To preface this entry, I have found myself perplexed and amazed for the past couple of hours. I sit down this little netbook, and the meaning of A Single Man (2010) I have taken away is still in my mind. “A happy death comes when you are content with life.” I sit here, and I think it over in my mind. It seems romanticized, and I admit that I find myself flattered by such notions of noble lives and deaths. For when it is when we live and pass on by such standards, I believe that we truly live what we have been given.
As per the assignment, I have looked over a review of Tom Ford’s A Single Man. Maryann Johanson , a self claimed “Flick Filosopher”, writes to the exact contrary of what Susan Sontag writes in her paper, “Against Interpretation”. Johanson writes that even though the film is visually engaging, it lacks anything else. She states that it lacks story and character and that the film fails to utilize the “…more than capable star”. Essentially, Johanson immediately comes off having the modern notion of viewing films based on the actors that star in the films and leaves little to no room for broadening her biased interpretive views. Furthermore, Johanson goes on to elaborate the scene where the protagonist and his long time friend (and former sexual partner) spend New Year’s Eve together. She describes of the depravity that the scene has smoking and alcohol to be seen as encouraged of a “pure” decade. Clearly the mescaline reference rolled straight over her head. In addition, she limits the review to only the plot and pairings of actors and how well they mesh. In short, NO, it does not at all go with Sontag’s description of a proper review. Secondly it can be improved by maybe thinking for just a bit longer before going to the keyboard and limiting oneself to modern criticism of what comes off to be a visually engaging film. (The link to the review is below)
With this being said, I shall take my best attempt to begin solving the 1000 piece puzzle that lies within the film’s structure. Ford really drove home the use of camera angles as a means to communicate emotion, and points of intrigue and desire to the audience. Ford primarialy uses medium close-up shots to limit our range of vision and distraction to see exactly the looks of the characters on screen. This is prevalent in all of the conversations in the film. Among what I noticed with the conversations, is that most of them were not shot for shot. These shots were also selectively focused, for most of the background items during long periods of conversation and when Ford wanted us to see the characters in the foreground, he would only focus on them, leaving all else blurred.
In short, by using these forms of camera angles, Ford restricts us to what he wants us to see and interpret, no matter how uncomfortable we get.
