Call Me By Your Name (2017)

Summary:

Somewhere in Northern Italy, during the summer of 1983, seventeen-year-old Elio begins a relationship with his father’s research assistant, Oliver.

My Thoughts:

AUTHOR's NOTE: I find it very ironic that this film is nominated for Best Picture this year. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this film deserves the nomination; it is beautifully shot, incredibly acted, and wonderfully written. But it also comes at a time when all of Hollywood is up in arms against sexual misconduct, and this film is about a twenty-four-year-old man beginning a relationship with a seventeen-year-old boy. The moral ambiguity is something that Armie Hammer’s character wrestles with throughout, and that pseudo-Nabokovian moral gray area is something that gives this film quite a bit of depth. As a work of art, it is quite exquisite, but if this subject matter offends you, don’t watch it.

Every summer, Mr. Perlman (Michael Stuhlbarg, “The Shape of Water”, “The Post”) invites a student to his villa in Northern Italy to assist with his research; this summer, it’s Oliver (Armie Hammer, “The Social Network”, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”). Elio, (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird”, “Interstellar”) Mr. Perlman’s son, watches Oliver from his room with his sort-of girlfriend Marzia (Esther Garrel). Elio goes down to meet Oliver, and then brings him up to his room, informing him that they share a bathroom. While Elio is talking, Oliver lies down on the bed and passes out immediately. Elio shakes his head and goes into his own room.

At breakfast the next morning, Elio offers to show Oliver around the town, and Oliver accepts. They ride bikes through the wildflower-blanketed countryside, past streams (water is a recurring theme between Elio and Oliver, more on that later), and past antiquated villas boasting gorgeous architecture. Shortly after they reach the town, however, Oliver ditches Elio. Disheartened, Elio returns home, where he complains to his parents about how Oliver blew him off. His parents smile and tell him not to worry too much about it.

As the story goes on, Elio comes to bond with Oliver over their Jewish heritage, and appreciations for language, literature, music, and history. Elio also continues his relationship with Marzia, but both of them seem to realize that the relationship is mostly unilateral. Eventually, Elio tells Oliver that he has feelings for him, and the two of them engage in a relationship.

The Good:

There isn’t much of a conventional plot here, but that’s what makes this movie stand out. The whole of it feels like a warm-regarded memory of a lazy, sunny holiday in the heavenly Italian countryside. It’s a refreshing dip into a different type of culture; one that is rich in history and etymology and music. The cinematography lends itself to the scenery and architecture; everything is so bright, so alive. The fleeting nature of beauty and thirst for life seems to be constant themes in this film. Mr. Perlman says it wonderfully: “How you live your life is your business, just remember, our hearts and our bodies are given to us only once. And before you know it, your heart is worn out, and, as for your body, there comes a point when no one looks at it, much less wants to come near it.“

The appreciation for the life captured in each frame becomes a sort of shared bond between the boys. Water becomes a symbol of their love for each other. At first, before their relationship truly begins, they sit round the edges of a small pool, dangling their feet in the water. But as the story progresses, the boys go swimming; when their relationship begins to progress they visit the ocean; right after Elio comes out to Oliver, Elio shows Oliver a secret swimming place. But beyond the water metaphor, there are some very power symbols woven into the background and even in the blocking. There is a very prominent shot of Elio picking a peach, and this becomes a reminiscent of the religious icon- Eve taking the fruit and committing the first sin. The scene where Elio comes out to Oliver is staged by a memorial for a particularly arduous battle during World War One; the boys start on one side of the monument, and as Elio reveals his feelings they pass the monument- the symbolism the biggest battle for Elio was coming out. On the other side of the monument, Elio looks up and sees a cross- his faith for coming out has been rewarded and he is given a kind of salvation in his relationship with Oliver.

Chalamet was nominated for his performance, and he absolutely earned it. He switches seamlessly between three languages - English, French, and Italian- he plays Bach in three, distinct styles, and there are many scenes that are composed of nothing more than him emoting his feelings and woes, but he does so with elegant grace. Hammer does a great job of showing the inner qualms Oliver has about starting a relationship with someone younger- the moral ambiguity here is honestly what makes the film interesting, and Hammer does a great job subtlety and silently wrestling with this. The ever-underappreciated Michael Stuhlbarg is wonderful as Elio’s father. I would actually say the best scene in the whole film is between Stuhlbarg and Chalamet (the scene near the end on the couch, for those who have seen it). Stuhlbarg is in three of this year’s Best Picture Nominees- “The Shape of Water” and “The Post” being the other two.

The Bad:

This is one of the most expertly executed films I’ve seen this year; it is a gorgeous journey to witness, but it is a journey across questionable moral grounds. As I said above, I find it strange that in a year with the academy up in arms against sexual deviants, one of the best films of the year is about a questionable relationship. I’m not saying that what Oliver and Elio engaged in was anywhere near as bad as the things of which Harvey Weinstein is accused, but the film does come at a strange time. Their relationship, while borderline inappropriate, was also indisputably founded on love, not lust.

Verdict:

This film is definitely not for everyone. I enjoyed it as a work of art, in the same way that I enjoyed Lolita by Nabokov as a work of art (or “Lolita” by Stanley Kubrick) (though Elio and Oliver's relationship is not nearly as disturbing as the relationship between Humbert Humbert and Lolita). I believe in order to truly appreciate art like this one really needs to be willing to try to see things from the character’s perspectives. If you can do that, then this film does a wonderful job of showing us an unforgettable summer in Italy; it is a culturally rich masterpiece, one I’d be happy to dive into again.

Minor Spoilers: Elio and Oliver’s story is not yet done. The film ends on a semi-cliffhanger. The director, Luca Guadagnino (“Suspiria”), has spoken about how the next film will be set a little later in the 1980s, and will check in on Elio and Oliver’s relationship much like Richard Linklater’s “Before Trilogy” checks in on Jesse and Celine’s relationship. I, for one, am quite interested to see where the story progresses from here.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

PHANTOM THREAD (2017)

SUMMARY

Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”) is a dressmaker whose house is renowned in 1950’s London. An auteur, eccentric, and man of particularity, Reynolds is taken with young Alma (Vicky Krieps) whose admiration of his craft and person are inexhaustible. As their relationship is strained by eccentricity, artistic striving, and personal dissimilarities, the couple is pressed to make the most difficult decisions and commitments of their lives.

MY THOUGHTS

I am not of that school which believes that Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA) does no wrong. His oeuvre is full of movies I find sublime (a word I reserve for only the best films) and films which I find boring and inscrutable. I have seen approximately half of them, and while I am inclined to watch them all at some point, they are among those movies that get pushed further and further back into the queue by whatever pressing works are being currently released.

I regard “There Will Be Blood” among one of the truly great modern classics and am usually intrigued when his films appear, knowing they will be of a caliber only matched by the finest directors, telling stories the likes of which are seldom told.

As such, I was looking forward to “Phantom Thread” perhaps more that any other film of the year, save “Shape of Water.” In “Phantom Thread,” all of these expectations were met in such a pleasantly satisfying way.

Of course, the most notable thing about this film at first is the acting. Day-Lewis and Krieps give portrayals of characters whose complexities are intriguing and tantalizing. This is a film which mainly consists of conversations and glances held across rooms, breakfast tables, and sewing stations, and yet, never did I feel bored. Reynolds and Alma were people I did not so much feel endeared to as fascinated by. Watching them watch each other, work together, and grasp after each other’s affections was like parsing poetry for its secret subtext.

THEME

Saying this film has a plot is like saying a marriage has a plot. There are, of course, events that transpire but the thing you are watching here is the unfolding of a relationship. What matters in the world of this film is not the events attended, the dresses made, or the kisses given, but the feelings that attend every action, glance, or tea.

The theme which emerges over the course of the film is one seldom seen in movies today. In a media culture obsessed with hormonal passion firing bursts of excitement across every screen there is little time for the slow long sacrifice of a relationship built upon love, respect, and common ground. The expression it finds is peculiar to say the least, in this film, but ultimately each (Alma and Reynolds) find that they are willing to endure tremendous hardship for the other’s sake and thus, both, unwilling to abandon the other or succumb ultimately to self absorption.

SCORE

A relationship, strong to weather storms, is an ancient story told with such delicate ingenuity that one may easily miss either its ancient roots or its fresh vision of that theme. Similarly, “Phantom Thread’s” score is stunning in its classical overtones which obfuscate its thoroughly modern face. As I watched the film I found myself thinking I would have to look up what this piece of music was, convinced that it was some bit of classical music I had simply not heard before, or at the least, of which I had not learned the name. To find upon searching that it was a wholly original score and composed by lead guitarist of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood, was surprising to say the least. It is a score which lives in and beyond the film. While many scores may transport me to a place as I watch, few seem to inhabit the film as this one does.

I am reasonably certain that I could visit Dunkirk and be moved by the sacrifice made there, or stand outside of Churchill’s chambers and reflect upon the words he would dictate and address a nation with, but if I were to spend an afternoon in the sitting room of Reynolds Woodcock, i think I would hear Jonny Greenwood’s score in my mind.

WEAKNESSES

I hesitate to call the pacing of this movie a weakness as I find its deliberation an essential aspect of the film and one of the things I enjoyed about it but I do at the same time understand why some would find it dull. I would say the same is true of the cinematography. Visually it is a quiet film of stillness, and so the camera seldom moves. This minimalism was a breath of fresh air in my opinion but again, might seem dull to some.

Rather than calling them true weaknesses, I would simply caution those who see it to prepare for a quiet evening rather than a boisterous one and hope that they are able to tune their expectations.

VERDICT

Can you tell I loved this film? I truly did. I’d watch it again this second. Though I do not think it will win many Academy Awards as so many of its principle players have won them before but when a movie won’t win much because it’s actor and director/writer have won so many, perhaps the film itself can be enough.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

The Shape of Water (2017)

Summary:

A mute janitor, responsible for cleaning a government lab during the Cold War, develops a bond with the peculiar creature being housed there.

My Thoughts:

Guillermo Del Toro’s latest addition to the fantasy genre is reminiscent of Pan’s Labyrinth, but in all the right ways. Both “Pan” and “Water” rely heavily on tales from old folklore, myth and legend; and both are magical realism in settings of wartime. While “Pan” tells us a story about the fae, “Water” focuses on mermaids. Del Toro has built a career around his darker fantastical visions; his style is unique in that the magic in the worlds he creates is always secondary to the characters living in that world. He makes us care about the characters; we cry for them when they hurt and laugh with them when they feel happy. As we enter into the fringe of awards season, Shape of Water leads the Golden Globe race with seven nominations for Best Drama, Director, Screenplay, Score and three acting nominations for Hawkins, Jenkins, and Spencer.

Sally Hawkins (“Happy-go-Lucky”) plays the mute janitor, Eliza. Within the first few minutes of the movie, her character’s whimsy sets the tone. She goes about her daily routine in a dancelike fashion, flitting from here to there without a care in the world. It’s hard not to take a liking to Eliza immediately. She converses amiably with her neighbor, Giles, a closeted homosexual, played by Richard Jenkins (“The Cabin in the Woods”). She goes to her job where we are introduced to her effervescent friend and fellow janitor, Zelda (Octavia Spencer, “The Help”). They spend their time mopping the shadowy halls of the facility, Zelda chatting amiably away, until something is brought into a chamber; a large cylinder reminiscent of an isolation chamber, inside is one whom the credits have dubbed Amphibian Man (Doug Jones,“Hellboy”).

In the minutes after learning about the existence of this creature we are giving the foundations of the plot. Michael Shannon’s (“Fahrenheit 451”) tenacious, unflinching character, Richard Strickland, reveals that he’s dragged Amphibian Man out of the dark depths of the Amazon all the way to this tiny seaside town to find out what makes the creature tick, hoping that in studying the creature they might make a breakthrough in breathing without air- something he believes could be very useful in the Space Race against the Russians. Strickland is everything Eliza isn’t; where Eliza is a mute, Strickland is always barking commands; where Eliza is bubbly and mischievous, Strickland is always down to business, no nonsense. The two characters dance around each other creating perfect balance in celluloid. Michael Stuhlbarg (“Call Me By Your Name”) plays Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, a scientist first and foremost, but he’s also doubling as a spy for the Russians. With the characters set on the murky stage, the story begins.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the believability of the actions taken by the characters and the changes they endure as a result. Every character, no matter how small, is dynamic; they all learn something, and different things drive them each of them towards their goals. Even Strickland, the villain of the film, has specific reasons for what he does, and though he isn’t a sympathetic character, he is one who’s actions are easy to understand when looking at it from his perspective. Giles, Zelda, and Hoffstetler, too, all have their own moral dilemmas they go up against, and each one handles it in a way that makes perfect sense for their characters.

The actors here are all veterans of their craft. Of the top billed cast only Doug Jones and Michael Stuhlbarg have yet to be nominated for an Oscar; the talent soaks through the screen without filter. Hawkins and Shannon steal the show for the majority of the movie, but Doug Jones manages to evoke a surprising amount of emotion and convey his curiosity even under all the makeup. Hawkins’s presence is something to behold, as she has next to no actual dialogue, she still manages to captivate the audience through her mannerisms and personality quirks. Her character’s happy-go-lucky nature shifts seamlessly into open defiance against Strickland, a change we are all too excited to witness. Shannon is phenomenal as always. While not nearly as subtle as he was in “Nocturnal Animals” or “Take Shelter”, he gives a chilling performance as a man driven to complete his work, even if it drives him to the brink of insanity.

Another fantastic element, one that rarely lacks in any of Del Toro’s films, is the production design. The film has a teal hue that permeates throughout, water spills, drips and pours over nearly every frame, much of the lighting is done from above and has shimmering elements to it- as if the whole movie were lit underwater. Many of patterns on the walls in the government facility look like ripples or waves. Water being in the title, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that water is featured prominently throughout the film, but Del Toro has found a way to make water flow through this film even when there’s none on screen. The design of Amphibian Man is flawless, and while it’s clearly paying homage to the “Creature from the Black Lagoon”, the design is far improved from the 1954 classic Universal Monster flick. Much like the Faun in Pan’s Labyrinth, the character relies on heavy prosthetic makeup instead of CGI, something that works to the advantage of the aesthetic- the creature feels far more tactile this way.

This is not necessarily a weakness, per say, but it is something that may turn off a number of viewers. The theme of this film revolves around love and the unconditional nature of truly unselfish love. There are brief, fragile glimpses of this type of love through the film; between Giles and the Diner owner, Zelda and the husband she complains about constantly but loves regardless. As the story progresses, a romantic interspecies relationship develops. While the story is meant to convey the idea that all love is valid, some viewers may find the relationship between Elisa and Amphibian Man a bit too strange for them. Indeed, during one of the more physical scenes of the movie I heard exclaimed from the darkened theatre a quiet uttering of the word “gross,” to which there arose a warbling of giggles. I have a hard time believing that those who can’t get past this will fully appreciate the movie; some suspension of disbelief is required for the full impact.

It is a fantasy film, after all.

Verdict

It’s rare that a fantasy film is made this well, and rarer still that the characters are so relatable and the themes are so relevant today. Del Toro has proven time and again that he knows how to create magical worlds with real emotional impact, and though this film doesn’t quite live up to “Pan’s Labyrinth” (a movie I consider to be very close to perfect), it does create a world that is unforgettable, beautiful, and, most importantly, magical. The ancient theme of love conquers all, while well-worn, still has a place in today’s world, and this film does a wonderful job of addressing the fragility and nature of misunderstood love. Fans of fantasy would be hard pressed to find a better genre film this year.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele