A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[michaelflanagansf]

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.

Well I'm glad it led you to Isherwood - he's truly worth reading.  BTW, those of us who don't like the 'not a gay movie' line are not alone:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/feb/15/a-single-man-sexual-preference

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/not-gay-filmmakers-wont-let-a-single-man-come-out-of-the-closet.html

http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews37_52/page33.cfm

And I kind of love this one:

http://www.polarimagazine.com/?p=3036

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/41417057.html

[michaelflanagansf]

The other thing that really burns my grits is that you never hear people say this about films that deal with other groups - no one says 'Slumdog Millionaire' is not about India - it's a universal story, or 'Precious' is not an African American film, or 'La Mission' is not about Hispanic culture in San Francisco.  The only people who seem to be rushing for the exits when it comes to identifying with a subgroup are gay directors.  It's pathetic (imho, of course).

[garyd]

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.

I get the impression we may be giving Ford a bit of a bad rap here.  I have never read an interview, including the one Michael references, in which Ford denies his sexuality.  In most of the ones I have read he references being a gay man and also mentions his male partner of some odd 23 years.  He DOES attempt to  make the usual and, I suppose cliche, marketing pitch for the film that it is not "just" or is "more than" a gay story. 
Ford lives in a rather rarefied world in which he may feel that sexual preference is not much of an issue.   Even in the article Michael references, he seems to be going to great and, perhaps, labored lengths to put forth the idea that sexual preference should not necessarily be top on the list of one's personal self-identification list.  I have heard similar statements from  Blacks, Latino's , and Women. 
Now this always pisses off some other members of the specific group, (and I am NOT saying this is your position Michael,) because they are of the opinion that a person in Ford's position should be willing to take a leadership position in championing the cause of the specific group.

[michaelflanagansf]

I get the impression we may be giving Ford a bit of a bad rap here.  I have never read an interview, including the one Michael references, in which Ford denies his sexuality. 

Here you go:

http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Cover_Stories/The_Visionary_Tom_Ford/

It was in the Advocate, so it was kind of a big deal.

[michaelflanagansf]

Ford lives in a rather rarefied world in which he may feel that sexual preference is not much of an issue.   Even in the article Michael references, he seems to be going to great and, perhaps, labored lengths to put forth the idea that sexual preference should not necessarily be top on the list of one's personal self-identification list.  I have heard similar statements from  Blacks, Latino's , and Women. 
Now this always pisses off some other members of the specific group, (and I am NOT saying this is your position Michael,) because they are of the opinion that a person in Ford's position should be willing to take a leadership position in championing the cause of the specific group.

Well frankly I don't care what he thinks of himself.  What pisses me off is when he starts talking for the dead.  Isherwood was involved in gay politics from the 50s (in the U.S. - earlier in Germany) so to 'de-gay' his work is just a dunderheaded misreading of history, imho. 

I don't need Tom Ford to identify as gay.  I've got people like Rachel Maddow and Lt. Dan Choi doing a good job on that number.  But I don't like it when he messes with someone else's work - particularly when someone like Edmund White (who I respect) identifies the work as an important gay work.

Perhaps if you're a rich fashion designer being gay is no longer an issue or something that you should put on the top of your identification list.  For those of us who have seen what (still) happens to people who live in less rarefied climates it's still an issue (and I know you know this and are not saying it isn't Gary).  But really his identity isn't my issue - it's what he says about the film.

[Nikki]

And I kind of love this one:

http://www.polarimagazine.com/?p=3036

So do I, Michael. An excellent article.

 We're all defined by our sexual orientation and/or gender.  I think like a woman and act like a woman.  That's not to say that I can't empathize with other genders or those of different sexual orientation, but why deny what we are if it's self-evident?    Vive la difference .

[garyd]

It was in the Advocate, so it was kind of a big deal.

Yes, I have read the Advocate interview. 
I guess we are just interpreting his statement differently.
I do not read it to mean that he is denying the fact he is gay. As a matter of fact, he says he IS gay but that being so is not number one on his list of self-identifiers.
I guess I know a lot of people, Michael, who when they look in the mirror every morning do not immediately say "black", "woman", "gay", "latino", "asian". Instead, they see themselves as something else first, second, or maybe even third.  Does this mean they deny their membership in any one of those groups?
Perhaps for whatever reason, personal, financial, whatever, Ford is being disingenuous.  I don't know the guy.

[garyd]

Well frankly I don't care what he thinks of himself.  What pisses me off is when he starts talking for the dead.  Isherwood was involved in gay politics from the 50s (in the U.S. - earlier in Germany) so to 'de-gay' his work is just a dunderheaded misreading of history, imho. 

Yes, I agree.  Dunderheaded is also a very good word to describe it.

I  But really his identity isn't my issue - it's what he says about the film.

Understood.  Even agree.
g

[garyd]

Well, THIS is weird.
For some damn reason Cunegonde, Barbara Cook and Kristen Chenoweth are coming to mind. 
Time for a walk.

[michaelflanagansf]

Yes, I have read the Advocate interview. 
I guess we are just interpreting his statement differently.
I do not read it to mean that he is denying the fact he is gay. As a matter of fact, he says he IS gay but that being so is not number one on his list of self-identifiers.
I guess I know a lot of people, Michael, who when they look in the mirror every morning do not immediately say "black", "woman", "gay", "latino", "asian". Instead, they see themselves as something else first, second, or maybe even third.  Does this mean they deny their membership in any one of those groups?
Perhaps for whatever reason, personal, financial, whatever, Ford is being disingenuous.  I don't know the guy.

Oh I don't think he's being disingenuous - I'm sure he is describing how he sees himself.  But as someone who works in an environment where people believe all sorts of things I have a rather low tolerance for this sort of thing, I must admit.  In a country where Governors are removing equal protection for LGBT workers (Virginia) or eliminating domestic partner benefits (Arizona) and DOMA and DATD are on the books it just seems somewhat detached to be saying this sort of thing - and I suppose I'm happy that there are gay people who have made it to this point.  I'm sure that he's a nice fellow and he probably gives lots of money to things I support.  But he doesn't much sound like someone I'd like to spend time around.  When I read things like this I find myself  thinking 'tick-tock, Howl is showing at the Frameline Festival next month so Mr. Ford's fifteen minutes is nearly up for me.'  That is, of course, a personal decision we all make as well.

[michaelflanagansf]

Well, THIS is weird.
For some damn reason Cunegonde, Barbara Cook and Kristen Chenoweth are coming to mind. 
Time for a walk.

Yes, and I find myself thinking of Liberace.  Of course that could be due to the fact that I have a video set sitting on my desk.

[garyd]

    In a country where Governors are removing equal protection for LGBT workers (Virginia) or eliminating domestic partner benefits (Arizona) and DOMA and DATD are on the books it just seems somewhat detached to be saying this sort of thing -

Yes, of course, this is the argument.
And a good one.

[michaelflanagansf]

Well...there is this argument as well...the 'what planet is it that Tom Ford lives on that he doesn't think of himself as gay when he distributes material like this' argument (which is, btw, NSFW):

http://naiveboy.com/2009/11/12/i-want-to-have-sex-with-mr-tom-ford-by-navo/

[michaelflanagansf]

So do I, Michael. An excellent article.

 We're all defined by our sexual orientation and/or gender.  I think like a woman and act like a woman.  That's not to say that I can't empathize with other genders or those of different sexual orientation, but why deny what we are if it's self-evident?    Vive la difference .

Exactly.  And I don't like feeling like I'm pushing my definitions of identity on other people.  But as Gary and I agree there are issues which make this kind of important.  What I find astounding when I read things like this is that I find a greater commonality and understanding among my straight friends (here included) than I do from some LGBT people who have 'gotten over' (to use a 70s phrase).  And I'm not saying that to be judgmental - it's just a tad disappointing.

[garyd]

Well...there is this argument as well...the 'what planet is it that Tom Ford lives on that he doesn't think of himself as gay when he distributes material like this' argument (which is, btw, NSFW):

http://naiveboy.com/2009/11/12/i-want-to-have-sex-with-mr-tom-ford-by-navo/

Bwaaa!

Well, perhaps the guy is nothing more than a rag salesman with a sense of style and an
overly developed sense of marketing. 

You know "fashion" is interesting. 
Is it art, commerce, or a combination of the two?
Or is it really just something to cover the private parts due to that long ago "apple" incident?

Ford claims to be making a statement here regarding the double standard in popular culture
regarding the male versus the female form in fashion and advertising.
Or maybe he's just trying to sell cologne.