A Single Man

After reading the review of A Single Man in the New York Times, written by Manohla Dargis, I would have to say I not only don’t agree with her review, but I also think that Sontag would be disappointed with what she read. She gave lots of credit to Colin Firth as an actor, and I agree that he did a fantastic job. He is an excellent actor, and has never disappointed me. However, she basically discredits Ford in his abilities in creating this film. Firth did carry the movie very well and was a superb actor, however, I think that without other key elements and smart choices, his acting would not have been showcased as well, and would not have been able to really shine like it did. Dargis hardly mentions anything about form, only briefly discussing some camera qualities, the saturation of the film, and a decision made about the set design in one scene. Where was the discussion on the fact that when the camera was forced upon us in such tight  frames, we has no choice but to feel Firth’s pain and see the expressions on his face that she goes on and on about. Without the decision to film the majority of this film, all those important moments, so up close and personal, the entire effect of his sorrow would be lost. I think that she touched on film, but not in the ways that Sontag believed was most important. Sontag talks about the loving description of the work of art, yet, Dargis never describes it as a work, or a whole, or even in great depth. She does a fine job of an elegant plot synopsis, but if she has dug a little deeper and reached into the details of the saturation instead of writing it off as a distraction and a lack of confidence on Ford’s part, than maybe she could appreciate the film a little more. I think that overall, if she disagreed so much with the actual art of the film aside from Firth’s acting, than she could have given examples in where it was lacking or a more in depth explanation of her opinion.

Overall, I was completely captivated by this film. The filming was beautifully done and just so that I was able to stay completely involved with the main character, and truly feel for him. I think one of the greatest elements of mise-en-scene utilized in this film was composition. Everything from the camera angles to the lighting, was so wonderfully and beautifully executed. The saturation played a large role in this film, but in a subtle and honest way. The way that certain characters and certain scenes has a noticeable, but just slight, adjustment in the saturation, was so defining for certain moments. It allowed the audience to separate these moments from those where George was just plain miserable and depressed, from those few moments in the day when he found joy again, or saw hope in some situation. It was not overly dramatic as if the entire room was suddenly bright reds and neon yellows, but it was done with class and has its effect without wasting it. Another aspect of the composition which carried the film so well, was the camera angles. Most of the movie was shot with medium close-ups and extreme close-ups, a direct reflection of the type of film it was. It was meant to be something very personal. We were experiencing intimate details that he has only shared with his partner, that we were not given permission to see. We felt the pain that he did, we knew about the fact that he was disregarded by his lover’s family, and about his plan to kill himself. We would not have been able to connect and identify with his pain if we had not known him on such a personal, close level. These shots alone, tied with the wonderful acting skills of Colin Firth were able to evoke sympathy and curiosity about his situation, and whether we realized it or not, we cared whether he actually went through with the suicide or not. At the ending when people were upset that he had died, and wondered why couldn’t he have just lived and been happy since he finally found it, just goes to show that Ford succeeded in having his audience care so much about this character and his story, and that was done largely through camera angles. When we saw him load his gun from a point-of-view angle from George, or fill his hand with pills to take, we as an audience were not only forced to watch, but almost forced to partake in this action too. We were in a sense helping him load that gun and it created worry within us and we didn’t want to be doing that. When we experience moments of such close passion between Jim and George like his first flashback with they have just moved in and they are discussing curtains, we are clearly in their personal space in this medium close-up. This created so much tension in the audience, which some may ask why, but without that tension you subsequently would not have been able to feel as much pain when we snap back abruptly to George all alone, his hair grayed, and his eyes shut so tightly. We experience a rapid change from long, to medium long, to medium shots, to medium close-ups and finally ending on an extreme-close up in the opening scene where Jim is lying in the snow, dead and bloodied, and George walks up to curl up beside him. This let’s us understand the entire situation, and then forces us to then feel it as well. We must take it in as an outsider and feel at someone who is right there. Additionally, at the end of the film, when George is lying on his floor, having a heart attack, they approached this as a high-angle shot. This minimizes George and his death. It gave me the sense that this was just another moment. His life was not whole to him, he divided it into moments. The ones he hated, the ones he dealt with, and those of clarity. Which was this to him? I am not sure. What it was to me? One of clarity, and the fact that I began dividing the movie into these moments and how I felt about them, was important too. Overall, this film was able to pull me in and made me watch it emotionally. I was analyzing it, but I could not help let myself just be captivated and see him as someone I cared about, not a character. All of this was in large part to the composition, and definitely due to the creativeness of the film in all aspects.