May 19, 2018 at 9:31 am #1202550022
I keep heaing and reading that CMBYN had flaws as a movie that kept it from being a serious contender for Best Picture. I just like to hear from the experts what they were especially compared to TSOW. Just courious.May 19, 2018 at 9:43 am #1202550034This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 19, 2018 at 10:19 am #1202550050
The Chalamet and CMBYN fans just won’t let it go….
You’ve been on this board quite often lately and engaged in ton of conversation about CMBYN. It’s not that difficult to surmise why it wasn’t a BP winning threat nor the reasons why some people didn’t love the movie.May 19, 2018 at 10:28 am #1202550052
I think the movie itself was too long and could’ve been cut by about 20 minutes. There were a lot of scenes with Elio and his parents eating lunch or dinner and having really mundane conversations about nothing that didn’t really add anything to the movie.May 19, 2018 at 3:45 pm #1202550165This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 19, 2018 at 6:09 pm #1202550188
One issue I had is that Elio and Oliver seem completely, 100% straight until they fall for each other. Why do they even fall from each other? Their courting period was not well done.May 19, 2018 at 8:10 pm #1202550208
The reasons for a movie not having a chance at BP is different than someone’s personal criticism of a flick. The main reasons why this wasn’t a real BP threat: Lady Bird stole the coming-of-age momentum fairly early, it’s not a very Oscar-bait-y movie, Moonlight won the previous year, a movie centered on the romantic/sexual relationship between a 17 year old (who perhaps looked about 15) and a 24 year old (who definitely looked and behaved about 35) is not going to win BP in modern times, particularly in this current environment.
My personal issues with the flick were the two leads having very little chemistry (a problem I also had with BM), Oliver being a borderline lame character from both a writing and acting standpoint, the almost dull first half which shouldn’t be an issue for a “summer romance” movie, that same gender relationships in film continue to be presented as mostly ambiguous and insubstantal things, and the film had a thick layer of “safe and easily disgestable for straights” on it that a lot of modern “queer” movies contain. Still, it’s one of my top 15 or films from last year.
Now that that’s settled can CMBYN fanatics officially move on?May 21, 2018 at 4:42 pm #1202551336This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 21, 2018 at 7:35 pm #1202551443
Being an openly gay actor is still problematic (by “openly gay” I mean someone who unabashedly has passion, romantic interests and desire towards their same gender and wants to be with someone of their gender). It puts a glass ceiling on your career potential (and potentially your life in general). Hetero romantic leads or being an action/adventure lead becomes unlikely for men. If you’re a “sex symbol” you limit your appeal. People are still advised to not come out or to be super private or to talk about being open-minded sexually and romantically. And no one wants to admit that they copped beards or were “confused” or in denial. While high profile gay roles don’t come around that often and are typically not given to openly gay actors because none of them are A-listers (most aren’t even b-listers), and it won’t seem as much like they’re “acting”. Therefore, it won’t have as much of a chance at getting awards rec or to be seen as “groundbreaking”. Never mind being at a place still figuring things out or being someone who contends with internalized homophobia or being a Kevin Spacey.
It all is what it is.May 21, 2018 at 7:58 pm #1202551472This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 21, 2018 at 8:39 pm #1202551492
None of those men are A-listers (by A-lister I mean people who can carry Hollywood films). None are getting romantic hetero leads or action/adventure leads or leading any high-profile movies at all really. None are getting leading roles in high-profile, theater released “gay movies”. And so on. There’s more opportunities for actors in general than ever because the mediums have expanded so much. But there’s still obvious, defined limitations and ceilings.May 21, 2018 at 10:49 pm #1202551561This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 22, 2018 at 12:37 am #1202551607
There’s zero chemistry between the leads. Hammer was painfully wooden. Glad that he was snubbed.
Also, the fanboys and fangirls are annoying.May 22, 2018 at 7:07 am #1202551731
The film was moving, but the novel was better and didn’t undercut the immense sexual components or nudity (I agreed with Ivory in that respect). Many reasons out there of why this wasn’t a stronger BP contender, but I don’t think that was the initial intention of it. The main goal was to have this very compelling and singular story realized to film, and in that sense, they absolutely succeeded. Anything else would have been a bonus. Chalamet was an utter revelation, which no one can ever take away from him. In another year, Hammer would have likely been nominated in supporting actor. For some of Guadagnino’s odd choices, I could have taken or left him in Best Director. Ivory’s screenplay was excellent. I would have nodded “CMBYN” for more techs, especially Cinematography, and for sure I would have also cited “Visions of Gideon” in Original Song. Totally get why the film wasn’t a stronger BP player, but I’m fine with its Oscars run regardless. Well, beyond Chalamet losing, which will always be irksome.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.