This week the Weinstein Company came under criticism for having de-gayed the first trailer for their upcoming film A Single Man. I've requested a statement from the studio explaining why the trailer was changed, but have yet to hear back.
Meanwhile, today the studio released a short clip featuring Colin Firth and Matthew Goode, who play the lovers in the film, chatting about how content they are. So how does it measure up on the gay scale?
Take a look!
Submitted by
on Tue, 2009-11-10 15:30.
Bah, it's all a bit of a who
Um, no
The original trailer was much more explicit about the gay aspect of the film: it included a kiss between Firth and Goode and much more that made it clear what it was about. The new trailer makes one think it could be a romance between Firth and Julianne Moore.
Old trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eafJ4jvf-sY
Agreed... for the most part
The trailer was certainly de-gayed. That's the studio's fault because the new trailer doesn't look like it would draw any more machismos than the old trailer with men kissing and artsy-man-swim-dancing. The important point Jay was making was that as long as they don't cut any gay content from the film itself, then no-harm no-foul to the audience (that being us). Just a self-foul to the studio themselves for spending the extra time and money on the delusion that they could greatly broaden their audience with the new trailer.
Oh, and Jay's most important point: Matthew Goode is SOOOOOOOOOO dreamy! Agreed. Criminey Jickets.
Regards,
The Wire Hanger... esquire
That's a nice clip from a very lovely scene
I really don't understand why they made that de-gayed trailer. The first trailer was excellent and evoked a lot of the feel of the film quite well.
And it's a VERY gay (and very excellent) film, that everyone who comes here should see.
Especially gay men.
(I want Matthew Goode so bad I can taste it!)
The clip is excellent
Queer sensibility
Might we consider another possibility with both the promotional materials and this film itself - namely that it is all so steeped in queer sensibility (Isherwood, Tom Ford, art direction, you name it) that that sensibilty couldn't be expunged from the film even if you cut out all the explicitly gay content.
I understand that there is a different expectation, for gay representation and gay visibility. But does anyone think that this film is going to be shown anywhere other than art houses in metropolitan areas and all of our DVD players? I like seeing myself on screen as much as the next guy, but in this case I'm more excited to see what may well be the highest expression of queer sensibility to hit the screen this year. And that is refined, subtle, and freaking awesome.
I'd rather pick this kind of fight with a commercial mainstream film that markets itself one way to the gay community and another, closeted way to the rest of the world. I don't think that's what's happening here.
I've just read "A Single Man"
I can't wait to see this movie.
The book is full of the main character's thoughts. Very much streams of consciousness. I'm not an intellectual student at all, and I feel some of Isherwood's work is a bit self-indulgent. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out on screen.
If it does get a few Oscor nods, hopefully it will be shown at more main stream cinemas, in the same way Brokeback Mountain was.
It's quite faithful to the book
wiht a few additions I'd rather not "spoil."
I suddenly realized this is not Colin Firth's first time playing gay. There was Mamma Mia and way before that Apartment Zero (whre he lusted for the luscious Hart Bochner)
Another clip from A Single Man
There's another (older) clip from A Single Man, which certainly hasn't been de-gayed. It's very good.
You can watch the scene here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq4M8fD4Tz0
Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.