I just watched both trailers and find the only question in my mind is, "Could I pull off that black and white dress and would it work for this formal thing I have to go to in April".
Just saw it tonight. It was nice, had it's moments, but heavy arty and kinda slow. It's not gonna have much reach outside the gay crowd and the fashion crowd (which is certainly nothing to sneer at) but Brokeback Mountain momentum--nah. Besides, the Weinsteins have no money left to market anything this year, right?
And yes Colin's clothes are credited to "The Tom Ford Collection" and dressing and undressing literally takes up half the film. BUT GO FOR THE UNDRESSING!
Why? Because Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash, maybe.
As for the Mad Men viewers, isn't there a big gay subplot in there somewhere? I think they'll be fine, especially if they get to do any gloating over how far we've come from those benighted times.
The battle, the art, the terms, the issues, the dilemmas, the approach-- they're all oldoldold. Practically eclipsed. Which is why Tom has always been fakesexy, and not sexy. Not that there's anything wrong with making a bundle on fakesexy....
PS: Will Julianne play Karen Walker in the Will & Grace movie?
I've read and thought about this for a while, the heteronormativingness of the posters featuring Julianne. I think it's more complex than trying to "fool" moviegoers.
For one, she's the film's most recognizable star. For another, I don't think the majority of the highbrow audience likely to see it will be absolutely clueless as to what it's about.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to a certain extent to Ford's own snobbery. He doesn't want it to be seen as a "gay" film, he wants it to be Oscar-worthy . He thinks perhaps this is either/or. He wants elderly Academy members not to blanch at the screeners, not scare the old horses.
Despite Hollywood's reputation as tolerant and liberal, despite Brokeback, the establishment there is still incredibly skittish about "gay" themes. Even non sexual ones, like losing your lover, which is the theme of Isherwood's lovely novel.
Ford himself has always been ambivalent about how his sexuality is seen. I understand (from books!) there was a very snobby attitude from the Studio 54 days, long before AIDS, that people who were out and proud about being gay were considered unsophisticated and tacky. Ford was very young in that (hypocritical) Warholian scene, and part of that still informs his attitude and ambivalence about identifying strictly as gay. The bisexual jet set chic of his youth seems cooler to him.
I admire Tom Ford a lot. I look forward to this movie. But if the central gay theme is being ellided, I do imagine that's his own choices and doing. He financed the film and is famously a freak about every detail.
@Baroness: He would need to be a lot more powerful as a director to be able to dictate terms to his distributors on how to market the film. He didn't make an overall international distribution deal with a studio, the movie was sold territory by territory. He is not in the driver's seat where distribution and marketing is concerned; indie directors rarely are.
[Edited to add] If he made the movie with his own money, that would tend to mean he's if anything more beholden to distributors, since that's how he's going to get his money back (or not). He's not in a position to be tough about negotiating control over something non-star directors rarely have much control over.
@MissNormaDesmond: Ford not only directed the movie but also adapted the screenplay from the novel by the very gay Christopher Isherwood and financed the whole thing himself.
"Financing the whole thing" yourself gives one a great deal of latitude. I do see your point, but we're not disagreeing: I'm saying Ford himself was absolutely fine with toning down the gay content, as were his distributors etc.
And actually in the novel, the one good person in the main character's life really is the Julianne character, as a friend. It's misleading, but not wildly so. I think.
@MissNormaDesmond: That's not true. He said in an article in EW that he has control over the posters and everything and the one thing that upset him is he had to give up that right for foreign distribution. He was freaking out because they get to design their own posters.
@Baroness: Right, he financed production of the film. That doesn't necessarily mean anything about distribution. In such a case, you (or your sales agent) make a deal in each territory, and you negotiate in the contract what control you'll be allowed to have over how marketing is conducted in various territories. The more money you're personally out, the less you're able to be exigent about those terms, unless you're willing to lose your home. Maybe Ford is, but I doubt it.
@Brian Moylan: Approving something and creating it are two different things. Especially since we're talking about the Weinstein Company, the likelihood of his having created the marketing campaign is pretty slim. It's quite possible that Weinstein's marketing department has convinced him that playing down the "gayness" of the film is necessary for pulling in greater audiences; that doesn't mean it was his idea.
@MissNormaDesmond: It's only an issue if you make it one. This is the internet--what is one's excuse for being misinformed or 'tricked' by ads. Most of us are immune to commercials and bullshit like that. As for the Weinsteins, they did the same with marketing Inglourious Basterds as a 'dude movie'. It's what they do there--money doesn't grow on trees.
@Baroness: i see your points however the studio 54 reference was a little amusing. trust me, as one who frequented studio and even worked there for a brief period, it was gay gay gay. in that milieu, being "out and proud" was considered a sign of worldliness.. yeah, it was probably considered snobby but more as a measure of sophistication and elitism than something as mundane as who you slept with.
that said, the trailer looks pretty and seductive which is something ford might have definately assumed from studio 54.
@MissNormaDesmond: Okay, this is now me being obsessive, but I wanted to see whether my guess was correct. Apparently both posters were put out by Weinstein Co., but the earlier, "gayer" trailer was posted by Ford, not Weinstein, three days prior to the announcement that Weinstein would be picking up the film. So that would seem to imply that yes, the downgaying is being emphasized by Weinstein.
[Edited to add] However, this means you were right, Brian, that the trailer was in large part created by Ford. So, I'm wrong there. It looks as if Ford basically created it, but then they had some back and forth about some of the images.
@hughman: Hello, Hughman, I'm always interested in stories from that time and scene. While I know that 54 was very very gay, as an amateur but studious reader of the social history around Warhol, I'm struck by how the chic set scorned those who self-identified as such too loudly. An extraordinary amount of Warhol's set were raised Catholic, and there was a certain repression between word and deed that recurs again and again. Yes they were gay, got up to a lot at 54, but they scorned people who were activists as unchic hippies. Warhol himself never lifted a finger for the nascent gay rights movement, it made him nervous. He called it "a problem" in his diaries.
Chic gays (like baby Ford) in that set really didn't give a damn about poor gays, in the light of day. Except for sex. It really did seem to take the AIDS crisis to unite gay people beyond class lines and snobbery in NYC, and ripped the privileged veil off of an awful lot of denial.
Ask Bob Collacello, VF writer and former Warhol lieutenant in the 70's, Reagan idolator, if he's gay. Watch him squirm. A lot of those people were extremely conflicted, reluctant to identify as gay, actually say it- and I do think Tom Ford retains some of that old snobbery.
@Baroness: I wish you had been there. You would have been fascinated and (perhaps) repulsed at the dynamics of studio. i would have gladly sat on a banquette and dissected the scene with you.
gay activism wasn't really that much of an issue at the time, something you noted took the AIDS crisis to rejuvenate. and to be honest, warhol wasn't really that much of a standout at studio, let alone it's spokesman. if "baby ford" frequented studio (and i have no idea, i certainly don't remember him) i assume he wasn't that rich at the time nor would he have stood out as uber-chic. there was a lot of competition for that title. the real players were the dancers, the bartenders and the physically outstanding, irregardless of how "chic" they were costumed. a perfect blueprint for ford's future in fashion where his runway walkers reminded me of the crowds around the dancefloor.
Unless Ford's also distributing the movie himself, I doubt he's the one who edited the trailer.
[Edited to add] I mean, really, I know it may seem like a sexier story to try to accuse the director of something, but it mainly just makes it look as if you know nothing about the movie business.
That is no way to talk about Eazy-E, man. The genius who brought us "Gimmie that Nutt" deserves more respect than "that one rapper who had AIDS." #heidiklum
11/24/09
And Harrison Ford.
Here's a title:
Mustang Mountain.
11/24/09
11/23/09
And yes Colin's clothes are credited to "The Tom Ford Collection" and dressing and undressing literally takes up half the film. BUT GO FOR THE UNDRESSING!
11/24/09
Sounds like Twilight made for the Logo Network.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
As for the Mad Men viewers, isn't there a big gay subplot in there somewhere? I think they'll be fine, especially if they get to do any gloating over how far we've come from those benighted times.
11/23/09
PS: Will Julianne play Karen Walker in the Will & Grace movie?
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
[Edited to add] Aaaand there it is.
11/23/09
For one, she's the film's most recognizable star. For another, I don't think the majority of the highbrow audience likely to see it will be absolutely clueless as to what it's about.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to a certain extent to Ford's own snobbery. He doesn't want it to be seen as a "gay" film, he wants it to be Oscar-worthy . He thinks perhaps this is either/or. He wants elderly Academy members not to blanch at the screeners, not scare the old horses.
Despite Hollywood's reputation as tolerant and liberal, despite Brokeback, the establishment there is still incredibly skittish about "gay" themes. Even non sexual ones, like losing your lover, which is the theme of Isherwood's lovely novel.
Ford himself has always been ambivalent about how his sexuality is seen. I understand (from books!) there was a very snobby attitude from the Studio 54 days, long before AIDS, that people who were out and proud about being gay were considered unsophisticated and tacky. Ford was very young in that (hypocritical) Warholian scene, and part of that still informs his attitude and ambivalence about identifying strictly as gay. The bisexual jet set chic of his youth seems cooler to him.
I admire Tom Ford a lot. I look forward to this movie. But if the central gay theme is being ellided, I do imagine that's his own choices and doing. He financed the film and is famously a freak about every detail.
11/23/09
[Edited to add] If he made the movie with his own money, that would tend to mean he's if anything more beholden to distributors, since that's how he's going to get his money back (or not). He's not in a position to be tough about negotiating control over something non-star directors rarely have much control over.
11/23/09
"Financing the whole thing" yourself gives one a great deal of latitude. I do see your point, but we're not disagreeing: I'm saying Ford himself was absolutely fine with toning down the gay content, as were his distributors etc.
And actually in the novel, the one good person in the main character's life really is the Julianne character, as a friend. It's misleading, but not wildly so. I think.
11/23/09
11/23/09
@Brian Moylan: Approving something and creating it are two different things. Especially since we're talking about the Weinstein Company, the likelihood of his having created the marketing campaign is pretty slim. It's quite possible that Weinstein's marketing department has convinced him that playing down the "gayness" of the film is necessary for pulling in greater audiences; that doesn't mean it was his idea.
11/23/09
This is me agreeing with you.
11/23/09
that said, the trailer looks pretty and seductive which is something ford might have definately assumed from studio 54.
11/23/09
[Edited to add] However, this means you were right, Brian, that the trailer was in large part created by Ford. So, I'm wrong there. It looks as if Ford basically created it, but then they had some back and forth about some of the images.
11/23/09
Chic gays (like baby Ford) in that set really didn't give a damn about poor gays, in the light of day. Except for sex. It really did seem to take the AIDS crisis to unite gay people beyond class lines and snobbery in NYC, and ripped the privileged veil off of an awful lot of denial.
Ask Bob Collacello, VF writer and former Warhol lieutenant in the 70's, Reagan idolator, if he's gay. Watch him squirm. A lot of those people were extremely conflicted, reluctant to identify as gay, actually say it- and I do think Tom Ford retains some of that old snobbery.
11/23/09
gay activism wasn't really that much of an issue at the time, something you noted took the AIDS crisis to rejuvenate. and to be honest, warhol wasn't really that much of a standout at studio, let alone it's spokesman. if "baby ford" frequented studio (and i have no idea, i certainly don't remember him) i assume he wasn't that rich at the time nor would he have stood out as uber-chic. there was a lot of competition for that title. the real players were the dancers, the bartenders and the physically outstanding, irregardless of how "chic" they were costumed. a perfect blueprint for ford's future in fashion where his runway walkers reminded me of the crowds around the dancefloor.
11/23/09
11/23/09
This could be the saddest dusk
I've ever known
Turn to a miracle
High alive
My mind is racing
As it always will
......
11/23/09
11/23/09
[Edited to add] I mean, really, I know it may seem like a sexier story to try to accuse the director of something, but it mainly just makes it look as if you know nothing about the movie business.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/16/09
11/16/09