Tom Ford has an eye for beauty. In his directing debut, almost every shot is carefully designed in terms of mise-en-scène. Wong Kar Wai influences are abundant in the camera movements, the fleeting moments that seem to rise out of reach so fast like a red balloon. He is also lucky to have fine performances from his leads, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. It all points to a fantastic debut, but the film is a little too slow and beautiful for its own good.The film traces a day in the life of George, a silent, rather awkward, gay college professor during the America of the Cuban crisis who is going through his own personal crisis: his partner's death. The film makes copious use of flashbacks and voiceovers to reveal the entire story. Throughout the day, the subdued colors of his regular routine brighten up when he interacts with others who make him feel desired and alive again. This type of mood coloring works perfectly as it gives visual cues of George's unsettled feelings and uncertain future. In general though, color is used very effectively throughout the film along with every aspect of the visuals. Ford makes sure that his film is pretty to watch indeed, which unfortunately does become distracting. At more than a few occasions, I felt that the scene was almost too put together, the colors too perfect. I still haven't decided whether or not it was because I knew this was a fashion designer's film. Thank God the prettiness isn't skin-deep though. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore give incredible performances as both are best at the types of characters they play in A Single Man. It feels as if George was written for Firth to play. I'm not surprised that he won the BAFTA for best actor.
Finally, the film is decidedly conservative when it comes to its homosexuality. Yes, it is about a gay man directed by a gay man, but the film doesn't try to use sexuality as a reason for George's suffering. He is just like any other man and he grieves as such. His reaction to the events in his life are not due to his sexuality. I really liked this subtle treatment of the subject matter as it could have derailed the film completely.
One last thing: I really resisted while writing this review to not go into the debate that's been raging through the blogosphere, but I can't resist! "A film by Tom Ford." This phrase has been causing a lot of debate in film critic circles. How much of this film is Tom Ford's? Can he really claim that this is "a film by Tom Ford" considering it's his debut feature? Should it have simply read "directed by Tom Ford?" Are we now living in an age of self-proclaimed auteurs? An auteur by theory is defined by critics based on their body of work. Truffaut and Godard were auteurs as was Fellini. What signature is there in A Single Man that one can identify to be Tom Ford's? We have never seen a film by him before, so how are we expected to look out for that certain signature? I believe the designation is indeed premature, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if Ford can prove us all wrong.
All things aside, it is very obvious that Ford really wanted to make this film. He wrote the script along with Christopher Isherwood, financed, produced and directed it. I feel that regardless of the auteur theory, the man deserves some acknowledgment. But I don't want to go as far as to say he's an auteur, as I don't want to infer that if you've got the money, you can be an auteur nowadays.
