in the NY Review of Books?)
I agreed with him but...

Isn't it true that well-written work, work that lasts the test of time, can have specificity but also
transcend that specificity by its invocation of universal themes which resonate with everyone?
I really think this is a given also and that "labeling" a work as something specific does not negate the universality.

[Cally]

As with the hints of it in the book, I think the nature of George and Jim's life together is beautifully sketched in in the film.  But do you feel we should have seen a little more passion between them?  The only kiss, as far as I remember from one viewing, is cut very short. Is this delicate subtlety, or an aspect of not wanting a gay film?

[garyd]

As with the hints of it in the book, I think the nature of George and Jim's life together is beautifully sketched in in the film.  But do you feel we should have seen a little more passion between them?  The only kiss, as far as I remember from one viewing, is cut very short. Is this delicate subtlety, or an aspect of not wanting a gay film?

Hmm, interesting question, Sara.
I suppose in the film it could be argued that Ford decided, perhaps for commercial reasons, not to be too explicit.
There would be no such restraint on Isherwood's part, however.  (Well, that may not be totally true.)
As you imply, however, we sense a true affection, a feeling of romantic love in both the book and the film.
When you think about it, "Pride and Prejudice" or any of Austen's work for that matter, is certainly not explicit but
the books are incredibly romantic.  Same with "Gone With the Wind" or even "Casablanca" for that matter.


In another vein, in ASM what we know about the relationship between George and Jim is filtered through George and in a sense
this makes it sort of a "memory" play and what does one remember when one thinks back upon a romance; the passion or the
cherished, sexless, artless, moments of contentment, acceptance, and peace? 
In my opinion, it is the latter and, also in my opinion, it requires the work of a master to convey that subtle sense of romance and implied passion.

(I suppose I am revealing that I am not much of a SNIT fan though I understand its inclusion in the film. 
On the other hand, to me, the SS reunion porch scene is a total turn on.
Go figure. )

[Nikki]

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? 


"'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.

Michael, I hope you didn't misunderstand me -- maybe you did. I didn't agree with all the changes, some of them I didn't understand (Charley).  My point was that I was loathe to disagree with Ford; it was his film.  Many writers have objected to changes in their  books to film adaptation -- Hemingway is a good example. Howvever, I really don't understand why Ford says he doesn't think of himself as a gay man.  Maybe he likes the attention, maybe he just likes controversy.



BTW, I thought he was depicting George as bi-sexual when he wrote the scene where Charley and George talk about their past affair. Obviously, George changed before he met Jim.

[Nikki]

As with the hints of it in the book, I think the nature of George and Jim's life together is beautifully sketched in in the film.  But do you feel we should have seen a little more passion between them?  The only kiss, as far as I remember from one viewing, is cut very short. Is this delicate subtlety, or an aspect of not wanting a gay film?

Sara, maybe Ford didn't want to draw it out -- maybe it was political.  I do think the few scenes were perfect -- there was no doubt how they felt and what they were to each other.  The scene on the sofa was lifted right form the book, and the cozy intimacy couldn't have been better.  

[garyd]

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, b

Actually, I suppose your interpretation is more accurate than mine.

It’s just that, for some reason, I find George so very amusing.  Whenever I read the “enemy”, the torture, or the borderline misogyny passages I always chuckle.   In my mind’s ear George is being so sardonic. 

I also very much relate to George’s anger regarding suburban sprawl, unbridled, unplanned, thoughtless growth.  Isherwood, in these passages, is so uncannily prescient.  Certainly in Southern California in 1964 the rape was well under way but I am not sure everyone was as in tune as George to the devastation yet to come.

Finally, I also delight in the passage at school in which George is talking with, whomever, though his eye and certainly his mind is on the tennis players.  This scene is just too incredibly real, so "normal",  and so very hetero and, of course, that is the delicious irony.  If it actually WERE hetero, George would interrupt the conversation with something like..”this is all very interesting but to be honest the ‘scenery’ is way too distracting.  I mean look at those….”. 
And there in lies the whole crux of the matter; there is no way George can be himself when he is surrounded by the “enemy”. 

[garyd]

I didn't understand (Charley). 

Hey Nikki,
Just a thought concerning film Charley:

It seems to me, based on nothing more than the interviews with Ford we have read, that film Charley is a Ford fabrication.  He admits he projects himself onto the story, he changes George’s age to be closer to his, (and to Firth’s of course), he makes George bi-sexual and so when he looks at Charley, he simply says “well would I have a Charley friend in the mold of  Maureen Stapleton or in the mold of Julianne Moore?  And of course, he chooses Moore.
I suppose it really doesn’t matter because in both the book and film, Charley represents the demilitarized zone, safe haven, both literal and metaphorical “comfort food”. 

Another interesting twist is that apparently the “real” Charley was Iris Tree of all people.  Tree was exquisite, beautiful, sophisticated, a poet, part of the “Hollywood” scene, English, and moved back to the U.K. with her second husband.  So, even the book Charley is not the REAL Charley. 

[Nikki]

Hey Nikki,
Just a thought concerning film Charley:

It seems to me, based on nothing more than the interviews with Ford we have read, that film Charley is a Ford fabrication.  He admits he projects himself onto the story, he changes George’s age to be closer to his, (and to Firth’s of course), he makes George bi-sexual and so when he looks at Charley, he simply says “well would I have a Charley friend in the mold of  Maureen Stapleton or in the mold of Julianne Moore?  And of course, he chooses Moore.
I suppose it really doesn’t matter because in both the book and film, Charley represents the demilitarized zone, safe haven, both literal and metaphorical “comfort food”. 

Another interesting twist is that apparently the “real” Charley was Iris Tree of all people.  Tree was exquisite, beautiful, sophisticated, a poet, part of the “Hollywood” scene, English, and moved back to the U.K. with her second husband.  So, even the book Charley is not the REAL Charley. 

Very interesting, Gary.  I didn't mean I didn't understand the character per se , I should have said that I didn't understand Ford's version and why.  The book Charley was a more interesting character: needy, intense, eccentric, etc..  Julianne Moore was totally different: glamorous, predatory, alcoholic.  Interesting about Iris Tree.  I do remember that Ford chose his own age to reflect Firth's -- Firth couldn't possibly look 59, so I guess the age change made sense in that case. I  do hate when film makers change characters so drastically.

[michaelflanagansf]

Michael, I hope you didn't misunderstand me -- maybe you did. I didn't agree with all the changes, some of them I didn't understand (Charley).  My point was that I was loathe to disagree with Ford; it was his film.  Many writers have objected to changes in their  books to film adaptation -- Hemingway is a good example. Howvever, I really don't understand why Ford says he doesn't think of himself as a gay man.  Maybe he likes the attention, maybe he just likes controversy.

BTW, I thought he was depicting George as bi-sexual when he wrote the scene where Charley and George talk about their past affair. Obviously, George changed before he met Jim.

No no no, didn't misunderstand you a bit.  I know you don't agree with all his changes - I was just elaborating on why I was upset about Tom Ford's comments.  I've been meaning to say this for a bit and your post just prompted me to do this.  Sorry if I was unclear.

[garyd]

Very interesting, Gary.  I didn't mean I didn't understand the character per se , I should have said that I didn't understand Ford's version and why. 

Nikki,
Yes, yes, I understood what you were saying and I agree that Ford's version of Charley is a bit difficult.  I don't really understand it either. I was just proposing one possible reason for his choice.  I guess I think both book and film Charlie are interesting, but, like you, I think book Charlie has the edge as far as being more in  tune with the whole feeling of the story.  It never occurred to me that you did not understand the character per se.  It is obvious from your comments that you do.
It is fascinating how  these elements are translated from one medium to another, isn't it? 

[michaelflanagansf]

what does one remember when one thinks back upon a romance; the passion or the
cherished, sexless, artless, moments of contentment, acceptance, and peace? 
In my opinion, it is the latter and, also in my opinion, it requires the work of a master to convey that subtle sense of romance and implied passion.

Hmmm...I'm not sure Anaïs Nin, Nabokov, Henry Miller or Colette would necessarily agree.  I would guess this varies depending on the individual.

[Cally]

Hmm, interesting question, Sara.
I suppose in the film it could be argued that Ford decided, perhaps for commercial reasons, not to be too explicit.
There would be no such restraint on Isherwood's part, however.  (Well, that may not be totally true.)
As you imply, however, we sense a true affection, a feeling of romantic love in both the book and the film.
When you think about it, "Pride and Prejudice" or any of Austen's work for that matter, is certainly not explicit but
the books are incredibly romantic.  Same with "Gone With the Wind" or even "Casablanca" for that matter.


In another vein, in ASM what we know about the relationship between George and Jim is filtered through George and in a sense
this makes it sort of a "memory" play and what does one remember when one thinks back upon a romance; the passion or the
cherished, sexless, artless, moments of contentment, acceptance, and peace? 
In my opinion, it is the latter and, also in my opinion, it requires the work of a master to convey that subtle sense of romance and implied passion.

(I suppose I am revealing that I am not much of a SNIT fan though I understand its inclusion in the film. 
On the other hand, to me, the SS reunion porch scene is a total turn on.
Go figure. )

Yes, I like that, Gary (are you talking about Isherwood or Ford though?  Or both?).  And I do so go along with what you say about Jane Austen and GWTW etc.

It's not that I'm desperate for hot sex scenes, well not here anyway, but I did just feel that making that kiss so brief was slightly implying that it was all audiences could cope with.

SNIT now (I don't think this is actually O/T): the purist in me would wish it not to be there, but I do think it was what really pulled me into the film, and probably many other people too, and at first it made far more impression on me than the Reunion kiss. Now that I know the SS so well it's impossible to reconcile the two versions so I don't try, but SNIT for me is a perfect little cameo - tender, not explicit, just the right length - so I suppose something like that is what I would have liked in ASM. However I do also take your point about it being all in George's memory (and Michael's point too about depending on the individual).

[Nikki]

No no no, didn't misunderstand you a bit.  I know you don't agree with all his changes - I was just elaborating on why I was upset about Tom Ford's comments.  I've been meaning to say this for a bit and your post just prompted me to do this.  Sorry if I was unclear.

Michael, I understand why you were upset at Ford's comments.  You're right -- I think he is a granstander. JMHO

[Nikki]

It is fascinating how  these elements are translated from one medium to another, isn't it? 

Yes it is.  I can understand how difficult the translation is from book to film, but to change characters so drastically is annoying, and repeated discussion degenerates  in to the old 'beating the horse.'

[janjo]

I don't really understand why Tom Ford denies being gay, or why he denies that his film of ASM is not a gay film. I was surprised when I saw it, just how gay it was.
I wondered if he changed the character of "Charley" so he could use more "designer" elements, clothes, furnishings, etc, in the film.
I do thank Mr Ford though, because he did make a good film, which I enjoyed, and he introduced me to the novels and works of Christopher Isherwood, which otherwise I might not have read.