Skip to main content

A Quiet But Telling Love Story


Call Me By Your Name is an incredibly European film. Directed by Luca Guadagnino based on the book by André Aciman, it’s a coming-of-age love story entirely set in the Italian countryside. If that isn’t enough, it’s a through and through art film, full of rustic beauty and meditative lingering, in addition to erotic imagery and nuanced performances. These things aren’t completely alien to American movies, but together they give Call Me By Your Name a very European identity. But does that identity translate as well as the films’ characters?
Seventeen year-old Elio (Timothée Chalamet) is the son of an American archaeology professor (Michael Stuhlbarg) living in a small town in Northern Italy in 1983. When Oliver (Armie Hammer) arrives to be his fathers’ summer assistant, living with the family, Elio begins to find himself feeling attracted to Oliver. As the two spend time together and Elio experiments through this sexual awakening, a sincere but secretive romance develops.
The most important tenet of Call Me By Your Name is the romance, and luckily Chalamet and Hammer have terrific chemistry and their characters a deep and believable relationship. It builds gradually through flirting and really well-conveyed body language. But it’s subtle enough in intonation that you don’t really know who’s more genuine in their feelings. Oliver is only a temporary student after all, it’s a summer romance. And both characters keep up appearances with local girlfriends, though its dubious whether this is only to get the others’ attention. When we do see them alone together, the passion feels real and their conversation quite interesting.
It’s from Elio’s perspective the entire affair is seen and Chalamet is excellent. Given the subject matter, characterization, emotions, and actions, this is a very demanding role for such a young actor, but he carries the movie. Elio doesn’t have the articulation prowess to openly talk about his changing feelings, so most of his growth has to come from the performance subtext, which Chalamet is really good at. You do understand his confusion, pain, frustration, fear, and sometimes uncontrollable sex drive that manifests itself once Oliver shows up. And he spends a lot of the movie speaking Italian with apparent ease. I don’t know if the actor was already fluent, but he may as well be after this film, and his ability to act naturally in another language is really astonishing! This was a really good year for Chalamet, who also had roles in Lady Bird and Hostiles, and his deserving Oscar nomination for this film is the icing on the cake. It’s a career-making role that’s indicative of a great body of work going forward. Hammer is really good as his partner too. Though he’s eclipsed by the younger performer, this may be the best performance of his career thus far. He sells the almost bohemian attitude of Oliver, yet at the same time the caution he expresses at the taboo connotations of their relationship -not just their homosexuality, but the age difference of about ten years. Amira Casar is fairly good in her scenes as Elio’s mother. And Michael Stuhlbarg is great, delivering a solid performance throughout, but particularly near the end giving the movies’ best speech in an already emotionally charged scene. Like Chalamet, he’s having a fantastic year, being also part of The Post and The Shape of Water, and from his stand-out performances in both the latter and this (both arguably Oscar-worthy), he’s fast becoming one of my favourite character actors.
However for the great performances, characterisation and a generally well-done romance, this movie has a major pacing issue. Like many European films of this nature, Call Me By Your Name takes its time to set a mood or meander in an environment or atmosphere. But unfortunately this results in a two and a half hour movie that didn’t need to be nearly that long. The story does lag in a number of places, it takes too long for the couple to firmly come together, and the action in the meantime isn’t investing enough to keep our attention. Guadagnino doesn’t even make up for this with really interesting filmmaking techniques or cinematography. A shaky cam or specifically framed shot every so often doesn’t quite cut it. By far the best part of the movie is the last act, where the relationship is at its most engaging, and the drama and performances at their apex.
  If you’re an impatient person, you’ll have a hard time sitting through Call Me By Your Name. But the performances and the deft way the central relationship is handled is certainly rewarding enough. Guadagnino has toyed with the idea of a sequel in the vein of François Truffaut’s Antoine Doinel series or even possibly Richard Linklater’s Before trilogy, and I’d be very interested in the idea of looking at these characters again years later. Regardless, the people who made this movie are very talented, and I’m optimistic as to whatever each of them does next.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...