Has there been a more posh and sophisticated trailer all year? Maybe Broken Embraces comes close. In fact, Tom Ford’s precise framing, bold erotic backdrops, and eye-popping splashes of color remind me very much of Amoldovar’s flair for expressive visual extravagance.
If A Single Man has the brains to match its good looks, and somehow fails to make the final ten, then I’ll wonder what happened to the Academy members who annually select Best Picture nominees like Atonement, Brokeback Mountain, Sideways, Lost in Translation, The Hours, Gosford Park , and other films that play to literate stylish taste. In a year of five nominees, A Single Man’s primary rival for the Suave Literati Slot would be An Education. In a year with twice as much space for refined grace, I think there’s room at the top for both of them.
(Replay the Broken Embraces trailer for comparison after the cut.)
47 Responses for "A Single Man, official trailer"
This new version of A Single Man’s trailer (with quotes inserted) actually messes up the prior one and makes it not quite as great. (Not that I resent Colin Firth getting his rightful due)
As pure cascading montage, your right Morgan.
The first trailer without the editorializing was the essence of perfection for those of us who already know a lot about the movie and its acclaim.
But to properly market the movie to viewers outside the core group who are already primed to see it, the general audience in a theater who’ve paid to see something else altogether might see these quotes as helpful signposts and reassuring validation.
Very stylish and cool, totally looks great. and looks like it could get costume design, make up and hair, editing, who knows? It seems like way more than just an acting vehicle. Cool!!
Could be the first time in Oscar history when the red carpet reply to “Who did you vote for?” and “Who are you wearing?” might be the same answer.
It’s so beautiful to look at, I’m almost afraid to look away because I might miss something.
well said ryan. it looks amazing. i can’t wait for it, it’s the kind of cerebral/beautiful drama that hasn’t been out since “the hours”
Don’t like “Broken Embraces” trailer. Way too vague and abridged for my tastes. Although Almodóvar isn’t my thing anyway.
A Single Man looks slightly overwhelming, in a good way, I think. The other one just looks.
This is indeed very beautiful and shiny. I would love to live in that world. Very much like something Hitchcock would have done. Great to see Janet Leigh up there.
Seeing this trailer reminded of some things I had forgotten about–the effective score and the scenes with the suburban family living next door to Firth, which are so well done. Not only do I want to see this film again soon, I want to own the DVD right away.
cant wait.
whens it due out
I’m speechless.
The Weinsteins took all of the ‘gay’ out of that trailer. First the poster, now this.
Who knows what they’ll do to the movie? I doubt we’ll see the same version that screened in September.
What a bunch of a**holes.
I hope Julianne Moore finally will win her long overdue Oscar! She looks amazing…And Colin Firth will get his nomination.
By the way, I still see “gay” in this trailer. It is not out in the face but still there…
Hasn’t a version without all the quotes been on YouTube for months?
Great to see some support. It truly deserves its place amongst the nominees.
This version is less gay than the previous one. Almost all gay moments are censored by the quotations. The previous one was far more sophisticated. And better.
“The Weinsteins took all of the ‘gay’ out of that trailer. First the poster, now this.
Who knows what they’ll do to the movie? I doubt we’ll see the same version that screened in September.”
Yes they have. As I mentioned in the poster thread, I saw the film at the Chicago Film Festival and it is far “gayer” than either the poster or this new trailer would ever lead you to believe. The passion and the relationships between the male characters are by far the strongest elements of the film. Moore’s role is almost entirely limited to the scenes you see in the trailer. Nicolas Hoult and Matthew Goode both have larger roles.
The trailer is cut in a way where you’d never, ever know Firth’s character was gay. They’re pulling a horrible bait and switch that will only result in people being dissapointed and in some unfortunate cases, angry. What they’re selling is an intriguing film in which at some point Colin Firth and Julianne Moore sleep together. There’s a car crash and (the way they’re contextualized in the trailer) some shady glances from Nicolas Hoult and Matthew Goode.
The first three people Firth “sees” in the trailer are women. Why the Weinstein’s are going this route is beyond me, as the film opens and gets reviewed and interviews are done it will surely come out that hey, there are gay relationships in the film, MOST of the film. Why hide it?
As for the same cut coming out (so to speak), I can’t imagine any kind of cut that would straight-wash the film in the way they have in the trailer. They’d have to cut out all but twenty minutes.
I was hoping for a new trailer with dialogue to see how the script flowed. I don’t think it’s purposefully straightened; it’s not quite a gay romance as far as I know and so they’re selling it primarily through the beauty of the images and the perfs of Firth & Moore. Which I’m fine with.
I’m hoping that despite the newness of Ford & the borderline status with pundits right now, this rather than, say, The Last Station is the one that gets into BP thanks primarily to multiple perfs; a majority of people seem to feel that Firth is more locked than Mirren, Moore more than Plummer. And comparing records Mirren has less noms but a win vs. Moore, while Firth at least has a Bafta from before & is already reaping some honors for his role vs. Plummer who has neither. And it’s not as if Michael Hoffman has been setting the film world ablaze either. Of course, there is the relative status of Leo Tolstoy vs. Christopher Isherwood.
The other main pics that boast multiple Oscar-tastic perfs have other factors that have set them much more as BP contenders, in fact being 5 of what seem to have been the T6 since early September: Invictus, Nine, Precious, Up in the Air, An Education….no Hurt Locker.
Amazing trailer.
@#9, dela
I almost made reference to Hitchcock myself, but I’d made an Almoldovar comparison and didn’t want to sound too gushy. I think it’s the technicolor vividness, close-ups of eyes, the tracking and POV shots, all giving me a Hitchcock sensation.
@#11, passportradio
Limited release, December 11.
@#12, Adam M.
The Weinstein Co. isn’t going to buy distribution rights to a highly acclaimed movie and then cut out all the parts that made it highly acclaimed. Trailers are meant to generate interest among as many moviegoers as possible in a setting where all kinds of people are in the audience. Very few people are going to go see this movie not knowing what it’s about.
Also, this probably won’t be the one and only trailer. It’s an intro. Do you know gay people who introduce themselves by saying, “Hi, I’m Jack Twist and I really really like men. Wanna see some pictures to prove it?”
@#14, Marshall
We ran a festival trailer on Sept 11, but it wasn’t an official cut, and never meant to be shown in multiplex theaters. It was a promo trailer for TIFF. A sales trailer for prospective distributors, I think.
Beautiful trailer. However, I have a problem with the storyline being so vague. This seems more like a teaser trailer and I’m hoping a full length version will come out soon.
I’m also surprised with Tom Ford. When he left fashion to “pursue directing” I expected a lot of style over substance. When I heard he got these actors my interest certainly piqued and the results look incredible. Kudos to him!
@#11, passportradio
Limited release, December 11.
Huh, that’s weird. It’s going to be playing (among other places) at the Coolidge Corner Theater here in Boston. I was passing by there on Friday and asked when it was opening — I was told Nov 25. I’ll take your word for it since we often get limited releases after the fact, but sooner would be much better than later in this case.
who knows, Bill S. Nobody has played the release date shell game more confusingly than Weinstein Co. this season — the dates for The Road and Nine have jumped all over the calendar. I’m going by what Indiewire said last month, and IMDb has the same Dec 11 info.
I hope you’re right. I’m ready. The sooner the better.
[EDIT: Now that I look more closely, Weinstein Co. has The Road slated for a November 25th release. I don't think they want to let two of their top ponies out of the gate on the same weekend. But things might have changed. Could be they've flipped the dates for The Road and A Single Man?]
Huh, I didn’t even really notice how they were “de-gaying” the trailer too… same as the poster!
Why aren’t the Oscar bloggerati getting onto this story? Does the studio think Firth doesn’t stand a chance at Best Actor if (gasp) the movie seems too gay? This is more than just a coincidence or some poster artist’s bad choices.
What do you think this will be rated? PG-13 or R?
“Why aren’t the Oscar bloggerati getting onto this story?”
I think because it’s a non-story, Morgan. Any blogger who tries to stir this up into a scandalous hoopla as a gay cover-up will be making an ass of himself.
If “the movie seems too gay” to some people because the main character is gay, then there’s nothing a poster or trailer can do to soothe those hopeless folks.
The movie and novel are more about loss, and mourning, and struggling to starting afresh after a tragedy in midlife. It’s not an all-male Carnival Cruise to Puerto Vallarta.
m1, it will almost certainly be rated R, I think. Cahiers has seen it. He can tell us.
====
Would anyone who’s unhappy with the poster like to offer suggestions about how to “gay it up”? What do you need to make it gay enough for you?
Ryan – on how to gay it up.
Chorus girls, feathers, sequins, men doing intricate choreography wearing speedos, Barbra and Liza show up, lube, mustaches, old men in kaftans. So many things really.
It’s a beautiful trailer, if a little self-congratulatory. Reviews from EW and Playboy lower the tone.
This is definitely my most anticipated movie of the year.
I’m sure it’s partially because I’m already an admirer of Ford’s work as a designer, and partially because I’m a sucker for a stylish film. Regardless, from an aesthetic standpoint, this film is simply off the charts. Everything in it from the costumes, to the set design, to the cinematography is outstanding.
The outflow of positive responses from Venice, and then TIFF, ensured that this is a movie that I expect to really enjoy.
I read an interview with Ford recently in which he was stressing the universality of the film’s themes, and stressing that it is not, simply, a gay-interest film. I think the universal themes of separation and isolation are perfectly communicated in the trailer.
@Ryan – I appreciate your optimism, but I really, REALLY do think they’ve purposefully de-gayed the marketing strategy behind this film. The poster implies that Firth and Moore are in bed, and the trailer focuses heavily on images of women and sex between Firth and Moore. The shots of men are extremely vague– a glance, a smile– and disassociate from sexual provocation.
I’m sure that if you ran the two trailers side by side and compiled the shots that were removed, it would become obvious. I’m tempted to do it myself. And no, I don’t think it would make me look like an a**hole.
It’s a baffling maneuver, considering (from what I understand), the story is primarily about a gay man interacting with other men. Without fair warning, audiences could feel betrayed. That certainly couldn’t help the film’s Oscar chances, and God knows that’s the only reason the Weinsteins picked this film up in the first place– to snag Oscar nods.
It’s interesting how clear and accessible WeinCo is being in their awards campaigning. Have you seen their website?
http://twcawards.com/
Very clean, very sleek. Their publicity site, on the other hand, is and has been a mess. Their priorities are clear.
No question that the gay angle is not played up overtly, Adam. Just saying, for myself, not only does that not bother me — I sort of appreciate it. Being gay is not the theme of the novel, and it’s not the theme of a man’s life.
We’ve seen trailers for Avatar, Invictus, The Hurt Locker than don’t need to hammer us over the head with reminders that the men in those movies are straight. And frankly, the trailers for movies like The Hangover and Funny People, that show guys hounding after pussy as the driving force in their lives, I find pretty gross. Look, I don’t care what you straights do in the privacy of your own bedrooms, but please don’t flaunt it in my face.
The gay audience for A Single Man is built-in, guaranteed, already sold. A trailer and poster loaded up with all the gay bits would be preaching to the choirboys.
Maybe the trailer and poster are meant to show everybody else that, hey, this is just a guy. He’s got female friends, he’s got some very good-looking male friends too… if you want to find out more, come see the movie. If you’re literate then you know it was written by one of the world’s most famous gay authors. If you’re not so literate, you’ll learn something new.
As for what some are seeing as baffling strategy and misleading marketing — the day I think I know how to sell a movie better than Harvey Weinstein knows how to is the day I become President and CEO of Ryanstein Co.
Christ I can’t wait for this. I think Moore is winning her overdue Oscar for this.
Ryan – My final rebuttal. They didn’t castrate the trailer– they changed its sexual orientation. It’s not so much that the marketing strategy takes focus off of the gay angle, it’s that it misleadingly implies that this is a film of heterosexual intrigue. Both the poster and trailer heavily imply a sexual connection between Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, while neither acknowledges that Firth is playing a gay man.
I also don’t think that the gays are guaranteed to flock to this film. You and I are knowledgeable of its subject matter and artistic potential because we closely follow cinematic developments. I’ve asked many in my late teen/twenty-something gay social base about this film– only one has heard of it, and he thinks it looks stuffy. The gays are much, MUCH more excited for ‘Nine’ out of the Weinstein film factory.
If this film is as good as it looks i can see it getting nominated in many things. I just love that score in the trailer it’s soo good. As for Julianne Moore I really hope they don’t nominate her if they’re not going to give her the Oscar cause she truly deserves it. It’s about time Colin gets some recognizion too. Even though he’s never been nominated hes too good of an actor to be ignored so many times.
“m1, it will almost certainly be rated R, I think. Cahiers has seen it. He can tell us.”
As far as I recall it’ll be R. It’s a light R, and a possible PG-13 if the lead were straight, but with all that smoking (which is MPAA’s new pet peeve) and homosexuality (which is MPAA’s old pet peeve), it’ll slip into the R category. Not a problem, either. This movie couldn’t really be appreciated by younger teenagers as it deals so obsessively with loss and love and the tricky negotation of sexuality between old lovers, old platonic friends, younger men and strangers. In short, there’s enough backside to get it an R.
I should not though that there isn’t much actual nudity, but the film is so from Firth’s point of view that when he’s turned on so is the movie, and that may make the MPAA think it’s a more sexual film than it is on paper.
Um, I’m not talking about a need to “gay up” the trailer or promotional material. I’m talking about the definite removal of certain images from the trailer that skew the images toward “boy-girl” stuff. It’s noticeable. Just wondering when Hollywood is going to stop this bullshit.
I thought I heard somewhere that the MPAA screened it last week and gave it a PG-13. We’ll most likely know for sure on the 11th.
Wow, I hadn’t watched all of this new trailer, because I assumed it was the same as the old one. The studio cut out everything that suggested George’s relationship with Matthew Goode’s character, and there’s certainly increased attention dedicated to the relationship between George and Charly (Julianne Moore’s character).
It is a bit disappointing that they would think it necessary to play down the character’s homosexuality.
There’s a fair bit of nudity, though no full-frontal, and no breasts obviously. But the gay themes and some scenes in particularly (Nicholas Hoult standing butt naked for Colin Firth’s gaze in particular) mean I’d be surprised it would get a PG-13.
Just to add my thought about the gay angle debate, I really agree with Ryan on this one.
As for the poster or the trailer, they might not be the most obviously gay oriented pieces of promotion, but they’re not especially straight either (and pretty far from it in my opinion, Firth and Moore might on the same bed together, but the whole picture doesn’t really screams love).
And I do think the last bit of the trailer is even quite obvious. The shot of Matthew Goode getting closer and about to kiss, quickly edited with the face of Colin Firth all dazzled and confused, gives you more than an hint about their relationship.
But even if someone doesn’t guess it from the trailer or the poster, I don’t see why it should be a problem. Surely you would rather know less about a film before seeing it, and a trailer like that is just perfect, with enough hints and insinuations to get you intrigued without revealing you the whole story.
And I might be optimistic but I really do not think that people who don’t have a clue about the film and assume this film is about a straight relationship would be in anyway disappointed (because let’s face it, people who are going to want to see the film after watching this trailer are certainly not 15yo teenagers giggling about Transformers).
It reminds me a quite similar debate which happened in France about Cristophe Honoré’s Love Songs in which the main character #spoiler# after the disappearance of his girlfriend starts to date a man. From the trailer nobody could have guessed it (the death of the girl or the gay relationship), as it was all centred on the relationships with his girlfriend. There wasn’t any single hint and yet I don’t know anybody who was shocked or disapointed by that after watching the film.
All my straight friends, and even my parents, saw it as an absolutely wonderful twist, that was not revealed in the trailer to preserve the story.
And to be honest nobody even really cared that much because the whole point of the film was about this young guy loosing his first love and learning how to love again (sounds cheesy but it’s not), and the fact that he was involved in a straight than a gay relationship didn’t matter at all.
And that’s exactly what Tom Fort said as well. I cannot find the actual quote but when he was asked about the gay aspect of the film, he answered that he never saw his film as gay, but that it was a film about loss and love in which the main character just happened to be in love with men.
So if someone is to blame for not selling this film as a big gay event, it is probably not the Weinstein but surely the director himself.
(Trailer for Love Songs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gku-oylnSV0
HRG!!!!
Quote from Tom Ford in Empire ” I didn’t want it to be a ‘gay film’. It’s a universal film, about love and connection. The character just happens to be gay – so what?”
“It reminds me a quite similar debate which happened in France about Cristophe Honoré’s Love Songs in which…and yet I don’t know anybody who was shocked or disapointed by that after watching the film.
All my straight friends, and even my parents, saw it as an absolutely wonderful twist, that was not revealed in the trailer to preserve the story.”
Yes, but that WAS a twist. It was a thrilling twist within the film, no need to hint at it in the marketing. Also if you’re seeing a French musical, in all likelihood you’re going to not care whether characters are straight or not.
“And that’s exactly what Tom Fort said as well. I cannot find the actual quote but when he was asked about the gay aspect of the film, he answered that he never saw his film as gay, but that it was a film about loss and love in which the main character just happened to be in love with men.”
Which is true, but it’s clear from very early in the film the relationship between Firth and Goode. This is an entire other discussion, but it’s not controversial to say sexuality is fluid. MINOR SPOILER Firth mentions being attracted to Moore in their conversation, but he loved Goode, and I think that’s one of the few, more accurate representations of human sexuality than you normally see in a film. To hide that from the marketing seems unfortunate to me.
Oddly enough another good representation is from The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou:
Alistair Hennessey:”We never did make great husbands did we…well of course I had an excuse, I’m part gay.”
Steve Zissou:”Supposedly everyone is.”
I do hope the buzz surrounding Ms. Moore’s performance is true. She looks absolutely stunning in this.
“Firth mentions being attracted to Moore in their conversation, but he loved Goode, and I think that’s one of the few, more accurate representations of human sexuality than you normally see in a film.”
As well as Moore’s character’s clear infatuation fantasies and thinly veiled sexual frustrations toward Firth’s character.
That’s why it’s not misleading at all to hint at some sexual tension between Firth and Moore. But as Jeremie rightly points out, the last several shots of the montage are unmistakably male-to-male juxtaposing. One would have to be wishing really hard for a boy-girl story to be blind to the men moving in on Firth from all angles at the end.
Some people seem to have a really eager inclination to see heterosexual lustiness going on in this trailer — just because a man makes eye contact with a woman a few times? He looks at the little girl in the blue dress too, but I don’t jump to the conclusion that he’s a pedophile.
A happy result of these disagreements is you guys encouraging me to watch Les chansons d’amour tonight.
Oh I wish I could see Les chansons d’amours for the first time again. I love this film so much.
Hope you enjoy it (and managed to avoid the spoilers, the film is even better and daring if you don’t have a clue).
I think the love scene between Garrel and Leprince-Ringuet is one of the most simple and beautiful (gay) love scene I have ever seen. A lesson of acceptance in itself.
That reflective shot of the girl in the blue dress is up for Shot of the Year, IMO
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.