A Single Man (2009)

Dir. Tom Ford

Things learned from A Single Man: Fashion designers-turned directors do not observe things like subtlety. Stick Julianne Moore in non-contemporary clothing and settings and you’ve already guaranteed yourself respectability.  Colin Firth has never shown talent like this in his entire career.

A Single Man is uneven, as is to be expected from a debut film, especially of this stature.  There are times, especially early on in the film that it seems just a bit too pleased with itself and its audacious visual design; (we’re talking dream sequences, slow-motion underwater shots, and even a dramatic color palette shift during certain symbolic scenes).  Add to that an emotional heft that is both moving and manipulative in its over-arching symbolism.

Then it hit me; A Single Man is essentially the history of queer cinema wrapped up in one evocative package.  The film evokes everything from Pink Narcissus in its provocative twist on the male gaze, to the pop culture imagery of Scorpio Rising, to even the re-appropriations of Sirkian melodrama of Far From Heaven.  Tom Ford certainly knows his film history, but if this sounds like faint praise, it honestly shouldn’t, because Ford maintains an unwavering hand throughout the film, so much that it’s honestly quite hard not to get swept up in the operatic cockiness at display here.  It does not hold a very intimate emotional grasp I must say, but Firth and Moore do provide a much-needed grounding to the grandeur.   (It must be noted also that Nicholas Hoult, the awkward young boy of About a Boy-turned GQ-ready man-meat, provides an impressive performance as well, one that shows a talent for ambiguity.)

So here we have it: a very impressive debut from the most unlikely of candidates.  Tom Ford clearly has a cinematic intuition and an eye to match, and he even has a gift for finding the perfect performance out of Colin Firth, an always pleasant but never, until now, great actor.

Oh, and how about this trailer… Cocky bastards…

Fashion designer Tom Ford makes his directorial debut with this dramatic outing starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, and Matthew Goode. Ford and David Scearce adapted the story from a book by Christopher Isherwood, which tells the tragic tale of a professor’s loss of his longtime partner.

Will Colin Firth be nominated for an Oscar in this one? Will he win an Oscar? Who knows, but he has been getting rave reviews for it.

George Falconer (Colin Firth) is a 52-year-old British college professor struggling to find meaning to his life after the death of his long time partner, Jim (Matthew Goode). George dwells on the past and cannot see his future as we follow him through a single day, where a series of events and encounters, ultimately leads him to decide if there is a meaning to life after Jim.

It is the directorial debut of Tom Ford and stars Colin Firth, Juilanne Moore and Matthew Goode. It opens on 11 December 2009.

Source: Collider

There are certain films that seem so wide in scope and epic in proportions that they kind of make other films seem a bit pale in comparison.  I don’t want to necessarily say that they are “the best movies there are,” but they certainly make you contemplate your life, as well as other movies and how you view those.  Magnolia was easily one of those films.

The movie is long and wandering, and yet intimate and precise.  It deals with every day, real life issues, but tackles them as one might approach an epic journey, as well as adding on aspects of unreal, magic, and abstract vignettes.  It is a film of contradictions, both in plot and production.

The film begins by discussing three classic urban myth coincidences, all shot beautifully and interestingly.  Unfortunately, I don’t think the movie itself quite tied back to those original ideas.  I was expecting some sort of major payoff, where everything converged nicely.  Like real life, there were minor coincidences and unexpected relationships, but never the magical dues ex machina i was expecting.  I understand why thematically  that wouldn’t have been necessary, but I still felt a little misled.

I don’t know if I loved all of the less realistic aspects of the film.  In one memorable scene, all of the characters, in their own private worlds, sing along to an Aimee Mann song.  The song was pretty and relevant, but… why?  I don’t know if the movie really gained anything from that sing-along session.  We get it: all of these characters lives and stories are interweaved, and they are all going through oddly similar things.  We don’t need to hear them singing a song like this in order to recognize that.  On the other hand, I thought the frogs were actually kind of interesting.  And the only reason it really worked was because of the way the characters responded to it.  People didn’t start freaking out or thinking that the world was going to end.  It was just something that was happening and they dealt with it accordingly.  They noticed it and took it in, but didn’t over-react or completely lose it.

Is it weird that one of the most interesting factors of this movie (to me) was its pretty strict adherence to Aristotle’s Unities?  Everything takes place in the valley in one day.  The unity of action has always been a bit fuzzy to me, but I think it could easily be argued that Magnolia adhered to this as well.  For a movie of its scope, Magnolia is also intimate and small in its own way.

Not really sure what else to say about it.  I’m still thinking about the connections and relationships, which is impressive no doubt.  The performances were all stellar, with special mention going to the old and the young.  PTA does a great job of managing this ensemble cast.  The recognizable stars did an awesome job of playing against their types, which is always fun to watch.  The movie doesn’t so much end as go on and on, like life.  It often feels like story lines are being neglected, but there is just so much going on at the same time (like real life), it is impossible to give the appropriate amount of focus to any one thing or person.

So, if you couldn’t tell, I really did love this movie.  It is FAR from perfect, but if anything I appreciate it for it’s ambition and unavoidable imperfections.  Probably the seminal PTA film, although I may still like There Will Be Blood more.  I’ll have to keep thinking about that one, though.

Basically, that we all want to go to there.  ”There,” of course, being Tom Ford’s visually stunning drama set in the 1960s in which Colin Firth gives one of the year’s best performances as a professor morning the loss of his lover, who is played by Matthew Woode.

Ooh, or a land where everybody’s hair, makeup, and accessories always look as dazzling as Julianne Moore’s.  I could be just fine with that “there” as well.

All my love to Movieline for this beaut.

At least you know it will look good.

It’s hard not to gallop through prose that uses commas instead of full stops, but once I learned to slow down, the rewards piled up: his sound, sweet humour, his startling imagination, his admirable dogs and lovers, the subtle, honest workings of his mind. Here indeed was a novelist worthy of a reader’s trust. So at last I could read his great book – or his greatest until its sequel.

-Ursula K Le Guin on Jose Saramago’s Seeing, which I recently finished after swapping it with Blindness eons ago, the same woman (Julianne Moore above in Fernando Meirelles’ movie adaptation) who didn’t lose her vision now absurdly accused of an anti-state conspiracy, a massive blank voting in the city elections, a slower read as you watch his devices unfurl in reverse, but just as amazing.

I was looking up Edward Cullen on Wikipedia and I saw that it said that Edward was a Byronic hero. Because of that, I clicked on the link that explained what a Byronic hero was. Anyway, as I was reading the characteristics, it did sounds like Edward As I continued down the website, it mentioned that Lestat from the Vampire Chronicles and the Phantom from the Phantom of the Opera were Byronic heros as well, but I digress with the Phantom. That made me think about how much Lestat and Edward were alike in the sense that they are both Byronic heros. I think that’s the reason why I don’t like either character. I mean, it’s not that I hate them, but it’s just that they’re not my favorites characters from their respective series. Anyway, I think that’s the reason why I don’t like Lestat and Edward is the fact that they’re Byronic heros.

In my search for any Lestat vs. Edward stuff, I found quite a few pictures that made fun of Edward and the Twilight series or making fun of the fact the Twilight series “outshines” the Vampire Chronicles. The one that I found to be the most funny was the one where it showed Edward and Bella together in the first box, and the following three boxes showing Louis, Lestat, and Armand telling their opinions on the series. I found that Lestat’s and Armand’s reactions to be the most funny. Their reactions were classic Lestat and Armand. Anyway, the next one that I thought was funny was the one where Lestat as picking on Edward. I just found those funny. By the way, you can find the originals at this site.

From all outward appearances, Pippa Lee (ROBIN WRIGHT PENN) leads a charmed existence. She is the devoted wife of an accomplished publisher (ALAN ARKIN) thirty years her senior, the proud mother of two grown children, and a trusted friend and confidant to all who cross her path. But as Pippa dutifully follows her husband to a new life in a staidConnecticut retirement community, her idyllic world and the persona she has built over the course of her marriage will be put to the ultimate test.

In truth, looks are deceiving, and this picture-perfect woman has seen more than her fair share of turmoil in her youth. Embarking on a bittersweet journey of self-discovery, accompanied by a new, strange and soulful acquaintance (KEANU REEVES), Pippa must now confront both her volatile past and the hidden resentment of her seemingly perfect life in order to find her true sense of self.

By turns wry, humorous, and moving, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF PIPPA LEE presents the complex portrait of the many lives behind a single name.

Golden Globe nominee Robin Wright Penn and Academy Award® winner, Alan Arkin head an all-star cast that includes Blake Lively as the young Pippa Lee, Maria Bello as her mother, Suky Sarkissian, Keanu Reeves as Pippa’s inscrutable neighbor, Chris Nadeau, Monica Bellucci as the socialite Gigi Lee, triple Academy Award® nominee Julianne Moore as the freewheeling Kat, Academy Award® nominee and Golden Globe winner Winona Ryder as Pippa’s trusted friend, Sandra Dulles, Mike Binder as novelist Sam Shapiro and rising stars Zoe Kazan and Ryan as Grace and Ben Lee, Pippa’s young adult children.

THE PRIVATE LIVES OF PIPPA LEE is adapted from writer-director Rebecca Miller’s novel of the same name. It is produced by Lemore Syvan from Elevation Filmworks, and Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner from Plan B Entertainment. Executive producers are Winchester Capital, Jean-Luc De Fanti, and The Salt Company partners, Cyril Mégret, Robert Bevan and Samantha Horley

Starring: Robin Wright Penn, Alan Arkin, Maria Bello, Monica Bellucci, Blake Lively, Julianne Moore, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Mike Binder
Director: Rebecca Miller
Screenwriter: Rebecca Miller
Studio: Screen Media

MOVIE TRAILER :

I was bored recently and was on my computer I don’t know why but I typed Lestat vs. Edward into Google to see what I would get. Anyway, a lot of stuff that popped up were drawings of people making fun of Edward through Lestat’s point of view, and videos and articles asking who would win in a no-holds bar fight. I immediately thought that Lestat would definitely win. I say that because, after looking up their powers as a refresher, while Edward has super strength, super speed, and can read minds, Lestat can do or has all of that, plus so much more. Lestat also has pyrokinesis, the ability to fly, and he’s telekinetic. Plus, he killed an entire wolf pack by himself, albeit with the help of his two mastiff dogs. Anyway, I really think that Lestat would definitely win the fight against Edward, and that’s assuming Lestat doesn’t fall in love with Edward first, which I doubt would actually happen, and that Lestat doesn’t hurt Bella.

“Ghostbusters: meets “Men in Black”, Hollywood tackles another science-fiction comedy.

A meteor slams into the earth narrowly missing a fire fighter recruit (Seann William Scott). The meteor brings out two college professors (David Duchovny, Orlando Jones) to investigate the impact.

The professors chip away at the meteor and bring back samples to their university. The meteor fragments are like nothing they have ever seen before. Before the two college professors realize there is a problem with the meteor fragments, the “impact” site is covered with government officials. Ted Levine and Julianne Moore are among the scientists called in with the military.

“Evolution” is the perfect summer movie for teens and nostalgia buffs. It’s brand of comedy isn’t as vulgar as a lot of the other comedies released this past year. It embraces director Ivan Reitman’s formula of goofiness with the military and science fiction like he did with his runaway hits of the 80’s classics “Stripes” and “Ghostbusters”.

It is utterly uncanny how many similarities there are in this film and “Ghostbusters”. Duchovny’s movement and charisma reminded me a lot of Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman in “Ghostbusters”. Julianne’s reluctance to Duchovny’s childish advances were a lot like what Murray and co-star Sigourney Weaver’s did in their scenes. The scenes where people shriek and runaway from the ghosts are here as the aliens come upon some unsuspecting suburbanites. Even the slime slowly creeps in but that would be giving too much away.

“Ghostbusters” was a huge hit in 1984 becoming the highest-grossing film of that year. “Ghostbusters” went on to become the highest grossing comedy in history until it was taken down by “Home Alone”.

I always wanted a Ghostbusters 3 but in some ways this film is almost a third one. It would have been incredible if they did bring in the original Ghostbusters cast for this flick. It may have been a lot funnier. I really wanted this film to have more laughs and more creatures.

I really fell in love with the “Ghostbusters” formula and science fiction laughs. On that alone I could have given this film a higher grade but it was the ending and the discovery of how to stop the aliens that really made me angry at the film’s writers.

After all that great lead up and comedy you end it with this? I was so disappointed with the lack of creativity and settling they did on this ending. I hope there is an alternate on the DVD.

The best scenes involve the aliens and man’s reactions. It’s a shame these were all seen in the trailers. The shopping mall scene and the rectal examination were by far the most entertaining scenes.

Originally this film was supposed to be a “horror” film like I would assume “Mimic” or “The Relic” but the studio decided to bring in Reitman to inject some humor. The film was reconceived and its what we have today. Does that story have any ramifications or influence on what made this film become what it is? Let me know your take on this.

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: July 14, 2001

Just One Life To Live

From the juiced-box and the song during the credits: Lucinda Williams – I Lost It

[Just press 'Play']

[Click here for a guide to Booze Revooze and the rating system used]

Ramblings: The Lives Of Pippa Lee’s Privates (Porn Title)

Final Proof: 1½ Shots

You know how sometimes you drink with chicks and there’s this one babe who’s pretty enough and she starts talking about her life and makes you believe she’s had this wild existence because she believes it so much? So you buy her another Cosmopolitan (and that shoulda been your first sign) and she reveals all these deep, dark secrets and you feel a little tenderness at the beginning because it’s cute how she thinks these episodes from her life are so fascinating even if they’re more common than beer rings on paper coasters but after a while you start to tire of her going on and on about her ‘insane multiple lives’ when you’ve lived more most weekends. That’s kinda what The Private Lives of Pippa Lee is like.

You know me and how sensitive i am, right? i feel kind of bad about trashing this movie because the book and screenplay were written by the director, Rebecca Miller, which means it’s pro’lly autobiographical. Look, ‘Becca (can i call you ‘Becca?) i’m not knocking your life. i’m glad you’ve enjoyed so much success telling people about it but, babe, there’s only one ‘life’ here and there isn’t much living in that one.

Plus, i hate Keanu Reeves. Always have. He can’t act. He could fake it in Matrix because Neo is a character who has the personality of someone who doesn’t know how to act. But man, Keanu in a real movie? Makes you wish you had a case of whatever Kenneth Branagh was drinking when he tapped Kan’ya for Much Ado About Nothing. Anyway, K-boy drags this movie down in a big way and it wasn’t even that far up there to begin with.

i will raise a glass to Blake Lively, however, who has a richer role here than in Gossip Girl and doesn’t disappoint. Another drink to Alan Arkin who is like good whiskey: the older he gets, the better he is.

The other thing i liked was how much smoking there was in this movie. Pippa (Robin Wright Penn) and Young Pippa (Blake Lively) both smoke Marlboro Lights and there’s something about close-ups of a girl smoking that really flare my hot box. The only minor disappointment was that Blake Lively is obviously not a smoker and was just going through the motions. A real smoker can tell.

As for the rest of the movie: it’s slow, uneven and doesn’t end at the right time. That’s Life.

Buzz Kills (Watch Out for Spoilers)

Sex: 2½ Shots

i gotta give it something considering the sheer quantity of female glory that strolls through this thing…

Ironically, the only nude scene isn’t the hottest part of the movie. It’s by Christin Sawyer Davis who plays Shelly, Julianne Moore’s lesbian lover. She undresses before getting into a sexy photo shoot (think Blake Lively in a pony tail and frilly diaper pretending to be a baby in a playpen or wearing a French maid’s outfit with a leash). Here’s a scene with Shelly spanking Young Pippa (Blake Lively):

Julianne Moore isn’t in the film long but rocks as Kat, Pippa’s aunt’s lover. There is a nice girl/girl kiss between Kat (Moore) and Aunt Trish (Robin Weigert). The other nice part is that Kat never wears a bra and struts around the apartment in a tight knit thingy (ask a woman if you names for clothes). Kinda like this:

My other beautiful surprise in this film was seeing Winona Ryder again. Sure, she had a brief appearance in Star Trek (2009) but that was just a teaser to remind me of the days my cousin and i walked around singing: Na na nanana Na Na nanana Na Na nanana My Winona!

Screw it. You listen to the song and sing the above lyric.

[Press 'Play' and sing along]

Anyway, i was thrilled to see how truly beautiful she is, but even more, to see how excellent her performance was as Pippa’s friend, Sandra. She was truly the funniest and most fun thing about the movie. Here are some shots of our little girl growing up:

Coming back to Blake Lively… i won’t repeat how impressed i was by her performance as well, but i will say there was some Blake Lively Titty Blocking (when an actress is topless but the director hides her boobs through different miss-directing techniques). Still, you tend to forgive this when you remember her first scene was her looking incredible in denim cutoffs. The TB here was done while she was lying naked beside Alan Arkin (and if that didn’t give him a heart attack he’s good to go for another ten years) and she blocked her tit with her arm. While i’m on the subject of Blake, i loved the way her mouth curled around the ‘F’ word when she said, in close-up, “I’m a fµck up.” Maybe it’s just me, but women always look hot as hell when they say that word. That and “bitch”. The things a woman’s lips does when she says “bitch” are better than two Viagra and a shot of scotch. But enough about me, here’s Blake:

Leaving The Bar None

S'All Right, Babe, i Got Your Back

There’s another kinda sex scene with Keanu rubbing off Pippa (Robin Wright Penn) to a climax inside her jeans. She does a good job of faking it (hmmm, maybe that’s why she filed for divorce from Sean Penn last August…) and then cries afterwards. Hey, you’d cry too if you just had Kenau Reeves’ hands down your pants.

Speaking of Ke-no-no, another thing that bugs the crap out of me is how in movies they always have women walking around wearing pajamas with a bra on. Every guy knows women hate sleeping with a bra because it’s as uncomfortable as sleeping on the wet spot. But actresses are too sensitive about revealing a little jiggle action, so they always get right out of bed all bra’d up. Fake, annoying and a buzz kill. Robin Wright Penn had some of that going on here and i couldn’t let it slide without a little rant.

That said, up for a little Robin?

Is That An Outtie Or Are You Just Glad To See Me

Finally, there was a surprise appearance by Monica Bellucci as Herb Lee’s wife, Gigi Lee. Her role was short but she looked good filling it. Here’s what i mean:

At The Bar None

Drink: 2 Shots

A quick ‘rum through’ of the notes i scribbled during the movie:

• The movie starts with a red wine toast at dinner to an editor and his wife, Pippa Lee.
• A bottle of red as a present at a party.
• Vodka martinis at a party.
• Young Pippa does cartwheels on the beach and hits from a wine bottle (red).
• Champagne at the divorce meeting and a drink to ‘transformation’.

Picture From My Personal Stash

Rock & Roll: 0 Shots

There’s a song that young Pippa dances to in her room while on speed and i think it’s “Still To Be Painted” by Pitcher’s Pony but i can’t find the song or confirmation.

There’s a Dusty Springfield song (“I’ll Love You For A While”) but i can’t scrape that up either.

The song i posted above, Lucinda William’s “I Lost It”, rolls during the credits.

Boring Technical Crap

Written by: Rebecca Miller

Directed by: Rebecca Miller

Starring

Robin Wright Penn – Pippa Lee

Blake Lively – Young Pippa

Winona Ryder – Sandra Dulles

Julianne Moore – Kit

Monica Bellucci – Gigi Lee

Christin Sawyer Davis – Shelly

Alan Arkin – Herb Lee

Bottom Line

Don’t see it, not even to score ‘Chick Flick’ points because chances are she won’t like it either.

This I need to see:

It’s  menswear designer Tom Ford’s first foray into filmmaking which explains the structure and style, and Julianne Moore and Colin Firth are both in it. If that isn’t tempting enough, there are two shots in the trailer worth watching it for.

First, close-up of Moore’s mouth, she smiles the screen floods rouge and lights up (37 seconds into trailer).

Second, Firth and Moore collapsed on a cream carpet with messily strewn hair. Factor in a 60s shift and TV sized spectacles and you have yourself a shot akin to Kate Winslet and Jim Carrey in bed, on a beach, in the snow (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) or Zach Braff and Natalie Portman screaming in bin bags in Garden State.

They make you want to trade in reality for really pointless prettiness and flimsy memories that stand up for art but not so much narrative. That I can definitely aspire to.

The similarities between Julianne Moore and Julianne Miller are incredible. They could be twins — clones, even. What do you think? Here’s a picture of Ms. Miller from Yahoo! Movies:

Do you think it’s Ms. Moore’s twin sister? Or perhaps it’s just a little, itsy-bitsy moniker mishap in the photo’s caption:

and

Already garnering raves on the festival circuit, Tom Ford’s directorial debut—a poignant, stunningly realized tale of loss and longing, starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore—is ready for its close-up.

Ford’s exquisite film debut, A Single Man, adapted from Christopher Isherwood’s 1964 novel of the same name, opens on December 11 after making the worldwide rounds of film festivals: Venice, Toronto, Tokyo, London and, in November, Los Angeles, where it closed the American Film Institute Festival.

If you are a fan of the Ford and don’t mind a 7 page read, I recommend this to you.

SOURCE: W

  A little over a month ago the entertainment community collectively went “Huh?”  when it was announced that James Franco would be appearing a 2 month long story arc on of all things a Soap Opera.  “This must be a joke” and “It is for research” were thrown about fairly often as possible reasons why JF would have chosen to leave his ivory tower in Hollywood and walk amongst the commoners.  Because when you get right down to it that is how the industry chooses to view Daytime, as commoners.  Someone not worthy of their respect.  Someone to laugh at and mock.  Daytime is so low on the totem pole that some people are even quiet about the fact that they watch them at all because of the laughter that it might illict.  Granted not everybody has been negative in their response to the news, for the most part it has been a range from startling disbelief to a kind of way to go JF.  But still it got me to thinking why doesn’t Daytime earn more respect?

  Some say that soaps are just one long story that keeps replaying itself over and over again.  They say that each story line gets more outlandish than the one before.  Remember the Possesed by the Devil story on Days of Our Lives?  Or perhaps Dixie coming back from the dead for perhaps the millionth time on All My Children?  Plus we aren’t even going to get into the Who’s the daddy? story arcs or the myriad of romantic entaglements that are the crux of the daytime world.  So I guess I can see their point, to an extent.  Because honestly what makes Soaps any different from Primetime or even the very top of the Ivory Tower, Movies?  Can the naysayers honestly tell me that Primetime doesn’t have outlandish storylines?  Can they honestly say that shows like Grey’s Anatomy or Gossip Girl are more respectable for their romatic entanglements than say The Bold & The Beautiful?  Or shows like Fringe and The X-Files are more grounded in reality than say no longer on the air, Passions?  Or why The Sopranos deserves more respect than General Hospital?  The truth is they can’t say any of that because the only differences Primetime and Daytime have are the amount of money the networks are willing to spend on them and and one runs one night a week and gets up to a 3 month hiatus and the other is on 5 days a week and has no hiatus.  And no being blacked out for two weeks, holidays, and weekends do not count. 

   Or it could possibly be the fact that only second rate actors are on Daytime, while all the “real” actors are on Primtime?  Oh wait a minute that can’t be true because Daytime is proud to be one of the few venues that has churned out some of the best actors of the past couple of generations.  What other venue can honestly say that?   But despite that fact Daytime is still considered to be either the place where younger actors get their feet wet or older actors go when they have no other options.  Because as we all know Primetime has no bad actors.  Hey I know how about anyone who feels that Daytime is the blackhole for talent I dare you to go up to Betty White and tell her she doesn’t have any other options or tell Bradford Anderson that GH will be his last stop.  Oh wait a minute I have an even better dare for you.  I dare you to go up to Jennifer Aniston and tell her that the man who plays Victor Kiriakis on DOOL is a bad actor.  Go ahead we will wait because I am sure those of us who are fans of Daytime and those of us who work tirelessly to bring it to fruition could use a good laugh at your judgemental expense.

You know what nevermind Daytime doesn’t need your respect nor do we want it.

Today’s “Oscar Moment” is brought to you by the movie “A Single Man,” adapted from a decades-old novel by Christopher Isherwood (if that sounds like the closing of “Sesame Street,” excuse my tardiness of honoring the show’s 40th anniversary).  The movie could follow a similar awards season road to “Slumdog Millionaire.”  Both were discovered at film festivals, got a distributor, and began attracting much Oscar talk.  ”A Single Man” burst onto the scene at the Venice Film Festival, where Colin Firth took home the prize for Best Actor.  He has since become a frontrunner in the Best Actor race at the Oscars.  But Firth is not the only part of the movie getting attention.  Julianne Moore has gained some traction in a tight Best Supporting Actress race, and Tom Ford, former fashion designer (something I know only from a quick Google search), has won raves for his first film.

From watching the trailer, after the shock of watching a montage filled with Ford’s distinct, visually arresting style, you probably are asking, “This looks good, but what is this movie about?”  The movie centers around middle-aged homosexual British professor George Falconer (Firth) and him reeling from the death of his partner, Jim (Matthew Goode, “Watchmen”).  It follows him over the course of a day, consoled by close friend Charley (Moore), as he tries to discover if life is worth living without Jim.

It is a tight Best Actor field this year, with heavyweights such as Morgan Freeman, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Jeff Bridges in contention.  Yet most people seem to think that Firth is safe for at least a nomination.  He is a likable actor, never demanding much attention, and making missteps in only the quietest of fashions.  Although many people seem to have postulated that the Academy is very homophobic from its snub of “Brokeback Mountain,” the Best Actor prize went to Sean Penn for playing homosexual San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk last year.

Moore perhaps faces even stiffer competition in Best Supporting Actress.  Mo’Nique is a lock (which I can now testify to from seeing the movie).  Barring a complete flop of “Nine,” at least one actress will get in, if not two.  ”Up in the Air” has two strong candidates in the category, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga.  ”The Lovely Bones” could also has two potential nominees with past winners Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon.  I don’t think Moore is a certainty by any means, but I must keep in mind that I have not seen her performance in the movie.  But she is a four-time nominee, and maybe it is her time.  We all know how desperate the Academy was to award Kate Winslet last year after five times coming up empty on Oscar night, even willing to commit category fraud to give it to her.

As for the Best Picture/Director duo, it seems to be less likely than the two actors.  The film’s subject matter could likely hurt it – I say this not because of my own personal beliefs but because there exists a large faction of old white men in the Academy opposed to homosexuality.  I think the triumph of “Milk” last year shows significant progress, but nonetheless, this homophobia still exists, even if in vestiges.  Without the expansion of the field of Best Picture nominees, I don’t think this would have a chance.  But I think “A Single Man” lurks at the bottom of the ten or just outside of it.  If one of the heavyweights like “Invictus” or “The Lovely Bones” underwhelms, I think “A Single Man” could sneak in and steal a spot.  As for director Tom Ford, I am quite skeptical about his chances.  While the trailer shows an appealing stylistic approach, this cannot cover the fact that this is Ford’s first film.  It is fairly rare for a director to earn a nomination for their first project, and in such a strong year for directors, I think Ford will get lost in a crowd of big names like Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron.

I feel like I close every “Oscar Moment” on the same note: “I don’t care if it gets nominated, this looks good enough to get me to a theater!”  The same goes for “A Single Man,” which opens in limited release on December 11 and will gradually expand across the country as awards season progresses.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Colin Firth), Best Supporting Actress (Moore), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Ford)

Tom Ford is set to make his directorial debut with the new movie A Single Man. Ford’s brilliance seems to have no bounds and oozes out in anything that he puts his hands on.

Set in Los Angeles in 1962, A Single Man is the story of George Falconer, a British college professor (Colin Firth) who is struggling to find meaning in his life after the death of his long-time partner, Jim (Matthew Goode). We follow George through a single day, where a series of encounters, ultimately leads him to decide if there is a meaning to life after Jim. George is consoled by his closest friend, Charley (Julianne Moore), a 48-year-old beauty, and is stalked by one of his students, Kenny (Nicholas Hoult).

With Colin Firth and Julianne Moore leading the magnificent cast it’s sure to be a gripping watch. The trailer already leaves you tingling and wanting more. Ford is sure to make as big a splash in film as he did in fashion.

A Single Man comes out on December 11th.

Big Lebowski, The (1998)
★★★ / ★★★★

I usually don’t like screwball comedies because the characters are stupid without any sort of redeeming qualities, the jokes are rude and sometimes mean-spirited, the story has no idea where to go, and I quickly get bored watching them because they fail to get me to think. Strangely enough, I enjoyed “The Big Lebowski,” written and directed by the Coen brothers, because of such qualities except for the fact that it is far from mean-spirited. Jeff Bridges stars as The Dude, whose real name was Jeffrey Lebowski, a guy who was mistaken by two miscreants as the millionaire Lebowski. Since the two didn’t get what they wanted from The Dude, one of them decided to pee on his carpet. What started off as a story about a slacker who wanted compensation for his carpet ended up being about a lot of things: a kidnapped woman (Tara Reid), an artist who had intentions of her own (Julianne Moore), nihilists who craved money, and the dynamics among bowling buddies (Steve Buscemi and John Goodman). All of such disparate elements came to together in a way that didn’t necessarily make sense–in fact, sometimes I had no idea what was going on–but it was very funny because each character was driven by well-defined motivations (no matter how strange they might have been). I did not expect this kind of movie from the Coen brothers because I’m more familiar with their thrillers (“No Country for Old Men,” “Blood Simple”) and dark comedies (“Intolerable Cruelty,” “Fargo”), but after watching the film I was glad that I got a taste of their lighter side. The only real complaint I had with this picture was it had no reason to run for almost two hours long. Somewhere after the half-way point, I began to wonder when it was going to be over because at that point it still did not try to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The characters were still too busy running around like children and it made me restless. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, I still enjoyed watching this movie because of the characters’ funny fixations and interesting mistaken identities. And considering I detest stoner comedies, I think it’s a solid accomplishment.

Drīzumā: Pipas Lī privātā dzīve (The Private Lives of Pippa Lee) Kinoteātros 20.11.2009.

„Pipas Lī privātā dzīve” ir amerikāņu rakstnieces un režisores Rebekas Milleres uzņemtā drāma. Scenārijs balstīts uz pašas režisores sarakstītas grāmatas „Pipas Lī privātā dzīve” motīviem. Rebeka Millere ne reizi vien plūkusi laurus augstas raudzes kinofestivālos, ieguvusi prestižo Sandensas kinofestivāla balvu – 1995. un 2002. gadā.

Pirmizrādi filma piedzīvoja jau šā gada 9. februārī Berlīnes kinofestivālā, kā arī pēc tam tika izrādīta Sidnejas, Edinburgas un Toronto kino festivālos. Drīzumā nonāks arī pie mums-Latvijas kinoteātros.

Filmas producents ir Breds Pits, kurš kopš 2007. gada aktīvi ķēries arī pie producenta darba un nu jau viņa producenta kontā ir kāds ducis filmu.

Drāma stāsta par Pippu Lī – uzticīgu sievu, lielisku māti, kas kā šķiet dzīvo neapskaužamu dzīvi. Bet kad viņa pienākuma vadīta seko savam vīram, lai sāktu dzīvi mazpilsētā, viss mainās… pagātne nekur neizgaist. Varbūt viņa ir dzīvojusi daudzas citu dzīves, izņemot savējo…

Režisors: Rebecca Miller

Lomās: Robin Wright Penn, Alan Arkin, Keanu Reeves, Julianne Moore, Monica Bellucci, Winona Ryder

Certificate – tbc; 99mins

Released – 16^th October 2009 [BFI London Film Festival]; 12^th February 2010 (UK)

Directed – Tom Ford

Written – Tom Ford (screenplay), Chistopher Isherwood (novel)

Starring – Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode

Awards – (Colin Firth) Outstanding Performance Santa Barbara International Film Festival 2010; (Colin Firth) Volpi Cup, (Tom Ford) Queer Lion, Venice Film Festival 2009

Vehemently steeped in the sixties – sublimely curated by the set design team of TV’s Mad Men – Tom Ford’s directorial debut is an adaptation of the Christopher Isherwood novel of the same name. A Single Man triumphantly portrays the isolation felt by George Falconer, (Firth) a middle-aged man living alone and ambling towards his silver years, in the aftermath of his partners’ tragic death.

Ford’s perfectly executed debut swathes with not only heart-warming and comic beat, but accomplishes Falconer’s brief moments of joy and attachment with people and his surroundings amongst the anomalous, almost ‘washed up’ perception he has of his life. This is managed simply through the parity of colour saturation throughout the film; for the large part, the colour appears dreary and insipid, yet when Falconer is drawn towards the youthful beauty of his late partner, Jim (Goode) in flashbacks, or of his student Kenneth Potter (Hoult) the colour literally imbues the screen.

The way in which Falconer visualises both Jim and Kenneth – which can in an almost roles-reversed effect, be mistaken as a Laura Mulvey-coined “male gaze” – is one that tries to establish Falconer as psychologically powerful over his young objects of desire, yet it simply unearths how ardently lucid and needy he is of their attention.

Firth’s performance is stellar and undoubtedly deserving of more than just Outstanding Performance and Volpi Cup at film festivals, whilst Hoult has hung up his drug-addled life of the disaffected youth in Skins and has held up a respectable enough grasp of the American accent. Moore’s limited though comic screentime is unfortunate, but is not discerning as it feels absolutely necessary to drive the film forward.

Ford’s efforts here do not go unnoticed. In fact, one could be forgiven for expecting A Single Man to have been his own personal story, when in fact it is one that evidently struck so close to Isherwood. Whilst, in 2009, we can watch, in awe and unflinching, the frank, sympathetic and moving portrayal of a gay protagonist, one wonders how controversial the novel would have been at its publication in 1964.

Inevitably, A Single Man in an unexpected precious and thoughtful delight from the man who led Gucci to a multi-billion dollar valuation. His eye for style and perfection has been duly noted and with a limited US release this December, he will perhaps be destined to raise an Oscar next year.

Não se pode negar a influência e contribuição da literatura para o cinema, seja ela da mais variada forma ou nos mais variados gêneros. As Horas é um drama forte e encantador, baseado no livro homônimo do escritor norte-americano Michael Cunningham, que por sua vez se inspirou no romance Mrs. Dalloway de Virginia Woolf. Cunningham acabou pegando emprestado o título provisório do livro de Virginia. Tudo em homenagem à grande escritora.

Com roteiro escrito por David Hare  e dirigido por Stephen Daldry (o mesmo de Billy Elliot), este filme denso de 114 minutos, conta em seu elenco com  participação de Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep e Ed Harris. É fácil notar que a parceria dos envolvidos no projeto funcionou bem.

Na história, que segue bem a criação de Cunningham, somos apresentados a três tempos interpostos, contando enredos distintos entre si em espaço e tempo, mas que ao com o decorrer dos fatos vai se alinhando e se relacionando. Primeiramente temos um subúrbio de Londres em 1923 quando Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) escreve o livro Mrs. Dalloway; um subúrbio de Los Angeles em 1949 quando Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) ler avidamente o livro de Virginia e por fim Nova Iorque em 1990 quando Clarissa Vaugham (Meryl Streep) vive sua vidinha já descrita por Virgínia e lida por Laura. Só esse pequeno demonstrativo do que acontece já é um chamariz mais que eficiente para o filme (ou livro, os dois), mas é muito mais que isso.

Há verdades, mistérios, realidades tudo perfeitamente encaixado em uma história bem construída e justificada. É notável a semelhança na vida das três mulheres que lutam por suas vidas próprias e por se livrar de algemas a elas impostas por sociedades em diferentes épocas, podendo ser observado que a época contribui para o destino de cada uma, tudo resultante de suas escolhas. Algo nitidamente presente é a menção à guerra seja ela inspirativa para Virginia em seu romance de 1923, explicita em um herói de 1949, ou meramente na metáfora sobre o aidético Richard (Ed Harris).

É notório que o tema central da história é a identidade das personagens, e isso é acentuado no filme quando somos colocados diante da questão sexual de cada uma delas, parece que a atração pelo mesmo sexo é mais um ponto comum entre as três, além do sofrimento causado não apenas por isso. São pessoas aprisionadas em vidas que não lhes pertencem. É agradável ver como atitudes diferentes em relação ao sofrimento ou algo comum, pode resultar em finais distintos, e que para isso basta apenas um pouco de reflexão.

O título nomeia bem uma trama que é contada em horas e instantes, sejam eles causadores ou decisivos de tudo que gira em torno das escolhas disponíveis a cada um. São de momentos cruciais que nós somos levados acima ou abaixo, como resultados dessas escolhas. Se formos notar dias inteiros não medem um único sentimento, horas sim, elas são mais precisas, é através delas a forma mais correta de se medir a vida. Recomendo a todos esse belo filme, e os livros também (As Horas e Mrs.Dalloway).

Trailer:

Julianne, what’s going on?  Has being out of the limelight for awhile weakened or even deadened your fashion sense?  That can be the only explanation for choosing to wear a slipcover for the red carpet.  Hopefully, the nerves and muscles will come back to life and we’ll see less of this and more of that.