Elio from CMBYN still confuses me

ugh, this place is full of aspies now

Teen angst.

Nothing to dissect here, it's just a work of fiction.

The movie is based on a book with an intense interior monologue which does not translate to the screen. Part if the charm of the book was Elio’s torrid fantasies like imagining himself negotiating with Oliver to get him to deflower him, up to and including threatening suicide. None of that made it to the screen.

I'm more disturbed by his creepy father.

The dad seemed to be pimping out his son to Oliver in a very pervy way.

What was with his weird conversation with Oliver about the beauty of the ancient Greek male sculptures being sensual and erotic, and he says "almost daring you to desire them." Two "straight" men would never have this conversation with each other.

And then at the end, talking to his son about desiring other men.

The dad just creeped me out.

Really, OP? He was discovering his sexuality and surprisingly, his feelings got involved with a man who was older and only available to him for a certain time. It was a hot summer. His dad's remarks at the end- that he had a similar experience but didn't act on it, that feelings of that depth and purity are rare, and to embrace life and love while you can are so touching.

Well that explains a lot, R4.

Thank you for that.

After reading what you wrote, I think that Timothee did a great job of at least trying to show (by his facial and bodily expressions) that there was a lot going on in his head.

I guess that's what I was picking up on, while watching the movie.

You know something is going on in his head, because of all his crazy emotions. But the viewer just can't tell what his thoughts are, nor are those thoughts ever revealed.

You've got to read the book, r7.

In a new clip for the Toronto International Film Festival, the book’s author Andre Aciman discusses the importance of the moment for Elio and Oliver’s relationship, and why it played out slightly differently in the movie.

“The peach scene is very essential, partly because it’s so shocking, but also at the same time because it is the most intimate moment between the two men,” he explains.

“In the book, Oliver eats the peach, and he says, ‘I want every part of you. If you are going to die, I want part of you to stay with me, in my system, and that’s the way I’m going to do it’. So it is a very powerful moment.

“In the film, he just puts his finger in and almost licks it, and that is good enough for cinema, we don’t need to see more.”

André explains that despite the awkward eroticism of the peach, the most important part of the scene is Elio’s contrasting reaction afterwards, where he breaks down and tells Oliver that he doesn’t want him to leave.

“It’s a magnificent moment, and the film does this all the time,” he continues.

“It takes a very physical almost lust-y moment, and finds its emotional equivalent right away, so it never allows you to dwell on the physical without giving you the emotional counterpoint to it.”

I hate this fucking movie to my core because it launched the rat.

People actually ask Timothee to sign a peach for them. Lol.

After reading the author's thoughts on the subject, it makes even less sense now.

Is it just me, or does the author sound pretentious and "difficult."

His ideas are MUCH too abstract, to make his work readable.

I can never see CMBYN without thinking NIMBY.

I thought it was interesting that when Oliver called to let the family know he was engaged, they told Oliver they were in the process of picking a new student for the following summer and this time it was going to be a girl. Considering the bedroom arrangement I wonder how that was going to work and if their decision to select a girl was a move in hopes that Elio would find the girl sexually interesting instead of another guy.

Did Elio really have a nervous breakdown at the end?

And what was symbolized by the ever present FLY that kept buzzing around Elio?

That was another weird thing about the movie.

There was a fly that buzzed around him early on, and again at the end when he was sitting by the fireplace.

That was very weird.

I saw a Q&A with Luca Guadagnino and he said the flies were just there, that the place they filmed was filled with flies - but I think he was just being elusive on that, personally. The moments when the flies show up, prominently anyway, do feel linked. I think it's just in part a little symbolic nod toward nature, and the way moments are never still or at ease

There are a lot of theories about the flies:

[quote] The closest mention to a housefly is a quip about Cupid, the tiny airborne god of love: “Find Cupid everywhere in Rome because we'd clipped one of his wings and he was forced to fly in circles” is one of several poetic items on Elio's to do list.

[quote] Why, for example, are there so many flies in the movie? Elio swats bugs away repeatedly, and faint buzzing often joins the idyllic soundscape. Flies are especially noticeable in the scene of Oliver and Elio’s first kiss, as well as in the final shot before the fireplace.

[quote] The fly buzzing around Elio’s shoulders can be seen as another subtle returning motif. Previously appearing at the creek where the lovers first kiss, Elio’s masturbation scenes and as a faint buzzing, perhaps of cicadas, in the scene leading up to the first time they have sex, the fly seems to represent carnal lust. Indeed, flies tend to be found around dirt or sweat, and are motivated by their desire to feast. In this final sequence, the reappearance of the fly reminds us of that pure sexual desire, bringing that intense passion to the forefront of Elio’s moment of intense reflection.

"The Atlantic" really breaks down the movie in this article.

Another good analysis here.

Say what you will about the little minx, but that final scene was impressive.

I had that exact same haircut at R18 circa 1984.

It's Flock of Seagulls, R20!

Le sigh...

In the book, the Dad comes across as trying to show he’s ok with the romance between them - not pushing them into it, but making clear he wasn’t judging them. Not pervy, but it does seem unrealistic for a dad/professor to have that attitude.

[quote]People actually ask Timothee to sign a peach for them. Lol.

So what? I had Richard Widmark autograph a grapefruit for me.

It's called bad acting , OP. coupled with bad directing, that's your experience

Ah. That would explain it R25.

Lol.

[quote] The movie is based on a book with an intense interior monologue which does not translate to the screen

^^^ This perfectly nails the fundamental difference between the book and the film. There’s a major disconnect between the languid ambience of the movie and what Elio is actually thinking, and which motivates much of his behavior.

Luca Guadagnino failed miserably by leaving out the critical component of narration, which Andre Aciman used to great effect in his story.

I think anybody with half a brain can infer that Elio is confused -- the OP describes all of Elio's confusion perfectly, but just didn't take the next step to the realization that you're MEANT to find his behavior contradictory and infuriating and beyond even his own grasp from moment to moment; that's the point! Books spell things out one way, movies do it in another. Voiceover ruins movies, we don't need everything spelled out and underlined so thoroughly.

Zero chemistry.

R17 Great article. Deep insights. Really got my wheels turning, thanks.

[quote] Books spell things out one way, movies do it in another

Of course—they’re completely different mediums. However, that simplistic logic implies that a movie version of a book has no obligation to be true to the author’s intent, which, unfortunately, is actually the case in the vast majority of book to movie adaptations.

However, I disagree with the premise that a movie isn’t meant to be like it’s written form. Some books are written in a deliberate way for a specific reason as a literary technique to convey the general character of the novel itself. And, a talented, adept director can make the transition from what was conveyed in words to film successfully if they choose to. Luca chose not to.

Narration doesn’t inherently ruin a movie. Depending on the context, and if carefully and appropriately constructed, it can greatly enhance a film’s arc and flow.

[quote] The movie is based on a book with an intense interior monologue which does not translate to the screen

That's the director's fault.

Guadagnino fails at this task.

It could have been a GREAT movie.

As such, he only directed an "okay" movie.

I want to know what the fucking Title means!!!!!!!

Is that a kink? To call someone by your own name while you/re fucking them? Or does it have some other significance pertinent to the story???

(I don't have time to read an entire fucking book! I'm too busy killing it in life being FABULOUS!)

[quote] I want to know what the fucking Title means!!!!!!!

All I know is that when Oliver said this to Elio, I just rolled my eyes.

Sentimental, overly sugary sweet bull crap.

That was sort of the point R34, they were just two dumb corny kids.

And as for Elio, he thought he was far more sophisticated than he actually was, a common affliction of intelligent 17 year olds worldwide.

As has been discussed to death on Datalounge, it was the casting of Hammer that put the whole movie off-kilter for me, and for you perhaps as well, OP. (I had read the book before seeing the movie.)

In the book. Oliver and Elio are more peers-Oliver is just a slightly older college senior, Elio a slightly younger college freshman and so Oliver doesn't look all that much older than Elio and his friends.

Contrast that to the scene in the movie where Hammer and Chalamet are dancing with their female friends at the outdoor disco and Hammer looks like someone's uncle who is hanging out with the kids for the night.

In the book he was meant to be one of the crew and his affair with Elio was more one of equals than the dynamic in the movie.

Imagine, if you will, Daniel Radcliffe, who was 23 or 24 in the photo below, playing Oliver (I am NOT suggesting he was the right choice, he's just an easy example... and he's Jewish... and I easily found a photo of him at age 24)

Suddenly you would have had a movie about a romance between two very young men, not a young man and an adult

As we had also discussed at the time, in the book, Elio gets fucked the first night they're together -- the next day he has a whole internal monologue about his ass being sore from Oliver fucking him.

Aciman never seemed to give a thought about the dynamics of that though, what they might have used as lube, where they would have gotten it from, etc. It's not like rural Italiam groceries stocked KY

Criticism of Guadagnino should perhaps take into account the James Ivory screenplay

Ivory’s films were always surface pleasures with very repressed English people who trapped inside a bell jar that is the English class system

Probably not the best interpreter of Aciman’s book

I’d like to imagine what the late Anthony Minghella might have done with it

[quote] Elio gets fucked the first night they're together -- the next day he has a whole internal monologue about his ass being sore from Oliver fucking him.

Oh, my!

Is this why Elio was so distant and angry, the next morning?

It should have been a happy "after glow" from fucking, but instead Elio seemed upset about the whole event, and then suggests they go swimming.

I was thinking, "Huh??"

And then there was the weird thing where they enter their rooms through separate doors, then Oliver knocks on Elio's door, tells him to take off his swimming shorts, goes down on him, and then says "That's promising. You're hard."

And I was even more like, "WTF???"

Then Elio goes chasing after him when Oliver goes to town by himself.

The whole goddamned thing was so fucking confusing. None of it made any sense.

Neil Jordan would have also done a great job

Elio feels shame from getting what he wanted and it not being what he imagined (first time anal is rarely like a porn)

Elio’s shame and ambivalence trigger Oliver. Oliver is a toxic narcissist. That’s why Oliver goes down on Elio. He can’t handle the rejection. That’s what the title of the novel means - Call Me By Your Name. Oliver wants to call his own name during sex - he is an unrepentant narcissist. Elio mistakes this for grand passion and it messes him up.

[quote]It's not like rural Italian groceries stocked KY

Plenty of EVOO, though.

Thank you for that explanation, R41!

R41, you explained that scene MUCH better than Luca did.

Elio always looked so bored.

Summers for him must have just dragged on.

He was either reading a book or magazine, or moping around the house, or sleeping at his desk.

Occasionally, he would go swimming or visit the local town, but most of the time he just stayed home, completely bored.

I thought that was kind of funny.

What was with the dirty little pool near the house, that they would always jump in?

I've never seen that before.

Is it like a plunge pool?

It was really small and dirty looking. How do you clean something like that?

r41 You clarified so much! Thanks! Now I get it!

So, the filmmaker lost the essence of the "peach scene" and also the character of Oliver!

Moral of the story... The book is always better than the movie!!!

Now, go be FABULOUS!

R33 !!!!

the film and book was try too hard. . . both desperately trying to be award bait and art house.

while they secured awards, I'd say they failed dramatically.

It seems as if it was trying to capture the essence of many older narratives but more in the style of modern films and literature that geared to capturing a certain breed of a young, academically conscious but sheltered female audience that has become common with films such as these over the last decade or so.

the so called scandalous nature of this intergenerational film is far from scandalous.. especially for the time period in which it was in. They try too hard to illustrate it as something significantly more sensationalized, dramaticized in the vein of modern YA fiction and the more regressive social mores of the past twenty years. As if Elio was younger and Oliver was much older. Other yet other elements than this makes it feel as if it borders on the homophobic. . . a sort of cosplay fanfic by someone attempting to create softcore porn because their parents enlist a nanny service.

even though it's supposed to be in a positive light, something of this also seems reminsicent of classic hollywood films touching upon gay sans ending in suicide or murder.

While there are better, although more controversial films with this specific theme. . . or even a few str8 films on the subject that handle it more realistically in how it portrays it's would be lolito/a

I'm reminded more of les roseaux sauvages / "Wild Reeds" (1994) (Andre Techine) .. perhaps in contrast, where critics complaints are it was too controlled and muted, but the character backgrounds, surrounding world and other characters actually matter. . . even if only plot devices.

CMBYN.. it loses value because these things are seemingly irrelevant and I'd question their relevance as there's too much emphasis on telling a "gay" story that it overshadows everything else. It's far too long and drawn out, and acts more as if it's in the 1920s than the 1980s.

it comes off as an outsider's treatise on the gay experience. . . it tries too hard to conceptualize the inner workings of the young gay mind but removes the basics of human sexuality from the process, young male sexuality in general. It surrenders too much of biology to force narrative... and a narrative that tries to be more than the truth.

[quote] the film and book was try too hard. . . both desperately trying to be award bait and art house.

I agree with this.

I really hate how pretentious the father was.

His conversation with Elio at the end of the movie, was so over-the-top.

"I am not such a parent." "Have I spoken out of turn?"

What parent speaks to a 17 year old that way?? It was ridiculous.

[quote] "I am not such a parent." "Have I spoken out of turn?"

It sounds anachronistic, like something a wealthy WASP parent would say at the turn of the 20th century in Victorian America.

Exactly, R50.

I get that the parents are supposed to be pseudo-intellectuals, who are friends with economists, and political analysts, etc.

But still... their mannerisms and way of speaking were really annoying. Both Elio's mother AND father.

And what was with their crappy house?

Doors always open. Flies everywhere. Paint peeling off the walls. Horribly furnished.

For "rich" people, they lived like slobs.

Tortelli Cremaschi!

I.honestly never gave the home and furnishings much thought. I was just struggling to stay awake thru it. Very poorly edited film. This story was told in such a confusing way. and dragged out to the point of tedium. The two leads just weren't that interesting. I also never saw the supposed chemistry either. Meh

[quote] I honestly never gave the home and furnishings much thought

My skin crawls when I see Elio and Marzia go upstairs to the dusty attic to have sex on that filthy mattress.

The dust and mold triggers me!

it's what Will Truman told Karen's (cousin?) Barry on Will & Grace.

"Gay moves suck but until the laws changed we're compelled to go and see them."

The book has a passage where they hold hands while one of them is pooping.

[quote] The book has a passage where they hold hands while one of them is pooping.

Oliver and Elio, or Elio and Marzia?

Armie was just too mature looking for the part.

Every time he spoke to Elio in the first half of the movie, it sounded like he was scolding Elio. Much like a parent speaks to a child.

It made the premise that they were "close in age," very hard to believe.

they were never close in age. the boy was 17 and the grad student was 24.. at that age, 7 years is by no means close.

there was an 8 year age difference in the actors who played them, which caused the "pedo" loons to lose it.

R59, 7 is a lot when one is 17 and the other is 24.

But Armie, to me at least, played like he was 35; and that lesbian librarian that the whole film world has gone nuts over for some reason...well, he didn't look any age...he was funny looking/character actor.

The casting could have been SOOO much better. It wasn't.

I havent read the book but the director definitely did. He's not a hollywood filmmaker and probably will never be one. The director allows way too much to go unsaid, allowing the characters internal machinations, thoughts, feelings, and desires to play out on screen through performance without providing clear external cause and effects for the characters actions and behaviors.

Even the discussion with the father at the end, where the father admits he's gay or bi and had teenage lust for another guy, is unclear to many viewers--and that is inarguable (meaning if you break it down and walk someone through the actual dialogue, most people will come to the same conclusion).

There's a lot going on in the performances that are patterned after what's going on in the character's heads in the book--but the script doesn't give the audience enough information to fully interpret this. the result is a nice looking movie with ambitious performances that failed to attract or appeal to a wide American audience. Still made some money though.

I'm R61. I discussed my frustrations with a big fan of the book. That's how I haven't read it but can speak to the performances following the internal stuff in the book.

[quote] Even the discussion with the father at the end, where the father admits he's gay or bi and had teenage lust for another guy, is unclear to many viewers-

The way the father was portrayed in the movie, was just weird.

My mind went back and forth between thinking that Elio's dad was "pimping" him out to Oliver, to thinking that Elio's dad wanted to have sex with Oliver himself.

It was kind of creepy, especially during the conversation at the end.

If my dad ever told me that, I would be freaked out.

Try not to judge Elio as an adult. He's a horny bisexual teenager, at a time and place where most people were not out. He has a raging crush on Oliver, the kind of lust that takes you completely over when you're a teen. Elio can't think of anything or anyone other than Oliver and fucking him or getting fucked by him. At the same time he's scared, he has his own internalized homophobia he's not even aware of, but he must have Oliver. This explains some of the ambivalence Elio is feeling towards Oliver before they get together.

[quote] Elio can't think of anything or anyone other than Oliver and fucking him or getting fucked by him. At the same time he's scared, he has his own internalized homophobia he's not even aware of, but he must have Oliver. This explains some of the ambivalence Elio is feeling towards Oliver before they get together.

Interesting.

What you wrote also helps me explain his lustful hook ups with Marzia, which (as a completely gay man) I find hard to understand.

To me, it would have to be one or the other.

But with your explanation, maybe Elio is truly bi. Or just very horny. Or both.

People who have dad issues like me and Bret Easton Ellis love the movie and the father character.

How small does your dick have to be to fuck a peach? Is he a gerbil? WTF?

Is this the cannibal movie or the petalfile movie?

These two had no chemistry. The main problem with hiring straight actors for gay roles.

I loathed Michael Stuhlbarg’s monologue. It was so carefully directed and over rehearsed didn’t seem organic in any way. I cringed when he paused and dramatically picked up his drink. And I found it a highlight of the book.

Plans it didn’t ring true because the mother in the film was lovely and smart and soulful so the father’s regrets about a path pursued seemed hollow.

[quote]These two had no chemistry. The main problem with hiring straight actors for gay roles.

Exactly. Not only didn’t they have chemistry but they had negative chemistry. Just completely awkward and off putting energy with each other. I never did buy that they would be into each other, especially with Armie Hammer’s acting. So it was jarring to see them go through the motions of sex because the script calls for it but it just rings false, like seeing Ellen and Bill Pullman in Mr. Wrong.

Elio's father seemed desperate to get fucked by Oliver.

Maybe it's just the way his character looked (physically), or the way that he was constantly making sexual references towards Oliver, but I think that the underlying gay story here was between Oliver and Elio's father.

Is Michael Stuhlbarg gay in real life?

Actually the gap between 17 and 24 is not all that vast. Oliver was a grad student, he'd never worked or been out in the world, and in the ecosystem of Elio's parents summer house, he was sitting at the kid's table, if you will--he hung out with Elio and his friends, not the parents and their friends.

That's why Hammer was such an odd choice, because he looked so much older, versus a younger looking 24 year old who would have seemed much more part of the group-- think of the scene at the outdoor disco--Hammer looks very out of place, even though we can assume that there were other 24 year olds there too.

It also made it seem like Elio had a crush on a man rather than just an older boy, which, to me, was where the book was--Oliver was sort of immature, Elio was mature (in some ways) for his age, and they kind of met in the middle.

I'm rereading the book. I like it more than the movie, because it opens us up to what Elio wants, what he is too afraid to go after, and what he does go after. The first half of the book is mostly him telling us about his obsession with Oliver. I'm about 50% in, and am just getting to the revelation of what Oliver wants.

Another reason I like the book better is that I get to picture Aaron Tveit as Oliver. Aaron was about the same age as Oliver when the book came out. I read it for the first time in 2008 or 2009, just after seeing Aaron as Trip in Gossip Girl, and I immediately crushed on him.

I have no problem projecting Elio's every intention onto Aaron as Oliver. He would have made such a better Oliver than the dancing douchebag Luca cast.

the book was much better than the movie. moving it from a hot hopping summer beach town, to the cooler hills of lombardy totally changed the vibe completely. summer resorts are for fun and fucking

Was the book set in Fire Island instead of Italy?

I didn't watch the movie, maybe i liked because i don't have the hear the constant interior monologue of Elio, i really hated that little bitch on the novel (not that i liked Oliver neither).

And about the political context, i think it's absurd to ask why every fucking gay novel (The swimming pool library is a prime example) has to mention AIDS (Hollinghurst was trashed for not even mentioned in his first novel). Elio is a teen, he is having a summer romance, AIDS have absolutely nothing to do with that. Not every gay life in the 80's was affected by AIDS

The book was set on the Italian Riviera, somewhere between Genoa and LaSpezia

R10 we know, Armie. We know.

I don't think so, R73, but when I listened to the audiobook of Find Me (the sequel to CMBYN), which Stuhlbarg read because his character (Prof. Perlman) was the narrator, I initially thought that he was playing his character as gay.

"Find Me" (202?)

The book was dull, over written, pretentious and drawn out. Its the literary equivalent of much of modern art; bullshit that people are afraid to say isnt good for fear of looking uncultured. There is so much faux intellectualism, esp around the experience of same sex desire. But then again, the author has a bizarre relationship to gay sexuality anyway. Has everyone forgotten that he claimed to be a heterosexual man when the book first came out. I remember reading an interview where is was asked what its like to be a straight author writing gay stories etc. He has since come out? as 'queer'?/ inferred that the story is semi related to his own experiences?

Its not the worst book or story in the world, but I have never understood the fawning or mystic building around it. Its just not a good book.

Armie Hammer is an awful actor, his acting is just him reciting lines without any conviction. I probably would’ve enjoyed this film more if it weren’t for him.

The most boring movie on planet Earth. My God just fuck already. The kid wasn't even that young. I fucked around when I was 12 and it just happened

Lol R85.

You're a WHORE, darlin'.

[quote] the author has a bizarre relationship to gay sexuality anyway. Has everyone forgotten that he claimed to be a heterosexual man when the book first came out

In my experience, I have found that Europeans think of sexuality differently.

They really do embrace fluidity, and have done so for a very long time.

We Americans see everything in a more "black and white" way. You must be gay or straight. You must be a top or bottom. Etc., etc.

I remember a Swedish guy cruising me at a hotel swimming pool, and as I chatted with him, I was being a typical American. "So, like, do you go to gay bars??" And he was perplexed. I don't think he saw what he was doing (cruising me) in the same way that I was seeing it. At all.

I think I just happened to be someone that he maybe found attractive, and maybe wanted to have sex with, but at the same time I don't think he necessarily saw himself as gay.

Whereas, I was like, oh this dude wants to hook up. He must be gay.

It was weird, but there was a definite difference in how we perceived the situation.

He's a 17yo Jew dear.

[83] that’s the best description of the book I’ve read. Spot on. Just pretentious wank. It’s a gay film so we have to be unhappy, doomed and angst ridden. The music is the best thing about it.

R89 is correct; the music, Oscar-nominated, was the best part of the movie.

I was leaving the theater and asks this straight couple next to me if they thought the dad was gay or bi and the woman answered ... she wouldnt let her b.f. weigh in.

I thought...yeah, your boyfriend is gay.

[...]

Because sexuality is confusing

[...]

Elio was figuring out his sexuality. He came to know he is Bi FFS.

He is not bi, dumbass.

r95 hasn't the author said he was? He said something like Elio has 'mostly' relationships with men (but not exclusively) when he grew up and became a professor or whatever.

Doesn’t mean he’s bi.

R39 No, Elio wasn't in "happy afterglow" after first fucking, in the book it was very well described how he felt the shame and disgust in the morning about what they have done in the heat of the night.

I think this is rather common experience particularly after being a passive partner in the intercourse, cause there is lot of cultural shame involved and women and men who bottomed know it well. Maybe OP (I have the impression she is a girl) is still a virgin.

And opposed to the morning after regret he had after night with Oliver, the morning after sex with Marzia he feels fine, even though he was in love with Oliver and didn't feel much for Marzia. But I think that Aciman did a good job describing the internalized bottom shaming and how Elio felt dirty and used and loathed Oliver for it.

The next day however, Elio topped Oliver and after that they became verse. He felt really happy after he had fucked Oliver. He wanted to protect him and take care of him (even pilled his boiled eggs).

r20 LOVED Elio's styling in that scene.

r37 Certainly Mafalda stocked plenty of olive oil in the Perlman family's kitchen.

r52 Giiirrl....

Elio is a dessert topping!

Elio is a floor wax!

Glad someone else up thread found the book a boring, tedious slog like I did. Read like an old Granny Gay’s fantasy of infatuation. Wasted $17 on that trash. Surprised the movie filmed as well as it did.

Armie Hammer did quite well at the audiobook narration.

What a mistake that was, r106, having Oliver read in Elio's voice Elio's obsessive thoughts about Oliver.

I still don't understand what Elio meant when he said that he knows "little about the things that matter." Oliver asks "what things?" Elio responds "you know what things." What are they talking about?🤔

Would Shia have been a better Oliver?

who?

It was a strange little movie and naughty in parts.

What bothered me most is the foreign languages when it should have been entirely in English as Jesus intended.

And peaches are for pies.

The kid was clearly bisexual. He was confused and in the middle of his own erotic journey and Oliver took advantage of that. I felt sorry that he was being used but he was no Saint either. He treated his girlfriend who loved him more than Oliver terribly.

[quote]Would Shia have been a better Oliver?

Maybe. It would come down to the chemistry between him and Timmy. I envisioned Aaron Tveit as Oliver as I read the book in 2007. He was the perfect age at the time. I still think of him when I think of Oliver. Armie doesn't register somehow.

Sex things, r108. Penises. Anuses. Peaches.

Chalamet and Hammer had zero chemistry.

I think Shia would have been better for the part. He's clearly older than TC but he's still kind of boyish. Hammer plays the character like a supremely confident, composed, grown ass man. It was like watching Don Draper.

R28 Well said. I cannot imagine that film with a voiceover narration running through it. It's okay when a film makes you have to thin, or draw conclusions, or even project your own experience onto the protagonist. I loved the quiet elegance of the film.

Too bad Armie cannibalized any possibility of a sequel.