Call Me By Your Name

[Kenny]

I doubt it helped Rupert Graves. After Room with a View and Maurice, he was even more guarded with people he did not know well.

Met him once at a party. Totally obnoxious.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Well thanks guys!

 

I'm late to this party. I first saw CMBYN about a month ago, and have now seen it twice. I just took the time to binge read 26 pages of comments on this thread, and watched a number of the attached videos. You've proven there is a wisdom of crowds. I've thought about the movie a lot, and had a number of long discussions about it. It was really fun to read everybody's comments and takes.

 

The first time I saw it was with Dane Scott, who is of course quite out, as well as emotional and intuitive. The second time was with a client who is married and deeply closeted and has very limited opportunities to let out his inner Gay. I think it is a testament to the movie's brilliance that all three of us are very different people and we were all simply emotionally floored. It's a movie that keeps giving - whether you are out and completely comfortable in your sexuality, or closeted. It evokes something deep and longing, judging from the reactions of the people I've seen it with and talked to after I saw it. I'd almost say it's like the mythology the movie itself portrays - about something fleeting and beautiful and maybe not quite real, but that we still all long for - whether it's the joy and pain of first love, or that scene with the "too good to be true" father. I don't really think it matters if it's too good to be true, any more than it matters whether the statue of David is too good to be true.

 

I had no problem suspending disbelief and getting into the feel of the movie, even though I agree with many of you that Chalamet's acting was brilliant and Hammer's was merely good. I think the film just resonates deeply in terms of what people want to feel, and how we wish or idealize life and love could be.

 

I cut and pasted a few comments that stood out to me over the course of the 26 pages I just binge read.

 

Saw this for the 6th time, I think. Can I say again how refreshing to see gay characters onscreen who are not depressed, persecuted, suicidal or addicted to drugs or alcohol?

 

God is that true! My sister-in-law got the movie even though she didn't see it, based on my description. The phrase she used is it's a movie about "becoming who you are." How nice to have a sweet movie where nothing much really happens, other than a sweet and beautiful young Gay man becomes who he is!

 

From the Guardian interview of James Ivory:

 

"Ivory’s script has scooped most of the big prizes, including a Bafta and a Writers Guild of America award, but he sounds dazed when asked to reflect on its success. “Its wide appeal is still something of a mystery to me. And it really is adored, especially by young women and older people. Married couples come up to me on the street in New York – often in their 70s or 80s – and they rave about the movie. I guess it’s an unabashed first-love idea everyone can identify with. The sexual orientation of the characters doesn’t mean as much as the emotion of the story.”

 

Again, how true! As I was watching the movie, I kept wondering: is this a movie about how a 17 year old would experience first love, or how an 80 year old man might recall or idealize first love? The answer could be both, and more. I loved the subtlety of the script (except for the peach, of course) and how it gradually kept pushing deeper into an emotionally raw and deep well of feeling that moved so many people. I'd argue it might have helped that they had no budget to work with, because there were no green screens or special effects to get in the way of the actors' emotions.

 

This is a year in which we (maybe) learned that mass audiences are willing to experience horror and comic book adventure through the eyes of Black protagonists, and action heroism through the eyes of wonder women. Wouldn't it be great if a mass audience could view the wonder and pain of first love through the eyes of a young Gay man? I'm still not sure Hollywood or our culture is at that point, but CMBYN offers the promise that it is getting there.

 

 

Thank you, LoveNDino, for all the interesting pieces and videos you posted. This video in particular was really interesting. It made me feel that if the Oscars screwed up, it was in not giving Guadagnino a Best Director nomination. Perhaps part of the reason is that it may not have been a technically complex movie, as the video explained. He shot the film to be emotionally accessible, and I think that really worked. Like I said, I agree with some of the comments on Hammer's limitations. But my guess is that Guadagnino knew exactly what he was doing, and he picked his actors to be able to inhabit their characters' souls. Chalamet had to be the emotionally expressive powerhouse, and he was. My guess is Hammer as a person and actor isn't all that different than Oliver - whether you want to praise him as seductive and sexy or criticize him as aloof or shallow. I suspect Guadagnino judged that the chemistry and longing between Chalamet and Hammer would power the movie to the depths he wanted, and I think it did.

 

The thing I enjoyed a lot watching the movie several times and that the video LoveNDino posted talked about from a technical standpoint was how visceral and visual and in the moment it was. I think if James Ivory had directed it, it would have been a very different movie. One of my favorite movies is Ivory's Remains Of The Day, which I see as being about unrelenting emotional repression. Guadagnino did a great job of doing almost the opposite: he gradually and lovingly pealed back emotional layers, and took the audience along with him. I loved it.

 

The one criticism I have is about the sex - or lack of Gay sex. The lack of full frontal nudity didn't bother me at all. Right or wrong, it was clearly a contract provision for both lead actors. I don't think they showed full frontal female nudity either (there were breasts, but not pussy). What did bother me was the cut away when Oliver and Ellio finally got it on. Here's an interview in which Guadagnino talks about his artistic choice:

 

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/call-me-by-your-name-sex-scene-luca-guadagnino-1201910219/

 

"Guadagnino was prepared for backlash about the lack of gay sex in the film. Speaking after a showing at the New York Film Festival earlier this year, he summed up his reason with characteristic flair. “To put our gaze upon their lovemaking would have been a sort of unkind intrusion,” the director said in Italian-accented English. “I think that their love is in all things, so when we gaze towards the window and we see the trees, there is a sense of witnessing that.

 

Interesting argument, but I don't really buy it. I'm with TruthBTold on this one:

 

I am not sure what the director meant by not wanting the film to not be about "gay sex" as that is what much of the relationship consisted of and certainly what the father's confession at the end was somewhat about.

 

The words "visual" and "visceral" and "in the moment" are all good ones to describe the Director's overriding intent, which I think he pulled off masterfully. That's true whether it was about Hammer drinking apricot juice, or Chalamet cumming into a peach, or fucking his sorta girlfriend. All of that was pulled off beautifully and very explicitly, but without actual dick shots. Since the point was to be visceral and visual and in the moment, it does seem odd that at the key moment - when it comes to the 17 year old horned up kid finally getting it on with the man he's lusting for - somehow Guadagnino suddenly decided to be "romantic" or "artistic" about it. I'm suspicious that it had to do with fears about studio funding, or audience reception, or even the actors' own fears about having to have an explicit Gay sex scene on their resume. It just didn't make sense.

 

For comparative purposes, here's one of the "sex" scenes from Ivory's Maurice, which I thought worked beautifully. You didn't really need to focus on Elio and Oliver's hard cocks. Their longing eyes and lusting lips would have worked just fine. Either would have been sexier and more fulfilling than a tree!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh4OrFm3Cgs

Edited March 29, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[+ WilliamM]

Met him once at a party. Totally obnoxious.

 

I met Repert Graves in a restaurant in New York's theater district. Usually I do not talk to an actor/actress in their off hours. He was pleasant enough, but not particularly friendly.

[TruHart1]

Redefining Masculinity: On Armie Hammer In ‘Call Me By Your Name’

A Nylon article from last November which is quite insightful about Mr. Hammer's contribution:

 

https://nylon.com/articles/redefining-masculinity-armie-hammer-call-me-by-your-name

 

TruHart1

[Kenny]

You didn't really need to focus on Ellio and Oliver's hard cocks. Their longing eyes and lusting lips would have worked just fine.

 

Oh, I dunno. A reverse cowboy would have added a certain "something."

[+ stevenkesslar]

Redefining Masculinity: On Armie Hammer In ‘Call Me By Your Name’

A Nylon article from last November which is quite insightful about Mr. Hammer's contribution:

 

https://nylon.com/articles/redefining-masculinity-armie-hammer-call-me-by-your-name

 

TruHart1

 

So these are the last two paragraphs from the article hyperlinked by TruHart:

 

"Aciman is married to a woman, and he doesn’t believe in labeling sexuality. Guadagnino is gay. Elio and Oliver both seem bisexual, but Elio is likely going to move more toward women as he gets older, while Oliver is probably going to move toward men when he feels like he can. They won’t ever forget what they felt for each other, and maybe you could say that their lives will be ruined because of that.

 

But maybe what Call Me by Your Name (both novel and film) is saying is that you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair, if you can feel something with that much intensity. Something of that intensity wasn’t meant to last. But that close-up of Hammer’s face where Oliver tries to smile expresses the grief over that realization as profoundly as any human facial expression I’ve ever seen."

 

One of the things I liked about the movie, which was very much reflected in my binge reading of 26 pages of reactions, is that beauty and art are in the eye of the beholder. Different people took very different meanings or nuances out of the film. The author of this article suggests, for example, that Elio's Mom "not only knows what is happening but ... understands that Oliver is more in love with her son than Elio is with him." Try to prove that theory based on the actual script. That's part of what I loved about it, and why I was delighted that Ivory won an Oscar. It was a subtle film. And it seemed more designed to start a conversation and exploration than to end it.

 

Having said that, the notion that "you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair" when you are 17 is a bridge too far for me. I've talked to a couple people who read the book after seeing the movie, and I learned enough about the structure of the book that I decided I don't really want to read it. I'd rather view this movie the way the director seemed to intend it: a story about being able to be vulnerable, very much in the moment, and let yourself go. The idea of Elio looking back on and revisiting his affair decades later doesn't much appeal to me. Lord knows it took me a very long time to figure that out as a Gay man. If Elio could pull it off for the first time as a 17 year old, good for him.

 

I'd like to imagine the experience in the movie opened him, just like Elio's father described in that great scene, and better things and deeper love are still to come. But the idea that the experience ruined him, or this is a once in a lifetime magical love affair? Forget that! Both times I saw the movie it struck me that Elio's Mom and Dad probably had the kind of love that Elio and Oliver could have had - if they decided to hunker down and spend a lifetime building it. That's a different thing than a Summer dive into the pool, no matter how deep the water is.

 

Regarding the issue of Gay sex, what I also find interesting and a bit ironic is that the real world actions and statements and even conflicts of the chief designers of this movie echo some of the conflicts written into the movie they created: which is to say, the conflict between an idealized relationship that lasts for a Summer and starts off maturity, and a mature relationship that lasts a lifetime.

 

For example, here's Ivory present day bitching and moaning:

 

The screenwriter has expressed disappointment in the past over the film’s lack of full frontal male nudity, but he flat out criticizes director Luca Guadagnino for the choice in a new interview with The Guardian. “When Luca says he never thought of putting nudity in, that is totally untrue,” Ivory said. “He sat in this very room where I am sitting now, talking about how he would do it, so when he says that it was a conscious aesthetic decision not to – well, that’s just bullshit.”

 

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/james-ivory-luca-guadagnino-full-frontal-call-me-by-your-name-chalemet-hammer-penis-1201944399/

 

But then here's a very different Ivory describing why he kept his own lifelong love relationship with Merchant under wraps:

 

"Ivory himself is gay. His relationship with his producing partner Ismail Merchant, which began when they met in the early 60s, lasted until Merchant died during surgery in 2005 at the age of 68. Though the pair had been making films for more than four decades – often with their friend and favourite screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, who died in 2013 – any references to their personal life together were only ever made discreetly and euphemistically by the press, if at all.

 

Even with the release in 1987 of Maurice, they batted away any prying questions about their private lives. When I ask Ivory why this was, he comes as close to calling me a blasted fool as someone so urbane can. “Well, you just wouldn’t,” he splutters. “That is not something that an Indian Muslim would ever say publicly or in print. Ever! You have to remember that Ismail was an Indian citizen living in Bombay, with a deeply conservative Muslim family there. It’s not the sort of thing he was going to broadcast. Since we were so close and lived most of our lives together, I wasn’t about to undermine him.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/27/james-ivory-ismail-merchant-love-secret-call-me-by-your-name-nudity

 

The latter version of Ivory sounds exactly like how a mature couple who are sensitive and in it for keeps, and operating in a homophobic industry, might feel. I don't begrudge Ivory any of his choices. I deeply admire his choices. So it's all well and good now to say they should have actually had that reverse cowboy fuck scene Kenny and I longed for. But I can understand why a Gay Director who wants his movie to work at the box office with a mass audience, and wants to get more directing jobs, might be a little concerned about going there.

 

There's a difference between intensity and maturity. The movie definitely captured the first between Oliver and Elio. It only hinted at the latter. The other word I like that Hammer used in one of the interviews in this 26 pages was "duality." The fact that a two hour movie about "Gay love" also was able to incorporate "Straight love" on the part of both "Gay" characters was also interesting. It was also a bit unrealistic, perhaps. I spent about one year of my life calling myself "bisexual," and most Gay men's reaction when I said that was, "No, you're just confused." Eventually, most people - like the Director, the screen writer, and the author of the book - settle down, and have to be one or the other.

 

I'm rambling, but what I loved about the movie was that it felt like it was about "becoming" and possibility. It certainly did not feel like it was about Elio being ruined.

Edited March 29, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[OCClient]

So these are the last two paragraphs from the article hyperlinked by TruHart:

 

"Aciman is married to a woman, and he doesn’t believe in labeling sexuality. Guadagnino is gay. Elio and Oliver both seem bisexual, but Elio is likely going to move more toward women as he gets older, while Oliver is probably going to move toward men when he feels like he can. They won’t ever forget what they felt for each other, and maybe you could say that their lives will be ruined because of that.

 

But maybe what Call Me by Your Name (both novel and film) is saying is that you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair, if you can feel something with that much intensity. Something of that intensity wasn’t meant to last. But that close-up of Hammer’s face where Oliver tries to smile expresses the grief over that realization as profoundly as any human facial expression I’ve ever seen."

 

One of the things I liked about the movie, which was very much reflected in my binge reading of 26 pages of reactions, is that beauty and art are in the eye of the beholder. Different people took very different meanings or nuances out of the film. The author of this article suggests, for example, that Elio's Mom "not only knows what is happening but ... understands that Oliver is more in love with her son than Elio is with him." Try to prove that theory based on the actual script. That's part of what I loved about it, and why I was delighted that Ivory won an Oscar. It was a subtle film. And it seemed more designed to start a conversation and exploration than to end it.

 

Having said that, the notion that "you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair" when you are 17 is a bridge too far for me. I've talked to a couple people who read the book after seeing the movie, and I learned enough about the structure of the book that I decided I don't really want to read it. I'd rather view this movie the way the director seemed to intend it: a story about being able to be vulnerable, very much in the moment, and let yourself go. The idea of Elio looking back on and revisiting his affair decades later doesn't much appeal to me. Lord knows it took me a very long time to figure that out as a Gay man. If Elio could pull it off for the first time as a 17 year old, good for him.

 

I'd like to imagine the experience in the movie opened him, just like Elio's father described in that great scene, and better things and deeper love are still to come. But the idea that the experience ruined him, or this is a once in a lifetime magical love affair? Forget that! Both times I saw the movie it struck me that Elio's Mom and Dad probably had the kind of love that Elio and Oliver could have had - if they decided to hunker down and spend a lifetime building it. That's a different thing than a Summer dive into the pool, no matter how deep the water is.

 

Regarding the issue of Gay sex, what I also find interesting and a bit ironic is that the real world actions and statements and even conflicts of the chief designers of this movie echo some of the conflicts written into the movie they created: which is to say, the conflict between an idealized relationship that lasts for a Summer and starts off maturity, and a mature relationship that lasts a lifetime.

 

For example, here's Ivory present day bitching and moaning:

 

The screenwriter has expressed disappointment in the past over the film’s lack of full frontal male nudity, but he flat out criticizes director Luca Guadagnino for the choice in a new interview with The Guardian. “When Luca says he never thought of putting nudity in, that is totally untrue,” Ivory said. “He sat in this very room where I am sitting now, talking about how he would do it, so when he says that it was a conscious aesthetic decision not to – well, that’s just bullshit.”

 

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/james-ivory-luca-guadagnino-full-frontal-call-me-by-your-name-chalemet-hammer-penis-1201944399/

 

But then here's a very different Ivory describing why he kept his own lifelong love relationship with Merchant under wraps:

 

"Ivory himself is gay. His relationship with his producing partner Ismail Merchant, which began when they met in the early 60s, lasted until Merchant died during surgery in 2005 at the age of 68. Though the pair had been making films for more than four decades – often with their friend and favourite screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, who died in 2013 – any references to their personal life together were only ever made discreetly and euphemistically by the press, if at all.

 

Even with the release in 1987 of Maurice, they batted away any prying questions about their private lives. When I ask Ivory why this was, he comes as close to calling me a blasted fool as someone so urbane can. “Well, you just wouldn’t,” he splutters. “That is not something that an Indian Muslim would ever say publicly or in print. Ever! You have to remember that Ismail was an Indian citizen living in Bombay, with a deeply conservative Muslim family there. It’s not the sort of thing he was going to broadcast. Since we were so close and lived most of our lives together, I wasn’t about to undermine him.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/27/james-ivory-ismail-merchant-love-secret-call-me-by-your-name-nudity

 

The latter version of Ivory sounds exactly like how a mature couple who are sensitive and in it for keeps, and operating in a homophobic industry, might feel. I don't begrudge Ivory any of his choices. I deeply admire his choices. So it's all well and good now to say they should have actually had that reverse cowboy fuck scene Kenny and I longed for. But I can understand why a Gay Director who wants his movie to work at the box office with a mass audience, and wants to get more directing jobs, might be a little concerned about going there.

 

There's a difference between intensity and maturity. The movie definitely captured the first between Oliver and Elio. It only hinted at the latter. The other word I like that Hammer used in one of the interviews in this 26 pages was "duality." The fact that a two hour movie about "Gay love" also was able to incorporate "Straight love" on the part of both "Gay" characters was also interesting. It was also a bit unrealistic, perhaps. I spent about one year of my life calling myself "bisexual," and most Gay men's reaction when I said that was, "No, you're just confused." Eventually, most people - like the Director, the screen writer, and the author of the book - settle down, and have to be one or the other.

 

I'm rambling, but what I loved about the movie was that it felt like it was about "becoming" and possibility. It certainly did not feel like it was about Elio being ruined.

 

When saying Elio was ruined, wasn't he indicating how great the pain was? I don't think Aciman meant Elio was literally ruined for life, but just that he felt devastated when Oliver went home to the States. Aciman has repeated how the book is about desire, as well as the pain that can result when acknowledging your desire, and acting on it. He is not making any judgment. He's just writing about what can happen, and the extent that it affected Elio.

[+ stevenkesslar]

When saying Elio was ruined, wasn't he indicating how great the pain was? I don't think Aciman meant Elio was literally ruined for life, but just that he felt devastated when Oliver went home to the States. Aciman has repeated how the book is about desire, as well as the pain that can result when acknowledging your desire, and acting on it. He is not making any judgment. He's just writing about what can happen, and the extent that it affected Elio.

 

Just to be clear about my comment, it has nothing to do with the author of the book. If what I posted made it sound like I believe Aciman thought Elio was ruined, then I apologize for not being clear.

 

I was referring to the article posted by TruHart a few posts up, written by a guy named Dan Callahan. I quoted the last two paragraphs of that article verbatim. I mostly liked the article, and I assume Callahan may have been taking minor journalistic license with the word "ruined." But he used the word "ruined" twice, as in: "They won’t ever forget what they felt for each other, and maybe you could say that their lives will be ruined because of that." I think the meaning in that context is pretty clear.

 

I certainly don't think it was the Director's intention to say Elio was ruined. And my understanding is Elio's Dad's "speech" toward the end is lifted pretty much verbatim from the book. So I don't think either the director or author mean "ruined." I think the father's words speak for both of them - that the nature of love and becoming is both joy and pain. I thought that was what made the movie beautiful. The end shot clearly had to be intended to say that all this - the joy, the pain, the intensity, the longing - is what it means to be a real human. It's what it means to love. Maybe you could say that means you feel "wrecked," but not ruined.

 

That theme in the movie reminded me of the 1993 movie Shadowlands. There was a scene in that I always liked and remember, a Zenlike sort of scene. Check out the line at 1:30 in this clip. Debra Winger's character is dying, and Anthony Hopkins talks about how he's trying to "manage" the idea of losing her. Winger's retort. "I think it can be better than that. What I'm trying to say is that ... the pain then is part of the happiness now. That's the deal." When I first saw Shadowlands, that was a revelation to me. I think there's some of that in the father's "speech" to Elio, and in the fireplace scene.

 

 

As I said above, my guess is that the creators of this masterpiece wanted to leave enough ambiguity to let each of us put our own imprint on it. For me, the notion that this is as good as it will ever get for Elio is ridiculous. My view is it's the opening act. If they are going to do sequels, I assume that is the Director's intention as well.

 

Maybe we'll get the cum shot in the sequel. It would sure make Kenny happy. One can always hope.

Edited March 29, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[TruHart1]

Personally, from reading/listening to the book (read wondrously by Mr. Hammer speaking mostly Elio's words and thoughts!) and from seeing the film now about 12 times, once with the commentary track by Timothée Chalamet and Michael Stuhlbarg, I do believe the movie leaves so much up to each viewer to interpret or take away from the film whatever it may make each audience member feel. Aciman has stated that his book was written with the vagueness of whether the two characters are gay, bi-, or perhaps experimenting.

 

I do think because Marzia and Chiara are included in the film, this vagueness comes through in the film (at least in the beginning) nearly as much as in the novel. Aciman writes some of the most beautiful poetic prose I have ever read (or heard) in his novel. By the same token, Guadagnino, using Ivory's script tailored to his own vision, makes a movie of great lyricism about first love and coming of age, wrapped in a lushly filmed paean to the Italy which he loves and in which he lives. All of these things is exactly why this film actually has so many, many fans across so many different groups, older and younger, female and male, gay and straight!

 

In my own personal opinion, I disagree with Dan Callahan in his final two paragraphs. I believe Elio is much more likely to become involved with more gay men as he gets older. In the novel, which quickly follows both characters for twenty more years, Aciman only states that Elio had a number of other involvements over time, but does not reveal whether with men or women. Elio's knowledge of Oliver over the years (the novel is completely from Elio's viewpoint, after all) is that Oliver is happy in his married with kids family life.

 

I have few doubts that Oliver, being a college professor in a large city area on the East coast, may find some sexual outlet with men at times, but that's only conjecture, as the possibility seems likely to my gay sensibilities. Thus, the author's vagueness about each character's sexuality may be guessed at but is left up to the reader to decide or not decide. The sequels Guadagnino hopes to make in 3 years or 5 years may be less vague, depending on what his vision for the sequels may address. BTW, there's another quote I heard from James Ivory where he claimed any sequel to CMBYN would be impossible, in his opinion, though it is a fact that both the director and original novel's author have been in serious talks to decide how to go forward.

 

TruHart1

[OCClient]

Aciman admits he wrote Elio from his viewpoint and feelings. He is a straight man with three boys.

 

So one might not be surprised about the comments Elio made about someday having a wife and kids or how much he enjoyed the feeling of a woman, a feeling he could get addicted to.

 

Oliver's office was brimming with memories and artifacts about Elio, safely away from the wife. He never forgot how deeply he felt for Elio, his cor cordium. I expect his love for Elio was never matched by any man he might have played with after Italy.

 

Aciman admits his intent isn't to give all the answers, and after all he wrote the book in a flash so he probably never knew all these things that we want to figure out, such as my burning question whether Anchise was gay, the kind of question that probably drives Aciman nutz!

 

The takeaway will always be the mark that a man Elio desired, a man named Oliver, made on Elio's life. Beyond that, Aciman recommends we remember it's just fiction.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Oh, I dunno. A reverse cowboy would have added a certain "something."

 

Beyond that, Aciman recommends we remember it's just fiction.

 

No shit?

 

Well that really sucks. I was gonna hire Elio for Kenny on his birthday. He really wants to try out that reverse cowboy.

[+ stevenkesslar]

BTW, there's another quote I heard from James Ivory where he claimed any sequel to CMBYN would be impossible, in his opinion, though it is a fact that both the director and original novel's author have been in serious talks to decide how to go forward.

 

Which is, in and of itself, a wonderful testament to the film's ambiguity, even among its creators.

 

When I said above I don't want to read the book, it may have sounded like a slam on Aciman. It was not meant that way at all. He came up with a beautiful creation, and left it open to interpretation.

 

I guess I agree with Ivory's interpretation. If Ivory sees it as a story about first love, which the quote I gave of him above suggests, you can't really do Elio's First Love, Part Two. Beyond that, some of Ivory's bitchiness about full frontal nudity suggests he might have preferred a more explicit expression of Gay first love.

 

And beyond that, I was wondering how - in the real world - Ivory and Guadagnino would work together after Ivory's comments. These things tend to blow over when money is involved, of course. But perhaps Ivory just isn't interested in taking the story further. It can be taken as a story about how first love feels - while you are feeling it. That's sort of where I'm at, by saying I don't want to read the book. And Guadagnino reinforced that by grounding the movie in a very personal, visceral, "in the moment" perspective.

 

In one of the interviews Aciman was asked (I think by a Gay interviewer) whether a Straight man can authentically write a Gay character. That's a great example of a context in which the word "authentic" is just like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Aciman answered the way I would - that of course you don't have to be a person to try to get in their head and heart. There is always empathy and imagination. His book proves it.

 

Having said that, this may be an area where sexual orientation does make a difference. I said above that during the year of my life between marriage to a woman and coming out as Gay, I would say to Gay men that I'm "bisexual," and they would say, "No, you're confused." As I was writing that, I was thinking how that dates me. Arguably, in the world of Timothee Chalamet, sexual orientation will be a much more fluid thing. But if CMBYN generates a series of artsy movies on the theme of Elio's Adventures In Bisexuality, I'll probably lose interest. Maybe it's just that I grew up around people like Lady Kockwood, and I'm a stubborn old bitch. But I like having my Gay culture, thank you.

 

So for me, whatever Aciman himself intended, it was a beautiful coming out movie. Elio's story will always be about a young Gay god that belongs in the pantheon of Gay classics.

Edited March 29, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[TruHart1]

Aciman admits he wrote Elio from his viewpoint and feelings. He is a straight man with three boys...

 

Aciman admits his intent isn't to give all the answers, and after all he wrote the book in a flash so he probably never knew all these things that we want to figure out, such as my burning question whether Anchise was gay, the kind of question that probably drives Aciman nutz!

 

The takeaway will always be the mark that a man Elio desired, a man named Oliver, made on Elio's life. Beyond that, Aciman recommends we remember it's just fiction.

Interesting @OCClient. I heard an Aciman interview where he stated that his first idea of Anchise in the novel was as an older, predatory gay man, with the idea that he would be the "villain" in CMBYN, which you can still find vestiges of in the novel, what with Elio's feelings that Anchise is scary and he (Elio) never feels comfortable around him and also how Anchise insists on applying a homemade poultice to Oliver himself, when Oliver falls from his bike and scrapes his side.

 

I must also point out that since (SPOILERS!!!) Anchise dies in about fifteen years from when we first meet him in the novel at only 50 years old, he is much younger (about 35!) in the novel than in the movie. Aciman decided early on that the novel would be more about the love between Elio (first love) and Oliver, (first gay love?) and would need no predatory antagonist, so he ended up not writing Anchise that way. Thus, Anchise becomes only the gardener, who sometimes argues with Mafalda's husband, Manfredi, who is the Perlman's chauffeur (Manfredi is a character who was cut from the movie script entirely!) as to which duties belong to him as gardener and which duties belong to Manfredi as chauffeur/mechanic.

 

So once again here's another point that is completely up to the viewer. Perhaps there are more clues that Anchise in the novel may be gay but I don't believe there's any basis for that idea in the movie at all.

 

TruHart1

[OCClient]

Interesting @OCClient. I heard an Aciman interview where he stated that his first idea of Anchise in the novel was as an older, predatory gay man, with the idea that he would be the "villain" in CMBYN, which you can still find vestiges of in the novel, what with Elio's feelings that Anchise is scary and he (Elio) never feels comfortable around him and also how Anchise insists on applying a homemade poultice to Oliver himself, when Oliver falls from his bike and scrapes his side.

 

I must also point out that since (SPOILERS!!!) Anchise dies in about fifteen years from when we first meet him in the novel at only 50 years old, he is much younger (about 35!) in the novel than in the movie. Aciman decided early on that the novel would be more about the love between Elio (first love) and Oliver, (first gay love?) and would need no predatory antagonist, so he ended up not writing Anchise that way. Thus, Anchise becomes only the gardener, who sometimes argues with Mafalda's husband, Manfredi, who is the Perlman's chauffeur (Manfredi is a character who was cut from the movie script entirely!) as to which duties belong to him as gardener and which duties belong to Manfredi as chauffeur/mechanic.

 

So once again here's another point that is completely up to the viewer. Perhaps there are more clues that Anchise in the novel may be gay but I don't believe there's any basis for that idea in the movie at all.

 

TruHart1

 

Thanks TruHar1!

When Manfredi berated Anchise for being dumped out of the Army, I though that was a clue. I also thought Anchise and Professor Perlman had a history. But as a reminder to SK, it's just fiction.

[+ stevenkesslar]

When Manfredi berated Anchise for being dumped out of the Army, I though that was a clue. I also thought Anchise and Professor Perlman had a history. But as a reminder to SK, it's just fiction.

 

Don't worry.

 

Quite honestly, I didn't really have a thing for Anchise. It was pretty much all about wanting to have sex with Elio and Oliver.

 

And while I am ashamed to admit it, watching the French actress Esther Garrell surprised me, because it's the first time in a while I've felt really attracted to a woman. As in, my God would she be hot to fuck.

 

 

 

Which makes it even better that this is fiction. Because I'm too old, and too Gay.

Edited March 30, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[tchm]

About nudity in the movie, I was wondering if European actors were cast in the leads, would there have been full frontals? or its likelihood? I just watched God's Own Country on DVD and both lead actors just let it all hang out to nice effect. And then there were Kenneth Branagh and Matthias Schoenerts (one sexy guy!) flopping about in Luca's own A Bigger Splash. And I think I can identify Ewan McGregor's penis in a lineup by this time. Love the movie as it is, but would Luca G. have infused a bit more raunch and rawness in the movie with European actors consenting to full frontal instead of the relatively timid Americans?

[TruHart1]

About nudity in the movie, I was wondering if European actors were cast in the leads, would there have been full frontals? or its likelihood? I just watched God's Own Country on DVD and both lead actors just let it all hang out to nice effect. And then there were Kenneth Branagh and Matthias Schoenerts (one sexy guy!) flopping about in Luca's own A Bigger Splash. And I think I can identify Ewan McGregor's penis in a lineup by this time. Love the movie as it is, but would Luca G. have infused a bit more raunch and rawness in the movie with European actors consenting to full frontal instead of the relatively timid Americans?

So sorry to correct you here, @tchm, but being a great follower of Kenneth Branagh over his entire career, I feel it necessary to point out that the two actors flopping about in "A Bigger Splash" were the hunky Matthias Schoenaerts (as you say) and Ralph Fiennes, not Kenneth Branagh. Although Branagh is among my favorite actors/directors, I'll be the first to admit that Mr. Fiennes has a great deal more floppage showing on film than Mr. Branagh. (Please see the dreamlike nude scene between Hamlet and Ophelia [Kate Winslet] in Branagh's Hamlet [1996] for comparison!)

 

TruHart1

[+ newatthis]

...watching the French actress Esther Garrell surprised me, because it's the first time in a while I've felt really attracted to a woman....

I personally prefer her sexy brother Louis (The Dreamers, Les chansons d'amour).

[Kenny]

And while I am ashamed to admit it, watching the French actress Esther Garrell surprised me, because it's the first time in a while I've felt really attracted to a woman. As in, my God would she be hot to fuck.

 

Reverse cowgirl?

[Kenny]

Redefining Masculinity: On Armie Hammer In ‘Call Me By Your Name’

A Nylon article from last November which is quite insightful about Mr. Hammer's contribution:

 

https://nylon.com/articles/redefining-masculinity-armie-hammer-call-me-by-your-name

 

TruHart1

 

There’s a reason the publication is called Nylon: a lightweight synthetic polymer.

 

[+ stevenkesslar]

Reverse cowgirl?

 

I've always been open-minded and flexible. Doesn't it show?

[+ stevenkesslar]

I personally prefer her sexy brother Louis (The Dreamers, Les chansons d'amour).

 

 

Great.

 

Now you had to fuck up my day by pointing out that there is a version of Garrell that is male, not fictional, and completely unattainable.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[tchm]

So sorry to correct you here, @tchm, but being a great follower of Kenneth Branagh over his entire career, I feel it necessary to point out that the two actors flopping about in "A Bigger Splash" were the hunky Matthias Schoenaerts (as you say) and Ralph Fiennes, not Kenneth Branagh. Although Branagh is among my favorite actors/directors, I'll be the first to admit that Mr. Fiennes has a great deal more floppage showing on film than Mr. Branagh. (Please see the dreamlike nude scene between Hamlet and Ophelia [Kate Winslet] in Branagh's Hamlet [1996] for comparison!)

 

TruHart1

 

Oooops ... my bad. Note to self - don't post at 2am in the middle of an insomnia attack. Thanks, TruHart1.

[TruHart1]

Oooops ... my bad. Note to self - don't post at 2am in the middle of an insomnia attack. Thanks, TruHart1.

No worries, @tchm, I've done worse myself on this forum and had to go back and edit after the fact! At least this software allows us to correct our mistakes. Now if you'd claimed Branagh was terrible in "A Bigger Splash", I'd have to have a reckoning with you! LOL! Just joking, my friend. Your comments and ideas are always welcome here!

 

TruHart1

Edited March 30, 2018 by TruHart1

[TruHart1]

There’s a reason the publication is called Nylon: a lightweight synthetic polymer.

 

My personal perception is that this article from such a "lightweight" publication actually makes a number of excellent, well-founded points. Of course, that's only my opinion. Mr. Hammer is certain to continue to underwhelm those many, many naysayers in regard to his acting subtleties, or because he comes from a very wealthy background, or because he's too beautifully handsome, or because his speaking voice sounds like molten dark chocolate, (LOL) etc., etc. I am among those that agree with Luca Guadagnino, Armie is perfection as Oliver in CMBYN. And yes, I fell a bit in love with the actor quite early in his career, well before what I consider a true acting tour de force, his portrayal of the Winklevoss twins in "The Social Network!"

 

TruHart1