A Single Man

Sad that you would take an artsy movie which highlights a relationship and caring quality between two people, and turn your comments into an anti gay rant. Fine for you to be against gays, ignorance may be your bliss. But why you would slag a beautiful movie about passion and a person who didn't fit in, but lived his life for his fullfilment in a time when being gay was more than a no no, is unfortunate.

What is even more sad, my friend, is that you would perceive my comments to be anti-gay. I attempted to honestly critique this movie. Please point out to me in what I have said, where I have been anti-gay. You mention that I am against gays. Do you know me to make a bigoted statement like that. I wonder who is the paranoid one here? If this movie had been between a heterosexual couple nobody would care about these characters and the movie would not have gotten the attention it got. It was just time for another Broke Back Mountain. Hollywood has an agenda and gets on their own band wagon. I find that rather nauseating. Let's look at the movie as an entity unto itself, not because it was gay or straight or polka dot or whatever. That is why I find it a problem. It was two hours of following this guy around who wanted to committ suicide - that's not entertaining to me. Yes I understood that he was madly in love with this guy. To only see flashbacks of them sitting by a mountain on the seashore was not enough for me to buy it. Tom Ford was and is a fashion designer - you can see it all over the place and quite frankly it made me ill. He should not make movies - he should stick to hanging out with Calvin Klein and helping him with his billboard ads. Peace to you. And don't get into the psychic business you won't fare very well.

Though I liked the movie, I never perceived your critique to anti-gay at all and was also puzzled, as to why the previous poster did.

Agreed. The original poster was not anti-gay. The movie is tripe. Suicidal intentions scenes and then the ending are way too depressing.

I couldn't disagree with every single point you have made more. I think everyone should see this at all costs. The time period of 1962 California did have such a clean, simple and polished look... and was reflective of the life posed of the main character. Appearance was everything. I wanted to throw more money at the screen so I could see it again as I found the sad characters so engaging. Their screen relationship (Firth's and Moore's) was complex... one that was rare in 1962 and one I cannot recall being emulated or typical recently... and the student was cutting edge... and that look was merging at that time... don't think Ford would ever make a continuity/ fashion period error EVER! I hope Firth wins and it SWEEPS the Oscars for the beauty of the work!

Also... did not view your original critique as anti gay. I just disagree.

Considering your email handle I can sort of understand where you are coming from. Disagreeing with me is fine. At least you didn't accuse me of being anti-gay for critiquing a film. I made my points - no sense in reiterating. I will say this though, the Beatle haircut on the young student is before its time - yes my dear, Ford made an error - even fashion folks are human - I know this may be hard to take but true - the Beatle haircut originated in Germany by an art student Astrid who was dating a '5th' Beatle Stuart Sutcliffe - in America, especially California, it was the Jan and Dean crewcuts look all the way - it is also evident in many of the reels we see of the Kennedy assasination in November of 1963 with everyone donning the crewcut - America didn't get the Beatle haircut until February 9, 1964 - I was 11 I witnessed it. It took the rest of the north american continent to start growing their hair by around '66 - Ford made an error - but the biggest error was over-fashionizing the look of the film. Peace.

Well said... I wasn't there but I did trust Mr. Ford, tough pill for me to swallow... I did a bit of "googling" and did see some Beatle haircuts in Germany in '62 but I'm going to have to conceed with it as being a continuity error... very unlikely he'd have the cut. I did, however, despite the huge error, love the look of the film, and found Colin Firth and Julianne Moore extraordinary! Looking forward to more of your reviews.

Narrow observations about continuity and possible anachronisms do not an intelligent and complete review, make. Clearly you don't have a taste for this movie but spare us your pseudo analysis. Equally, whether or not you hold homophobic feelings hardly justifies the space you devote to informing us that nothing you have written is anti homosexual. We believe you - enough already! Evidence can be seen that you have knowledge enough about hair styling and Calvin Klein to attempt to inform about those topics. Beyond that, all that can be said is that you were unable to enjoy a rather subltle and intelligent movie.

Um... give me a break with your observation of MY RIGHT to critique a movie any way I want to... and to refer to me as "pseudo" - if the shoe fits - it takes one to know one - an observation of continuity is only that - it is neither "narrow" or "wide" - it just is what it is - THEY DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT - I would really question why you have a problem with my knowledge - please sit with yourself and question what is really going on inside of you - it's called "contemplation" - and to you this movie was "subtle and intelligent" - I respect that you saw it as that - why can't you respect that I saw it as boring and dark and over-indulgent and WAY TOO FRIGGIN'OVER THE TOP IN THE FASHION DEPARTMENT - once again I will reiterate - if this movie was about a heterosexual man nobody would give a rat's ass or maybe it wouldn't have been made BUT because HOLLYWOOD has an agenda and has to "be heard" in certain areas, it was just time for another BROKE BACK COW-POKE. Now get over it and let me critique my movie the way I wish - that's what makes it an interesting world - you see PINK I see BLUE.

If it's true that there is a 'Hollywood Agenda' - and you seem to be certain that there is - then I'm relieved that it includes creating movies that discuss the loves and tribulations of people of all lifestyles, races, religions, preferences, disabilities etc. Give em all a turn. What's wrong with that? You seem to have a problem in particular with including homosexual themes in the agenda, as in this movie and Brokeback Mountain. Are there any gay theme movies from Hollywood that you enjoyed? Name a few. Why do you go to watch movies that you feel are simply distributed to fulfill the 'Hollywood Agenda'. Do you really believe that simply by avoiding using words in your 'review' that explicitly state your homophobic views, that your intended meaning is not transparent. Here we have you with 'the hate that dare not speak its name' - to misquote. Don't be a coward. You cite Hollywood's 'agenda' to provide the occassional gay theme movie and you mention Brokeback as a further example. You say that had Single Man had a heterosexual theme it would not have been of interest. But there are countless heterosexual theme stories, plays, movies etc., that gain perpetual audiences. Just about all love stories are about heterosexual love affairs! Start with Shakespeare. We're still watching every one of his love stories and tragedies How did you feel about Shakespeare in Love? Might have been a little confusing for you - a woman pretending to be a man. More Hollywood agenda, perhaps. Come on - fess up. You've an eye for the guys and you're wasted writing about movies. The world needs your knowledge of hair and fashion styles. Single Man stands on its merits - gay theme or not. You stand on your prejudice - admitted or not. Hugs.

There IS a Hollywood agenda. I have no problem with different themes, just boring stories. I have no problem with homosexual themes, that is your view of me, a person you don't even know. Your preconceived notion is obvious about how you live your life. A victim ready to blame anyone you can because after all it is all society's fault. I am not being a coward, on the contrary, I am not afraid to speak out about A FILM regardless of its theme without feeling that someone like YOU is going to read into it the wrong way. I loved Shakespeare in Love and Gwyneth Paltrow's portrayal of a woman being a man. I also quite enjoyed MILK with Sean Penn. These are well made movies, not like your tripe pick of the decade. And insulting me by saying that I was confused watching Shakespeare in Love, further is a reflection of who you are. Does it feel good to insult me for having A FRIGGI' OPINION of a waste of time film. My knowledge about the Beatle haircut is a simple one: they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in February of 1964. This movie takes place in 1962. And it is not a CONTINUITY problem. Look up the word in relation to film and you will see. It is simply an error in trying to blindly portray an era because it was the 60s and not specifically thinking about 1962 - having a Bridgette Bardot looking model in the lecture hall smoking a cigarette and focusing on her had no consequence in relation to the film. It made you think that this person was important to the story when all it was, was another attempt at Calvin Kleinism billboard garbage. Peace and all that groovy stuff.