At Gay Book Club this evening, we’ll be discussing the
celebrated gay novel Call Me By Your
Name. No spoilers – I’ll save my book report for next week. Ok, maybe
a teaser – I loved the book.
Nevertheless, in light of the predictable buzz following
last night’s Oscar telecast, I wanted to make three points about the celebrated gay movie Call
Me By Your Name:
First, 89-year-old James Ivory richly deserved his first
Oscar, for adapted screenplay. Ivory’s direction of Room With A View thirty years ago
was amazing. His adaption of Call Me
By Your Name does an even better job of capturing a beautiful book’s
heart of hearts, and then making it succeed as a movie as well. I fully
understand why the novel’s author, upon first reading Ivory’s screenplay, confessed
"as the writer I found myself saying, 'Wow, they've done better than the
book.'"
Second, I have only one duly informed opinion
about the various Oscar races. As a single father on a limited budget, I seldom see
Oscar contenders in the theatre, because I seldom see movies in the theatre. Unless they involve either explosions or teenaged romance, or both.
Fortunately, this year I did manage to see Call Me By Your Name in a theatre. On a date, even. I loved the
movie of Call Me By Your
Name, particularly Timothee Chalomet’s singular performance as
seventeen-year-old Elio.
When I read in Entertainment
Weekly the only real Oscar duel this year was for Best Actor, I made a
point of streaming Darkest Hour at
home alone the night before the Academy Awards. I’ve always loved Winston
Churchill. I’ve read many of Churchill’s writings, as well as numerous
biographies of the Great Man. I venerate Churchill with a zeal approaching my
bardoltrous worship for Shakespeare and Jane Duncan.
I agree Gary Oldham gave an extraordinary performance
as Churchill (in an elegantly filmed, post-Buz-Luhrmann-throbbing, clumsily
hagiographic, by-the-numbers Oscar-bait biopic). Nevertheless, during every
minute of Darkest Hour, I felt
like I was watching a particularly brilliant CGI creation, like Gollum.
In contrast, Timothee Chalomet took every fiery adolescent
emotion, originally conveyed by the narrator in a lyrical first-person novel,
and without the crutch of a single word of stilted voiceover or crawling
explanatory text, revealed each burning feeling in turn on his endlessly expressive face.
Third, to my infatuated chorus mates, I stand by my
original opinion: in contrast with Chalomet and Oldham, Armie Hammer’s
so-called “acting” consists of hunkily shifting among exactly three facial
expressions.
No comments:
Post a Comment