Gay pride agitprop or idyllic gay escapist fantasy romance? You decide!

Rating: 3/10 (13 November 2017)

Luca Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name is the third in a trilogy which includes A Bigger Splash, a decent potboiler of sorts also set in Italy and starring English speaking actors. The film is based on the 2007 novel of the same name by AndrÃ© Aciman. James Ivory (of Merchant/Ivory fame) wrote the screenplay.
The story is set in the early 80s and is superficially reminiscent of Bergman's "Through a Glass Darkly"; both films deal with 17 year olds hunkered down with their families at summer retreats. That's basically where the comparison ends. Minus, Bergman's adolescent protagonist not only must resolve his relationship with a distant father, but also address the haunting and troubling split he feels between mind and body.
On the other hand, Guadagnino's 17 year old, the Italian-American (and Jewish) Elio Perlman (TimothÃ©e Chalamet), a fledgling composer and music transcriptionist student, suffers from no Bergmanesque qualms of the psyche. Instead, it's all about issues revolving around his sexuality; specifically, his affection for Oliver (Armie Hammer), one of Elio's archaeologist father's (24 year old) research assistants, who shows up as an invited guest of Elio's parents for a six week stay at their very comfy villa in the North Italian countryside.
A number of critics are so enamored with Oliver (i.e. Hammer) that they liken him to the Greco-Roman sculptures he's studying under the tutelage of Professor Perlman. There's a mildly interesting excursion that Oliver takes with the good Professor where an ancient statue is dredged up from the ocean and Oliver has some fun playing around with the statue's truncated arm. Much less interesting is seeing Elio enraptured as Oliver eats a soft-boiled egg with the yolk gushing out as this is supposed to be some kind of big sensual event. Ditto for Elio's attempt at self-gratification by slowly sucking on a peach.
This is a film that is virtually devoid of conflictâ€”unless you consider Elio's inner confusion as to whether he really wants to get involved with the older guy as a mark of some kind of tension or (dare I use the word?â€”suspense). In the end the suspense amounts to the consummation of the couple's physical relationship and how unerotic that moment is (Guadagnino cuts away to a tree, seen from the bedroom window!).
Jordan Raup writing in "The Film Stage" somehow is impressed by the "mutual yearning" of Elio and Oliver. He cites the scene of their visit to the local town, with Elio informing Oliver that this is the site of one of the most deadly battles of World War I. Instead of a complex interplay between conflicting personalities, Raup settles for an idyllic image of a gay romanceâ€”likening this inconsequential dalliance to the passion of soldiers involved in a life and death struggle: "In an unbroken shot, they walk around opposite sides of the historic site, revealing as few words as possible about their heart's desires. In between this division there's the history of thousands of lives that have been lost, each with their own burning passions." What crap!
Worse yet is how the critics ignore the fact that this is an underage boy being taken advantage by an adult. The age of consent might be lower in Italy, but it still seems highly inappropriate that a research assistant is trying to have sex with a juvenile right under the eyes of the boss's father. But Peter Dubruge writing in Variety seems to be alright with all this. He acknowledges that "this seductive outsider correctly anticipates that anything physical that might happen between him and Elio will have a lasting impact on the young man's sexual identity." But Debruge seems to be impressed by how "the pair brazenly peacock for one another, parading around shirtless and leaving the doors to their shared bathroom ajar â€” an improvised mating ritual echoed by a low insect buzz that fills the soundtrack." Debruge describes the relationship as a "deliciously tentative courtship dance"â€”instead of what it's legally referred to in the United States today: statutory rape.
In a sense, Guadagnino doesn't really have to offer up a narrative replete with both multi-dimensional characters and conflict. Instead, the "courtship dance," the lugubrious exchange of intimate gestures, appears to be a reaction formation to gay bashing. The idyllic picture of intimacy between gay lovers is designed to reassure the public that gay people are not only capable of great intimacy, but are entitled to it. Despite Guadagnino's denial that Call Me By Your Name is not a "gay" picture, it fulfills its function as a propaganda (or agitprop if you will) for the gay pride movement.
This is borne out by the Elio's permissive father who goes way out on a limb with a long-winded speech to his son, approving of his sexual experimentation with the older partner. The morality is questionable given the ages of the parties involved, but the bigger offense is an aesthetic one: where is the conflict? The father approves, the "boys" are "hot" for one another, and despite the wistful, melancholy ending marked by the end of Oliver's vacation (and subsequent call to Elio with the news that he's getting married), nothing much happens between the principals at all. Unless of course a beautiful Hallmark Greeting card is your idea of compelling, realized cinema!