I’ll say it. I think it’s time we move beyond simply being
amazed that a gay love story appears on film. And I think it’s time for critics
to do the same.
Yesterday I went with a friend to see “Call Me by Your Name”
and I was very uncomfortable as it played out. Not because of the gay subject
matter—duh!—but because, twenty-five minutes in, my gay friend leaned toward me
and said, “Is it just me or is this thing dragging? Is it truly awful?”
It wasn’t awful, at least in my opinion. But the joy of
something lessens when the person you’re with doesn’t feel the same. It’s like
when I go to a restaurant and the service isn’t great and that becomes the
primary focus of your companion. Maybe I
should wander into the kitchen to grab someone’s entrée. Anyone’s! And, yes,
maybe I can find a projection room and skip ahead a half hour. It didn’t help
that the man behind me had a coughing fit during the opening credits and never
fully recovered. He unsuccessfully tried to contain his hacking and heaving for
the whole movie. My friend left to use the restroom three times and I found
myself cringing each time a new scene or development came on screen after the
ninety-minute mark, knowing my friend had had enough and the fellow behind me
might need a medical attendant.
Even though I liked the film—circumstances
notwithstanding—it was slow. The movie clocks in at 132 minutes, but it did
feel like three hours. Not much happened during the first half hour aside from
characters drinking apricot juice. (If you’re mad that I just gave something
away, reread the previous sentence to see what it actually is that I revealed.
Like I said,…slow.) It is true that Armie Hammer is easy on the eyes and Timothée
Chalamat’s hair is its own natural wonder. I had plenty of time to take in
both. It is also true that the intention was to create a sense of unsatisfied
longing, given that the movie is set in 1983 and there is a significant age
difference (24 and 17), with actor Hammer looking closer to 30.
Here we are, forbidden love and sexual tension. Again. We’ve
seen it in “Brokeback Mountain”, “Maurice” and “Moonlight”. All quite good (and
coincidentally(?) with beautiful cinematography). But these movies aren’t about
the relationship. They’re about whether there will even be a relationship.
Will they...?
Will they...?
Will they?!
I'll admit for the first time here that my mind wandered during parts of "Brokeback" and a different gay friend with whom I saw "Moonlight" fell asleep halfway through. (Perhaps I'm immersed in a social circle of people with ADHD.) These movies have lots
of build-up, a connection (often fleeting) and The End. We don’t really see a
portrayal of two men in love; instead, the conflict is internal and societal.
I’m ready to see something new in a big gay film, one
without AIDS, one without an overwhelming sense of shame, one in which the men
fall fast and then have to figure things out. A few years ago, there was a
remarkable episode of the otherwise ordinary HBO series “Looking” in which
Jonathan Groff’s character had a hookup with Raul and the two then spent the following
day trying to catch up emotionally with the level they’d already attained
sexually.
This is closer to what gay men experience now. I’m through
being dazzled by the fact two men kiss on screen and simulate sex with tasteful
lighting. I want to see an actual relationship and all its blips and bumps. I
want to see characters navigate contemporary challenges or drift apart. We’re
in an era when gay men can get married in a growing number of countries and yet
Hollywood has yet to figure out how to create compelling stories that reflect
this.
The Victorian view of gay coupling will continue to get its
screen time just as there will always be another portrayal of Queen Victoria
herself. It’s time, however, to update and diversify gay storylines.
7 comments:
I'll agree that it's a bit slow, but I think that's what makes it real and what helps us get emotionally invested. Feelings take time and shared experiences to develop, and that's what we are seeing. I don't think there is any question of "Will they...?" as they clearly were in a relationship, emotionally unspoken, or at least the beginnings of one.
I regret a bit that the film ended the way it did and didn't really explore the aftermath of the summer as the author does in the book. That would give you the more bumps and blips that you're looking for, and this is because the book introduces a level of parallel existences that is not explored in the film.
Hi Oskyldig. Like I said, I liked the movie and enjoyed it IN SPITE of my friend's restlessness. (Maybe that speaks even more favorably of the film! If anything, it reminded me why I often go see movies on my own.) I can relate to all that longing and the slow build. (Can't relate as much to something finally coming from it!) Still, it's the actual development of a relationship I yearned to see. It's what so many gay men struggle with, myself included. Time for a new era in gay films.
On the way home, my friend blamed James Ivory who adapted the screenplay. My friend felt the acclaimed eighty-something writer was basically doing a rewrite of "Maurice" and all of those wonderful Merchant-Ivory movies. As we talked, I made a mental note to read the book, just as I'd read E.M. Forster's "Maurice" after seeing that film. It's intriguing to see what elements are "faithful" to the novel and what is the screenwriter's fancy.
You've given me so much to respond to, RG. But I'll be brief.
I read Aciman's novel too but didn't much like it until the final section. To me, it felt overwritten, affected, and literary. In other words, I think it needed a good editor. But the final section––why can't I find my copy?––is amazing and heartbreaking and beautiful and powerful and all those good things. (I wrote a review of the book for the Facebook page of my blog.)
If you want a book, or movie, to depict the realities of a real, honest gay relationship, this isn't it. I totally agree we need more books and movies like that, which is why I'm thinking about my novel (which is almost done) being a trilogy (nothing like being ambitious)––the first about David and Bryan (best friends), the second about Bryan and Andrew (life partners), and the third about Bryan (not giving anything away here). Lots of potential, but so much writing ahead. One thing at a time, Rick.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it. But I worry attention spans are so bad these days, for obvious reasons, that many of us can no longer appreciate the nuances of character development, budding relationships, storytelling, and so on. As you observe, sometimes, movies are better seen alone, so we're not affected by what someone else thinks. (I wonder if you wouldn't get a lot more out of this movie seeing it again by yourself.)
For the record, many publications have selected "Call Me By Your Name" as one of the best movies of 2017.
(Here's an idea. You're a writer, and a superb one at that. Write the story you want to read, you want to see on the screen, small or large. We have the power. Let's do this.)
Let's have your response to "God's Country" after you have seen it. Roderick
Seeing "Call Me by Your Name" has indeed caused me to think of reviving two manuscripts of mine and critically considering how authentic they are. As people who read my blog must know, I'm far more familiar with the pursuit of a relationship than the goings-on within one...although it's not a completely foreign domain.
As far as critically acclaimed movies this year, I've seen quite a few of the lauded ones and I've been unimpressed. I don't think this will go down as one of the better years in cinema. Moreover, as to the praise for "Call Me", I think it's time that critics demand more on the screen than a "brave" love story involving two men and a little bit of nudity. In 2017, this is no longer groundbreaking.
Many people mentioned "God's Own Country", a British film, as a better gay movie this year. Regrettably, it appears to have had very little box office in North America but I shall keep my eyes open for a chance to view it.
RG, forgive me for being so bold, but, if you ever want someone to look at what you've written (that is, the two manuscripts you mentioned above, or anything else), I would consider it a privilege if you chose me, and I'd be happy to provide feedback on whatever level you want. The offer is always open.
Thanks, Rick. One of my problems is I've always held my work so close to me for fear that any critique, legit or not, would send me down a hole faster that a groundhog that sees its shadow. When my novel was published, no one saw even a page of it, not even my partner at the time, until it was published. We'll see. I'm learning that constructive feedback could be helpful...
Post a Comment