Tom Ford的私人情书- for richard buckley
2010-06-06 02:58:49 来自: 莲华
我是因为看Tom ford的八卦才看的这个电影。
Tom Ford的爱人，Richard Buckley，Vogue Homme的前总编，比他大20岁，在两人刚认识不久的时候就罹患癌症，这么多年形销骨立，完全就是一会走路的骷髅架子。
Tom ford，模特出身，看任何一张他的照片，都满满向外散发着荷尔蒙。
但凡两人合照，一向妖孽无所顾忌的Tom立刻气场全收，完全贤惠人妻样，反而是老爷子精神矍铄，一双冰蓝眼睛气势吓人。——是的，跟剧里面Goode的眼睛一模一样。
所以虽然现在在google上搜索Richard Buckley都搜到说他是Tom ford的情人，但是当初花花大少的Tom，自从见了他家老爷子，身边花花草草全都绝了，一门心思老老实实跟在Richard身边，老爷子要换环境休养，跑去意大利，Tom连意大利语都不会说乖乖跟了过去，一晃二十年。
到如今，Tom连颁奖典礼四分钟两分钟是在感谢老爷子。表情羞涩，神态恳切，别的人全都哗哗哗鼓掌，或真或假大笑或微笑，老爷子愣是酷到一个笑容没有，轻轻拍几下手，明明风一吹就倒，依然凛然不可侵。
Tom ford好歹也是时尚圈呼风唤雨的人物，可是跟老爷子比起来，不知为啥有了乡下大小子痴缠贵族老爷的感觉了……
原著美好而哀伤，作者的情人也是小很多，中途另寻了新欢，作者虽然微笑祝福说一切都好，其实闷到内伤，写了这作，结果小情人又跑了回来，卿卿我我了一辈子，最后给作者送了终。
我深刻地觉得，Tom ford挑这个作品，心里也是戚戚的。他家老爷子癌症20多年了，跟他在一起也20多年了，年纪也不小了，说不准什么时候就去了。他爱这个人爱了这么久，这么深，随便一个访谈都一脸幸福小女生似的一边BLING BLING放电一边娇羞地说自己生活幸福爱情美满，其实心里估计怕得厉害。
哪能不怕呢？最爱的那个人，随时随地都可能就这么没了。
Tom 说，他一开始把小说给老爷子看，老爷子睡着了。
第二次把剧本给老爷子看，老爷子睡着了。
第三次，他重新思考过，又把改变过的剧本给老爷子看，老爷子终于看完，放声大哭。
估计也是内伤了。再怎么矜持，再怎么高贵，真是好残忍的直戳心底。死了，忽然就结束了，留下来的那个人，总还是抵不过青春肉体的诱惑。
所以电影里面，我看到George 和jim坐在沙发上，Jim说，如果我死在这一刻就好了，因为太幸福了。
那时候光线很温暖，两只狗很惫懒，两人对话很家常，可是真美好。
Goode的眼神多温柔，Corlin的眼神多缱绻。
然后真的就在这一刻结束了。
悲剧了。悲剧就是把喜剧破坏了给你看。
电影里每一个场景都精心雕琢。Tom Ford并不想真的还原一个60年代的破旧，他只要保留一个美好的，如梦一般的画卷，让人在回忆起来，都知道，这是他Tom ford，心里面的60年代。有自由，有爱情，有高高的垫肩，鲜艳的红唇，卷起的大波浪，蕾丝的萝莉裙，烟熏的眼妆；有每一分都扣到恰到好处的衬衫西服，细长条的领带，松松垮垮的针织衫；摇窗的老爷车，蓝色大壁画，铮亮的小手枪，铁质电话亭。以及橙红夕阳，深蓝月下海，苍白雪地。
这是他Tom ford梦中的世界。不真实，一点都不真实，因为真实太琐屑。他只要一个玻璃房子，两条狗，窗明几净，邻居有可爱萝莉，衣橱里满满都是他精心装备的时尚。爱人会窝在沙发上看书。
当没有爱人了，多么美的回忆都变成痛楚。
George看到一条相似的狗，走上前去抚摸，拿额头靠着，摸了很久，表情温柔又酸楚。
Tom ford和他老爷子也养了狗的，相同的两条。
他自己这样形容，我最喜欢不是太大的房间，两个人可以一起做饭，玩狗，整个房子只有我们俩，只有我们两个人在一起。
可是现实是如何呢？
George想自杀，已经没有力气去爱，可是还是会欣赏美好的肉体，甚至被kenny唤醒了求生的欲望。
如果现实一点会怎样呢？他会跟kenny在一起。那个男生单薄的脊梁，鲜艳的嘴唇，水亮的眼睛都在诉说着，跟我在一起吧，跟我在一起吧。
大概，会真的背叛已经死去的爱人吧。
所以还是留在最后一天的最后一刻死去，让那个有冰蓝眼睛的死去爱人来接走，亲吻已经冰凉的嘴唇。
因为死了，所以这爱才得以保存。
Tom ford有多矛盾？爱死去的爱人，爱到他死掉自己也想随着一起去了，可是还在被青春美好的肉体吸引。怕是老爷子一走，他精神垮了，肉体会变得靡乱吧。
所以老爷子放声大哭。可是太多事情，就算知道会发生，也没有办法阻止，甚至连阻止的理由都没有。这叫无能为力。
音乐很优美，画面很精致，一切都很时尚很tom ford。
然后画面定格在死去的George嘴角的微笑。
他应该是在微笑他的从一而终吧。
哀伤的音乐响起。黑底白字的字幕慢慢出现。
一首曲子放完，整部电影结束。
“for Richard Buckley”
我泪点忽然就决堤了。
从头到尾，只为你一个人，我的心思，你是否懂？
你想必是懂的，不然也不会哭。
死亡和爱情，都没有办法预料，也没有办法改变。
没有什么能留住，没有什么能纪念，多奢华多动人的背景都是假的，只有曾经相爱过这份事实，万望你铭记。
我以前真不知道他是如此浪漫主义的人。
Gay乱交，时尚圈更加混乱，我本来以为他跟Richard只是表面夫妻，做做样子，更何况Tom又是那么乱放荷尔蒙的人。
可是看了这片子，我真的开始相信，他们相爱，并且恐慌着对方的消失。
Richard问，为什么不把给我的致辞放在开头？
Tom说，因为我的爱情不用用来做噱头。
所以放在结尾，好像写一封情书，写到最后，别人往往瞄一眼就忽略了，却是最小心翼翼，心里头仔细掂量过了。
Sincerely,
Yours
[zz] A Single Man 影评
[zz] A Single Man 影评
http://movie.douban.com/review/3312495/
Last edited by Jun on 2011-03-14 14:24, edited 1 time in total.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
Re: [zz] A Single Man 影评
前阵子读了一下小说原著，也写了点感想，下面是我的评论。
*********
I don't know how to explain it. While reading the novella, I kept thinking how it was vastly different from the movie. But then I can't help but suspect that this story is utterly un-filmable, that a faithful onscreen adaptation would have been unwatchable. Nevertheless, the book and the film seem to be two very different things with some rather tenuous connections.
The movie was OK. It did not work for me nearly as well as it did for a lot of movie critics. It seemed a bit overly sentimental in a calculated way. It tried too hard.
What Ford and co-writer David Scearce did was to take a few elements that are merely suggested by Isherwood and extrapolate them into a more sentimentalized, digestible movie. I cannot accuse them of perverting the author's intentions, but then why is my impression so different from theirs?
Many years ago I read the Chinese translation of "Sally Bowles," one of the stories in Isherwood's collection "Goodbye to Berlin," based on his experience as a young man living in Berlin in the early 1930s. In the tradition of Maugham and Greene but perhaps going further, he has a way of erasing the line between fiction and reality. The story read more like astute diary than fiction.
I was thrilled by the story. At the time I was a teenager who had never met a "foreigner" in my life and knew utterly nothing about the decadence of Berlin teetering on the edge of Apocalypse. I had no idea homosexuals existed; therefore the homosexual stuff (including the narrator based on Isherwood himself) in the story totally went over my head. Yet I knew with dead certainty that it was all palpably real.
Isherwood had a laser-precise way of describing things and people. Yet his intentions/themes/meaning are very difficult to pin down, perhaps because of his utter refusal to reduce characters and situations to types. So-and-so is an airhead. So-and-so is a dreamer. So-and-so is a bitch. So-and-so is in love. So-and-so is depressed. With the precise realism comes the full ambiguity of people and life.
Compared with the earlier Berlin stories, A Single Man has maintained Isherwood's impeccable observation and lack of reductionism. There is perhaps less warmth and sympathy toward the people he writes about, yet this hardening does not come from cynicism marinated in age, but rather a philosophical acceptance (of an indifferent universe, I guess?).
Ford turned the story into one of romance, one of love and grief. It is not wrong, but this sentimentalization seems to trivialize the story, in which grief is there but not nearly as pervasive or central. The movie was almost entirely about George grieving Jim, but the first half of the story was more about the omnipresent death and mortality --- Jim's, George's own, Jim's one-time girlfriend's, and the threat of world annihilation (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962). Not unlike 1932's Berlin, 1962's California could have easily been teetering on the edge of the abyss too. And the second half is something else --- I am not sure what, but again the tone is completely different from the movie's, even if a lot of the adaptation is faithful on paper.
The more complicated, ambiguous elements in the story were excised, perhaps for fear of confusing the audience. Charley, for example, was transformed from a childish, lonely, recently-jilted housewife who symbolizes George's hopeless link to the home country, to a lonely sad woman who loves a homosexual man and, as the filmmakers hint, has been destroyed by her unrequited feelings. (Isherwood has a real knack for drawing childish, silly women.) Another stark departure is how much more repressed George is in the movie than in the story: "Look how this homosexual man is victimized and persecuted by the world and therefore has to hide his true self." The implied message seems to go. Well, yes and no. In the story, George makes no effort to hide his "deviant sexuality." What he hid was his grief. Not quite the same, is it?
What is Christopher Isherwood's A Single Man about? It is not clear. For such a short novel, it is surprisingly rich and complex. It is about death and doom --- the death in the past (Jim) and the inevitable end of everyone, sooner (nuclear war) or later (old age) or unpredictably (heart attack). It is about the past (Charley and England, Jim, memory of the war), the future (Kenny and other students), and now, where one struggles to not only stay alive but rather to live. It is the present moment that we are all trying desperately to hang on with white knuckles.
The story is also full of humor. At the beginning was a hilarious episode describing the physiological and psychological mechanisms of driving in Southern California that had me in stitches. You really have to have driven on these freeways day-in and day-out to realize how true and astute this is.
The story's ending has nothing to do with the movie's, even if they share a superficial similarity. Isherwood's ending is pure mysticism. Odd, isn't it? A mysticism grew out of his brand of merciless realism, as hard and sharp as a diamond cutter.
*********
I don't know how to explain it. While reading the novella, I kept thinking how it was vastly different from the movie. But then I can't help but suspect that this story is utterly un-filmable, that a faithful onscreen adaptation would have been unwatchable. Nevertheless, the book and the film seem to be two very different things with some rather tenuous connections.
The movie was OK. It did not work for me nearly as well as it did for a lot of movie critics. It seemed a bit overly sentimental in a calculated way. It tried too hard.
What Ford and co-writer David Scearce did was to take a few elements that are merely suggested by Isherwood and extrapolate them into a more sentimentalized, digestible movie. I cannot accuse them of perverting the author's intentions, but then why is my impression so different from theirs?
Many years ago I read the Chinese translation of "Sally Bowles," one of the stories in Isherwood's collection "Goodbye to Berlin," based on his experience as a young man living in Berlin in the early 1930s. In the tradition of Maugham and Greene but perhaps going further, he has a way of erasing the line between fiction and reality. The story read more like astute diary than fiction.
I was thrilled by the story. At the time I was a teenager who had never met a "foreigner" in my life and knew utterly nothing about the decadence of Berlin teetering on the edge of Apocalypse. I had no idea homosexuals existed; therefore the homosexual stuff (including the narrator based on Isherwood himself) in the story totally went over my head. Yet I knew with dead certainty that it was all palpably real.
Isherwood had a laser-precise way of describing things and people. Yet his intentions/themes/meaning are very difficult to pin down, perhaps because of his utter refusal to reduce characters and situations to types. So-and-so is an airhead. So-and-so is a dreamer. So-and-so is a bitch. So-and-so is in love. So-and-so is depressed. With the precise realism comes the full ambiguity of people and life.
Compared with the earlier Berlin stories, A Single Man has maintained Isherwood's impeccable observation and lack of reductionism. There is perhaps less warmth and sympathy toward the people he writes about, yet this hardening does not come from cynicism marinated in age, but rather a philosophical acceptance (of an indifferent universe, I guess?).
Ford turned the story into one of romance, one of love and grief. It is not wrong, but this sentimentalization seems to trivialize the story, in which grief is there but not nearly as pervasive or central. The movie was almost entirely about George grieving Jim, but the first half of the story was more about the omnipresent death and mortality --- Jim's, George's own, Jim's one-time girlfriend's, and the threat of world annihilation (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962). Not unlike 1932's Berlin, 1962's California could have easily been teetering on the edge of the abyss too. And the second half is something else --- I am not sure what, but again the tone is completely different from the movie's, even if a lot of the adaptation is faithful on paper.
The more complicated, ambiguous elements in the story were excised, perhaps for fear of confusing the audience. Charley, for example, was transformed from a childish, lonely, recently-jilted housewife who symbolizes George's hopeless link to the home country, to a lonely sad woman who loves a homosexual man and, as the filmmakers hint, has been destroyed by her unrequited feelings. (Isherwood has a real knack for drawing childish, silly women.) Another stark departure is how much more repressed George is in the movie than in the story: "Look how this homosexual man is victimized and persecuted by the world and therefore has to hide his true self." The implied message seems to go. Well, yes and no. In the story, George makes no effort to hide his "deviant sexuality." What he hid was his grief. Not quite the same, is it?
What is Christopher Isherwood's A Single Man about? It is not clear. For such a short novel, it is surprisingly rich and complex. It is about death and doom --- the death in the past (Jim) and the inevitable end of everyone, sooner (nuclear war) or later (old age) or unpredictably (heart attack). It is about the past (Charley and England, Jim, memory of the war), the future (Kenny and other students), and now, where one struggles to not only stay alive but rather to live. It is the present moment that we are all trying desperately to hang on with white knuckles.
The story is also full of humor. At the beginning was a hilarious episode describing the physiological and psychological mechanisms of driving in Southern California that had me in stitches. You really have to have driven on these freeways day-in and day-out to realize how true and astute this is.
The story's ending has nothing to do with the movie's, even if they share a superficial similarity. Isherwood's ending is pure mysticism. Odd, isn't it? A mysticism grew out of his brand of merciless realism, as hard and sharp as a diamond cutter.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
Re: [zz] A Single Man 影评
没看过小说。不过电影给我感觉，FORD作为时装设计师的影响过重。整个故事给我的感觉很淡，但视觉效果上像是把现实生活中很多繁琐的细节全部剪裁掉了，剩下的画面像是在服装设计中开始的炭笔画轮廓，很清爽漂亮的样子。这种影响在各个地方都有体现，人物的衣饰，化妆，房间内装修，甚至街道，小伙子打球的操场，全都像是抹掉了生活疲倦的汗印子，凌乱的废纸屑。无论是一天的几点人物的衣服上都不会有坐久了的皱褶，像是永远刚刚上身的时装。这些处理像是在对我打某种跟故事有关的手势，但是我没看懂。整个电影简单美丽得像个梦，但也因此痛苦不深重，不能感动我。
云浆未饮结成冰
Re: [zz] A Single Man 影评
小说的确是另一回事，哪里来电影里这么多的衣香鬓影。其实Tom叔和他家老伴儿自己的故事比电影更电影，OUT那期两人自述恋爱史，文笔一流情绪饱满故事精彩，那是真好看。看了自述回头再看电影，这个感觉就又不一样了，将少年夫妻老来伴私密的生离死别的忧虑拍出来，如果观众不还原到这一层，就不能特别动人。我看这篇影评的作者也是被真人打动得更多一些。
顺带不正经一句，我和朋友一起看的这个片子，越看越觉得最后教授挂了是因为他爱人看不下去干脆把他给收了：就这么一天，招了多少朵桃花！
顺带不正经一句，我和朋友一起看的这个片子，越看越觉得最后教授挂了是因为他爱人看不下去干脆把他给收了：就这么一天，招了多少朵桃花！