Cinephilia and A Single Man

Blog Assignment

Cinephile Approach

               In Tom Ford’s A Single Man there are many moments with many details from which a spectator can make a personal connection to the film. However, the most prominent of these details, for myself, is the manner in which Colin Firth’s character George, handles receiving the death of his lover.

               On learning of his true love’s death, besides being devastated, George says “Thank you for calling.” The irony in this statement is outrageous, most directly so because George is most certainly not thankful for learning of his boyfriends death. Furthermore, such is George’s futile attempt to bring some order to the world which has just collapsed down around him, leaving him suddenly alone. Regardless, George’s response poses the question, “What significance do manners hold for us, as people, in contemporary society?”

               For George, they represent a former life of normalcy. For most people, they represent positive context. For instance, manners manipulate requests into compliments as opposed to turning requests into commands. Manners, although incredibly superficial, are seemingly vital in society. Although most people are aware that manners hold no real meaning, the same people are much more agreeable via the use of manners.

               According to outside sources, the exact history and origin of the development of manners and etiquette is unknown. However, it is clear that they are an additional manifestation of culture, meaning that they develop wholly in respect to one’s specific culture. While what one does in America might seem polite, it may be entirely disrespectful in Thailand. From this, we can gather that manners are learned and instilled in us rather than being an inherent trait. Human society has perpetuated manners since at least the days of the very first empire, and more likely since the Neolithic Revolution and the beginnings of social stratification. Although a learned trait and seemingly pointless trait, manners are a necessary component to human dialogue.

Death of Cinema

                                                                           Death of Cinema?

               In Van Trier’s Melancholia there is one moment of raw imagery and vivid spectacle that sticks out to me most. Such is in the introduction to the movie, when Kirsten Dunst’s character is attempting to move against the immobilizing and physically realized “depression”. It is a scene of suspense and beauty, and while its primary connection to the audience is through visual spectacle, it still allows the audience to absorb detail. We, as the audience, can still absorb detail because it is an extended shot, and does not have rapid editing, and thus it does not promote a short-attention span.

               This scene in Melancholia combines both old-world and new-world elements of film theory, it is visually breath-taking and utilizes modern technology; however, it also requires its audience to consistently pay attention in order to grasp the full meaning of the movie. This brings up a very interesting point, because as a spectator, before this scene, I believed cinema was to develop into a primary method of showcasing visual technology and that as a result, the story in films and the art of cinema was bound to die. However, after witnessing Van Triers’ combination of modern and classic theater it has come to my attention that film will merely incorporate all impending visual technologies to create a new kind of cinema, and not just visual spectacles intent on taking 18-25 year olds’ money.

               By  always accepting the perpetually improving visuals in movies, the art of cinema will become something else, nothing less than the  great films of the 20^th century, but certainly different from them. Great films of the 21^st century will develop with awe-inspiring visuals at their side, but they will not be created solely for the benefit of us seeing the visuals, rather the plot and character development will still be the foundation of a movie. The new technology will enhance said plot and character development rather than replace it. Technology will be used as a tool to further cinema, just as it is always used in society.

Essay Outline

Argument: An ideological approach to film theory allows the participating individual to delve into himself/herself. On reading into the subtleties conveyed by Woody Allen in A Midnight in Paris one realizes that by abiding by an ideological film appproach, he/she is rewarded with a richer experience than if he/she took a formalist approach.

Claim: Owen Wilson wishes to escape the only reality he has ever known.

Support: He's writing a book on nostalgia and consistently voices his desire to live in Paris in the 20's.


Claim: Owen Wilson forsakes his relationship with his fiancee relatively easily. Such forces us to question how he agreed to a life commitment to begin with his wife in the first place and makes us question our own relationships. It is a possible reflection on materialistic relationships in society today.

Support: Owen Wilson steals his wife's earrings to give to another woman in hopes that he will sleep with her.


Claim: Woody Allen makees us question Hollywood today and its incredibly constant and formulaic production of film.

Support: Owen Wilson is a discontent Hollywood script writer who yearns for "real literature" relatively often throughout the movie. Most notably, his dialogue with his fiancee in the hotel room when he describes himself as a "Hollywood hack" and complains to be too inept to write a lasting and culturally beneficial novel.

Midnight in Paris

               Although I find it difficult to believe that all critics have been unable to pick up on any underlying themes in Midnight in Paris, I find it more difficult to believe that Woody Allen would make a purely superficial film. Batches of dialogue hint at the subtle philosophy in Midnight in Paris, and after viewing the movie with a critical eye, it is clear that this dialogue and its implications were part of a greater message Woody Allen was trying to convey, a message and allusion overlooked by critics.

               The moment in the movie when Owen Wilson is sitting on the hotel bed with his wife discussing the future of his career, whether he should continue as a “Hollywood hack” or whether he should give “real literature” a shot conveys Woody Allen’s intent the most directly. Owen Wilson is not happy with his very well-paid job as a script-writer because he feels unfulfilled and so he wants to pursue writing a novel while his wife wants him to retain his current job and “do what he does best.” It is during this discussion that Woody Allen is indirectly preaching against the infantile state Hollywood provides for us. Owen Wilson represents a thinking individual, the minority of society, restless with merely accepting a false reality and never having to think. His wife, on the other hand, represents the majority of society who would prefer to engage in “a willing suspension of disbelief” and fall into said infantile state.

               Since Owen Wilson is the protagonist we as an audience continually empathize with, and Rachel McAdams is the superficial and egotistical antagonist of sorts, it is safe to assume that we agree with Owen Wilson, and thus Woody Allen. We agree that although the infantile state available to us is comfortable, it is not fulfilling. In order to be fulfilled, we must be challenged to think for ourselves, especially in regards to cinema. Therefore, we must question all films that come before us, and the illusions they represent.